ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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.
(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.
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).
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(b) In reply, we justify the fact that he ...
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).
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.
(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
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.
(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
(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