(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 54

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) It is obvious to Rav Bibi bar Abaye, cited by Rav Papi, that the Shi'ur Derisah of the Veshet is a Mashehu - because that is the Shi'ur of a hole that renders the animal Tereifah.

(b) The Shi'ur D'risah of the Kaneh is not so obvious however - because the Shi'ur of a hole there regarding Tereifus, is only a ke'Isar.

(c) Nevertheless, he concludes that the Shi'ur Derisah of a Kaneh is also a Mashehu - because the animal's venom spreads, burning the area around the actual hole.

(a) When Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa gave the Shi'ur Bedikah for Derusah as the abdominal cavity (like the B'nei Rebbi Chiya on the previous Amud), Rav Nachman objected - based on Rav's ruling 'mi'Kapa ad Atma'.

(b) By ...

1. ... 'mi'Kapa', Rav meant - from the spoon-shaped skull.
2. ... 've'ad Atma' - until the thighs (which corresponds to the end of the abdominal cavity.
(c) 'Kapa' cannot mean the shoulder blades (including the lungs and the liver, see Tosfos DH 'Ileima') - because that corresponds to the beginning of the abdominal cavity, and would render Rav Nachman's objection meaningless.

(d) When Resh Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan issued a joint statement along the same lines as Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa, and Rav Chiya bar Yosef, who had just arrived in Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, raised the same objection as Rav Nachman citing Rav, Resh Lakish reacted - by querying who this 'Rav' was.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan - reminded him of the Talmid who learned under Rebbi at the same time as he did ...

(b) ... and what's more - whilst he had to stand, Rav was permitted to sit down (indicating that Rav was greater than him).

(c) And he described Rav's greatness - by declaring Rav as being a great man both in his Torah knowledge and in his Chasidus.

(a) Resh Lakish remembered Rav after all. He even quoted his ruling 'Shemutah u'Shechutah Kesheirah' - meaning that if the Gargeres is found to have slipped as well as having been Shechted, the animal is Kasher ...

(b) ... because had it slipped before the Shechitah, it would have been impossible to Shecht it because it tends to slide right down the neck (in which case, it must have slipped after the Shechitah).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan rules - that one makes a cut a slight distance away and determines whether the first cut was made before or after the Gargeres was torn out, by comparing the two cuts.

(d) Rav Nachman qualifies Rav's ruling by confining it to where the Shochet was not holding the Gargeres during the Shechitah, but not to where he was.

(a) Our Mishnah concludes 'Zeh ha'Kelal, Kol she'Ein Kamohah Chayah, Tereifah'. 'Zeh ha'Kelal' comes to include - the Shev Sh'ma'atsa (that we discussed at the beginning of the Perek).

(b) The animal whose Gid ha'Nasheh Yosef the hunter's family bludgeoned - died.

(c) When they asked ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira whether the animal concerned was Tereifah or not - he replied that one does not have the authority to add to the Tereifos listed in the Mishnah.
2. ... Rebbi Aba the same She'eilah concerning an animal whose kidney the family of Rav Papa bar Aba the hunter had beaten until it died - he gave the same answer.
(d) We reconcile the two above rulings with the fact that the animals died - by pointing out that had they been administered the right cures, they would have lived (which is not the case with the Tereifos in our Mishnah).
(a) Our Mishnah now lists the defects that are Kasher. These include a punctured Gargeres, one that is split or one that has a piece missing. An animal is Kasher even if its Kaneh is ...
1. ... punctured - as long as the Gargeres is not missing a piece the size of an Italian Isar coin (as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel states).
2. ... split (lengthwise) - as long as a little remains whole at both ends.
(b) And it is Kasher even though its ...
1. ... skull is broken - as long as the membrane that covers the brain remains intact.
2. ... its heart is punctured - as long as the hole does not reach the cavity.
3. ... its spine is broken - as long as the spinal cord remains intact.
4. ... its liver has been removed - as long as a k'Zayis remains.
(c) The animal is Kasher even though both the Meses and the Beis ha'Kosos are punctured - as long as the hole runs from one to the other (since the food goes from one to the other anyway).

(d) The Tana declares an animal with a missing spleen, kidneys or womb - Kasher.

(a) An animal is Kasher if ...
1. ... its lower jaw is detached from the flesh - provided the Simanim are still attached.
2. ... its kidney has shriveled up - provided it was caused by a Divinely-inspired occurrence.
(b) Rebbi Meir declares an animal whose skin is missing, Kasher. Such a thing happens - either as a result of boils (a skin disease) or through hard work.

(c) The Rabbanan declare it - Tereifah.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns that 'Eilu Tereifos' is Davka, but Eilu Kesheiros is not. Resh Lakish says - vice-versa.

(b) They argue over Rav Masna's ruling (one of the Shev Shema'atsa) - that a thigh-bone that became dislocated renders the animal Tereifah.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, we need 'Eilu' to preclude the animal from the Din of Tereifah, because we would otherwise have thought - that on account of its similarity to Netulah, it is included in 'Zeh ha'Kelal', and is Tereifah.

(d) According to Resh Lakish, on the other hand, the Tana needs 'Eilu Kesheiros' to preclude Rav Masna's case from the Kesheiros - because he does not consider it similar to Netulah; nor is it similar to Nekuvah or Pesukah.




(a) Rava argues with Rav Masna. He declares an animal with a dislocated thigh-bone, Kasher, though he will agree that it is Tereifah - if the small nerve that is located on top of the thigh is broken.

(b) The Halachah is however - that the animal is Kasher, unless the nerve has rotted.

(a) Our Mishnah gives the Shi'ur of a Chesaron in the Gargeres as an Italian Isar. Ze'iri mentioned a Dinra Kurdina'a (meaning a Dinar from Ararat, which is approximately the same size) for the benefit of the people of Bavel, who were not familiar with the Italian Isar.

(b) Similar small size coins (called 'P'shiti') were to be found in - Pumbedisa.

(c) bar Nafcha (alias Rebbi Yochanan) asked Rebbi Chana the banker for a Dinra Kurdina'a - in order to measure the Tereifus of the Gargeres with it.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan forbade him to stand up for him - because he maintained that employees are forbidden to rise before a Talmid-Chacham.

(a) We query Rebbi Yochanan from a Mishnah in Bikurim, which discusses the entry of a group bringing their Bikurim into Yerushalayim. As they walked past, all the tradesmen would ...
1. ... rise in their honor?
2. ... greet them, adding 'Our brothers, men of such and such a place (they would arrive area by area), come in peace'.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan resolved the Kashya on himself from this Mishnah - by extrapolating from the word used in the Mishnah 'Mipneihem' - 'Mipneihem, ve'Lo Mipnei Talmidei-Chachamim'.

(c) We refute the proof from there for the maxim 'Gedolah Mitzvah be'Sha'atah' - by proposing that they stopped work and stood up (even though one does not do so on any other occasion) - to make them feel good about their trip, giving them the impetus to come again next year.

(a) Rav Nachman interprets 'ad ke'Isar ha'Italki' (regarding the Shi'ur Kashrus in our Mishnah) as - up to but excluding an Isar. If it is the size of an Isar, it is Tereifah (like more than an Isar).

(b) This suggests - that he holds in principle 'Ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal' (that 'Ad' is always exclusive).

(c) Rav Nachman is referring to our Mishnah, and not to the Mishnah in 'Eilu Tereifos' (even though the word 'Ad' is not mentioned there) - because the term 'Ad' would be inappropriate there; what the Tana would have said is 'Kamah Techsar u'Sehei Tereifah? ke'Isar'.

(a) The Mishnah in Keilim declares Tahor, a rope up to five Tefachim that still protrudes after a bed (of ropes) has been completed. It is not subject to Tum'ah ...
1. ... together with the bed - because it is too short to be of any use (and therefore stands to be cut off).
2. ... independently - because a raw material must be either spun or woven before it becomes subject to Tum'ah.
(b) Rav Nachman will interpret ...
1. ... the Mishnah in Keilim - to mean up to, but excluding, five Tefachim.
2. ... the continuation of the Mishnah 'me'Chamishah ad Asarah, Tamei' - in the same way (i.e. up to, but excluding, ten Tefachim).
(c) Once the rope reaches a length of five Tefachim - it become fit 1. to tie the lamb of the Korban Pesach to one's bed-post (to commemorate this great act of self-sacrifice in Egypt), and 2. to lower the bed into the Mikvah, should it become Tamei and require Tevilah.

(d) The excess of ten Tefachim is not however, subject to Tum'ah - because it is superfluous, and stands to be cut off.

Next daf


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