[73a - 18 lines; 73b - 21 lines]
1)[line 1]ëì ãáø ùéù áå îðéïKOL DAVAR SHE'YESH BO MINYAN- that which is sometimes counted (this is the equivalent of "Kol she'Darko Limanos")
2)[line 1]ãøáðïD'RABANAN- a Rabbinic enactment (such as that which Terumah must be separated even from produce other than grain, wine, and oil, which is the example that follows)
3)[line 15]ìéèøà ÷öéòåúLITRA KETZI'OS (TERUMAH GEDOLAH)
(a)After a crop that is grown in Eretz Yisrael is harvested and brought to the owner's house or yard, he must separate Terumah Gedolah from the crop and give it to a Kohen (Bamidbar 18:12; Devarim 18:4). Terumah is one of the twenty-four Matnos Kehunah (gifts given to Kohanim by non-Kohanim). Although the Torah does not specify how much to give, the Rabanan set the requirement at one fortieth, one fiftieth, or one sixtieth of the total crop, depending on the generosity of the landowner. Until Terumah and Ma'asros (tithes) have been properly separated, produce is termed "Tevel" and may not be eaten.
(b)Terumah must be eaten by Kohanim or their wives, unmarried daughters, and Nochri slaves, when they are Tehorim. If the wife of a Kohen is not herself the daughter of a Kohen, she may eat Terumah only as long as her husband or at least one of their joint descendants is alive (Vayikra 22:11, Bamidbar 18:11; see Nidah 44a).
(c)A Kohen may eat Terumah only as long as it remains Tahor. The only options a Kohen has with Terumah that has become Tamei are to feed it to his animals or to burn it (Shabbos 25a; see Background to Shabbos 23:44).
(d)Although mid'Oraisa, Terumah is Batel (nullified) if it falls into an amount of Chulin (non-sanctified produce) greater than itself, the Rabanan enacted that Terumah is Batel only when one part of Terumah mixes with a minimum of one hundred parts of Chulin. When this ratio exists, then an amount of the produce equal to that of the Terumah which was lost must be removed and dealt with as Terumah. What remains has the Halachic status of Chulin.
(e)The Beraisa cited in our Gemara discusses a case of a Litra (identified with the Roman Libra - a pound) of cut and dried figs of Terumah that were pressed into a ring (Igul Deveilah) in the same container as those of Chulin.
4)[line 3]ãøñä òì ôé òéâåìDARSAH AL PI IGUL- if he pressed them into [the inside of] the mouth of a round container [specially designed to enable the manufacture of rings of dried, pressed figs (Igulei Deveilah) that are first pressed around the inside of the bottom until a ring is formed, then again above that ring to form another ring, and so on until the final ring is formed around the inside of the mouth]
5a)[line 4]çáéúCHAVIS- a barrel
b)[line 5]ëååøúKAVERES- lit. a beehive; a round basket whose shape resembles a beehive
6)[line 6]ø"î àåîø ø"à àåîøREBBI MEIR OMER REBBI ELIEZER OMER...- Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua disagree in this case; Rebbi Eliezer rules leniently, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua rules more stringently. Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah disagree as to the particulars of this disagreement. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the stringent opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua according to Rebbi Meir is actually the lenient opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, and that Rebbi Yehoshua is yet more stringent.
7a)[line 6]øåàéï àú äòìéåðåú ëàéìå ôøåãåúRO'IN ES HA'ELYONOS K'ILU HEN PERUDOS- we view the upper [figs (i.e., those that are pressed into rings in the mouths of the vessels)] as if they are [already] separated [and indistinguishable from the lower rings]
b)[line 7]åäúçúåðåú îòìåú àú äòìéåðåúVEHA'TACHTONOS MA'ALOS ES HA'ELYONOS- and the lower [figs (i.e., those that are pressed into rings below the mouths of the vessels)] nullify the upper [figs] (assuming that there is more than one hundred times figs of Chulin than figs of Terumah altogether). This dispensation is put into place according to Rebbi Eliezer according to Rebbi Meir since the requirement to give Terumah from figs is only mid'Rabanan in nature.
8)[line 9]ôåîéïPUMIN- mouths [of vessels]; i.e., utensils which have a ring of figs pressed into their top
9)[line 9]éòìåYA'ALU- [the other one hundred] nullify [the lost one of Terumah]
10)[line 9]äùåìéíHA'SHULAYIM- the [figs] below the mouths of the vessels
11)[line 13]ìà éòìåLO YA'ALU- they do not nullify [since that which is sometimes sold by unit is significant enough that it cannot be nullified even if it is prohibited only mid'Rabanan]
12)[line 14]àå ìöôåðä àå ìãøåîäO L'TZEFONAH O L'DEROMAH- to its north or its south; i.e., to which side of a wide vessel. Since the vessel is wide enough to contain more than one ring of figs, the rings themselves are no longer significant enough to be sold by unit. This is because it is the vessels that are counted, not the rings.
13)[line 15]àôé' úéîà øáðïAFILU TEIMA RABANAN- [Rebbi Yochanan] can even say [that our Mishnah may be understood according to those who disagree with the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua as understood by Rebbi Yehudah]
14)[line 17]åðîùåê (åð÷øá) çã [çã] îéðééäå [åð÷øá]V'NIMSHOCH (V'NIKRAV) CHAD [CHAD] MINAIHU [V'NIKRAV] ...?- why not remove them one by one and offer them...?
15)[line 17]ëì ãôøéù îøåáà ôøéù / ëì ÷áåò ëîçöä òì îçöä ãîéKOL D'PARISH MERUBA PARISH / KOL KAVU'A K'MECHTZA AL MECHTZA DAMI (ROV V'KAVU'A)
(a)When in doubt as to the nature of an object, one may assume that it carries the same Halachic status of the majority of such items. This is known as Halech Achar ha'Rov - follow the majority. For instance, if a piece of meat is found lying on the street (or in the hands of a non-Jew in the street), and most of the meat in that town is kosher, one may safely assume that the meat is kosher (Chulin 11a, based upon Shemos 23:2).
(b)This is only true, however, if the item in question has been separated from its place of origination. We then say, "Kol d'Parish, Meruba Parish" - "that which has separated, has done so from the majority." If the doubt arose while the object was still in its original "place" (Kavu'a), then one may not follow the Rov. Rather, the status of the item remains in doubt. For instance, if one purchases meat and then cannot recall if he did so from a kosher or non-kosher store, he may not assume that the meat is kosher simply because most of the stores in that town sell kosher meat. Since the doubt regarding its status arose when it was still in its proper place (i.e., the store), one may not Halachically assume that it is kosher any more than he must assume that it is non-kosher. In such a situation, we say, "Kol Kavu'a k'Mechtza Al Mechtza Dami" - "that which is set in place is viewed as equally likely to have come from the minority as the majority."
73b----------------------------------------73b
16)[line 1]ëì ÷áåò ëîçöä òì îçöä ãîéKOL KAVU'A K'MECHETZAH AL MECHETZAH DAMI- see above, entry #15. Our Gemara asks that since the animal while still in the herd/flock is Kavu'a, it remains forbidden if one actively remove it so as to render it Parish (separated). This prohibition is Rabbinic in nature (TOSFOS DH Ela).
17)[line 2]ðëáùéðäå ã[ðé]ðééãéNICHBESHIN'HU D'[NI]NAIDEI?- why not force [the animals together] so that they break loose [and run away on their own]?
18)[line 4]éáàå é' ëäðéí ááú àçú åé÷øáåYAVO'U ASARAH KOHANIM B'VAS ACHAS V'YAKRIVU- ten Kohanim will come and offer [all ten animals that broke away] at once [in a case in which these ten animals represent the majority of the original group]
19)[line 6]îâéñà àñéøà?MAGISA ASIRA?- does the vessel in which their blood was received prohibit them; i.e., once each animal ran away and was deemed permitted since it came from the majority, is it logical to then prohibit them later just because they have been re-gathered?
20)[line 6]îùåí ùîà éáàå é' ëäðéí ááú àçú åé÷çå (áòùøä ëäðéí) ááú àçúMISHUM SHEMA YAVO'U ASARAH KOHANIM B'VAS ACHAS V'YIKACHU (ASARAH KOHANIM) B'VAS ACHAS- (rather, the concern is) due to that which perhaps ten Kohanim will come together and take [ten animals that broke free] at once
21)[line 8]îé àôùø?MI EFSHAR?- is it possible [to track down ten animals that have bolted from a herd/flock and seize them at the same moment]; i.e., is this a likely enough concern that it is logical that the Rabanan enacted a decree in case it should happen?
22)[line 8]îùåí ÷áåòMISHUM KAVU'A- [the Rabanan enacted their decree] for fear [that people will actively remove the animals one by one, in which case they retain the prohibition] of "Kavu'a"
23)[line 10]ìà îøöéLO MERATZEI - they will not be desirable [i.e. vaild] (DICHUY)
(a)"Dichuy" means "pushed off." This Halachic concept applies to cases in which a specific object is necessary for the fulfillment of a Mitzvah. If at one point that item is unfit for use as required, then Dichuy would dictate that it may not be used to fulfill that Mitzvah even if it should subsequently become fit. If, for example, one sanctifies an animal that has a Mum (disqualifying blemish), Dichuy would not allow that animal to be offered even after it has healed.
(b)Rava teaches that even though that which the Korban is invalid only mid'Rabanan and it remains valid on a d'Oraisa level, the deferral of the Rabanan is enough to render it invalid even if after it was offered.
24)[line 11]çèàú... òåìäCHATAS... OLAH (KINEI CHOVAH)
(a)Certain Teme'im (those who are impure due to one reason or another) must offer a pair of birds as Korbanos in order to complete their purification process. Termed a "Ken" (lit. a nest), these birds must be either young pigeons (Bnei Yonah) or mature turtledoves (Torim). One is offered as a Chatas and the other as an Olah.
(b)Those who must offer a Ken are a Zav, a Zavah, a woman who has given birth (Yoledes) who cannot afford a male yearling sheep as her Olah, a Metzora who cannot afford his Olah and Chatas, and one who entered the Mikdash or consumed Kodshim inadvertently while Tamei (see Background to Yoma 55:17).
25)[line 13]øéáåàRIBO- ten thousand
26)[line 14]ðîìêNIMLACH- who asked [if he should offer the birds or not]
27a)[line 14]àï ìîòìä, îçöä ëùø åîçöä ôñåìASA'AN L'MAILAH, MECHTZAH KASHER U'MECHTZAH PASUL- if he offered them above [the halfway point of the Mizbe'ach (which is where the Olah ought to be offered)], half are valid (namely, the Olah) and half are invalid (namely, the Chatas)
b)[line 15]ìîèä, îçöä ëùø åîçöä ôñåìL'MATAH, MECHTZAH KASHER U'MECHTZAH PASUL- if he offered them below [the halfway point of the Mizbe'ach (which is where the Chatas ought to be offered)], half are valid (namely, the Chatas) and half are invalid (namely, the Olah). From these two rulings it is clear that even thought the Chachamim decreed that the birds may not be offered, they are nevertheless valid if offered by mistake.
28)[line 19]áòìé çééí ðãçéï... áòìé çééí àéðï ðéãçéïBA'ALEI CHAYIM NIDACHIN... BA'ALEI CHAYIM EINAN NIDACHIN (DICHUY: BA'ALEI CHAYIM)
(a)There is Tana'ic and Amora'ic discussion over whether an object that becomes unfit for use in fulfillment of a Mitzvah may be used at a later point if its status changes ("Dichuy;" see above, entry #23). Assuming that Dichuy generally applies, there is a further question regarding whether or not it is applicable to live animals. Those who maintain that "Ba'alei Chayim Nidachim" rule that animal which becomes unfit as a sacrifice remains unfit forever. The dissenting opinion holds that only Shechutim (slaughtered animals) become irrevocably rejected. A live animal, however, can regain its status once it becomes fit (Yoma 64a).