ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 115
(a) Food that a Yisrael cooks be'Meizid on Shabbos - is forbidden to him (in
the form of a penalty) but permitted to others (see first Perek Daf 15a).
(b) To reconcile this with the previous Drashah 'Kol she'Ti'avti Lach ... ',
we cite the Pasuk "Ki Kodesh Hi Lachem" - which we Darshen "Hi Kodesh",
've'Ein Ma'asehah Kodesh' (specifically overriding 'Kol she'Ti'avti Lach').
(c) Consequently, if someone plows with an ox and a donkey or threshes with
a muzzled cow, the result of his labor is permitted - 'Kal va'Chomer' from
Shabbos, which is more stringent than they are (seeing as it carries with it
a Chiyuv Misah).
(d) The same 'Kal va'Chomer' does not apply to Basar be'Chalav (which by the
same token, is less stringent than Shabbos) - because, unlike the previous
Isurim (which are only the result of Meleches Shabbos), it is an intrinsic
object of Isur.
(a) And the ruling permitting K'lai Zeri'im be'Hana'ah (despite the fact
that Basar be'Chalav is Asur) - is due to the Pasuk "Pen Tikdash
ha'Melei'ah" - (an acronym of 'Pen Tukad Eish', implying that K'lai ha'Kerem
is Asur be'Hana'ah, and must be burned, but not Klai Zera'im.
(b) Bearing in mind that our Sugya is discussing both the Isur Achilah and
the Isur Hana'ah, we suggest that perhaps K'lai Zera'im is only precluded
from the Isur Hana'ah, but not from the Isur Achilah.
(c) We answer by citing the Hekesh "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha
Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - comparing K'lai Zera'im to K'lai Beheimah, in that the
former, like the latter, is permitted even to eat.
(d) And we learn that K'lai Beheimah is Mutar ba'Achilah - from the fact
that the Torah forbids it to be brought as Kodshei Mizbe'ach (indicating
that it is permitted to a Hedyot).
(a) We ask that if somone transgressed and Shechted 'Oso ve'es B'no' on the
same day, the second animal should be Asur because of 'Kol she'Ti'avti Lach
... '. 'Oso ve'es B'no' belongs to the category of 'Mechusar Z'man
(Shechting an animal before its time) ...
(b) ... which we already know is permitted to a Hedyot, since the Torah
forbids bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.
(c) And we explain why 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein' (the mother bird that one took
after taking the eggs or the young) is not Asur - based on the S'vara that
seeing as the Torah orders that one sends it away towards the fields, it
would be asking for trouble to declare it Asur (since anyone can catch it,
and eat it, without even realizing that it is forbidden.
(a) We might just as well have answered the Kashya 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein
Litsar' - by learning a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Shabbos, as we did earlier on
(b) Alternatively, we might interpret the Kashya 'Shilu'ach ha'Kein
Litsar' - to refer to the mother bird that one sent away Lechatchilah when
taking its babies, which, we ask, ought to be Asur to eat because the Torah
forbade taking it.
(c) In this way, we will gain the alternative answer that we just gave (from
the 'Kal va'Chomer from Shabbos), since it does not not apply to cases where
the Isur is an intrinsic one (like we explained by Basar be'Chalav).
(d) And we prove this to be the correct interpretation, based on the earlier
Kashya from 'Choresh be'Shor va'Chamor' and 'Chosem Pi Parah ve'Dash Bah' -
where we do not ask from the actual animals themselves with which an Aveirah
was performed, but from the outcome of the Aveirah. Similarly here, it is
not the Aveirah of Shilu'ach ha'Kein from which we ask, but the object which
the Torah forbade.
(a) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Korban Pesach)
"Al Tochlu Mimenu Na u'Vashel Mevushal ... " - that there is another case of
a cooked object which is Asur; namely, 'Basar be'Chalav'.
(b) Rebbi learns - the same thing from the superfluous Pasuk "Lo Sochlenu".
(c) Rebbi's Pasuk is referring to the blood of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (Kodshim
that have been redeemed, which may be eaten like Chulin, but remain
forbidden to shear or to work with like Kodshim).
(d) Rebbi use this Pasuk for Basar be'Chalav and not for Dam - because we
already have three Pesukim for Dam (as we learned earlier).
(a) One of the thirteen principles of Rebbi Yishmael is 'Davar ha'Lamed
me'Inyano' meaning that - when the Torah compares Din a. to Din b., and a.
could refer to a number of possible cases, then we choose the case which is
the most similar to b.
(b) Similarly here, when Rebbi had a choice of topics to which the
superfluous "Lo Sochlenu" could pertain, he chose the one that is most
similar to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin - Basar be'Chalav, which consist of two
different species, like Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, as we just explained.
(c) Since we already know from Rebbi's Pasuk that Basar be'Chalav is Asur
ba'Achilah, Rebbi Yochanan asked - why does Resh Lakish need to come on to a
different source? Is Rebbi's source not good enough?
(d) To which Resh Lakish replied - that we need "u'Vashel Mevushal" to teach
us that Basar be'Chalav is Asur be'Hana'ah too, which we can learn from
Pesach Mevushal (which, like all Kodshim Pesulim that are no longer alive,
are Asur ba'Achilah and Hana'ah), but not from Rebbi's Pasuk.
(a) Rebbi learns from the two Pesukim "ki Am Kadosh Atah" (written in the
same Pasuk as "Lo Sevashel G'di") and "ve'Lo Sih'yeh Kadesh" (in Ki Seitzei,
forbidding prostitution) - a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', that just as the latter
Pasuk refers to an Isur of Hana'ah, so too, is Basar be'Chalav Asur
(b) de'Bei Rebbi Eliezer learns it from the same Pasuk "Lo Sochlu Kol
Neveilah ... O Machor le'Nochri ... Lo Sevashel G'di ... " which teaches us
that one may not sell Basar be'Chalav to a Nochri or give it to a Ger Toshav
(because it is Asur be'Hana'ah).
(c) Whereas Tana de'Bei Yishmael learns from the fact that the Torah writes
the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " three times - that Basar be'Chalav
incorporates three Isurim, an Isur Bishul, an Isur Achilah and an Isur
(a) Isi ben Yehudah in a Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ki Am
Kadosh Atah" and the Pasuk "ve'Anshei Kodesh Tih'yun Li, u'Basar ba'Sadeh
Tereifah Lo Socheilu" - that just as a Tereifah is Asur to eat, so too, is
(b) And he learns from a 'Kal-va'Chomer from Orlah (which is not the result
of an Aveirah), that Basar be'Chalav (which is) is certainly Asur
(c) We query this 'Kal-va'Chomer" however. We cannot learn Basar be'Chalav
1. ... from Orlah - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher (which Orlah did not).
(d) So we try to learn the prohibition of Achilah and Hana'ah from K'lai
ha'Kerem (which not carry an Isur Kareis either( to replace Chametz
2. ... from Chametz ba'Pesach, which we bring as a 'Binyan Av' to replace
the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Orlah - because unlike Chametz ba'Pesach, Basar
be'Chalav does not carry a sentence of Kareis for the transgressor.
(a) The problem with the initial D'rashah, which learns the Isur Achilah
from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Am Kadosh" "Anshei Kodesh"), and the Isur Hana'ah
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Orlah is - why we cannot learn the Isur Achilah
from Orlah, too?
(b) When we answer 'Choresh be'Shor va'Chamor ve'Chosem Pi Parah ve'Dash bah
Yochi'ach' - we mean that if we did learn the Isur Achilah from Orlah, we
would negate the 'Kal-va'Chomer' with the Pircha based on these two La'avin,
with which an Aveirah was performed, yet the result of the Aveirah is
permitted to eat.
(c) And we ask on the Tana who, following the Kashya 'Mah le'Chametz
ba'Pesach she'Kein Anush Kareis', answers 'K'lai ha'Kerem Yochi'ach' - when
one would have expected him to reply 'Orlah Yochi'ach', and then to learn
the Isur Hana'ah from a 'Mah Matzinu' from both of them.
(d) Yet the Tana not do so, Rav Ashi explains, because we could then have
asked a Pircha from another case which is Asur ba'Achilah but Mutar
be'Hana'ah - namely, that of Neveilah.
(a) Rav Mordechai citing Resh Lakish refutes Rav Ashi's explanation on the
grounds - that on a 'Mah ha'Tzad' one can only ask an internal Pircha, not
an external one (such as Neveilah is).
(b) And the reason that we cannot learn the Isur Hana'ah from a 'Mah
ha'Tzad' from Orlah and Chametz ba'Pesach is - because they both involve
commodities that grow from the ground, whereas Basar be'Chalav does not.
(c) The problem with this explanation is - that we can ask the same Pircha
even if we now learn the Isur Hana'ah just from Kil'ayim.
(d) Rav Mordechai quoting Resh Lakish solves this problem - by rejecting a
Pircha on a 'Kal va'Chomer' or a single Binyan Av (from one Pasuk), if is
not either a Chumra or a Kula (depending on the nature of the Limud).
(a) Bearing in mind that we are not learning from K'lai ha'Kerem only, but
from Orlah and Chametz ba'Pesach as well, the Kashya remains - why we do not
ask that, unlike Basar be'Chalav, they all grow from the ground (seeing as
on a 'Mah ha'Tzad one may ask even Pirchos that are neither a Chumra nor a
(b) So Rav Mordechai in the name of Resh Lakish divides the Din of Binyan Av
into three categories. An example of ...
1. ... 'Chada me'Chada Kula ve'Chumra Parchinan (Kol-Dehu Lo Parchinan)'
is - Mah le'Orlah she'Kein Lo Haysah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher'.
(c) And he concludes with a Binyan Av from three sources - on which one may
ask even a Pircha Kol-Dehu. provided there is a Pircha of a Kula or a Chumra
pertaining to the third case (which needs the first two to counter it.
2. ... 'Chada mi'Tarti Afilu Kol-Dehu Parchinan' is - 'Mah
le'ha'Tzad-ha'Shaveh she'Bahen she'Kein Gidulei Karka'.
(d) ... such as in our case, where there is no Pircha of a Kula or Chumra on
Kil'ayim, one cannot ask a Pircha Kol-Dehu (such as 'Mah le'Kulhu she'Kein