(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 44

CHULIN 44 (Purim d'Perazim) - l'Iluy Nishmas Harav Ze'ev Wolf Rosengarten of Zurich, Switzerland, who passed away on 14 Adar 5760, a person of "Sheleimus" in every way. Dedicated in honor of his Yahrzeit by his nephew and Talmid, Eli Rosengarten of Zurich.



(a) Mar b'rei de'Ravina queries Rava from a Beraisa. He asked the Kashya on 'the enemy of Rava' - because he was going to refer to him as 'a fool who walks in the dark' (a rather derogatory title').

(b) The Tana there states that someone who ...

1. ... wishes to rule either like Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel - may do so.
2. ... rules like all the leniencies of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - is a Rasha.
3. ... rules like the stringencies of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - is a "fool who walks in the dark" (a Pasuk in Mishlei).
(c) One is called a fool for adopting all the Chumros of two Poskim - only if the Chumros clash, as they do in our case.

(d) This applies to Shedrah and Gulgoles, over which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue (as we learned a little earlier) - in that Beis Hillel (who considers one vertebra as significant both as regards Tum'as Meis and as reg ards Tereifah, is more stringent than Beis Shamai (who requires two) regarding the former, but more lenient regarding the latter.

(e) What one should do - is either follow the opinion of the one in both case, or that of the other.

(a) When the Tana first ruled 'Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Beis Hillel' - he was referring to after the Bas-Kol, and when he continued 've'ha'Rotze La'asos ke'Divrei Beis Shamai, Oseh ... ' - he was referring to after it.

(b) The bas-Kol announced - 'Halachah ke'Beis Hillel'.

(c) Alternatively, we establish even the second statement after the Bas-Kol - and it goes like the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds that we do not follow a Bas Kol, because of the principle 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi' (see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yehoshua Hi').

(a) To answer the Kashya on Rava, we cite Rami bar Yechezkel, who declares the statement of Yehudah his brother citing Rav, to be incorrect. He is referring to - the ruling of Rav 'Turbatz ha'Veshetz be'Mashehu' because it is part of the Makom Shechitah. Yehudah his brother - is Rav Yehudah who throughout Shas, is generally the one who cites Rav (even when his name is not specifically mentioned).

(b) In fact, Rav said that the Chachamim gave the Veshet a Shi'ur - implying that the Turbatz ha'Veshet is not included in the Shechitah.

(c) This alters our understanding of Rav's ruling 'Turbatz ha'Veshet be'Chol-she'Hu' in that - he now says this even though it is not part of the location of the Shechitah, thereby vindicating Rava, who declared Pasul the ox whose Shechitah began on the Turbatz ha'Veshet).

(a) Rav Nachman give as the Shi'ur Veshet at the top end of the Veshet - 'K'dei Tefisas Yad' (three or four finger-breadths), that one should leave before Shechting it.

(b) It cannot mean the amount that one holds between the tips of one's fingers - because that is not what 'Tefisas Yad' means.

(c) The Shi'ur that Rav Nachman, citing Rabah bar Avuhah, gives at the bottom end of the Veshet is - up to the point where it joins the inner Keres and where it becomes hairy.

(d) We query this however, from a statement by Ravina, who said in the name of ... Rav 'Tefach be'Veshet Samuch le'Keres Zehu Keres ha'Penimi' (i.e. the last Tefach of the Veshet before the Keres is considered to be part of the inner Keres) - even though hair does not begin to grow before for another Tefach (a Kashya on Rav Nachman's previous ruling).

(a)To reconcile Ravina's statement with Rav Nachman, we amend it to - 'Tefach be'Keres Samuch le'Veshet (i.e. one Tefach after where the hair begins to grow) Zehu Keres ha'Penimi'.

(b) Alternatively, we establish Rav (cited by Ravina) earlier ruling by an ox - whose hair begins to grow higher up on the Veshet.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that even if the entire Turbatz ha'Veshet has been removed from the jaw - the animal is nevertheless Kasher.

(b) And we support this from a Mishnah later, which states - 'Nital Lechi ha'Tachton', Kasher.

(c) Rav Papa asks why, according to Shmuel, the animal is not Tereifah because of Ikur Simanin. This is not a Kashya on the Mishnah ('Nital ha'Lechi ... ') - because the Mishnah speaks when the lower jaw only is bent out of place, but both Simanim are still firmly in place.

(d) To answer Rav Papa's Kashya, we amend Rav Nachman's statement to read (not 'she'Nital Kulo, but) - she'Nital Rubo' (and since it is still partially joined, the animal is Kasher).

(e) And we reconcile Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel with Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Shmuel, who rules 'Simanim she'Nidaldelu be'Ruban, Tereifah' - by establishing that where the Simanim were torn out by force, Consequently, the minority that remains in place is insecurely attached, and unable to re-grow.




(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Pesukas ha'Gargeres be'Rubah'. Rav defines this as 'Rov Uvyah' - which means the majority of the neck starting from the top and including the wall (bear in mind that the wall of the neck is thick at the top and narrow at the bottom).

(b) Rav cannot mean that the animal becomes a Tereifah if the majority of the thickness of the wall of the neck breaks, even before it reaches the hollow - because that would render the Kaneh more stringent than the Veshet (which a hole does not render Tereifah unless it penetrates the wall through to the hollow).

(c) Others quote Rav as saying - 'Rov Chalalah', meaning that it only becomes Tereifah if the majority of the neck corresponding to the hollow is broken.

(a) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi found Rav examining Rov Uvyah of a Pesukas ha'Gargeres - they reminded him - that he had taught them 'Rov Chalalah', and not 'Rov Uvyah'.

(b) When Rav sent the animal to Rabah bar bar Chanah for inspection - he examined Rov Chalalah, and found it to be Kasher.

(c) He purchased meat from it to the value of thirteen Istiri P'shiti. If an Istira is a Sela (four Dinrim) - then thirteen Istiri P'shiti (i.e. thirteen Sela Medinah [which is one eighth of a Sela Tzuri]) equals six and a half Dinrim (which are fixed).

(a) The problem with Rabah bar bar Chanah ...
1. ... declaring the animal Kasher is - how he could permit something once Rav had forbidden it.
2. ... purchasing the meat and eating it is - how a Tzadik like him could eat from an animal that had a She'eilah on it (as we already learned from Yechezkel in the previous Perek).
(b) In reply, we justify the fact that he ...
1. ... declared it Kasher - because in fact, Rav had not yet declared it Tereifah. He was prevented from doing so by his Talmidim Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, as we explained.
2. ... purchased meat from the animal and ate it - by restricting the Chumra of Yechezkel to a She'eilah that depends on S'vara, where there is always a chance that, despite the lenient ruling, the Halachah is like the Machmir, but in a case such as ours, where Rabah bar bar Chanah's ruling was based on a Kabalah that 'Rov' means Rov Chalalah, there is no reason to be strict.
(c) We also query Rabah bar bar Chanah from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules - that a judge should not purchase the field or the Talis over which he has just issued a ruling ('Zikah Ve'chiyev, Timei Ve'tiher, Asar Ve'hitir') or testified, in order to keep far from things that do not look right.

(d) That problem did not exist in the case of Rabah bar bar Chanah - because we confine this stringency to a case where the sale is transacted by assessment, but not where it is sold by weight, as it was in there.

(a) We cite a precedent for the previous ruling from a case where Rava purchased and ate from a Safek Tereifah that he had permitted, and where bas Rav Chisda - his wife, queried him from her father, who would not purchase meat from a Bechor that he had permitted.

(b) Rav Chisda could eat from a Bechor - since he was a Kohen.

(c) Rava answered his wife that there was no problem with his purchasing from the Tereifah that he had permitted - because it was sold by weight (unlike a Bechor, which may only be sold by assessment).

(d) Nor was he afraid that they might offer him a nice portion for having permitted the animal - since they were accustomed to doing so anyway, as a mark of Kavod.

(a) Rav Chisda defines a Talmid-Chacham - as one who is able to declare his own animal a Tereifah, even though there is an equally good reason to permit it.

(b) He also defines "Sonei Matanos Yichyeh" (Mishlei [meaning that someone who hates gifts will live long]) in the same way.

(c) To someone who learned Chumash, Mishnah, declared Asur his own Safek Tereifah and studied Gemara, he ascribed the Pasuk - Yegi'a Kapecha ki Sochel, Ashrecha ve'Tov Lach".

(d) Rav Z'vid interprets the Pasuk "Ashrecha ve'Tov Lach" - to mean both in this world and in the World to Come.

(a) Rebbi Elazar would neither accept gifts from the Nasi's house nor accept any invitation to dine with them - due to the Pasuk "Sonei Matanos Yichyeh".

(b) Rebbi Zeira differed - in that he would accept invitations to dine with at the Nasi's house, because he argued, they felt honored that he joined them, in which case it was he who was giving them more than they were giving him.

Next daf


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