ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 58
CHULIN 57-58 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) Based on Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's ruling (that a Tereifah can give
birth), Ameimar rules that ...
1. ... the batch of eggs that a bird is carrying when it becomes Tereifah is
forbidden - due to the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' (a fetus is considered
part of its mother), so the eggs become Tereifah together with the mother.
(b) Rav Ashi queried Ameimar from a Beraisa 've'Shavin be'Beitzas Tereifah
she'Asurah, Mipnei she'Gadlah be'Isur', to which he replied - that the Tana
is speaking about a Sapana me'Ar'a (an egg that was formed without a male
[through rubbing itself against the ground]).
2. ... subsequent batches are Kasher - due to the principle 'Zeh ve'Zeh
Gorem, Mutar' (somethingthat is created by both Isur [the mother] and Heter
[the father] is permitted).
(c) He did not answer the previous question by establishing the Mishnah with
regard to the first batch, because then the Tana ought to have said (not
'Mipnei she'Gadlah be'Isur' [because it grew up be'Isur], but) 'Mipnei
she'Gamrah be'Isur' (because it was completed be'Isur').
(d) The word 've'Shavin' refers to a Beraisa - where Rebbi Eliezer holds
that the baby born of a Tereifah animal cannot be brought as a Korban, and
Rebbi Yehoshua, holds that he can.
(a) The basis of their Machlokes (which speaks in a case where a Tereifah
animal became pregnant) is - whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar' (Rebbi
Yehoshua) or ' ... Asur' (Rebbi Eliezer) ...
(b) ... and they present it with regard to Kodshim (whether the baby is
eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach) and not with regard to Chulin (whether it
is Kasher) - to teach us the extend of Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion (that he
even permits the animal to be brought on the Mizbe'ach).
(c) The Tana declines to rather present it with regard to Chulin to teach
the extent of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion - because of the principle 'Ko'ach
de'Hetera Adif', which means that teaching Heter is a bigger Chidush (since
a Rav who is in doubt will automatically rule le'Chumra, whereas he will
only rule le'Kula if he is sure of his ruling).
(d) In a case ...
1. ... where a pregnant animal became Tereifah - Rebbi Yehoshua will concede
that the baby is Tereifah too (on account of the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo
2. ... of an egg that is a Sapana me'Ar'a - he will also hold Tereifah,
since there is only one Gorem the mother, who is a Tereifah).
(a) Rav Acha cites Ameimar ('Hani Bei'i di'Tereifah') like we did, because
he holds like Rav Acha bar Ya'akov (who holds that a Tereifah can give
birth). Ravina rejects our version of Ameimar - because he disagrees with
Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, and if the animal cannot give birth, then much of
Ameimar's statement is not applicable.
(b) According to Ravina's version, Ameimar is talking about the eggs of a
Safek Tereifah, and what he now says is - that the initial batch is put
aside to see if the chicken lays more eggs. If it does, then we know that it
is not a Tereifah, and the first batch of eggs (as well as the subsequent
batches) is permitted.
(c) And Ameimar ...
1. ... establishes the Beraisa 've'Shavin be'Beitzas Tereifah she'Asurah ...
' - by the first batch.
2. ... amends the concluding words of the Beraisa 'Mipnei she'Gadlah
be'Isur' - to 'Mipnei she'Gamrah be'Isur'
(a) According to Ravina, seeing that a Tereifah is anable to give birth,
Ameimar will establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi
Yehoshua - by a pregnant animal that became Tereifah. Rebbi Eliezer holds
'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu', Rebbi Yehoshua, 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo'. Consequently
(b) ... the Seifa 'u'Modim be'Beitzas Tereifah she'Asurah' must be speaking
in a case where the eggs are still attached to the chicken's body - in which
even Rebbi Yehoshua will agree that they are part of the mother.
(c) With regard to ascertaining whether a Safek Tereifah is Tereifah or not,
we rule - that a male animal is not a Tereifah if it survives twelve months
(like Rav Huna), and a female, if it gives birth (like Ravina).
(a) Rav Huna rules that any creature that has no bones - will disintegrate
within twelve months.
(b) Rav Papa connects Rav Huna's ruling with a statement of Shmuel, who
forbids Kishos (cucumbers) that become wormy whilst they are still growing.
If they became wormy after they were detached - they would be permitted as
long as they had not emerged and crawled on the ground (as we shall see
later in the Perek).
(c) Nevertheless, they are forbidden in the earlier case - because, since
the cucumbers are attached to the ground, it is as if the worms are crawling
on the ground).
(d) Based on Shmuel's statement, Rav Papa now appies Rav Huna's ruling - to
dates that have been preserved in a jar, and which are discovered to be
wormy, though one is uncertain whether that occurred before they were picked
or afterwards. According to Rav Huna, the dates will be permitted as from
twelve months after they were picked (Mah Nafshach).
(a) Rav maintains that a gnat (or mosquito) disintegrates within one day - a
fly, within one year.
(b) Based on a popular saying, the she-gnat rebeled against the he-gnat for
seven years - because when a man from Mechuza left the water after a swim,
and wrapped himself in a towel to dry, the he-gnat settled on his body and
sucked his blood without informing the she-gnat.
(c) They presented this Mashalparicularly with reference to a man from
Mechuza - because the people of Mechuza were very spoiled and fat (and
therefore preferred by gnats).
(a) This Mashal poses a Kashya on Rav - inasmuch as it talks about seven
years, when according to Rav, its entire life-span is only one.
(b) We counter with another Mashal, which attributes sixty Manah of iron to
the gnat's hammer - meaning that one should avoid its bite, which is
(c) Taking into account the minute size of the gnat, we prove from this
Mashal - that the people were speaking in terms of a gnat size Manah ...
(d) ... in which case, in the first Mashal too, they were speaking in gnat
(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros rules - that a five or three-legged animal is
(b) The reason regarding the five-legged animal is - because an extra limb
is considered as if it was missing one (and an animal with a missing leg is
certainly a Ba'al-Mum).
(c) By the same token, Rav Huna confines this ruling to the animal's
foreleg - because an animal with a missing hind leg is not just a Ba'al Mum,
but a Tereifah.
(a) When an animal was brought before Ravina that had two Sanya Divis
(caecums), he ruled (based on Rav Huna's ruling) - that it was Tereifah.
(b) It would be Kasher however - if they were not completely joined, so that
they poured into each other.
(c) The objection ...
1. ... Rav Huna Mar bar Chiya raised when Rav Ashi wanted to declare
Tereifah an animal in which a strip of flesh ran from the Beis ha'Kosos to
the Meses was - that all the animals in that area were like that.
(d) He then declared an animal in which a strip of flesh ran from the Beis
ha'Kosos to the Keres, Tereifah - because of the principle 'Kol Yeser
ke'Natul Dami' (because in effect, it is an extra intestine).
2. ... Rav Oshaya raised when Mar bar Rav Ashi (based on the previous
episode) wanted to declare Kasher an animal in which a strip of flesh ran
from the Beis ha'Kosos to the Keres was - that one cannot compare all cases
in this way. They may have made that statement with regard to the former,
but that does mean that the latter case is automatically Kasher, too.
(a) We reconcile the previous ruling with our refutation earlier of Rava,
who declared an animal with an extra Una on the lung Tereifah - by recalling
that this only applies if the Una is in line with the other Unos (which is a
fairly common occurance), but otherwise not.
(b) Rav Nasan bar Shilo (the chief Shochet in Tzopori) sent Rebbi a ruling
that if two intestines were found inside ...
1. ... an animal - the animal is Tereifah.
(c) The former will be Kasher, too - if a. they both emerge from the same
point in the stomach, and b. they reconnect within the space of an Etzba.
2. ... a bird - the bird is Kasher, because it is a common occurrence (and
if we consider the pipe-like string of flesh that runs from the crop to the
Kurkevan an intestine, then *all* birds have two intestines).
(d) In fact, Rav Ami and Rav Asi argue over this. According to one of them,
the animal is Kasher even if the two intestines do not reconnect within the
space of an Etzba - and when Rav Shilo said 'ad ke'Etzba', he meant - that
they must reconnetct within a ke'Etzba of the hole where the intestines
comes to an end.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan suggests that Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (who declares
a bird whose body fluff has been removed, Tereifah) and Rebbi Yishmael are
one and the same. Rebbi Yishmael, in the Mishnah in Taharos (in connection
with Pigul [see also Tosfos DH 'ha'Notzah']) rules - that if the Kohen
performs the Avodah on a Chatas ha'Of, having in mind to eat a k'Zayis of
meat including body fluff, he renders the Chatas, Pigul.
(b) Rava however, refutes Rebbi Yochanan's connection. He maintains that...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah might confine his opinion to Tereifus - because, in his
opinion, the body fluff protects the bird, but disagrees with Rebbi
Yishmael, because he does not consider it edible.
2. ... Rebbi Yishmael confines his opinion to Pigul - because he considers
the body fluff edible, but disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, because he does not
believe that it protects.
(a) Our Mishnah now discusses illneses that affect the entire body of the
animal. The Tana declares an animal that ...
In spite of having already listed animal poison, the Beraisa adds
'Hardufni' - because it is somehow different than regular animal poisons
('T'rei Gavni Sam ha'Maves').
1. ... became ill due to a sudden influx of blood, inhaled smoke or became
ill from cold - Kasher.
(b) Shmuel declares an animal that one fed Chiltis (a spice with a sharp
point), Tereifah - because it tears a hole in the intestines.
2. ... ate animal poison or chicken excrement, or that drank foul water -
3. ... ate human poison or was bitten by a snake - permitted from the point
of view of Tereifus, but forbidden because it is dangerous to eat it.
(c) Rav Shizbi queries Shmuel from a Beraisa, which cites the cases in our
Mishnah plus a few others, such as an animal that one fed 'Tura', a bitter
herb called acronite and Chiltis, which he declares Kasher. The Tana rules
that an animal that ...
1. ... ate poison - is Kasher.
(d) We reconcile the Beraisa (which declares an animal that ate ...
2. ... was bitten by a mad dog - is permitted from the point of view of
Tereifus, but forbidden because it is dangerous to eat.
1. ... Chiltis, Kasher) with Shmuel - by establishing the former when he ate
the leaves, and the latter, when he ate the actual grains.
2. ... human poison, Kasher, with our Mishnah - by establishing the former
by animal poison, which is not dangerous, and the latter, by human poison,