ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 46
CHULIN 46 - dedicated by Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y. in memory of his
father, Reb Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak, on the day of his Yahrzeit.
(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua asks whether 'ad (bein ha'Parshos)' is
inclusive or exclusive - whether the Tereifus of the spinal cord extends as
far as the second 'Pi Parshah' or only as far as the first.
(b) Assuming that Rav Yehudah meant 'ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal', we will have to
explain his statement 'Sheniyah Eini Yode'a' - to incorporate 'Rishonah',
which he did not know either (seeing as the area between the first and the
second Pi Parshos is not included in the Bein ha'Parshos that is definitely
(c) And he made a point of mentioning the second - to prevent us from
thinking that the Safek is confined to the first bein ha'Parshos, and that
the second is Kosher like the third).
(d) The She'eilah ...
1. ... Rav Papa asks, assuming that 'ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal' is - whether the
first Pi Parshah at least, will be Tereifah.
2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah asks, assuming that 'ad ve'ad bi'Chelal' is - whether
the Parshos themselves will also be included in the Din of Bein ha'Parshos,
(a) We try to resolve Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah from the Beraisa
'ha'Parshah Teidan ke'Basar' (meaning that it is not subject to Tereifus) -
based on the assumption that the Tana is referring to the first and second
Parshos (obviously presuming that 'ad ve'ad bi'Chelal')
(b) To refute this proof, we establish the Beraisa - with reference to the
third Parshah (but the first two will definitely be subject to Tereifus. In
any event, the Tana must hold 'ad ve'ad bi'Chelal').
(c) Alternatively, we interpret 'bein ha'Parshos' as the small ribs of the
tail, and the 'Parshos', as the strip of flesh that separates them. As for
the area on the spinal cord to which we referred until now - is definitely
considered part of the Chut ha'Shedrah.
(d) The Halachos Gedolos however, supports the first explanation.
(a) According to Rebbi Yanai, the spinal cord of a bird is subject to
Tereifus up to a point beyond the wings. Resh Lakish says - up to between
the wings and no further.
(b) Ula was once standing before ben Pazi who was inspecting the spinal cord
of a bird. When the Nasi called for him - he had inspected as far as between
(c) At that point, he got up and left. Ula's Safek was - whether he left
because he had finished the inspection (and the bird was Kosher, like Resh
Lakish), or whether it was in deference to the Nasi who had called him (in
which case the bird still required inspection [like Rebbi Yanai], and was
still a Safek Tereifah).
(a) The Din in our Mishnah 'Nitlah ha'Kaved ve'Lo Nishtayar Heimenu K'lum'
implies that if even a Mashehu of the liver remains, the animal is Kosher.
The problem with this is - the Mishnah later, which declares the animal
Kosher only if at least a k'Zayis of the liver remains.
(b) Rav Yosef reconciles the two Mishnahs - by establishing our Mishnah like
Rebbi Chiya, and the following Mishnah like Shimon bar Rebbi.
(c) When an animal came to hand, whose liver was missing, and of which less
than a k'Zayis remained ...
1. ... Rebbi Chiya - would throw it away.
(d) The significance of the 'Si'man' 'Ashirim Mekamtzin' is - that Rebbi
Shimon bar Rebbi, who was the son of the Nasi was the one to scrimp (as it
were) and avoid throwing the animal away.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi - would eat it.
(a) We reject the current interpretation of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon
b'Rebbi's actions on the grounds that if, as we just explained, we been
referring to a liver with a piece missing - then we ought to have said (not
'Zarik Lah' and 'Matbil Lah', but) 'Tarif Lah' and 'Machshir Lah'.
(b) So we must be referring to what they used to do with the liver of a
Kosher animal - Rebbi Chiya would throw it away (because it is not
considered meat), whilst Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi would retain and eat it.
(c) Even though liver is not considered meat, Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi would
eat it - because it is a life-giving part of the animal, and as such, it is
(d) Consequently - Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi would require a k'Zayis of liver
to remain, to save the animal from dying, whereas Rebbi Chiya (who did not
consider liver to be life-giving), did not require a k'Zayis to remain (only
(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef ran away from Pumbedisa - because a royal army
arrived in the city (whose soldiers were known to have no respect for lives
(b) When Rebbi Zeira met them, he told them that the k'Zayis of liver that
must remain for the animal to be Kosher had to be located in the vicinity of
the gall-bladder. According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah - it has to be in a
location where the liver receives its vitality.
(c) Rav Papa concludes from these two statements - that two k'Zeisim are
requires, one Rebbi Zeira's statement that a 'k'Zayis that is joined to the
gall bladder, the other, to the location from which the liver receives its
(d) ... meaning in its regular location, either underneath the kidneys, or
where it is attached to the diaphragm (a thin muscle that forms a wall
between the chest cavity and the abdominal cavity).
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether the animal will be Kosher if the k'Zayis of
liver is Mislaket or is shaped like a strap. 'Mislaket' means - that the
k'Zayis is in two places.
(b) Rav Ashi - who assumed that in the two previous cases the animal is
Kosher, asked what the Din will be if the k'Zayis has been flattened (which
is worse than the previous cases).
(c) Rebbi Zerika asked Rebbi Ami about 'Nidaldelah Kaved u'me'Avrah
be'Tarpesha' (the diaphragm), meaning - that the liver is torn from the
diaphragm in many places, but still attached to it here and there.
(d) Rebbi Ami did not understand the She'eilah however. As long as a k'Zayis
remains in the location of the gall-bladder according to one opinion, or
where it receives its vitality (as we explained) according to the other
opinion, it is Kosher as we already learned.
(a) Our Mishnah lists a hole in the lung among the Tereifos. According to
Rav, Shmuel and Rav Asi, this pertains to the lung's the upper membrane
(even though the lower membrane remains intact. Others say - that the lower
membrane must be punctured as well, for the animal to be a Tereifah (see
Tosfos DH 've'Amri Lah' and Maharam).
(b) 'A red (like a rose) shirt which encases the lungs' - is Rav Yosef bar
Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman's description of the lower membrane (he holds like
the 'others'), which is red.
(a) Rava compares a lung whose upper membrane has been peeled off to - a red
(b) ... a proof - that the lower membrane protects the lungs (even if the
upper one has been punctured).
(c) This prompts us to ask - whether, in the reverse case (where it is the
lower membrane that has been punctured), the upper membrane will do the same
job (see Tosfos DH 'Inkiv').
(d) We reply that Rav Acha and Ravina argue over this point. The Halachah
is - that it does (and the animal is Kosher).
(a) The previous ruling is based on a statement by Rav Yosef, who discusses
a lung that emits a noise as if air is escaping from it. Rav Yosef rules
that if one is ...
1. ... able to pinpoint the exact location of the noise - one places a
feather, spittle or a straw at that point. If the spittle bubbles and the
feather or the straw flutters, that indicates a hole. If not, the animal is
(b) One should not use ...
2. ... unable to pinpoint it - then one makes the same test by placing the
lung into a tub of water, and watching for bubbles.
1. ... hot water - because it will cause the lung to contract and the hole
to close, rendering the test useless.
(c) In the cases where we declare the animal Kosher - we attribute the noise
to the air escaping from the hole in the inner membrane, and circulating
between the two membranes.
2. ... cold water - because it will cause the lung to become hard like a
stone, causing the upper membrane (which is weak) to tear.
(d) We have proved from there - that if the upper membrane of the lung is
still intact, the animal is Kosher even though the lower membrane is
(a) Rava declares Kosher a lung that has been peeled, as we learned earlier.
He also rules - that if a lung has turned partially red it is Kosher,
whereas if it has turned completely red, it is Tereifah.
(b) Ravina objects to Rava's distinction, based on a Beraisa which rules -
that someone who wounds on Shabbos, small vermin not of the eight Sheratzim
that are Tamei (such as a frog) - is Patur, as long as no blood has emerged
(because their skin is soft, and bruises easily, even though it is not
really a wound).
(c) Likewise in our case - as long as the blood has not actually emerged, it
ought not to be considered a wound, and the animal should not be Tereifah.
(d) We try to counter this by comparing the skin of the lung to the eight
Sheratzim - which the Beraisa declares Chayav for bruising, even though no
blood actually emerged.
(a) We reject the equation of the lung to the eight Sheratzim however - by
arguing that in that case, we ought to declare the animal a Tereifah even if
only part of it turns red (as is the case with the Shemonah Sheratzim on
(b) We therefore conclude - that even a liver that has turned completely red
(a) Rava also declares a lung part of which has dried, a Tereifah. Rav Papi
citing Rava himself, defines 'dried' as - one that snaps easily when one
(b) This is the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ben Hameshulam in a Beraisa that
discusses the ear - of a Bechor.
(c) The Tana Kama is more stringent. He defines 'dried' - as one that does
not bleed when it is pierced.
(d) The Tana Kama might well concede however, that a dry lung is not
Tereifah until it reaches the stage that it snaps easily - because before
that stage, it heals nicely (whereas a wound in the ear deteriorates more
quickly, since it is open to the elements.
(a) Rava rules that a lung which is full of ulcers or black or colored
spots - is Kosher.
(b) The basis of the Safek Tereifus, caused by a punctured blister on a lung
(provided it has not been handled by the Shochet) is - whether the puncture
occurred before the Shechitah, in which case it is Tereifah, or after it.
(c) When, citing Rava, Ameimar says 'Ein Makifin be'Bu'i', he means - that
we cannot determine the Halachah by comparing it to a punctured blister of
another lung ...
(d) ... (despite the fact that one does compare two defected lungs to
determine whether the Safek is Tereifah or not) - because blisters tend to
change their appearance with the passing of time.
(a) A adhesion (a Sircha) on the lung is caused - by viscous (thick) liquids
(that are drawn into the lungs) escaping through a hole and forming a crust
(see also Tosfos DH 'Haynu Revisaihu').
(b) In spite of the fact that the hole is now blocked, the animal is
Tereifah - because the blockage is not permanent.
(c) Rava rules that if two lobes of the lung have fused, it cannot be
examined - because the fusion (known as a Sircha) is the result of a hole,
as we just explained.
(d) He qualifies this however, by confining it to two lobes that are not
next to each other (e.g. the first and the third lobes), since the two lobes
naturally pull in opposite directions and they stand to tear apart, before
the crust has properly fused with the skin. It does not however, apply to
the first and the second, or the second and third lobes - because then, the
adjoining lobe will block the hole, enabling the crust to grow until it
(a) Rava only mentions a Sircha between two Unos (the cranial lobes), but
not one between an Unah and the Umah (the large, outer caudal lobe), which
might be Tereifah even if the adhesion is between it and the adjoining
lobe - because a. Rava does not mention it, and b. because its position in
the chest cavity allows it more movement, so that it is more like to come
apart (like two non-adjoining Unos)
(b) We have a support for this opinion - in the Sugya later, which declares
Kosher a Sircha between the Una and the wall of the chest, but not the Uma
and the wall of the chest.
(c) If on the other hand, despite the fact that, due to the fact that Rava's
reason for being Machshir a Sircha between two adjoining Unos applies
equally to the Umos (and the reasoning by the Sircha between the Una or the
Uma and wall of the chest is slightly different), Rava refers only to the
former and not the latter - because his principle Chidush is the Din of
non-adjoining Sirchos, to negate the S'vara that the wall of the chest holds
the Unos in place, which is not the case by the Umos (and is therefore
(d) A Sircha between the Inunisa de'Varda (the intermediate [central] lobe)
and any of the other lobes - is considered a Sircha between two
non-adjoining lobes, and is therefore Tereifah.