(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Chulin 100

CHULIN 100 - (11 Iyar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their mother, ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (of Milwaukee).


(a) (Mishnah): Similarly, a piece of Neveilah...
(b) Question: It should be Batul to the majority!
(c) (A Mishnah teaches things that are sold by number are never Batul (because they are important); Amora'im argue about the text of the Mishnah.)
1. We understand according to the text 'Kol' (everything) that it is normal to count (is important, it is never Batul);
2. But according to the text 'Es' (only what is *always* counted), the piece should be Batul to the majority!
(d) Answer: A piece fitting to honor guests with is important, it is never Batul.
(e) The Mishnah must teach both cases:
1. If it only taught that a Gid is never Batul, one might have thought that this is because it is a Briyah, but a piece can become Batul;
2. If we only heard that a piece of Neveilah is never Batul, one might have thought that this is because it is fitting to honor guests, but a Gid can become Batul.
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah): If a piece of Neveilah or of a Tamei fish fell into a pot, it forbids the contents only if the piece is big enough to give taste to the liquid, sediments, and pieces of meat in the pot.
(b) (Rav): Once the Neveilah gives taste to another piece, that piece is itself like a Neveilah, and it forbids all the pieces, for they are the same Min.
(c) Question (Rav Safra): Rav's law is like R. Yehudah, who holds that Min b'Mino is never Batul - even if the Neveilah didn't give Ta'am to another piece, it would forbid them all!
(d) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the Neveilah was removed from the pot before (some of) the other pieces were put in, they did not absorb from it at all.
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): We can even explain when the Neveilah was not removed from the pot;

1. Since the Neveilah is mixed with food of its own type (pieces of meat) and other foods (the liquid and sediments), we ignore its own type; (if there is enough other food), the other food nullifies the Neveilah.
(a) (Mishnah): The prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh applies to Tahor animals, not to Tamei animals;
(b) R. Yehudah says, it also applies to Tamei animals.
1. R. Yehudah: It was forbidden from the time of Yakov's children, and Tamei animals were permitted then!
2. Chachamim: It only became forbidden when the Torah was given at Sinai; it was written in the appropriate place.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Does R. Yehudah really hold that Isur Chal Al Isur (a prohibition takes effect even on something that is already forbidden?!)
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One might have thought if a person eats Nivlas Of Tahor (he and) his clothes become Tamei;
i. "He will not become Tamei by eating a Neveilah or Treifah" - the Tum'ah of eating applies only to birds forbidden on account of Neveilah;
ii. It does not apply to Tamei birds, they are not forbidden on account of Neveilah, rather, because they are Tamei (i.e. the Isur of Neveilah is not Chal on the Isur Tamei.)
2. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yehudah holds that the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste (so the Isur of Tamei animals does not apply to it, therefore the Isur Gid is Chal)!
3. Rejection: R. Yehudah holds that the Gid has taste!
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One who eats the Gid of a Tamei animal gets two sets of lashes;
ii. R. Shimon says, he is not lashed.
(d) Answer #1: Really, R. Yehudah holds that the Gid has taste; he holds that the Gid of a fetus is forbidden, therefore, the Isurim of Gid and Tamei come simultaneously, so both take effect.
1. Question: Does R. Yehudah really forbid the Gid of a fetus?!
i. (Mishnah): The prohibition of Gid applies to a fetus;
ii. R. Yehudah says, it does not;
iii. The Chelev of a fetus is permitted.
2. Answer: R. Yehudah only permits the Gid of a fetus of a Tahor animal, about which it says "All that is in the animal you may eat", but the Gid of a Tamei fetus is forbidden.
(e) Objection: The Isurim do not come simultaneously!
1. (Mishnah): If a Nazir became Tamei through any of the following, he must Megale'ach (shave, and bring sacrifices and start Nezirus again):
2. A Mes (corpse), a k'Zayis of a Mes...
i. Question: If he shaves for an olive's worth of a Mes, there is no need to teach for a (full) Mes!
ii. Answer (R. Yochanan): The Chidush of a (full) Mes applies to a Nefel (miscarriage) whose limbs were not yet bound with Gidim.
iii. (Just like a human fetus is Metamei even before it has Gidim, a fetus of a Tamei animal is forbidden before it has Gidim)!
(f) Answer #2: Indeed, the Isur Gid comes *after* the Isur Tamei; it takes effect anyway, because the Gid was forbidden to Benei No'ach (i.e. it is a more severe Isur than Tamei).
1. Support (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The Gid was forbidden from the time of Yakov's children, and Tamei animals were permitted to them!
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,