(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 51

CHULIN 51-54 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.



(a) The Beraisa rules that if a needle in the Beis ha'Kosos (see Tosfos DH 'Machat') has pierced ...
1. ... only the inner skin - the animal is Kasher.
2. ... the outer skin as well - then it is Tereifah.
(b) The animal will remain Kasher even if the needle pierced both skins - if no blood is found on the needle (indicating that the needle pierced the skin only after the Shechitah.

(c) In the case where the needle pierced both skins and there was a drop of blood, the Tana rules that if a crust ...

1. ... formed over the wound - the Tereifus must have occurred at least three days earlier, in which case someone who purchased it within those three days has the right to claim his money back.
2. ... did not form over the wound - then we are not sure whether it took place before the sale or after it, in which case we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah' (and he cannot claim his money back unless he can prove that the wound occurred first).
(d) The Tana requires a drop of blood on the needle before the animal can be declared Tereifah, particularly in this case (and not in any other) - because some of the blood would have stuck to the needle, and the fact that it did not proves that the wound must have occurred after the Shechitah.
(a) Rav Safra told Abaye that a certain Rav Avira who had arrived from Eretz Yisrael - claimed that Rebbi had declared an animal with a needle sticking in its Beis ha'Kosos on one side, Tereifah (thereby arousing Abaye's curiosity).

(b) When Rav Avira refused ...

1. ... to come to Abaye - Abaye went to Rav Avira, whom he found on the roof.
2. ... to come down from the roof - Abaye went up to Rav Avira.
(c) When he finally met him face to face - he asked him to relate the details of the case that had come before Rebbi.

(d) Rav Avira - was in charge of gathering the Talmidim who came to hear Rebbi's D'rashah, to see them in and to see them out.

(a) Rav Nachman from Tzipori and Rebbi Yossi from Madai - were sitting in front of Rebbi when the She'eilah with the needle in the Beis ha'Kosos was brought to him.

(b) Rebbi found the drop of blood - on the outside of the wall of the Beis ha'Kosos corresponding to the spot where the needle had pierced (half way through the wall).

(c) He declared the animal Tereifah - because the drop of blood on the outside was clear proof that the needle must have pierced the entire skin (otherwise, how did the blood get there?).

(d) When Abaye heard that - he expressed his disappointment at having gone to all that trouble, since Rav Avira's 'Chidush' is contained in our Mishnah, which renders an animal with a hole that pierces right through to the other side of the skin, Tereifah (and the Reisha of the Beraisa speaks where blood may well have been found on the needle, but not on the outside of the wall).

(a) Rav Huna rules that an animal that one left standing on the roof, and that one subsequently finds on the ground - is Kasher (and we do not suspect Risuk Eivarim [that its limbs are crushed]) ...

(b) ... because since we did not see it fall, we can assume that it jumped, and is not therefore Tereifah (as we will explain shortly).

(c) When Ravina's goat, which was standing at the edge of a skylight, took a fancy to some peeled barley that it saw directly below the skylight - it jumped down.

(d) Rav Ashi thought that this case might be ...

1. ... worse than the case of Rav Huna (in which case the animal would have been Tereifah) - because it did not have a wall with which to support itself as it jumped, like it did there.
2. ... comparable to that of Rav Huna (in which the animal would have been Kasher) - because, just like the animal in Rav Huna's case, it jumped intentionally, which means that it assessed that it was able to do so without coming to grief.
(a) When a sheep from the flock belonging to Rav Chaviva was seen dragging its hind legs behind it, Rav Yeimar thought that it had cramp, and was Kasher. Ravina suggested - that perhaps its spinal cord was broken, in which case it was Tereifah.

(b) When they examined the animal, they discovered - that its spinal cord was indeed broken.

(c) The Halachah is nevertheless like Rav Yeimar - because whereas cramp is common among animals, a broken spinal cord is not.

(a) Rav Huna rules that when rams indulge in a goring match - we do not suspect that they go so far as to break each other's limbs (even if the animals actually hurt each other), because they are only playing.

(b) He does concede however, that we suspect Risuk Eivarim - if one of them throws the other to the ground.

(a) The ram thieves used to throw the rams over the wall, giving rise to the fear that the rams' limbs were crushed.

(b) The Chachamim were not however afraid of that - because seeing as the thieves wanted the animals to run in front of them, they would be careful to throw them in such a way that they landed on their sides (when they would not become Tereifah), and not on their backs.

(c) They were afraid of crushed limbs when they threw them back though - because then, they had no reason to care how they threw them.

(d) They were not afraid even then however - if they threw them back as a result of Teshuvah, only if they did so out of fear of getting caught.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - declares Kasher an animal which someone strikes with a stick that reaches all the way down its back ...
1. ... from its head to its tail or ...
2. ... from its tail to its head.
(b) We do however suspect that its back might indeed be broken, if the stick does not reach to the end of its back. Even if it did however the animal would be Tereifah - if the stick contained knobs (which would strike the animal's back wherever there was a knob).

(c) The animal would be Tereifah, even if one were to use a long, straight stick containing no twigs - if one were to strike it across its back instead of along it.




(a) When Rav Nachman says that the womb is not subject to Risuk Eivarim, he means - that we are not afraid that the limbs of a new-born calf (for example) become crushed as it emerges from its mother's narrow womb.

(b) If we were, the baby would need to survive twenty-four hours before leaving the realms of Safek Tereifah.

(c) Rava tries to support Rav Nachman's statement from the Beraisa, which states that a one-day old baby is subject to Tum'as Zav - from the fact that the Tana considers the newborn baby subject to Vaday Zivus, and not a Safek (which it would be if it was subject to Risuk Eivarim).

(d) To refute Rava's proof - we establish the Beraisa when the baby was born by a cesarean birth.

(a) We try to bring the same proof for Rav Nachman from the Beraisa, which permits Shechting a calf on Yom-Tov, and give the same refutation. Another Beraisa rules that a Bechor that is born on Yom-Tov with a blemish - is not Muktzah and may be Shechted and eaten immediately.

(b) This too, appears to support Rav Nachman. We cannot however, refute the proof in the same way as we refuted the previous Beraisos - because an animal born by cesarean section is not subject to Bechorah.

(c) To refute the proof therefore, we establish the Beraisa - when the baby got up on its own feet or at least made an effort to do so (an alternative to waiting twenty-four hours, as we shall see shortly).

(a) Rav Nachman also rules that if an animal is thrown down in the slaughterhouse - it is Kasher.

(b) When Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa heard the groans of an ox that had been thrown down in he slaughterhouse - he went and purchased the best part of it for himself.

(c) When they asked him why he was not concerned about Risuk Eivarim, he cited Rav, who explained - that an animal which is thrown down for Shechitah avoids Risuk Eivarim by digging its hoofs into the ground, thereby slowing down its fall.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that an animal that falls from the roof and ...
1. ... stands up by itself - does not require twenty-fours to ascertain that its limbs are not crushed, though it does need to be inspected (as will be explained shortly).
2. ... walks - does not need inspection either.
(b) According to Rav Chiya bar Ashi disagrees - even the latter requires inspection too.

(c) Rav Yirmiyah bar Acha Amar Rav rules that an animal that fell from the roof and ...

1. ... stretches out its foreleg in order to stand up, or if it ...
2. ... moved its hind leg with the intention of starting to walk - does require the twenty-four hour waiting period, even if did not manage to stand up or to walk.
(d) Rav Chisda adds to this - that the same will apply to an animal which just made a move to stand up without any positive action.
(a) According to Ameimar in the name of Rav Dimi from Neherda'a, an animal that fell from the roof requires examination of its intestines - because we are afraid that the majority of the outer Keres may have torn or the intestines may have punctured.

(b) Mar Zutra citing Rav Papa, is even more strict. He requires the examination of the entire abdominal cavity, in case, in addition to the above, the majority of ribs broke or some vertebrae became detached.

(c) Rav Ashi exempted the Simanim from examining the Simanim - because they are tough and remain unaffected by a fall.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - declares a bird that is thrown into water by force, Safek Tereifah, because of Risuk Eivarim - unless it proceeds to swim at least the distance of its own height.

(b) He qualifies this ruling however - by confining it to where it swam upstream (but if it only swims downstream, then in all likelihood, it was merely carried by the water).

(c) Should the bird swim on a straight - it is as good as swimming upstream to prove that it is not a Tereifah.

(d) Even if it swam downstream however, we will declare the bird Kasher - if it overtakes objects floating in the water.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that if a bird falls in to a cloth that is tied to four posts if it (the cloth) is ...
1. ... loose - it is Kasher.
2. ... tight - it is Safek Tereifah.
(b) The bird will be Kasher however - if the cloth is folded, even though it is tight.

(c) If a bird falls into ...

1. ... a net that is tied to four posts - it is Safek Tereifah if the knots are close together, but Kasher - if they are far apart.
2. ... a bundle of flax (which is hard), it is Safek Tereifah - if it lands in the middle of the bundle, but Kasher - if it lands at one of the ends, and slides off.
(d) If the bird falls into bundles of canes, we suspect Risuk Eivarim. If it falls into a pile of flax that has been beaten and shaken - Rav Yehudah declares it Kasher, but Safek Tereifah if was beaten but not shaken, because the broken stalks pierce the bird's flesh.
(a) He rules that if the bird falls into a pile of ...
1. ... flax shavings, which is hard - it is Safek Tereifah; of extra fine shavings - it is Kasher because it is soft.
2. ... creepers that grow around a date-palm (from which one manufactures ropes) before it has been divided into strips - it is Safek Tereifah,
because they are hard; afterwards, - it is Kasher, because they remain soft. 3. ... ashes that have been sifted - it is Safek Tereifah, because they become compact from people who walk on them; ashes that haven't - it is Kasher, because they remain soft.
4. ... soft sand - it is Kasher (because it does not become compact from people walking on it); hard sand (i.e. pebbles) - it is Safek Tereifah.
(b) He declares a bird falling into the earth in the street - Tereifah, because the earth becomes compact from all the people who tread on it.

(c) And he draws a distinction between ...

1. ... straw of wheat or barley that has been made into a bundle - which is compact, and straw that has not - which is soft.
2. ... wheat and species of wheat (i.e. rye) - which is hard, and barley and species of barley (i.e. oats and spelt) - which are soft.
3. ... legumes - which is Kasher, and fenugreek - which is Tereifah.
4. ... peas (see Tosfos DH 'Kitnis') - which is Kasher, and chickpeas - which is Tereifah.
(d) The principle which governs the last two distinctions is - that anything that is slippery, even if it is hard, does not render the bird a Safek Tereifah.
Next daf


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