ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 34
CHULIN 34 (4 Adar) - Today's Daf has been dedicated l'Zecher Nishmat
Pinchas ben Harav Moshe Yehoshua Ha'Kohain, Z"L.
(a) Ula disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. He establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi
Yehoshua, and when Rebbi Yehoshua stated (in the Mishnah in Taharos)
'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Terumah', he meant - 'Af be'Chulin
she'Na'asu al Taharos Terumah', but certainly 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al
(b) And the reason that he said ' ... al Taharas Terumah' is - to teach us
that even Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah can be a Shelishi le'Tum'ah.
(c) Ula ascribes Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of our Mishnah, to Rabah bar
bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's description of the Machlokes between Rebbi
Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. First of all, Rebbi Eliezer bases his opinion
(that the eater should not be less Tamei than the food that he eats) on the
case - of someone who eats a Nivlas Of Tahor, where the eater becomes a
higher level of Tum'ah than the food that he ate (i.e. the food is not
Metamei anything by touching), whereas the eater is even Metamei the clothes
that he is wearing.
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua counters that we cannot use Nivlas Of Tahor as an
example - because Nivlas Of Tahor is unique, in that it is Metamei more when
it is hidden (in the throat of the eater) than when it is revealed, in
complete contrast to all other Tum'as, where the reverse is true. Clearly,
it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (from which we can learn nothing).
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua then bases his opinion on the fact that the Shi'ur of the
food - a k'Beitzah, is more stringent than that of the eater - a P'ras (two
(b) Rebbi Eliezer counters - that one cannot learn the basic Tum'ah from the
Shi'urin, which has independent sources.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer also queries Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling rendering someone who
eat a Sheini, a Sheini (contradicting his initial ruling). Rebbi Yehoshua
answers - that s Sheini is different, because we find a Sheini that makes a
Sheini - in a case where food that is a Sheini touches another food that is
(d) He rejects Rebbi Eliezer's reply (that, if that is so, he ought to make
the eater a Rishon, just like the liquid became a Rishon) - on the grounds
that we cannot learn from the liquid itself, since liquids have an
independent Tzad Chumra in that they receive Tum'ah even without being
Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer queried Rebbi Yehoshua further from his ruling regarding
someone who ate a Shelishi - which he declares a Sheini, and not a Revi'i
(or even a Shelishi).
(b) To which Rebbi Yehoshua replied - that this is why he confined this
ruling to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah, whose Taharah is considered
Tum'ah by those who eat Hekdesh, and by whom he is therefore considered a
Sheini in this case, rather than a Shelishi.
(c) This proves that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua's dispute refers
exclusively to Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah - because if the latter
held that Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh is effective too (but a
Shelishi, as Ula maintains), then why did Rebbi Eliezer query him, seeing as
the answer that he gave him is clearly implied in his statement in the
(a) Ula disagrees with Rabah bar bar Chanah's version of the Machlokes -
because it has no basis in a Mishnah or Beraisa.
(b) We learned earlier that Ula explains Rebbi Yehoshua's statement
'be'Chulin she'Na'asu ... ' to mean 'Af be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas
Terumah'. The latter will also ascribe to something that touched Chulin
she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh which is a Shelishi - the degree of Sheini
le'Tum'ah (because he considers Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharos Hekdesh Chulin
(c) Alternatively, Ula might maintain that Rebbi Yehoshua specifically
mentions 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah' - to preclude Chulin
she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh (which is a Shelishi) from the Din of
Shelishi, Sheini le'Kodesh (because he holds that the Shemirah of Chulin
she'Na'aseh al Taharas Hekdesh is effective regarding Hekdesh, too).
(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yanai rules
that someone who eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Hekdesh
becomes a Shelishi. Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from the Mishnah in Taharos
that we cited earlier 'Shelishi Sheini le'Kodesh ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah'.
And the Mishnah ends - 'be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah', from which
we extrapolated ' ... al Taharas Terumah In, al Taharas ha'Kodesh, Lo' (like
Rabah bar bar Chanah), a Kashya on Rebbi Asi ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan.
(b) Rebbi Asi answers 'Lo Miba'i ka'Amar' (like Ula answered on the previous
Amud), which Rebbi Zeira then queries from the Lashon of Rebbi Yehoshua
himself 'Af Ani Lo Amarti Ela bi'Terumah', a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan. We
know that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with that version of Rebbi Yehoshua's
statement - because Rabah bar bar Chanah was actually citing Rebbi
Yochanan, leaving us with a discrepancy in Rebbi Yochanan ...
(c) ... which we resolve by turning it into a Machlokes Amora'im (Rabah bar
bar Chanah and Rebbi Asi) in Rebbi Yochanan.
(a) Ula rules that if someone eats a Shelishi of Chulin she'Na'asu al
Taharas Terumah - his body becomes Pasul and he is forbidden to eat Terumah.
(b) We query this from the Mishnah in Taharos 'Shelishi, Sheini le'Kodesh,
ve'Ein Sheini li'Terumah, be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah - from
which we infer 'Ein Sheini li'Terumah, ha Yesh Shelishi li'Terumah', in
which case Ula is merely mimicking the Mishnah?
(c) To answer the Kashya, we suggest - that perhaps according to the
Mishnah, Terumah is neither a Sheini nor a Shelishi ...
(d) ... and the Tana only says 'Ein Sheini bi'Terumah', to balance 'Sheini
ba'Kodesh' in the Reisha.
(a) According to Ula's current statement, Rebbi Yehoshua holds that we do
not give the eater the same degree of Tum'ah as the food - whenever it
concerns Tum'as Maga (such as declaring someone who eats a Rishon, a Rishon,
which means that he will render any food that he touches, a Sheini). It does
not however apply to a Shelishi, who will become Pasul, but who will remain
permitted to touch Terumah.
(b) Rav Hamnuna queries Ula from a Mishnah in Taharos, where the Tana rules
'ha'Rishon she'be'Chulin Tamei u'Metamei - ve'ha'Sheini, Posel ve'Eino
(a) The Tana concludes 've'ha'Shelishi Ne'echal bi'Nezid ha'Dema - which is
a dish containing spices or oil of Terumah.
(b) The problem Rav Hamnuna now has from there is - that according to Ula,
how can the Tana permit a Kohen to eat such a dish that will render his body
Pasul, whilst at the same time, it contains Terumah?
(c) To which Ula answered that Nezid ha'Dema is different - because it does
not contain a 'k'Zayis of Terumah bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras' (a k'Zayis of
Terumah for each batch of two k'Beitzim that he eats).
(d) Consequently, bearing in mind that the Chiyuv for eating Terumah
be'Tum'as ha'Guf only pertains to a k'Zayis, and no Shi'ur Achilah combines
if it takes longer than k'Dei Achilas P'ras (the time it takes to eat two
k'Beitzim) to eat it, the problem is eliminated.
(a) According to what we just said, the Tana does not permit eating a Rishon
and Sheini as well, bi'Nezid ha'Dema - a. because a Sheini renders Chulin
(she'Na'asu al Taharas Terumah) Pasul, too, and b. because it invalidates
the Terumah that it contains.
(b) The problem with Ula's answer (which explains why it is permitted to eat
the Terumah), based on ...
1. ... the Pasuk "Al Titam'u be'Chol Eileh, Ve'nitmeisem Bam" is - how the
Kohen is permitted to eat a Shelishi (of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas
Terumah), which renders his body Pasul to eat Terumah (irrespective of
whether the dish contains a k'Zayis Terumah or not)?
(c) We therefore revise our interpretation of the Mishnah - in that 'Nezid
ha'Dema' now refers to Chulin which one declared Chulin she'Na'asu al
Taharas ha'Kodesh only because of the Terumah spices that it contained.
2. ... the Lashon of Rav Hamnuna's Kashya 'Safinan Leih Midi de'Pasil Leih
le'Gufo' is - that this Lashon even implies that Rav Hamnuna meant to ask
this very same Kashya (and not the way we explained it).
(d) Consequently, Ula's answer 'Hanach li'Nezid ha'Dema ... ', teaches us -
that seeing as the Terumah is not subject to Terumah, Chulin she'Na'asu al
Taharas ha'Kodesh does not take affect on the rest of the dish, in which
case it is not really a Shelishi at all, and the Kohen does not become Pasul
when he eats it.