ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 92
CHULIN 92-95 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Regarding the Pasuk "Va'yasar el Mal'ach Va'yuchal, Bachah Va'yischanen
Lo", it is unclear who overcame whom, and who beseeched whom. We learn from
the Pasuk in Va'yishlach, when the angel said to Ya'akov ...
1. ... "ki Sarisa im Elohim Va'tuchal" - that it was Ya'akov who overcame
(b) Rabah interprets the double expression "ki Sarisa im Elohim ve'Im
Anashim" - as hinting to the princes in Eretz Yisrael, and the heads of
Galus in Bavel, respectively.
2. ... "Va'yomer Shalcheni" - that it was the angel who beseeched Ya'akov.
(c) Incidentally - the Mal'ach was hinting to Ya'akov that his children
would go into Galus.
(a) We now discuss the dream of the butler in the story of Yosef (since it
also deals with the future of Yisrael, and the termination of the Galus).
Rav Chiya bar Aba Amar Rav interprets the three branches of the vine as the
three 'Sarei Ge'im' in Yisrael, in each generation - which refers to three
wealthy, influential Jews, in every generation, who are close to the ruling
(b) ... sometimes two in Bavel and one in Eretz Yisrael, sometimes the other
(c) The Rabbanan thought that the two brothers Rabana Ukva and Rabana
Nechemyah were the Sarei Ge'im in Bavel. Their mother was - the daughter of
(d) According to Rava, the three branches refer to the three Sarei Ge'im in
Heaven. This refers to - three of the governing angels of the nations, in
each generation, whose task is to defend Yisrael.
(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa, the vine represented the world.
1. The three branches - referred to the Avos ...
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua objected to this explanation - on the grounds that one
shows a person a dream of things that are going to happen, not things that
have already taken place.
2. ... the blossoms that turned into buds - the Imahos and ...
3. ... the clusters of grapes that ripened - the twelve tribes.
(c) He therefore interpreted the vine as Torah.
1. The three branches - represented Moshe, Aharon and Miriam ...
2. ... the blossoms that turned into buds - the Sanhedrin, and ...
3. ... the clusters of grapes that ripened - the Tzadikim in every
(a) Raban Gamliel remarked that we still need the explanation of Rebbi
Alazar ha'Muda'i - which is unique inasmuch it refers to a location.
(b) If, according to Rebbi Alazar ha'Muda'i, the vine is Yerushalayim ...
1. ... the three branches are - the Beis-Hamikdash, the king and the Kohen
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets the dream with regard to Matanos.
According to him, the vine refers to Torah, and the three branches to the
Well of Miriam, the Clouds of Glory and the Manna ...
2. ... the blossoms that turned into buds - the young Kohanim ...
3. ... and the clusters of grapes that ripened - the Nesachim.
1. ... the blossoms that turned into buds - to the Bikurim ...
(d) Whereas according to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba, the vine is Yisrael (in
2. ... and the clusters of grapes that ripened - to the Nesachim.
1. ... the three branches - the merit of the Shalosh Regalim on which
Yisrael would later go up to Yerushalayim ...
2. ... and the blossoms and the buds - to the amazing growth in their
birthrate and the redemption from Egypt, respectively.
3. ... the clusters of grapes that ripened - to the cup of punishment that
Egypt was about to drink.
(a) This last D'rashah tallies with that of Rava, who explains that the
three cups mentioned in the dream of the chief butler represented - the
three cups of punishment that Egypt was destined to drink: one in the days
of Moshe, one in the days of Paroh Nechei (whom Nevuchadnetzar destroyed),
and one that they will drink together with all the nations of the world, in
time to come.
(b) Rebbi Aba told Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba - that Rav Darshened the current
Pasuk just like he (Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba) did.
(c) Resh Lakish, in his interpretation of the Pasuk, learned from the Pasuk
"Gefen mi'Mitzrayim Tasi'a" - that Yisrael is compared to a vine, and that
this was therefore the interpretation of the vine in the butler's dream.
(d) Resh Lakish compares the branches to the Ba'alei Batim ...
1. ... the clusters of grapes - to the Talmidei-Chachamim ...
(e) The Ba'alei-Batim are compared to branches, which constitute the main
part of the vine - because they perform Chesed, support the poor, and give
of their money to the ruling power, thereby enabling their brothers to
2. ... the leaves - to the Amei-ha'Aretz ...
3. ... and the tendrils (which serve no purpose) - to those in Yisrael who
are empty of Mitzvos.
(a) When they sent from Eretz Yisrael that the clusters should pray for the
leaves - they meant that just as the leaves are needed to protect the fruit
from the elements, so too, do the Amei-ha'Aretz, who plow, sow and reap ...
, save the Talmidei-Chachamim from death.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak interprets the
1. ... "Va'echreh Li ba'Chamishah-Asar Kesef" to mean - that Hashem acquired
Yisrael for Himself on the fifteenth of Nisan, on account of the Tzadikim.
(c) Bearing in mind the division of forty -five into two into two units,
Rebbi Yochanan's Safek is - whether there are thirty Tzadikim in Eretz
Yisrael and fifteen in Bavel, or vice versa.
2. ... "Chomer Se'orim ve'Lesech Se'orim" with reference - to the forty-five
Tzadikim (since a Chomer is thirty Sa'ah, and a Lesech, fifteen).
(d) And he resolves his Safek from the Pasuk "Va'ekchah Sheloshim ha'Kesef
va'Ashlich Oso Beis Hashem el ha'Otzar" - a clear indication that the thirty
Tzadikim are situated in Eretz Yisrael.
(a) Abaye maintains that most of the Tzadikim in Eretz Yisrael (see Tiferes
Ya'akov) are to be found in the Shul of 'Tusi Afsa', which means literally -
'below the attic'.
(b) The gist of the Pasuk "Va'omar Aleihem, Im Tov be'Einechem, Havu
S'chari, ve'Im Lo Chidlu, Ve'eshkalah ... Sheloshim ha'Kesef" is - that
Hashem, in His anger, was claiming back the thirty Tzadikim that He had
given them as protection, and would give the equivalent to Yisrael (see next
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, the Sheloshim Kesef in Zecharyah refers to the
thirty Tzadikei Umos ha'Olam - on whose merit the rest of the Nochrim
(b) Ula interprets it with regard to the thirty Mitzvos that the B'nei
No'ach undertook to keep (see Anaf Yosef) - of which they actually observed
(c) Two of them are that they did not write a Kesuvah on males (homosexual
relations) and they did not weigh out the flesh of corpses in the butchery.
Alternatively, 'she'Ein Shoklin Basar ha'Meis be'Makulin' might mean - that
they did not sell the flesh of animals that died naturally (without being
slaughtered) in the butchery (only discreetly).
(d) The third Mitzvah that they observed was - that they honored the Torah.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a bird does not have a 'Kaf ha'Yarech'
(flesh that surrounds the thigh). In fact, they do, and what the Mishnah
means is - that the flesh surrounding it is not round-shaped (like a spoon).
Note, that the poolke that we eat is the lower leg (corresponding to the
calf), and not the thigh.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be with regard to a bird that has
spoon-shaped flesh surrounding the thigh, or an animal that does not -
whether we go after each individual animal and bird (if it has, then it has
a Din of Gid ha'Nasheh, and if not, it doesn't), or whether we go after the
species (all animals have a Din of Gid ha'Nasheh, all birds don't).
(c) And the outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.
(a) Following the statement in our Mishnah 've'Noheg ba'Shelil', Shmuel
rules 've'Chelbo Mutar Divrei ha'Kol'. The problem with establishing this
1. ... the Cheilev of a Sh'lil is - that it is not unanimous at all, but a
Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, and the same applies to ...
(b) With reference to Gid ha'Nasheh, Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, rules 'Noheg
ba'Shelil ve'Chelbo Asur', whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds - 'Eino Noheg
ba'Sh'lil, ve'Chelbo Mutar'.
2. ... the Cheilev of the Gid ha'Nasheh, as we shall now see.
(c) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya define 'Sh'lil' in the Beraisa - as a
nine-month old baby that was found alive inside its mother, after it was
(d) When he adds that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah follow their own
reasoning, he is referring to their Machlokes - whether a Sh'lil requires
its own Shechitah (Rebbi Meir, in which case a Sh'lil is no different than
any other animal) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) We have already learned that, according to Rebbi Meir, one needs to root
out all the Cheilev together with the Gid. Rebbi Yehudah rules - that one
only needs to cut away the Cheilev that one sees (and not to dig out the
part that is hidden).
(b) We conclude that Shmuel is referring to the Cheilev of the Gid
ha'Nasheh - and when he says 'le'Divrei ha'Kol Mutar', he means mi'd'Oraysa.
He concedes however, that Rebbi Meir forbids it mi'de'Rabbanan.
(c) The basis for this is the Beraisa 've'Shamno Mutar, ve'Yisrael Kedoshim
Nahagu bo Isur' - which we query on the grounds that the author might well
be Rebbi Yehudah (who will then be the one to forbid all Cheilev of the Gid
mi'de'Rabbanan), and not Rebbi Meir (who will hold that it is all forbidden
(d) We answer by citing another Beraisa 'Gid ha'Nasheh Mechatet Acharav
be'Chol Makom she'Hu, ve'Shamno Mutar'. Now the Tana who uses this
expression ('Mechatet Acharav') is Rebbi Meir, yet he says 've'Shamno
Mutar', a clear proof that he is the author of the earlier Beraisa, and not
Rebbi Yehudah (who does not forbid all the Cheilev, even mi'de'Rabbanan).
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa citing Rav restricts the Isur of Gid
ha'Nasheh to the K'noknos (thin Gidin that lead from the outer Gid to the
inner one) - because the Gid itself is tasteless.
(b) Ula counters that however - with the argument that yes, the Gid
ha'Nasheh tastes like wood, yet that is what the Torah forbids.
(c) Abaye supports Ula on the basis of a statement by Rav Sheishes, who says
in the name of Rav Asi - that although thin strands of flesh that one finds
in the Cheilev (either coming from the flanks, or in the Cheilev that covers
the stomach) are forbidden (mi'de'Rabbanan), one is not Chayav for eating
(d) ... because the Torah forbade the Cheilev, and not the Chutin. By the
same token, Abaye argues, the Torah also writes "Gid", and not 'K'noknos',
(a) Rav Sheishes Amar Rav Asi - issues the same ruling with regard to the
thin strands of flesh that one finds in the kidneys, as he issued regarding
those in the Cheilev.
(b) Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya argue over the white that one finds in the
kidneys - one of them forbids it, the other, permits it.
(c) Rabah (or Rava) and Rebbi Yochanan used to root it out. Rebbi Asi - used
to remove the white that is outside the Kidneys, but not the part that is
inside (which does not resemble Cheilev at all).
(a) Abaye supports Rebbi Asi on the basis of a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar
Shmuel, who permitted the Cheilev that is covered by the flanks (which are
under the kidneys) ...
(b) ... because the Torah only forbids the Cheilev that is *on* the flanks,
but not the Cheilev that is *inside them*.
(c) By the same token - the Torah only forbade the Cheilev that is *on* the
kidneys, and not the Cheilev that is inside them, like Rebbi Asi.
(a) Some Poskim forbid the Cheilev of the flanks that are covered by a thick
membrane - because compared to the flesh, it is too thin to be considered a
(b) It is Minhag Ashkenaz however - to permit it, seeing as the white is in
effect, properly covered.
(c) The Din regarding the white that is in the kidneys is - that it is
proper to forbid it, since we do not specifically rule like Rebbi Asi.