Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Study Guide

Study Guide The Gemara discusses a contradiction regarding the time for redeeming a firstborn donkey (peter chamor). One braita states that is can be done immediately, while another states that it cannot be performed before thirty days. Three resolutions are brought. Rav Nachman explains that if one redeemed it within thirty days, it is redeemed post-facto (b'dieved). Rav Sheshet suggests that the thirty-day timeframe teaches that one does not violate the prohibition against delaying the mitzva during this period. Rava resolves the conflicting opinions and explains that the dispute depends on whether one follows Rabbi Eliezer, who compares a firstborn donkey to a firstborn son, or the rabbis, who do not. The Mishna rules that if the owner does not wish to redeem the firstborn donkey, he decapitates it from behind and buries it. The commandment of redemption takes precedence. The Mishna lists additional mitzvot that have an order of precedence: the commandment of designation (ye'ida) takes precedence over the commandment of redemption for a Hebrew maidservant; the commandment of Levirate marriage (yibbum) originally took precedence over chalitza, but nowadays the commandment of chalitza takes precedence because people do not intend it for the sake of the mitzvah; and the commandment of redemption by the owner takes precedence over any other person in redeeming sanctified non-kosher animals. At the opening of the second chapter, the Mishna rules that if an Israelite buys, sells, enters a partnership in, or receives on a sharecropping contract (kibalat) a fetus or an animal of a Gentile, the offspring is exempt from firstborn status of kosher animals, as it is stated in the Torah "in Israel," excluding animals under joint or full ownership of Gentiles. Kohanim and Levites are obligated in the firstborn of a kosher animal, as their exemption applies only to pidyon haben and peter chamor. The Gemara asks why the masechet begins with laws of firstborn donkey and then of kosher animals given that kosher animals possess intrinsic sanctity (kedushat haguf) while a donkey possesses only monetary sanctity (kedushat damim). The Gemara answers that matters regarding non-kosher animals are few, and therefore the matter was concluded first, or because a firstborn donkey is cherished. Regarding transactions with a Gentile, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani said in the name of Resh Lakish, who quoted the words of Rabbi Oshaya, that an Israelite who gave money to a Gentile (and a Gentile who gave money to an Israelite) acquires through money alone, and does not require physical pulling (meshikha). This derives this from the verse "from the hand of your neighbor" (mi-yad amitekha), teaching that meshikha is required only between an Israelite and his neighbor, whereas a transaction with a Gentile is effected through money. Ameimar holds a dissenting opinion – that a transaction between a Gentile and an Israelite is effected through money. The Gemara analyzes how to understand the verse of amitekha according to Ameimar according to the positions of both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. A difficulty is raised from a braita against the position of Rabbi Oshaya regarding one who buys pieces of silver (gruta'ot) from Gentiles and finds an idol inside, where ownership depends on whether money was given or physical pulling (meshikha) was performed. The Gemara resolves the difficulty through four different explanations.

The Mishna lists animals that cannot be used for redemption, including a calf, an undomesticated animal, a slaughtered or treifa animal, a hybrid (kilayim), or a koy (a creature of doubtful status between a domesticated and undomesticated animal). Rabbi Eliezer permits redemption using a hybrid because it is nevertheless a lamb (born to two animals in the sheep family), but forbids a koy. The Gemara explains that the Mishna follows Ben Bag Bag, who derives from a textual comparison (gezeira shava) of the word seh from the Paschal sacrifice that only a standard, kosher lamb or goat fulfills the obligation. Four questions are asked regarding animals that may or may not be used to redeem a firstborn donkey. The first question: may a fetus that was in the womb of its mother when she was slaughtered (ben pekua) be used? At first, the Gemara assesses that the question is according to the Sages' position regarding a ben pekua, and not Rabbi Meir's. Mar Zutra holds it is invalid because it does not require ritual slaughter, and therefore it is considered equivalent to a slaughtered animal. Rav Ashi permits it because the Torah repeats the word tifdeh (redeem) to include all kosher sheep. The second question: can an animal that does not resemble its mother (nidmeh) be used for redemption? At first, the Gemara assesses that the question is according to the Sages' position and not Rabbi Eliezer's, since it is clear he would permit it, given that even kilayim is permitted for use. Two sources are brought to answer the question, but in the end, each source is inconclusive. The third question: may consecrated animals that became blemished (pesulei hamukdashin) be used to redeem a firstborn donkey? Rav Mari son of Rav Kahana proves from the verse comparing them to a gazelle and a deer (k'tzvi v'ka'ayal) that just as a gazelle or deer cannot be used to redeem a firstborn donkey, blemished consecrated animals likewise cannot be used. The final question: may one use an animal that possesses Sabbatical year sanctity for redemption? One clearly cannot use it to redeem a definite firstborn donkey, as the Torah specifies that Sabbatical produce is designated "for eating" (l'okhla) and not for commerce (l'skhora). To answer the question, a statement of Rav Chisda is brought showing that one may use a Sabbatical year animal to redeem a doubtful firstborn donkey, according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Chisda ruled on other issues regarding animals with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year—that they are exempt from firstborn status and obligated in priestly gifts. A difficulty is raised from a braita regarding halla, but it is resolved. If an Israelite gives an unredeemed firstborn donkey to a kohen, the kohen is not permitted to keep it until a lamb is designated in its place immediately, as kohanim were suspected of taking firstborn donkeys without properly redeeming them. If one designates a lamb for redemption and the lamb dies, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages dispute who bears responsibility. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the owner remains responsible to provide another lamb (comparing it to redemption of a firstborn son, pidyon haben), whereas the Sages hold that the owner is free of responsibility (comparing it to the redemption of second tithe, ma'aser sheni). Testimony from Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok confirms the Sages' view that the kohen receives nothing if the designated redemption dies before reaching him. Rav Yosef and Rava subsequently explain the source for Rabbi Eliezer's position.

How much must one give to redeem a firstborn donkey? Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda requires at least one shekel, whereas the Sages hold that any minimal amount is valid for redemption. Rav Yosef explained that the value of "any minimal amount" can even be a lamb worth a sixth of a zuz. However, in the story involving Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, Rabbi Tarfon presents three options—a generous eye, a stingy eye, and an average eye—ranging between two to four zuzim. To resolve this contradiction, it is explained that Rabbi Tarfon's ruling applies when one comes to consult, but if one acts on their own, a sixth of a zuz is sufficient. Reish Lakish rules that if the owner does not have a lamb to redeem it with, he may redeem it with its financial equivalent, as the Torah did not specify "a lamb" to be stringent upon him, but rather to be lenient. Initially, it was thought that he ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, but because it is unreasonable to say he ruled like him (for two distinct reasons), his ruling is ultimately explained according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If a person redeems someone else's firstborn donkey, the redemption is valid. However, the Gemara asks: to whom does the donkey belong after redemption—is it similar to consecrated property (hekdesh) and thus belongs to the redeemer, or not? This question is answered from the law stating that a thief who steals someone else's firstborn donkey pays double damages to the owner, showing that it is not treated as hekdesh. An Israelite who has ten doubtful firstborn donkeys in his house designates ten lambs for them, tithes them as animal tithe (ma'aser behema), and retains them for himself, since due to the doubt he is not obligated to give them to a kohen. The same applies to an Israelite who inherited ten definite firstborn donkeys from his maternal grandfather who was a kohen, who had inherited them from his maternal grandfather who was an Israelite, or untithed produce under similar circumstances, he sets aside the tithes for them and they remain his. One who purchases untithed, smoothed produce from a non-Jew in the Land of Israel is obligated to tithe it, because a non-Jew's ownership in the Land of Israel does not exempt produce from tithes. Nevertheless, the tithes belong to him and he does not give them to a kohen, since he can say to the kohen: "My rights to this produce comes from the rights of a person with whom you have no legal claim." A contradictory source is brought, but it is resolved by differentiating between teruma gedola and teruma of maaser (that the Levite gives to a kohen). In explaining the words of the Mishna, the Gemara clarifies that from the moment the owner redeems the donkey for a lamb, it becomes the property of the kohen and stands in his domain, so that even if it dies in the house of the owner, the kohen can still derive benefit from the lamb.

Even though Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda disagree regarding whether a firstborn donkey (peter chamor) is forbidden for benefit, Rabba maintains that Rabbi Shimon, who permits benefit prior to redemption, agrees that if the donkey was not redeemed and its neck was broken, it becomes forbidden for benefit. Rabba derives this law via a gezeira shava comparing the term "breaking the neck" (arifah) used here to that of an egla arufa, which is forbidden for benefit once its neck is broken. Rabba attempts to prove his assertion from a braita concerning a dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon over several items regarding susceptibility to food impurity, including a firstborn donkey. In that braita, Rabbi Shimon holds it is not susceptible to food impurity, which Rabba infers as evidence that it is forbidden for benefit after its neck is broken. However, Rabba's proof is rejected after two alternative explanations for the core debate in the braita are proposed, though ultimately both alternative interpretations are refuted as well. A further challenge is raised against Rabba from another braita, but this difficulty is successfully resolved. Rav Huna supported Rabba's ruling and cited two braitot to demonstrate that Rabbi Shimon considers the firstborn donkey forbidden for benefit after its neck is broken, yet both proofs are shown to be inconclusive. The Gemara then introduces a different version regarding how Rav Nachman's opinion was framed, connecting it directly to a Mishna that discusses betrothing a woman with a firstborn donkey. An alternative version of the sugya pertaining to that Mishna is presented as well. The opinion of Rabbi Yochanan (and some say Rabbi Elazar) is brought: he disagrees with Rabba and Rav Huna, holding that according to Rabbi Shimon, the donkey remains permitted for benefit even after its neck has been broken. Resh Lakish, however, agrees with the position of Rabba and Rav Huna.

Does Rabbi Shimon require an offspring to resemble its mother in its head and most of its body (ראשו ורובו) to be permitted for consumption, or does his requirement of its head and most of its body apply exclusively to firstborn (bekhorah) status? Three braitot are brought to answer this question, but all are deemed inconclusive. Is donkey urine permitted or forbidden? While horse and camel urine are thin and clearly just excreted water, donkey urine is thick and resembles milk. Is it absorbed and derived from the animal's body (and thus forbidden as an excretion of a non-kosher animal), or is it merely ingested water that became cloudy from body heat? Rav Sheshet proves from our Mishna ("that which emerges from the non-kosher is non-kosher") that donkey urine is forbidden because it derives from a non-kosher species. There are two versions of Rav Sheshet's proof and how it is derived from the Mishna, with potential halakhic ramifications between the two versions. A difficulty is raised against Rav Sheshet's opinion from a braita permitting honey—even though it is produced in the body of a non-kosher creature—as it comes from something outside the body. To resolve this, it is explained that Rav Sheshet follows a different tanna who permits honey because it is derived from a drasha in the Torah and is an exception to the rule, not the rule. Fallow deer secretions (chalei d'yachmurta) and the skin/placenta covering a donkey foal's face (or haba k'neged panav) are permitted as mere waste matter (pirsha). If a non-kosher fish swallows a kosher fish, the swallowed kosher fish is permitted for consumption. However, if a kosher fish swallows a non-kosher fish, the non-kosher fish remains forbidden because it is not the product of the kosher fish's growth. If one did not witness the swallowing, one might assume a non-kosher fish found inside a kosher fish was actually birthed by it (as non-kosher fish give birth to live young, while kosher fish lay eggs). This last point raises a difficulty, which four answers are brought to resolve.

Following the dispute between the tanna of our Mishna and Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, where each derived from a different verse the exemption from firstborn status for an animal that gave birth to an offspring resembling a different species, the Gemara clarifies what Rabbi Yosi HaGelili derives from the proof-verses of our tanna ("peter hamor" twice). Rabbi Yosi HaGelili derives from there the source for exempting horses and camels from firstborn status. Rav Achai raises a difficulty against his derivation, but the Gemara answers his objection. Our tanna derives this rule (exempting the firstborn of horses and camels) from a general rule and a detail (klal u'phrat): "All your livestock you shall designate as male" is a general rule, "ox and sheep and donkey" is a detail, and a general rule includes only that which is in the detail; therefore, firstborn laws apply only to a donkey and not to other non-kosher animals. The Gemara discusses a series of uncertainties regarding an animal that gave birth to a different species that possesses some of the mother's features: regarding a cow that gave birth to a donkey-like offspring, do we judge it like a goat that gave birth to a sheep-like offspring that looks somewhat like its mother, which is subject to firstborn status because both are subject to firstborn status, or perhaps here the laws are different because one is sanctified with intrinsic holiness (kedushat haguf) and the other with monetary value (kedushat damim), and one is kosher while the other is not? Subsequently, the Gemara inquires about a donkey that gave birth to a horse-like offspring and a cow that gave birth to a horse-like offspring. From the braitot, the Gemara proves that the obligation when there are partial features was stated regarding a cow that gave birth to a donkey-like offspring, but it remains unclear regarding the other questions. Regarding eating, the Mishna clarifies the principle that what emerges from the non-kosher is non-kosher, and it is not judged according to the offspring's appearance but rather according to its mother - this rule was intended to remember the law. The source showing that a kosher animal born from a non-kosher mother is forbidden to be eaten is from the verse "These you shall not eat," whereas a non-kosher offspring born from a kosher mother is permitted, as it is said, "the camel... it is non-kosher" - it is non-kosher, but a non-kosher born from a kosher mother is kosher. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and forbids a non-kosher animal born from a kosher mother based on the repetition of the word "camel" in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and he derives the prohibition of milk from a non-kosher animal from the phrase "et ha-gamal" (the camel), whereas the Sages forbid milk from "camel" "camel" and do not derive laws from the word "et." To show that there are those who derive laws from the word, et, the Gemara brings the position  of Shimon HaAmsoni, who derives laws from that word, but changed his position when he reached "You shall fear the Lord (et Hashem) your God," until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that it serves to include Torah scholars. The Gemara clarifies why a special verse was needed to forbid the milk of a non-kosher animal and presents two possible explanations. Afterwards, it discusses the source for permitting the milk of a kosher animal and presents six proofs, of which three are rejected. The Gemara cites a braita stating that a sheep that gave birth to a goat-like offspring or a goat that gave birth to a sheep-like offspring is exempt from firstborn status unless it possesses some of the mother's features, and Rabbi Shimon disagrees, maintaining that it is not obligated until its head and most of its body resemble its mother. The Gemara concludes with the question: Does Rabbi Shimon require its head and most of its body to resemble its mother regarding the prohibition of eating as well?

The Gemara continues analyzing the dispute regarding whether firstborns were sanctified in the desert. According to Reish Lakish, they were not sanctified until entering the Land, whereas Rabbi Yochanan holds they were already sanctified in the wilderness. Rabbi Eleazar explains that Rabbi Yochanan derived his position from the verse "לי יהיו" ("they shall be Mine") – b'havayatan yehu, meaning that their holiness remains intact and does not lapse. Rabbi Yochanan explains the verse "והיה כי יביאך... והעברת" in accordance with the exposition of the Academy of Rabbi Yishmael: perform this mitzva so that you will inherit and enter the Land. Rav Mordechai notes to Rav Ashi that in his academy the dispute was taught with reversed attributions - Rabbi Yochanan said they were not sanctified (meaning they did not need to be sanctified anew), while Reish Lakish said they were sanctified. Rav Ashi clarifies that the underlying explanatory principle is the exact same, but a person is obligated to speak in the language of his teacher. Two questions are asked by the officer Quntroqos to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. First, regarding the discrepancy between the detailed count of Levites (22,300) and their total sum (22,000), Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai explains that those additional 300 Levites were firstborns themselves, and a firstborn cannot discharge the firstborn obligation of another, as Abaye adds that it suffices for a firstborn to discharge his own personal holiness. Second, regarding the discrepancy between the silver collected (half a shekel for 601,550 men, equaling 201 kikar and 11 maneh) and the silver gathered and accounted for (100 kikar and 1,775 shekels, which equals 101 kikar and 11 maneh), Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai responds that Moses our teacher was a trustworthy treasurer and skilled calculator, and that the sanctuary maneh was doubled. After two failed attempts, Rav Chisda proves from a verse in Ezekiel that the sanctuary maneh was indeed doubled, and the Gemara establishes three principles regarding measures: additions may be made to measurements, additions cannot exceed a sixth, and this sixth is calculated from the outside. Rabbi Chanina relates three questions he asked Rabbi Eliezer in the Great Academy. Regarding why firstborn donkeys were singled out for redemption over horses or camels, Rabbi Eliezer explains that it is a divine decree (gezeirat hakatav), and also because donkeys assisted Israel during the Exodus, as every Israelite brought out ninety loaded Libyan donkeys with the silver and gold of Egypt. Regarding the place names Rephidim and Shittim, Rabbi Eliezer holds that they are literal place names, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua interprets them homiletically as allusions to behavior: Rephidim signifies that they loosened their grasp on Torah study, and Shittim signifies that they engaged in acts of folly. The Mishna rules that a cow giving birth to an offspring resembling a donkey, or a donkey giving birth to an offspring resembling a horse, is exempt from bekhora, as the repetition of the words "peter chamor" teaches that both the mother and offspring must be donkeys. Regarding consumption, an offspring born of a kosher animal that resembles an non-kosher animal is permitted to be eaten, while an offspring born of a non-kosher animal that resembles a kosher animal is forbidden, based on the principle that whatever emerges from the non-kosher is not kosher, and whatever emerges from the kosher is kosher. The Gemara compares our Mishna to a Mishna dealing with a ewe that gave birth to an offspring resembling a goat. Rav Yehuda derives from the verse "אך בכור שור..." that both parent and offspring must be of the same species, instead of using the verse in our Mishna. The Gemara explains the dispute between the tanna of our Mishna and Rabbi Yose HaGelili (upon whose view Rav Yehuda relied) regarding whether the textual derivations apply to monetary consecration (kedushat damim) and from there we learn to inherent sanctity (kedushat haguf) or the reverse. What does each do with the verse of the other?

The Mishna rules that Kohanim and Levites are exempt from bekhora (firstborn male donkeys) based on a kal v'chomer: if they exempted the firstborns of Israelites in the desert, logic dictates that they exempt their own. The Gemara challenges the Mishna's premise as the Levites themselves did not exempt the donkeys of the Israelites – they themselves exempted the Israelite firstborn males, and their animals exempted the Israelite firstborn donkeys. Two answers are offered to resolve this question, by both Abaye and Rava. Abaye answers that the Mishna means the livestock of the Levites exempted their own livestock. Rava rejects Abaye's interpretation on two grounds: first, the Mishna uses the verb "they exempted", referring to the Levites themselves; second, if Abaye were correct, Levites' kosher firstborn animals should be exempt from bekhora also, yet a Mishna explicitly teaches that Kohanim and Levites are obligated in the firstborn of kosher animals and exempt only from redeeming their sons (pidyon haben) and firstborn donkey (peter chamor). Rava provides his own answer, explaining that the Levites exempted themselves (their human firstborns) via kal v'chomer from what transpired in the desert where the Levites exempted the Israelite firstborns. To derive their exemption from the firstborn donkey (peter chamor), the Gemara cites a verse equating human firstborns with impure animal firstborns ("האדם ואת בכור הבהמה הטמאה תפדה"), establishing that whoever is exempt from human firstborn is exempt from the redemption of the donkeys. Rav Safra raises four difficulties against both Abaye and Rava: if the exemption depends on the Levites' exchange in the desert, what about those who were not involved in the exemption, such as a Levite who did not own animals or was under a month old, or a female Levite, or Aharon? All difficulties are resolved. Three other questions are asked and answered, namely, the source for kohanim being included in this exemption, that this exemption applies for future generations, and that the redemption of a firstborn donkey in the desert was performed specifically with a lamb (seh) just as it is for future generations. Rav Chanina states that a single lamb belonging to a Levite exempted multiple firstborn donkeys of Israelites in the desert. Abaye attempts to prove this from the fact that Scripture notes how many excess human firstborns there were compared to Levites, but did not mention any excess firstborn animals. After rejecting Abaye's proof, the Gemara proves this from the precise phrasing "ואת בהמת הלוים תחת בהמתם" – "an animal (single) of the Levites in place of their (Israelites) animals (plural)", and Rava notes that this aligns with a Mishna ruling that one may redeem with a lamb multiple times, and the Gemara explains that Rabbi Chanina's statement was meant to give the reason for that Mishna. Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from two tannaitic sources, but both difficulties against Reish Lakish are resolved. An alternative version suggests that the second difficulty was brought by Reish Lakish to challenge Rabbi Yochanan's position. A third source is brought by the Gemara to prove Rabbi Yochanan's position, but Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak provides an alternative explanation of that source to reconcile it with Reish Lakish. Following a difficulty on this explanation, raised by Rav Papa, the Gemara is forced to slightly adjust Reish Lakish's view: it is clear that at the beginning of their stay in the desert, firstborns were sanctified; according to Reish Lakish, it was only after that specific event (the exchange of the firstborns for the Levites) that they ceased to sanctify them until entering the Land of Israel.

The Mishna rules that if a Jew buys a donkey embryo from a non-Jew, sells one to him, enters into a partnership with him, or receives or gives an animal under a sharecropping agreement (kablanut), the offspring is exempt from bekhora. The Gemara questions why the Mishna needs to enumerate all these individual cases, and explains that each is necessary: selling must be taught so we do not fine a Jew who removes an animal from sanctity; partnering excludes Rabbi Yehuda's view that a joint partnership with a non-Jew is obligated in bekhora; and sharecropping (kablanut) is needed because the primary animal belongs to the Jew, and had we exempted it from the firstborn law, we might have thought this would cause people to think that in a regular animal there is no law of firstborn. The Gemara asks what Rabbi Yehuda's position is regarding selling an embryo to a non-Jew, given that he elsewhere permits selling a broken animal (shevura). Is an embryo treated like a broken animal because it cannot work, or is selling an embryo forbidden because it is standard practice, unlike a broken animal where there is a clear distinction (heker) since it is not standard practice? The Gemara first attempts to prove this from the Mishna, which mentions that selling an embryo is forbidden without noting a dissenting opinion. However, this proof is rejected, as Rabbi Yehuda clearly disagrees with another part of the Mishna without being mentioned there, so no proof can be brought from the Mishna. Next, a braita detailing fines for sharecropping (kablanut) transactions is brought to show that Rabbi Yehuda forbids it. However, the Gemara rejects this proof, clarifying that the fine in the braita applies specifically when giving a pregnant animal to be fattened. Ultimately, Rav Ashi proves from Rabbi Yehuda's own rationale in another braita—that a broken animal is permitted because it cannot heal—which implies that selling an embryo is forbidden, as it naturally grows and "heals." This entire sugya was also taught in a different manner, as a question of whether the Mishna's prohibition on selling an embryo is only according to the Rabbis or if Rabbi Yehuda agrees with it as well. As in the previous version, the conclusion is that Rabbi Yehuda also forbids it. The Gemara asks whether selling a healthy animal solely for its fetus is permitted, analyzing the doubts according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. An attempt is made to resolve the question from the Mishna regarding one who gives an animal under sharecropping (kablanut for offspring), as the phrase "even though he is not permitted" is omitted there. However, the Gemara ultimately concludes that in other forbidden cases (such as partnership) the Tanna also omits "even though he is not permitted," so no answer to the question can be derived from the Mishna.

Introduction to Masechet Bekhorot

Hadran Ceremony Text

Study Guide The Gemara explains that the word "tzipor" includes only kosher birds, excluding non-kosher birds from the commandment of shiluch haken. Four additional verses are brought (supplementing the four from Chullin 139) in an attempt to disprove this premise. However, each verse is explained in a different manner, demonstrating that "tzipor" indeed refers exclusively to kosher birds. If the eggs are non-kosher, the commandment also does not apply, as derived from Rav Kahana's exposition of "take for yourself" - and not for your dogs. Rav Kahana's exposition was originally cited to derive the rule that if the chicks are a treifa, the mitzva does not apply, whereas if the mother is a treifa, the mitzva remains in effect. Various Sages raise several questions regarding situations where the obligation to send away the mother bird might not apply, such as when a barrier exists between the mother and the eggs, or when the mother bird broods over eggs of a different species. While Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree concerning a male pheasant, Rabbi Elazar clarifies that their disagreement is strictly limited to that specific case. For a female pheasant, all agree the mitzva applies, while for a standard male of another species, all agree it does not apply. The Mishna rules that if a bird is hovering over the chicks or eggs without touching them, the commandment is in effect only if her wings touch the nest. Rav Yehuda rules in the name of Rav that in a case where the mother bird is sitting on tree branches such that if they were removed she would fall onto the eggs, the commandment is in effect even if she is not presently touching them. A braita is brought to contradict his ruling, but the contradiction is resolved. The Gemara then presents an alternative version in which the braita is cited to support his statement, though this support is ultimately rejected.

Ravina derives from "shaleach teshalach" that a kosher bird that killed a human, before it is convicted, it is exempt from shiluach haken because one is commanded to bring it to court rather than send it away. The Mishna ruled that consecrated birds are exempt from the mitzva of shiluach haken. The Gemara attempts to find a case of sanctified birds that would require an exemption. After four failed attempts, Rav and Shmuel each bring a possible explanation. Rav explains that it refers to one who consecrated the offspring of his dovecote for a sacrifice, which subsequently escaped, retains its sanctity and it is exempt from the mitzva of shiluach haken. Shmuel explains that it refers to one who consecrated a domestic hen to Temple maintenance (bedek habayit) which then escaped, which retains its sanctity as wherever it is, it belongs to God, based on the principle "l'Hashem haaretz u'mlo'ah." Rabbi Yochanan agrees with Shmuel and Reish Lakish with Rav. However, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree in a different case and their positions are reversed. The Gemara works to resolve the contradictions. Analyzing the verse in the Torah, Devarim 22:6, the braita shows the derivation of the different laws listed in the Mishna while adding others, and the Gemara analyzes and somewhat edits the braita. The braita derived from the word "tzipor," that the law applies only to kosher birds. The Gemara explains that this word always refers to kosher birds, while the word "עוף" includes not kosher birds as well. Several verses are brought to challenge this theory, but are resolved. 

Reconciling Rav's two rulings on the required fleece yield, where he states "a mane and a half" (mane v'pras) in one context and "sixty" in another, the Gemara explains that Rav refers to a mane of forty sela'im, making a mane and a half equal to sixty sela'im. Regarding the five-sela'im gift, a braita clarifies that the owner is not required to bleach the wool before giving it; rather, he must provide enough wool so that five sela'im remain after the kohen bleaches it. Deriving from "l'amod l'sharet" ("to stand and serve"), Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains that the gift must yield enough processed wool to weave a small priestly garment - specifically identifying the belt (avnet) as the smallest garment used in Temple service. If one shears each sheep and immediately sells it before shearing the next, Rav Chisda obligates the owner because shearing occurred under one's ownership, whereas Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya exempts because complete flock ownership was lacking when the total required quantity was met (when all five sheep were sheared). In sales where a buyer purchases shearings from a flock, if the seller keeps some of the shearings, the seller is obligated in the mitzva. The amoraim try to find a tannaitic opinion by which to explain this ruling. Rav Chisda's suggestion is rejected, and Rava connects it with a Mishna regarding the priestly gifts. A seller cannot sell the kohen's portion as it does not belong to the seller, but to the kohen. Thus, if the seller retained any shearings, the liability remains with the seller, but if no shearings were retained, liability falls upon the buyer. Beginning Chapter 12, the Mishna defines the mandate to send away the mother bird (shiluach haken), contrasting its scope with the commandments in the previous chapters. Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meisha compare the structure of the previous chapters and highlight which laws were necessary, and which were brought just as a foil. The Gemara explains why consecrated birds as well as a kosher bird condemned by a court are exempt from this commandment.

Study Guide The obligation of reshit ha'gez (first shearing) applies exclusively to sheep. Although the Gemara initially suggests a gezeira shava comparing "gez" in Deuteronomy 18:5 to Job 31:20 ("m'gez kvasai yitchamam"), it ultimately derives the requirement from the phrase "l'amod l'sharet", establishing that the material must be fit for priestly service. This excludes goat hair - which is used for sackcloth rather than garments - as well as coarse wool. Washing sheep, which causes some wool to be removed, is subject to a Tannaitic debate: Rabbi Yosi exempts washing from the commandment to give the first shearing because it is not the typical method of shearing, whereas the rabbis obligate it as it does remove the wool. The Tannaim dispute the minimum flock size required: Beit Shammai require two sheep based on the plural "tzon", Beit Hillel require five ("chamesh tzon asuyot"), and Rabbi Yishmael b'Rabbi Yosi requires four based on the laws of theft of "tzon" where the penalty is four "tzon". Rebbi shows preference to the ruling of Rabbi Yishmael b'Rabbi Yosi for a number of reasons, and Rabbi Yochanan explains that there is an established tradition from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi to hold like him. Addressing fleece quantities, the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, ruling that any amount of shearing from five sheep triggers liability, which the Amoraim quantify through various minimum amounts, and only one of the three positions takes their words literally that there is no minimum. Rav requires 37.5 sela'im, Shmuel requires sixty, while requiring 1:60 for the kohen, Rabbi Yochanan requires six sela'im with five going to the kohen. The Gemara tries to reconcile these views with the Mishna's rule requiring five sela'im given to the kohen. Rav and Shmuel compare this rabbinic 1:60 baseline to the standards for teruma and peah, prompting a discussion in the Gemara reconciling these baselines against conflicting sources. When Isi bar Hini travels to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yochanan criticizes him both for errors in his text of the Mishna and for not demonstrating enough respect toward Rav. Rabbi Yochanan also presents his position on the Rabbis' view of "any amount" (kol shehu), which initially appears to contradict his earlier statement in the sugya. When Rav Dimi arrives from Eretz Yisrael and transmits Rabbi Yochanan's teaching, Abaye deduces from it how to resolve the contradiction.

Study Guide

Rav Chisda's requirement for complete mastery of all twenty-four priestly gifts is rejected based on Rabbi Simeon's standard: any kohen who acknowledges the validity of the Temple service (modeh b'avoda) is eligible to receive gifts. Deriving from "v'natan" ("and he shall give"), kohanim are forbidden from grabbing gifts, prompting Abaye to outline his personal practice that developed from seizing gifts to eventually refusing them altogether, except on the Eve of Yom Kippur to demonstrate his priestly lineage. Rav Yosef rules that a kohen can assign gifts to an impoverished scholar even before taking physical possession. However, when Rava insisted a host's servant assign gifts to himself and Rav Safra, Rava ate while Rav Safra refrained; Rav Safra subsequently experienced a troubling dream regarding improper conduct, prompting the Gemara into a broader ethical discussion condemning the instruction of an unworthy student who will misconstrue the teacher's words. Addressing mixed partnerships with a non-Jew or kohen, the Gemara clarifies contradictory sources regarding when marking the animal is required to prevent public suspicion (mar'it ayin). Resolving a dispute between Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav, the Gemara rejects Chiya bar Rav - explaining his misinterpretation of the braita listing the twenty-four priestly gifts - and concludes that a kohen's partial ownership in a specific section of an animal exempts only that corresponding gift, such that partial ownership of the head exempts the jaw, while the foreleg and abomasum remain obligated. Where an Israelite owns the head and a kohen owns the rest of the body, the Gemara establishes that halakhic liability follows the locus of obligation, requiring the Israelite to give the jaw.

The eligibility of a Kohen's daughter (kohenet) to receive priestly gifts (matanot) is disputed between Rava (forbidding) and Ulla (permitting), reflecting a broader Tannaitic disagreement between the academy of Rabbi Yishmael (excluding a kohenet) and the academy of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (including her). Following common practice where several amoraim received and ate matanot on account of their wives, Marimar codifies four definitive rulings: the halakha follows Rav regarding the unenforceability of Levite obligations, Rav Chisda regarding exemption from restitution for destroyed gifts, Ulla permitting gifts to a kohenet, and Rav Adda bar Ahava regarding pidyon haben exemptions for a Levite woman's son. Regarding crossbred animals (kil'ayim) and a koy, the Sages obligate matanot while Rabbi Eliezer exempts them. Addressing the underlying doubt over paternal seed (zera ha'av), the Gemara questions why the Sages require full gifts rather than half-gifts, ultimately explaining that the obligation of the rabbis is only for half. However an alternative explanation is brought concluding that explicit scriptural inclusions ("im shor", "im seh") mandate full obligation. This discussion also establishes Rava's rule that legal recourse for unseparated gifts lies directly against the butcher (hadin im hatabach). The Mishna notes that a blemished firstborn (bechor) mixed among non-sacred animals or slaughtering for a non-Jew or kohen creates exemptions from matanot. However, a kohen slaughtering for someone else is obligated in matanot. A kohen who sets up a slaughterhouse is exempt from giving gifts for two to three weeks, but becomes obligated once his business is more established. To ensure compliance, courts may penalize non-compliant butchers by excommunication. Matanot must be eaten roasted with mustard as they should be eaten like royalty, and may be given to any kohen who acknowledges the validity of the Temple service (modeh ba'avoda). 

Rav Chisda rules that anyone who destroys or eats priestly gifts (zero'a, lechayayim, keva) prior to distribution is exempt from financial restitution, whether derived from the word "zeh" in the verse or because these gifts constitute property with no specific claimant (mamon she-ein lo tove'in). The Gemara raises seven challenges from various Tannaitic sources (including rulings on other priestly gifts and poor-person's gifts)—some directed against Rav Chisda's overall exemption from restitution, and others against the explanation that it constitutes property with no specific claimant. The Gemara resolves all of these challenges, upholding Rav Chisda's position. The Gemara then turns to evaluate whether Levites are obligated to give priestly gifts when slaughtering their own non-sacred animals. Rav remains in doubt as to whether Levites are legally included in the biblical description of "from the nation" (me'et ha-am) or whether their tribe's distinct status exempts them from giving matanot; consequently, while Levites are technically obligated to give them, this obligation cannot be legally enforced against them. The Gemara presents three challenges against Rav's uncertainty from explicit braitot, but answers all of them, leaving Rav's underlying doubt intact. Mareimar rules halakhically in accordance with both Rav Chisda and Rav's doubt. Finally, Ulla permitted giving priestly gifts to a kohen's daughter, even if she is married to an Israelite. Rava challenges Ulla's ruling from the laws regarding the meal-offering (minchah) of a kohen's daughter, which differs from that of a male kohen in that it is not completely burned on the altar, demonstrating that her status as a priestess is not entirely identical.

The Mishna rules that the priestly gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum (zeroa, lechayayim, v'keiva) apply both in the Land of Israel and abroad, during the Temple period and after its destruction, regarding non-sacred animals (chullin), but not consecrated animals (mukdashin). Although a logical inference (kal v'chomer) suggests consecrated animals should require gifts since they require the breast and thigh (chazeh v'shok), scripture excludes them by specifying that kohanim receive from consecrated animals only what is explicitly written in that context because of the limiting word "otam". The Mishna differentiates between two cases of animals with blemishes based on the underlying nature of their sanctity. In the first category, if a permanent blemish preceded consecration, the animal only attains monetary sanctity (kedushat damim); once redeemed, it remains obligated in priestly gifts and firstborn animal (bechora), and its shearing, work, offspring, and milk are permitted. In the second category, if consecration preceded the permanent blemish, the animal possesses intrinsic bodily sanctity (kedushat haguf). Even after redemption, the animal is exempt from priestly gifts and bechora, its shearing and work remain forbidden, and its offspring and milk are prohibited. Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara asks how one could have even thought that consecrated animals (kodshim) might be obligated in priestly gifts (matanot), given that non-sacred animals (chullin) initially seem to possess various unique severities. After addressing a slew of suggestions for stringency, they ultimately establish that no true element of stringency exists in chullin that does not also exist within the broader category of kodshim, it validates the need for a scriptural derivation. Conversely, the Gemara asks whether chullin should be obligated in the breast and thigh (chazeh v'shok) through a reverse kal v'chomer, since chullin possess the obligation of matanot which kodshim lack. Although the Gemara initially attempts to exclude chullin from chazeh v'shok using the word "zeh" in "v'zeh yihyeh mishpat hakohanim", it rejects this derivation and prefers to explain the reason for the exemption based on the fact that waving (tenufah) is practically impossible for chullin: performing it outside violates the requirement of "lifnei Hashem", while performing it inside violates the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard (chullin ba'azara). With "zeh" freed from excluding non sacred items from the law of chazeh v'shok, it is applied to Rav Chisda's ruling that one who damages or consumes priestly gifts prior to their distribution is exempt from financial restitution. The Gemara explains that this exemption is either derived directly from the word "zeh" in the verse, or an alternative reasoning is brought—that priestly gifts constitute property with no specific claimant (mamon she'ein lo tove'in). The Gemara presents several challenges against the second explanation of Rav Chisda's exemption from restitution and some against Rav Chisda's exemption.

A braita rules that if one cuts an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb attached to a living animal, designating it for food only after cutting renders it pure, whereas designating it prior to cutting renders it susceptible to food impurity, as it touches the limb (which has high level impurity) as it is being cut. The Gemara presents Rav Asi's challenge to Rabbi Zeira as to why prior designation causes impurity, given that the cut site is a concealed place (tumat beit ha-satarim) and concealed impurity does not transmit impurity. Rava clarifies that the case involves a situation where liquids (hechsher) came upon it and Rabba bar Rav Chanan questions that, noting that it should not even require hechsher under the rule of an item destined to transmit severe impurity does not need hechsher, since here it came from a limb with a high level of impurity. Rava responds with a fundamental principle that when food functions as a connection or for a purpose other than food, it is considered "when used, it functioned like wood" and thus the rule of "destined to transmit severe impurity" does not apply. The Gemara presents five challenges that are resolved by applying this same explanation – "when used, it functioned like wood." Returning to the Mishna dealing with a dangling limb and flesh on an animal, the Gemara asks for the rationale of Rabbi Shimon, who rules them pure in the case of the animal's death, challenging his view as completely illogical. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the reisha (opening clause) of the Mishna when the animal is still alive, based on Rabbi Yochanan's explanation that Rabbi Shimon derives from scripture "מכל אשר יאכל"  that food is defined as such only if you can feed it to others; since a dangling limb or flesh from a living animal is forbidden to consume even for non-Jews, it cannot transmit food impurity. However, Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty, explaining that if Rabbi Shimon disagrees with that case, it is because the flesh and limb are still somewhat attached, as learned from a Mishna in Uktzin (3:8). Thus, Rabbi Yochanan's explanation of Rabbi Shimon's view must apply to another case. The Gemara suggests it might apply to the metzi'ata (middle clause) where the animal was slaughtered, but this resolution is also difficult. In light of these difficulties, the Gemara returns to understand Rabbi Shimon's statement and Rabbi Yochanan's explanation, concluding that they actually refer to the seifa (final clause), not regarding the dangling limb (from which the difficulty was raised), but rather regarding the dangling flesh. The Mishna discusses a dangling limb and flesh on a living human, ruling that they are pure during the person's lifetime. Upon the person's death, the flesh is pure from food impurity, while the dangling limb transmits impurity as a limb from a living person, but not as a limb from a corpse, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon considers it pure. The Gemara again challenges Rabbi Shimon's view in the same manner as before. As a first resolution, it explains that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with a general underlying premise of Rabbi Meir's view. Subsequently, however, the Gemara successfully understands Rabbi Shimon's position in a different manner, based on a Mishna in Eduyot 6:3.

A braita discusses whether a sea-mouse transmits impurity—that is, whether the word "mouse" includes a sea-mouse. Within that discussion, it also addresses a mouse that is half flesh and half earth, deriving from scripture that it transmits impurity like a standard mouse. The braita concludes that a sea-mouse does not transmit impurity. The Gemara raises two challenges against the braita, but resolves both. Following the discussion on the verse regarding the mouse, the Gemara turns to expound the words "ha-tzav le-minehu" from that same verse, which includes other unique creatures—the arod,  ben nefilim), and the salamander—and notes Rabbi Akiva's marveling at the diversity of creation ("Mah rabu ma'asecha Hashem"). Another braita asserts that every creature found on land has a counterpart in the sea except for the chulda (weasel), derived from "kol yoshvei chaled". The Gemara digresses to an aggadic discussion regarding the questionable character of the inhabitants of Naresh (after mentioning a law regarding the beavers of Naresh), and presents an account where Rav Huna bar Torta witnessed a snake mating with a tzav to produce an arod, which Rava characterizes as a "miracle within a miracle" sent as a punishment. The Mishna rules that a dangling limb or flesh attached to a live animal is susceptible to food impurity (tumat ochlin) in its place (if one thought to give it to a non-Jew to eat), provided a liquid came upon it rendering it susceptible to impurity, but it does not impart impurity as a limb from a living animal (ever min hachai). If the animal is slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that the slaughtering blood creates susceptibility to food impurity, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that it does not; neither holds that there is impurity of a limb from a live animal. If the animal dies, Rabbi Meir holds that the flesh requires a liquid to render it susceptible to food impurity, while the dangling limb transmits impurity as a limb from a living animal, though not as a carcass (neveila). Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, considers it pure from the impurity of a limb from a live animal. Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara asks why dangling flesh/limbs transmit food impurity but not impurity of a limb from a live animal, in the case where the animal is alive. It resolves that even if the flesh cannot heal (ein ma'alin arucha), impurity as a limb from a living animal requires the limb to completely detach from the verse "ki yipol". A braita supports this, ruling that even if attached by only a hair's breadth, it does not transmit impurity until it falls off, yet it remains susceptible to food impurity. The Gemara compares this to produce withered on the tree, such as dried figs, which transmit food impurity while still considered attached regarding the prohibition of picking on Shabbat. Regarding the case in the Mishna where the animal was slaughtered, the Gemara asks what constitutes the core point of dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, ultimately offering six different explanations. Rabba explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree on whether the main body of the animal acts as a "handle" (yad) to transmit hechsher to the dangling limb. Abaye and Rabbi Yochanan explain the debate differently: they disagree on the status of a handle where lifting the smaller dangling part does not carry the larger body (as it detaches), with Rabbi Meir considering it attached and Rabbi Shimon disagreeing.

The Gemara continues analyzing Rava's attempt to prove that "touch" (maga) can include tent-impurity (ohel) based on Rabbi Yosi's ruling regarding bed frames and window bars. Abaye rejects this proof, explaining that the case involves a space under a handbreadth (tefach), and due to a challenge raised against his explanation, Abaye is forced to explain that Rabbi Yosi holds concealed impurity does not break through (tumei tmunah eina boka'at). He proves his stance on concealed impurity from a Mishna discussing a cabinet (migdal) and Rabbi Yosi's commentary on it. A challenge is raised against Abaye from another case where Rabbi Yosi appears to hold that concealed impurity does break through and ascend (a dead dog that swallowed corpse flesh and is lying on a threshold). Rava resolves this by explaining that Rabbi Yosi does not rely on concealed impurity breaking out, but rather his dispute with Rabbi Meir regarding the dog is based on other considerations - whether the cavity of the dog contains a handbreadth of space and whether the threshold is considered part of the house. The Gemara returns to clarify the identity of Rabbi Yosi's disputant, who holds that tent-impurity is not included in the term "touch." The Gemara identifies him as Rabbi Shimon, who disagrees with Rabbi Yosi in a braita by stating that there are three items that impart corpse-impurity through only two of the three standard modes (touch, carrying, and tent): a ladleful of dust of a human carcass (melo tarvad rakav) imparts impurity through carrying and tent, but not touch; a barley-grain-sized bone (etzem k'seorah) imparts impurity through touch and carrying, but not tent; and a tombstone lid and supporting frame (golel v'dofek) impart impurity through touch and tent, but not carrying. His ruling regarding dust demonstrates that he does not categorize tent-impurity under touch. Regarding a carcass marrow-bone (kulit), the braita cites a scriptural source establishing that a sealed marrow-bone does not impart impurity, whereas a perforated one does. Rav Oshaya inquires whether a sealed marrow-bone that one intends to perforate is considered "lacking an action" (mechusar ma'aseh) because it requires perforation, or is it already considered perforated and can pass on impurity. He concludes that one's intent to perforate would make the bone susceptible to impurity. The Mishna rules that a formed embryo egg of a creeping creature (sheretz) is pure unless perforated. Regarding a mouse that is half flesh and half earth, touching the flesh imparts impurity - and according to Rabbi Yehuda, touching earth directly opposite the flesh also imparts impurity. Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara brings a braita deriving that a sheretz egg requires embryo formation (rikem) and a perforation as thin as a hairbreadth (k'chut ha-se'arah) to transmit impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi clarifies that the half-earth mouse transmits impurity only if it developed flesh across its whole body. The braita discusses whether a sea-mouse is subject to the same laws of impurity as a land-mouse.

The Mishna distinguishes between the marrow-bones (kulit) of a corpse or consecrated sacrifices of pigul and notar (kodashim) and those of a carcass (neveila) or a creeping creature (sheretz). Touching a corpse or sacrificial marrow-bone imparts impurity whether sealed or perforated, whereas a neveila or sheretz marrow-bone imparts impurity through touch (maga) and carrying (masa) only if perforated. The Gemara notes that the Mishna specifies that a corpse's marrow-bone imparts impurity through touch (maga), but omits tent-impurity (ohel), and analyzes why: Rav Yehuda son of Rabbi Chiyya concludes that there is less than an olive-bulk (kezayit) of marrow, and that interior marrow does not halakhically heal or complete the bone's exterior (mo'ach bifnim eino ma'aleh arucha mibachutz). Abaye maintains that interior marrow does heal the exterior, but interprets the Mishna as speaking of a bone scraped thin (sheshifah) along its circumference. Rabbi Yochanan holds that the Mishna's term "touch" (maga) actually includes tent-impurity (ohel). To resolve a difficulty, the Gemara explains that the marrow inside is loose and rattling (mitkashkesh); for a corpse, compressed impurity breaks through (boka'at v'olah), whereas for neveila, loose marrow requires a physical perforation to transmit impurity. Two proofs are brought from Mishnayot in Ohalot in an attempt to demonstrate that the term maga can denote ohel, but difficulties are raised against both suggestions.

Rabbi Avahu cited in the name of Reish Lakish three situations where the measurement of walking four milin applies in halakha: traveling to find pure vessels for making dough, a minyan (or water for washing hands before prayer), and water for washing before eating bread. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak corrects this statement on two counts: first, it was stated by Aivu, not Rabbi Avahu; second, it applied to four matters, not three, adding the case from the Mishna of walking on a leather mat for the time it takes to walk four milin, which removes its impurity. Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Chanina limits the requirement of walking four milin to the direction one is already traveling, noting that one is not required to travel even a single mil backward. Regarding the impurity of human skin, a braita rules that a Roman legion entering a house renders the house ritually impure due to the presumption that soldiers carry skin from human skulls (karkaflein) for sorcery. A Mishna outlines the rules of connection (chibbur) regarding ritual impurity when flaying an animal's hide, as the detached part functions as a handle (yad): If flayed for a mat - where one cuts along the length first and removes it from the sides - the hide remains connected to the flesh until one removes more than a grip's width (kedei achizah), which the Gemara defines as a doubled handbreadth. If flayed top to bottom for a flask, it remains connected until the chest is flayed. If flayed upside down from the legs (margil), the entire hide remains connected until fully removed, since the chest is reached only at the end. Regarding the neck hide, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds it is not connected, whereas the Sages hold it remains connected until completely flayed. The Gemara asks what the status of the hide is once flayed beyond the grip's width for a carpet. Rav answers that the detached hide becomes pure, while the attached hide remains impure as a protector (shomer) of the meat. Rabbi Asi holds that the handbreadth adjacent to the meat that is detached remains impure. Three difficulties raised against Rabbi Asi's position are resolved. A Mishna in Kelim (28:8) states that once the majority of an impure garment is torn, it becomes pure. Rabba bar Avuha limits this to a garment immersed that day (tevilat yom), as the owner's willingness to immerse it indicates he is unconcerned with ruining it and thus tore a full majority. Otherwise, one must be concerned that only half was torn, as the owner sought purity without destroying the garment and may not have been precise. Three difficulties raised against Rabbah bar Avuha's qualification - including one from our Mishna relying on precise measurements - are resolved in different manners. Regarding the Mishna in Kelim, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether cut hide rebinds itself (chalim). Reish Lakish holds that hide rebinds itself, limiting the Mishna to cloth rather than leather, as torn leather rebinds and retains its impurity. Three difficulties raised against Reish Lakish, including two from our Mishna, are resolved. Abaye explains that the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Sages regarding neck hide centers on whether a protective covering destined to detach on its own (shomer he'asui linatek) retains the halakhic status of a protector (shomer).

Study Guide