ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafNidah 50
(a) Someone who is blind in both eyes is not eligible to testify, since the
Torah writes, regarding testimony "O Ra'ah".
We do not, on the other hand, learn Nega'im from Ribim, to require *three*
Kohanim, because of the Pasuk "ve'Huva el Aharon ha'Kohen, O el Achad
mi'Banav ha'Kohanim", which clearly permits even *one* Kohen to inspect
(b) Someone who is blind in one
eye is Kasher to testify, but not to judge.
(c) "The Torah writes "ve'Al
Pihem Yihye Kol Riv ve'Chol Nega", comparing Ribim (the judging of
money-matters) to that of Nega'im (Tzara'as) - to teach us that just like
Nega'im can only be seen in day-time (from "u've'Yom Heira'os Bo"), and by a
Kohen who is not blind in one eye (from "le'Chol Mar'eh Einei ha'Kohen"), so
too, can money-matters only be judged by day, and by someone who can see
with both eyes.
(d) And we learn that Nega'im cannot be seen by relatives,
from Ribim, where the Torah writes "Lo Yumsu Avos Al (Eidus) Banim".
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ignored *our* S'tam Mishnah, because he found another
S'tam Mishnah in Sanhedrin, which does not learn Ribim from Ne'ga'im, and
which therefore permits a person who is blind in one eye to judge.
preferred the S'tam Mishnah in Sanhedrin, because it is the majority
opinion, as opposed to our Mishnah, which goes according to Rebbi Meir, as
we explained earlier; and also, because these Dinim belong in Sanhedrin, and
not in Nidah.
(a) Meat, fish and eggs are not subject to Ma'asros, since they do not grow
from the ground. They *are* however, subject to Tum'as Ochlin.
(b) Figs are
not subject to Pei'ah, because a batch of figs does not have one harvest
season (since the figs tends to ripen over a long period of time);
vegetables are not subject to Pei'ah, because one does not put them into
storage, due to the fact that they do not last).
(a) 'Ochel' comes to exclude dyes from the Din of Pei'ah.
'Nishmar' excludes Hefker.
'Gidulo min ha'Aretz' excludes fungi, such as mushrooms.
(b) These three are not subject to Ma'asros either.
(c) Onions and garlic are not like other vegetables; they *are* subject to
Pei'ah because, unlike other vegetables, they are placed in storage.
(d) According to Rebbi Yossi, one is required to leave Pei'ah for each
individual row of onions. This is because the rows of vegetables in between
those of onions interrupt, rendering each row of onions a field in its own
(a) Although a Tahor bird stands to be eaten, already in its lifetime, it
requires specific intention (Machshavah) to do so after it has died, in
order to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. So we see that a Machshavah to use it as
food, is not valid unless it takes place at a time when it is fit to become
Tamei (and that previous Machshavos are invalid); similarly, crops that are
attached to the ground will not be Mekabel Tum'ah, unless one has the
Machshavah to use them as food *after* they have become detached, and not
(b) Rebbi Zeira suggested that *that* Beraisa could be speaking in
a case when the bird fell from the sky, and that one needs the Machshavah
*now* to use it as food, not because the Machshavah *before* it is dead is
not valid, but because the bird was not available earlier, for him to have
intended to eat it *then* (if it would have been, then his Machshavah then
would have been valid - not like Rebbi Yochanan). Abaye asked on this from
the case of 'Tarnegoles she'be'Yavneh', quoted later, where there were Kutim
who intended to eat the bird, and yet, it required a new Machshavah to eat
it *after* it had died?
(c) Everyone thought that Rebbi Zeira was referring
to the species of bird called 'Tarnegol ha'Bar', which is a non-Kasher
species of bird to which Tum'ah be'Veis ha'Beli'ah does not apply (and 'the
Tarnegoles she'be'Yavneh is quoted later in connection with Tum'ah be'Veis
(d) Abaye stopped everyone from laughing, on the grounds that,
when a great man (of the caliber of Rebbi Zeira) says something, one does
not laugh (but rather tries to understand what he meant). And what Rebbi
Zeira must have meant, he explains, by 'Tarnegol Bera', was not the
non-Kasher species of Tarnegol ha'Bar, but a wild bird - a chicken that
rebelled and ran away from its owner, and hatched young chickens out in the
wild, to whom the owner's Machshavah to use as food never extended. And
these do indeed need a new Machshavah now, but not because a bird needs
Machshavah after its death, as Rebbi Yochanan learnt.
(a) Rav Papa explains that Rebbi Zeira is referring to a species of wild
bird known as Tarnegulta de'Agma, which is Kasher (despite the fact that the
similar sounding Tarnegol de'Agma is *not*).
(b) We just learnt that,
although the (male-sounding) Tarnegol de'Agma is not Kasher, the
(female-sounding) Tarnegulta de'Agma *is*. This is reminiscent of the
traditional 'Amoni (who is Pasul, but) ve'Lo Amonis' - and the Gemara
actually gives this as a Si'man for the distinction made in our Gemara.
A Geirusa is a Tarnegulta de'Agma. They declared it to be a non-Kasher bird
because they saw it being 'Doreis' its prey: i.e. either receiving its food
with its foot, or holding down with its foot, the food that it wants to eat,
to prevent all of it from entering his mouth at the same time.
(a) If a Kasher fledgling falls into a wine-press, it is Tamei (Tum'as
Ochlin) automatically, and requires no form of Hechsher whatsoever. The
reason for this is because eventually, it stands to be Metamei a person
(be'Veis ha'Beli'ah) with a Tum'ah Chamurah (to be Metamei the clothes that
he is wearing) without a Hechsher, therefore it is also Metamei a Tum'ah
Kalah without a Hechsher.
(b) People do not normally eat the Neveilah of
Kasher birds and Cheilev; therefore, they are not normally considered food.
Consequently, in a village, where there is sufficient food for all the
inhabitants, it is not considered a food without specific Machshavah. But in
a large city, where there are many inhabitants, and not sufficient food
perhaps, to go round, they are considered food, and do not require
(c) The Neveilah of a non-Kasher animal is not considered food,
even when there *is* Machshavah, because people do not usually eat that kind
of meat. Actually, a Kezayis of Neveilah is Metamei anyway. Nevertheless,
this Din teaches us that a piece of such a Neveilah consisting of less than
a Kezayis, combines with less than a Kebeitzah of food - to make up the
(d) The case of a fledgling speaks in even in a city (where
normally, Machshavah would not be required, as we explained); nevertheless
in the case of a fledgling that fell into a wine-press it *does*. Why"
Because the wine-press spoilt the taste of the meat, making it disgusting to
eat. Consequently, without Machshavah, it would not have been Metamei.