(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 103

CHULIN 103 (14 Iyar) - this Daf has been dedicated by Harav Yosef Pearlman of London, England, l'Iluy Nishmas his father, ha'Rabbani Reb Rephael David ben Yosef Yitzchak Pearlman, who passed away on Pesach Sheni 5758.


(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba, citing R. Yochanan): If one ate Chelev of a living Tereifah Behemah he is Chayav (lashes) twice;
(b) (R. Ami (and R. Avahu), citing R. Yochanan): He is Chayav three times.
(c) Question: What do they argue about?
(d) Answer #1: The case is, the animal became Tereifah during birth (or before);
1. R. Ami holds l'Evarim Omedes, so all three Isurim (Chelev, Ever Min ha'Chai, and Tereifah) take effect simultaneously (at birth);
2. R. Chiya bar Aba holds Lav l'Evarim Omedes, so only Chelev and Tereifah take effect at birth;
i. When the Chelev is later removed, the Isur Ever does not take effect, since it is already forbidden.
(e) Answer #2: All hold Lav l'Evarim Omedes; they argue whether or not the Isur Ever is Chal on the Isurim of Chelev and Tereifah:
1. R. Ami says that it does, R. Chiya bar Aba says it does not.
(f) Answer #3: All hold l'Evarim Omedes; the case is, it became Tereifah after birth;
1. They argue whether Isur Tereifah is Chal on Isur Ever Min ha'Chai.
2. R. Ami says that it is, just like it is Chal on Isur Chelev.
i. The Torah teaches that the Isurim of Neveilah and Tereifah are Chal on Chelev (even though it is already forbidden).
3. R. Chiya bar Aba disagrees - they are Chal on Chelev, for Chelev has a leniency - the Chelev of a Chayah is permitted;

i. Ever Min ha'Chai is never permitted, so Isur Tereifah is not Chal on it.
(a) Version #1 (Rav Dimi) Question (Reish Lakish): If an Ever Min ha'Chai was cut, and then a person ate it, is he liable?
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan): No.
(c) Question (Reish Lakish): If he put it whole in his mouth, and then divided it (he did not swallow it whole), what is the law?
(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): He is liable.
(e) Version #2 (Ravin): If Ever Min ha'Chai was cut, and then a person ate it, he is exempt;
(f) If he put it whole in his mouth, and then divided it, R. Yochanan is Mechayev, Reish Lakish exempts.
1. R. Yochanan is Mechayev, because he enjoyed swallowing k'Zayis (the Shi'ur to be Chayav);
2. Reish Lakish exempts - to be liable, a k'Zayis must enter his stomach together.
(g) Question: According to Reish Lakish, how is a person ever liable (surely, he chews before swallowing!)?
(h) Answer (Rav Kahana): A small bone (of the upper joint of the leg) can be swallowed whole.
(i) (R. Elazar): Even if he divided it before putting it in his mouth, he is liable;
1. Even though it was not connected, we do not consider it as if he only ate half.
(j) Version #1 (Reish Lakish): When one must eat a k'Zayis to be liable, food stuck between the teeth is not included;
(k) (R. Yochanan): It is included.
(l) Version #2 (Rav Papa): Both agree, food stuck between the teeth is not included;
1. They argue about food stuck in the palate - R. Yochanan includes it, for his throat tasted the food;
2. Reish Lakish excludes it, for his stomach did not benefit.
(a) (R. Asi, citing R. Yochanan): If one ate half a k'Zayis of forbidden food (Rashi - Ever Min ha'Chai), regurgitated it, and ate a different half k'Zayis, he is liable;
1. This is because he had the pleasure of swallowing a k'Zayis (in all.)
(b) Question (R. Elazar, of R. Asi): If he ate half a k'Zayis of forbidden food, regurgitated it, and ate it again, what is the law?
1. Question: What was R. Elazar unsure about?
i. If he was unsure whether regurgitated food is considered digested (and is no longer forbidden), he should have asked about eating a k'Zayis of regurgitated food!
ii. If he was unsure whether the criterion is pleasure of swallowing or benefit of the stomach, he should have known this from R. Asi's law (above)!
2. Answer: R. Elazar had no doubt; R. Asi had forgotten his learning, R. Elazar was helping him to remember.
i. He asked, why do you discuss eating a different half k'Zayis - you should teach about eating the same half k'Zayis again, to teach two laws!
ii. We would hear that regurgitated food is not considered digested, and that the criterion is pleasure of swallowing.
(c) R. Asi did not respond.
(d) R. Elazar: Chacham of the generation! You yourself said in front of R. Yochanan, he enjoyed swallowing a k'Zayis (and he is liable for this.)
Next daf


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