ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 49
CHULIN 47-50 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) We will learn later that if a needle is found in the folds of the Beis
ha'Kosos (the paunch), 'mi'Tzad Echad Kasher' - because the other wall
blocks any hole that the needle creates.
(b) If the needle pierced both walls however - the animal is Tereifah.
(c) In the first case, we try to extrapolate from the fact that no
distinction is drawn between the direction the needle is facing - that we do
not hold like Rav Ashi (who declares a needle in the liver Tereifah, if it
is pointing inwards from the abdominal cavity, because it must have
punctured the Veshet, the Keres or the Dakin before piercing the walls of
the Beis ha'Kosos), preferring to assume that the needle entered the liver
direct via the Simpon (just like we assume that it entered the Beis ha'Kosos
directly via the Veshet in the current case).
(d) We reconcile this case with Rav Ashi - based on the fact that in the
current case, we ascribe the needle in the Beis ha'Kosos to food that
probably carried it in via the Veshet (seeing as we did not actually find
the hole that it would inevitably have made), which we cannot do in Rav
(a) If a needle is found in the Simpon of an animal's liver, Huna Mar b'rei
de'Rav Idi declares it Tereifah - because he assumes that, after entering
the Veshet, the needle pierced either the Veshet, the Keres or the Dakin,
before entering the area of the liver.
(b) Rav Ada bar Minyumi declares it Kasher - because he assumes that the
needle entered the Simpon of the Kaved via the Kaneh, which is close to it.
(c) When the case was sent before Ravina, he sided with Rav Ada bar Minyumi.
In fact - he authorized the owner to claim Mar b'rei de'Rav Idi's coat
(because the latter actually fed the meat in question to the dogs.
(a) Rav Ashi quoting Rav Kahana rules that if a date-pit is found in an
animal's gall-bladder, it must have entered via the Simpon of the Kaved. It
could not have puncture the Veshet to get there (in which case the animal
would be Tereifah) - because a date-pit is not sharp enough to do that.
(b) And this applies even in a case where the date pit is simply too large
to pass through the Simpon ha'Kaved - because we assume that the constant
movement on the part of the animal will have enabled it to slip through,
like larger objects are able to slip through a sieve when it is shaken, even
though the hole would otherwise be too small for them to pass through.
(c) Rav Ashi does concede however - that if an olive-pit (which is sharper
than that of a date) is found in the gall-bladder, we assume that it
punctured the Veshet to get there, and the animal is Tereifah.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that the lung is called 'Re'ah' - because it is
good for one's eyesight (since the letters 'Re'ah' are equivalent to those
(b) This refers either to eating the lung on its own, or to eating it
together with spices.
(c) According to Rav Huna bar Yehudah, whereas a goose costs one Zuz - its
lung, four Zuzim ...
(d) ... a proof that the Segulah of the goose's lung works only when it is
mixed with spices - because otherwise it would make no sense to pay four
Zuzim for a lung, when the entire bird costs only one Zuz.
(a) Rav Acha bar Nasan assumes that a hole that is found in the area of a
lung that has been handled by the Shochet was in fact made by the Shochet.
This might refer to the chest cavity, which is extremely compact (and where
he is likely to have made the hole with his nails). It might also refer - to
any area that he is likely to have punctured, such as a hole that was made
by a knife, or where the Shochet tore one of the pipes away with force.
(b) Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari rules - 'Lo Talinan'.
(c) We rule 'Talinan', and we cite the statement of Rav Shmuel b'rei
de'Rebbi Avahu's father, who was one of Rafram main interpreters, to the
same effect. When Rav Zutra b'rei de'Rav Mari heard of the latter's
statement - he simply rejected it.
(d) Rav Mesharshaya supported the opinion of his grandfather, Rav Acha bar
Nasan (Talinan) based on 'Ze'ev' - with reference to a wolf that ran away
with the intestines and returned them punctured, and where we rule 'Talinan'
(as we learned in the first Perek).
(a) Rav Yosef bar Dusta'i and the Rabbanan argue over worms that emerge from
the lung - whether they emerged before the Shechitah (and the animal is
Tereifah), or after it (and it is Kasher).
(b) The Halachah is - that they emerged after the Shechitah and the animal
(a) Our Mishnah cited Rebbi Shimon, who declares a hole in the lung Kasher
until it reaches the area of the Simponos. Rabah bar Tachlifa Amar Rebbi
Yirmiyah bar Aba qualifies this statement - by confining it to the Simpon
(b) When Rav Acha bar Aba stated that Rebbi M'loch Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi rules like Rebbi Shimon, Rav Nachman retorted - that if he was
referring to 'Rebbi M'loch Arva'a' (who lived among the Arabs), then he
ought to have quoted him 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.
(c) When, upon Rebbi Zeira's arrival in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Bibi quoted him
Rebbi M'loch as having said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon', Rebbi Zeira
testified that when he together with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and Rav Asi visited
Rebbi M'loch - in answer to their question what he had said, he replied 'Ein
Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.
(d) However, when Rav Bibi asked Rebbi Zeira for his tradition, he cited Rav
Yitzchak bar Ami Amar Rebbi M'loch - who said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.
(e) The Halachah is - 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Oshaya informs us that the
Kohanim who had the Minhag to eat the Cheilev on the Keivah, based
themselves on Rebbi Yishmael in the name of his fathers. He mentions
specifically Kohanim (not to preclude Yisre'elim, but) - because, seeing as
the Keivah is one of the gifts that are given to the Kohanim from all Chulin
animals, they are the ones who generally eat it.
(b) The Si'man he gave to remind us that the lenient Tana is Rebbi Yishmael
is - 'Yishmael the Kohen (Gadol) who assists the Kohanim'.
(c) We need to find a second ruling to fit this description - because one
does not generally give a person a title for one act alone, only when there
there is a second precedent for it.
(d) Following the Pasuk "Ko Sevarchu es B'nei Yisrael ... ", Rebbi Yishmael
interprets "va'Ani Avorcheim" to mean - that whenever the Kohanim bless
Yisrael, Hashem will bless them.
(a) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rebbi Akiva explains the previous
Pasuk - to mean that Hashem approves of the B'rachah that the Kohanim confer
(b) Rebbi Akiva learns that the Kohanim are blessed too - from the Pasuk in
Lech-Lecha ''Va'avorchah Mevorchecha''?
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni considers Rebbi Yishmael's opinion as being
advantageous to the Kohanim - inasmuch as their blessing is mentioned
together with that of Yisrael rather than independently.
(a) 'Rebbi Yishmael in the name of his fathers' (cited by Rebbi Yitzchak bar
Nachmeini) is based on a Beraisa, where from the Pasuk in Vayikra "es
ha'Cheilev Asher al Ha'Kerev" he includes the Cheilev on the Dakin, which
entails - the fat that covers the first Amah of the intestines after they
emerge from the Keivah.
(b) Rebbi Akiva holds - that it incorporates the Cheilev on the Keivah, and
certainly that which is on the intestines.
(c) We ask from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk,
'K'rum ve'Niklaf' - including even the Cheilev ha'Keivah (and certainly that
on the intestines).
(d) Whereas Rebbi Akiva says 'K'rum ve'Niklaf ve'Tosav' - incorporating the
Cheilev that covers the first section of the intestines, and the Cheilev on
the Kerev, but not that which covers the Keivah (which is not 'spread like a
garment' [since that is what 'Tosav' means] but a piece here and a piece
(a) The problem now is - that Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva seem to have
switched their opinions from one Beraisa to the other.
(b) Ravin in the name of Rebbi Yochanan resolves the problem - by switching
their opinions in the first Beraisa.
(c) He amends specifically the first Beraisa and not the second - because
the second Beraisa, which describes in greater detail how each opinion
learns from the Pasuk, is presumably more accurate.
(d) And Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak justifies Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini's
establishing the Minhag of the Kohanim like Rebbi Yishmael (who, we just
concluded, does not hold like that) - by recalling that it was not Rebbi
Yishmael that the Tana quoted but Rebbi Yishmael in the name of his fathers
(even though Rebbi Yishmael himself does not agree with them).
(a) Rav rules that - whereas Shuman (Kasher Cheilev [by virtue of its
tightness]) blocks a hole rendering the animal Kasher, Cheilev (which sits
more loosely on the flesh), does not.
(b) Rav Sheishes - equates Cheilev with Shuman in this regard.
(c) The two sides to Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah (which follows the opinion of
Rav), regarding whether the Cheilev of a Chayah blocks a hole or not are -
that on the one hand, the fat of a Chayah is Kasher (like Shuman), whilst on
the other, it sits loosely on the flesh (like Cheilev).
(d) Abaye objects to the She'eilah - since it is obvious that the criterion
is the manner in which the fat covers the hole (and not whether it is Kasher
(a) Besides the fact that Rav Sheishes permits a hole that is blocked by
Cheilev, Rava adds - that the Torah takes pity on the money of a Jew, in
which case, the animal ought certainly to be permitted.
(b) The source for this reason - lies in Hilchos Tzara'as Batim, where the
owner of the stricken house takes all his vessels out of the house, before
the Kohen declares it (together with its contents) Tamei.
(c) Rav Papa rejects Rava's ruling - based on the combination of the opinion
of Rav and the fact that it is an Isur d'Oraysa.
(d) Menimin Kanduka (the jar-seller) appeared before Rava with a jar of
honey - which had been left open and he wanted to know whether honey that is
left uncovered is forbidden (due to the suspicion that a snake may have
drunk from it).
(a) Besides the reason that the Torah takes pity on the money of a Yisrael,
Rava permits honey that has been left uncovered, on the basis of a Mishnah
in Terumos, where the Tana forbids wine, water and milk that are left
uncovered, for fear that a snake drank from them, leaving some of its poison
behind (implying that all other liquids are permitted).
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this reason however - due to the
combination of 'Rebbi Shimon (who disagrees with the Mishnah) and
(c) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa lists five liquids that are not subject to
snake poison: brine, vinegar, olive oil - honey and fish-hash.
(d) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Shimon's argument that he actually witnessed
a snake drinking fish-juice in Tzidon - by claiming that that particular
snake was demented.
(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman to concede that he was right regarding brine,
based on what Rav Papa, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua and the Rabbanan -
who used to pour liquids from which a snake had drunk into brine.
(b) What makes brine different than other liquids - is the fact that it
neutralizes snake venom.
(c) He also asked him to concede regarding honey - since Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar agrees with Rebbi Shimon.
(a) Rav Nachman rules that Cheilev which is shaped like a hat does not block
a hole. According to some, this refers to Chiti de'Karkesha - the fat that
covers the last section of the intestines.
(b) It is called 'Chiti', because it consists of little wheat-shaped pieces
(rather than a collection of fat , as in most other areas of the body).
(c) Others interpret it as - 'Tarp'sha de'Liba' (the fat of the heart),
which encases the heart, but does not block a hole in the heart or the
lungs, even though it covers it.
(a) Rava heard from Rav Nachman two things 'Chimtza u'bar Chimtza' - (both
situated in the Cheilev which covers the Keivah), 'Chad Sasim, ve'Chad Lo
Sasim', but he could not recall which was which.
(b) Rav Huna bar Chin'na and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nachman explained which
was which. Rav Tavos put it in a nutshell when he said 'Yafeh Ko'ah ha'Ben
mi'Ko'ach ha'Av' - which means that the strength of the sons is better than
that of the father (in other words, bar Chimtza saves, and Chimtza doesn't).
(c) In its own context (in Shevu'os), it means - that whereas a son can
claim certain property without having to swear, the father cannot.