ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 69
CHULIN 69 - sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of Baltimore, Maryland,
USA. May Hashem bless them with long years filled with Torah, Chidushei
Torah, and Nachas!
(a) Rav Chananya asks what the Din will be if the fetus of a Shelamim animal
sticks out its foot in the Azarah - whether we apply the 'Migu' that since
the walls of the Azarah are effective to permit the Shechitah of the animal,
they will also serve to permit the foot via the Shechitah of the mother.
(b) Abaye counters the She'eilah, by citing Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim.
He cannot be referring to a Shelamim which stuck out its foot in
Yerushalayim, and they Shechted the mother on the spot - because then the
mother would be forbidden too, because of Shechutei Chutz.
(c) So he must be referring to a case - where, according to those who hold
'Yesh Leidah le'Eivarim, the fetus withdrew its foot and was then returned
to the Azarah and Shechted, and the She'eilah is whether the walls of
Yerushalayim will permit consider the foot as if it had not left its
boundary, and permit it with the subsequent Shechitah.
(d) And the point that Abaye is making is that - seeing as for some reason,
it is obvious (even to Rav Chananya), that the walls of Yerushalayim will
not permit the foot when the mother is ultimately Shechted, the walls of the
Azarah will not do so either.
(a) Ilfa asks what the Din will be if the fetus sticks out its foot between
the Shechitah of the first and second Siman - whether the Shechitah of the
second Siman will combine with that of the first to remove Tum'as Neveilah
from the foot, even though it cannot combine with it to permit its
(b) Rava answers with a 'Kal va'Chomer'- because if the first Siman
generally combines with the second to permit the entire animal to be eaten,
it will certainly combine with it to remove Tum'as Neveilos from only one
(c) And when Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the animal with the forbidden foot
will affect its babies, he means to ask - if the ben Peku'ah subsequently
mates with another animal who gives birth to babies, those babies will be
forbidden or not.
(d) We query Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a statement by Rav Mesharshaya,
who says that - according to those who contend with the seed of the father
(even though primarily, we go after the animal's mother), a baby born to a
regular animal whose father is a ben Peku'ah - cannot be rectified (since
from the mother's side, it requires Shechitah, whereas from the father's
side, it does not (leaving the animal either as if its Simanim are half
Shechted, or as if it only has one Siman).
(e) In that case - Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah cannot be speaking in such a
case, which is sufficiently problematic without Rebbi Yirmiyah.
(a) So we try to establish the She'eilah by the case of a baby that is born
to a bas Peku'ah whose father is our ben Peku'ah with the forbidden foot as
to - whether the defect in the foot extends exclusively to the baby's foot
(permitting the rest of the animal), or whether it spreads to the entire
body (rendering the animal Asur).
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah himself proves that this cannot have been the She'eilah
that he was asking - because according to the first side of the She'eilah, a
blind animal ought to give birth to a blind one, and a lame animal, to a
lame one (which simply doesn't happen).
(c) We finally establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard to Cheilev
and Dam, meaning that - when all's said and done, all animals are formed
from the Cheilev and Dam of the father.
(d) We suggest that the baby might ...
1. ... therefore be permitted - because if it is anyway formed from two
Isurim, what difference will it make if we add another one?
2. ... forbidden - because the Torah may have permitted specifically two
Isurim, and not three.
(a) We query this however 'mi'Mah Nafshach'. When we say that, according to
1. ... Rebbi Meir, there is an Isur of Cheilev and Dam, but not of Yotzei -
we are referring to the Mishnah later, where he does not hold of the Heter
of be Peku'ah in the first place.
(b) We therefore refute the current theory - and conclude that there is no
such thing as an Isur 'mi'Ko'ach ha'Av' (in the way that we just explained).
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, there is an Isur of Yotzei, but not of Cheilev - we
are referring to a Beraisa, where he permits the Isur of Cheilev on a Shelil
(a fetus), even though he concedes that the blood is forbidden (see Hagahos
me'ha'Rav Renshberg). Either way, there are two Isurim and not three.
(c) And we establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard (not the babies
themselves, but) to their milk - whether (bearing in mind that milk ought
to be forbidden because of Eiver min ha'Chai), the milk of the ben Peku'ah's
daughter is not worse than the milk of any other Kasher animal, since unlike
them, it has no Heter Shechitah (which normally permits the milk together
with the animal), as we explained earlier.
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is -Teiku.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chol *Beheimah* Mafreses Parsah ...
*bi'Veheimah* Osah Tocheilu" - that a fetus inside the mother's womb (one
animal inside another one) becomes permitted with its mother's Shechitah
(and we will add the source for the ruling that even permits a piece of it
(b) The Mishnah in Temurah rules - that if one declares a Temurah, any
combination of Eiver, Ubar and Sheleimin one against the other - it is not
(c) But according to our previous statement - which considers an Ubar inside
its mother a Beheimah, it should be.
(d) So we learn it from the beginning of the Pasuk there "*ve'Chol* Beheimah
Mefreses Parsah" - which implies that whatever one finds inside a Shechted
animal is permitted (including an Ubar).
(a) From the end of the Pasuk "*Osah* Tocheilu" we learn - that the D'rashah
from "ve'Chol Beheimah" does not incorporate a piece of the mother itself
(leaving the mother deficient.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules that a fetus 'Demus Yonah' (in the shape of a
dove) that is found inside a Shechted animal - is forbidden ...
(c) ... even though it is not part of the mother itself - because, in order
to be permitted, it must have "Perasos" (hoofs), as the Torah specifies.
(d) The problem with a Kalut (whose hoofs are only half split, but are not
called 'Perasos') is - that it ought to be forbidden like a D'mus Yonah,
yet, as we learned above, it is permitted.
(a) We answer by establishing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael like Rebbi Shimon -
who learns from "Perasos" and "Parsah" - that any fetus is permitted inside
the mother, irrespective of whether its hoofs are completely split
("Perasos") or half-split ("Parsah"), including a Kalut, but not a D'mus
(b) Rav Shimi bar Ashi reinstates our original answer (considering an Ubar a
Beheimah), and the reason that it is not subject to Temurah is because the
author of the Mishnah in Temurah is Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon learns that
Temurah does not apply to limbs - from a Hekesh to Ma'aser Beheimah (as we
shall now see).
(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Ma'aser Beheimah) ...
1. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" - that Ma'aser Beheimah only
applies to a complete animal that is able to walk (precluding both Ubrin and
2. ... "Kol Ma'aser Bakar va'Tzon ... Lo Yevaker Bein Tov la'Ra" (seeing as
Ma'aser is already included in the prohibition of Temurah together with all
the other Korbanos) - that we compare other Korbanos to Ma'aser in many
regards, including that Ubrin and Eivarim are not subject to Temurah.
(a) Rebbi Yossi rules in the Mishnah in Temurah that if someone declares the
foot of an animal an Olah - then the Kedushas Olah spreads to the entire
(b) He then extrapolate from there - that if someone declares the leg of an
animal a Temurah instead of a Hekdesh animal, then likewise the Kedushah
ought to spread to the entire animal.
(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Kol Asher Yiten *Mimenu* la'Hashem ... " - that if someone declares
Hekdesh one limb of an animal, then that limb becomes Hekdesh, but not the
(d) The owner must - sell the animal as an Olah, and the money that he
receives for it, with the exception of what corresponds to the limb that is
Hekdesh, is Chulin (the Sugya in Temurah explains how this works).
2. ... "*Yih'yeh* Kodesh" - that the limb concerned remains Kadosh and
cannot simply be redeemed.
(a) The current opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi
Yehudah. Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon hold - that the Hekdesh spreads to the
entire animal, which becomes an Olah, because they Darshen "Yih'yeh" to mean
that the entire animal becomes forbidden, not just the one limb.
(b) The Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah in Temurah cannot be Rebbi
Meir and Rebbi Yehudah - since he is talking to someone who holds, like he
does, that the entire animal becomes Hekdesh, whereas Rebbi Meir and Rebbi
Yehudah do not hold like that, as we just saw.
(a) The Tana Kama must therefore be - Rebbi Shimon, who agrees with him that
the Hekdesh spreads to the entire animal (as we see in the Beraisa).
(b) Rebbi Yossi is saying to Rebbi Shimon - that just as he agrees with him
that the Kedushah of the one limb spreads to the entire animal, he ought
also to agree that the same applies to the limb of the Temurah.
(c) To which Rebbi Shimon will reply - that he learns Temurah from Ma'aser,
as we just explained; a proof that he is the author of the Mishnah in
Temurah 'Ein Mamirin' (like Rav Shimi bar Ashi explained).
(d) We refute this proof however - by establishing Rebbi Yossi himself as
the Tana Kama. He is saying his own original thoughts, and is not
necessarily talking to anybody who disagrees.
(a) A Bechor is considered born, regarding Kedushas Bechor - when the
majority of the fetus has emerged from the womb (provided the head did not
(b) Our Mishnah rules that an animal that is having difficulty in giving
birth to a firstborn ...
- ... may be cut it up as it emerges and thrown to the dogs.
- ... must be buried, once most of the fetus has emerged intact.
(a) If one sold the first third of the Bechor that emerged to a Nochri and
then the second third emerged, Rav Huna declares the animal Kadosh - because
he holds that once the majority of the fetus has emerged, the Bechor is
Kadosh retroactively, thereby negating the sale.
(b) Rabah argues with him - validating the sale and declaring the Bechor
Chulin, because in his opinion, a Bechor becomes Kadosh only once the
majority has emerged, and not retroactively, and by the time that occurred,
the animal had already been sold to a Nochri ...
(c) ... thereby exempting the owner from giving it to a Kohen.
(a) And they follow their own reasoning in a second Machlokes. In a case
where one third of a Bechor emerged via a cut and two thirds via the womb,
Rav Huna rules - that the Bechor is not Kadosh ...
(b) ... Rabah rules - that it is.
(c) Rav Huna holds that it is - because he reckons the Bechorah
retroactively, which means that the majority of the birth at the point when
the majority of the fetus has left the womb, must have taken place via the
womb, which in this case it had not; whereas according to Rabah - we do not
reckon retroactively, and as long as the majority of the birth takes place
via the womb, as it did in this case, it is considered a Bechor.
(d) They need to repeat the same Machlokes twice, because if they had not
1. ... the second Machlokes, we would have thought that Rav Huna only
reckons retroactively in the first case, because it constitutes going
le'Chumra, but the second case, where it entails going le'Kula, he will
concede to Rabah and not reckon retroactively.
2. ... the first Machlokes, we would have thought that Rabah reckons
retroactively in the second case because it constitutes going le'Chumra, but
in the first case, where it entails going le'Kula, he will concede to Rav
Huna that we reckon retroactively.