REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 68
CHULIN 66-68 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
***** Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh *****
(a) What will be the Din if an animal is having difficulty giving birth, and
prior to being Shechted, the fetus sticks out and withdraws ...
(b) What does one then do with the baby in the latter case?
- ... its foot?
- ... its head?
(c) What distinction does the Tana make between cutting of a piece of fetus
inside the mother before it is Shechted, and cutting off a piece of spleen
(d) What principle does the Tana present in this regard?
(a) Regarding the opening case in our Mishnah, on what grounds does Rav
Yehudah Amar Rav forbid the foot itself (even though the rest of the animal
is permitted)? Which Pasuk does he quote as the source?
(b) What else do we learn from this Pasuk? Which other animal becomes
forbidden for leaving its boundaries?
(c) If, as Rav Yehudah is forced to explain, 'Mutar ba'Achilah' in the above
case, refers to the rest of the animal, why does the Tana then need to add
the clause 'Ve'hichzirah', seeing as the animal is permitted whether the
fetus withdrew its foot or not?
(d) And what is the Chidush in the Seifa?
(a) What does the Mishnah in Bechoros say about a child who is born after a
still-born twin? In what respect is he a Bechor and in what respect is he
(b) The Tana refers to two cases. One of them, where the first eighth-month
baby stuck out his head alive and withdrew it.
What is the other?
(c) What can we extrapolate from the latter case? What would have been the
Din if the first twin had stuck out his head alive, before withdrawing it?
(a) What is now the problem?
(b) We initially suggest that the Tana needs to teach us both cases, because
we cannot learn one from the other. Even if we know that the head emerging
from the womb renders it/him a Bechor in the case of ...
- ... an animal, why would we not know it by a human being?
- ... a human being, why would we not know it by an animal?
(a) The Mishnah later rules that once part of the placenta has emerged from
the mother's womb, the baby is forbidden.
Answers to questions
Why is that?
(b) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?
(c) How would we explain our Mishnah if not for him?
(d) We nevertheless establish our Mishnah with regard to the Ubar (like Rav
Yehudah Amar Rav), and to answer the original Kashya on Rav Yehudah, we
establish it like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (with regard to another Mishnah).
What does this mean?
(a) We query Rav Yehudah from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana there say
about a case where, in similar circumstances to our Mishnah, the baby stuck
out a foot ...
(b) In the latter case, where the foot is severed after the Shechitah, Rebbi
Meir considers the Ubar, Maga Neveilah.
- ... and withdrew it before the mother's Shechitah?
- ... and withdrew it after the Shechitah?
- ... which was severed before the mother's Shechitah? Why is that?
What do the Rabbanan say?
(c) What problem do we have with establishing the first case ('Mutar
ba'Achilah') by the Ubar (rather than by the foot itself)?
(d) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolve this problem?
(a) What does the Beraisa cited by Avimi mean when it says 'Parsah Hichzir,
Achol, Parsos Hichzir, Achol'? To what does 'Parsah' refer?
(b) What is the problem with explaining 'Hichzir Parsah, Achol' with regard
to the Ubar (like Rav Yehudah)?
(c) Why, according to Rav Yehudah, does the Tana say 'Hichzir'? Who actually
establishes the Beraisa in this way?
(d) What problem do we have with the fact that the Tana quoted two Pesukim
in Re'ei ("Mafreses *Parsah*" and "Sh'tei *Perasos*")? How do we initially
(a) How do we answer this Kashya? What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk of
"Parsos" (if not to permit the foot too)? What is a 'Kalut'?
(b) And we establish the author as Rebbi Shimon. In which case does Rebbi
Shimon then forbid a Kalut ben Parah?
(c) Rav Yehudah counters Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the foot
itself is permitted in principle, by citing Rav and Shmuel.
What do Rav
and Shmuel say?
(a) With due respect to Rav and Shmuel, Ula cites Rebbi Yochanan, who proves
his point from a Chatas that left its boundary.
What is his source for
forbidding it even if it returned?
(b) What did Rebbi Yochanan extrapolate from there?
(c) We query Ula however, from a Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk "u'Basar
ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" (the source of the prohibition of all things
that left their boundary).
If not for the word "Tereifah", what would we
learn from Bikurim and Ma'aser Sheini?
(d) What do we then learn from "Tereifah" that proves Ula wrong?
(a) From where do we know that Bikurin and Ma'aser Sheini revert to their
previous Heter once they are returned to their respective boundaries? Why
should they be any different than the other cases which do not, as we just
(b) In Eretz Yisrael, they cited the Machlokes between Rav and Rebbi
Yochanan differently. According to them, Rav holds 'Yesh Leidah le'Eivarim'.
What does that mean?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(d) What is the difference between the two Leshonos? In which case will part
of the foot be forbidden according to one Lashon and permitted according to
(a) What She'eilah do we ask according to Rabbi Yochanan, regarding a fetus
that stuck out a limb at a time before withdrawing it?
(b) Why might we not consider the fetus to have been born, even though most
of it did emerge from its mother's womb?
(c) Assuming that in the previous case, it is not considered to have been
born, what do we ask next?
Why, if one cut off limb by limb, might it not
be considered born?
(a) We recite our Mishnah 'Zeh ha'K'lal Davar she'Gufah Asur, *ve'she'Einah
Answers to questions
How do we attempt to resolve the She'eilah from there?
(b) How do we refute this suggestion? If the Tana is not coming to permit
that case, then what is it coming to permit?