(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 55



(a) Another Mishnah in Keilim, discussing the minimum Shi'ur of small earthenware vessels, mentions 'Hein, ve'Karkeroseihen ve'Dafnoseihen' - meaning the complete vessels, their bases (should they break) or one of their walls, which are still subject to Tum'ah - provided they are able to stand without being supported.

(b) The Shi'ur Tum'ah, assuming they originally held ...

1. ... 'ad Log' is - that they are able to contain sufficient oil to anoint a small child.
2. ... 'mi'Log ve'Ad Sa'ah' is - that they can hold a Revi'is of liquid.
3. ... 'mi'Sa'ah ve'Ad Sa'sayim' is - that they can hold half a Log of liquid.
(c) In all these cases, Rav Nachman will explain 'Ad' and 've'Ad' - as being exclusive (in which case, a vessel that holds a Log, for example, will only be subject to Tum'ah if it holds a Revi'is of liquid).

(d) He will explain the Beraisa 'Log ki'Lematah, Sa'ah ki'Lematah, Sa'sayim ki'Lematah' - as being a Chumra (mi'de'Rabbanan). Note, that we will now have to concede that Rav Nachman's ruling of 'ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal' regarding a 'ke'Isar' by Tereifos, is specifically le'Chumra, forcing us to retract from some of our interpretations of the Mishnahs in Keilim.

(a) This answer is based on a statement by Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Kol Shi'urei Chachamim Lehachmir'. The one exception is 'ki'Geris shel Kesamim' - meaning a bloodstain the size of a bean (regarding Safek Nidus) on the garment of a woman, which is Tahor if it is exactly a ki'Geris.

(b) The Chachamim go Lehakel specifically there - because the entire Din of bloodstains (that render a woman Tamei) is purely mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) In connection with the earlier Mishnah in Keilim, the Beraisa rules - 'Chamishah ki'Leme'elah, ve'Asarah ki'Lematah' (Le'chumra at both ends) ...

(d) ... a proof that our interpretation of the second Mishnah in Keilim is correct.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Nital ha'Techol Kesheirah'. Rav Avira in the name of Rava confines this ruling to Nital. In a case of Nikav ha'Techol - he declares the animal Tereifah (another one of the Shev Shema'atsa) ...

(b) ... because the pain the animal suffers causes the wound to intensify, until it results in its death.

(a) The Mishnah in Beheimah ha'Makshah' permits cutting off a piece of fetus from the animal's womb and eating it after the mother has been Shechted - though the Tana forbids doing the same regarding the spleen or the kidneys (as we shall explain there).

(b) We try to extrapolate from there - that the fetus itself is permitted, a Kashya on Rav Avira (since initially, we equate cutting off a piece of spleen with a spleen with a hole in it).

(c) Even though, as we answer, the entire fetus is forbidden too, the Tana mentions specifically the limb in question - because of the Reisha, which needs to teach us that the piece of fetus is permitted (and is not Eiver min ha'Chai).

(d) Alternatively, we reconcile Rav Avira with this Mishnah, even assuming that the fetus is indeed not Tereifah - by differentiating between a hole in the spleen, which is Tereifah) and a piece that is cut off (which is not).

(a) Rachish bar Papa in the name of Rav rules that one kidney that is full of pus - renders the animal Tereifah.

(b) They qualified this ruling in Eretz Yisrael - by restricting it to where the wound reached the groove (where the nerves fuse) in the middle of the kidney ...

(c) ... which we describe as the location of the white area underneath the loins.

(a) All the Poskim of Tereifos in Eretz Yisrael told Rebbi Nechunya - that although the Halachah is like Rachish bar Papa (regarding pus in the kidney), it is not like Rav Avira (regarding a hole in the spleen).

(b) They nonetheless agreed with Rav Avira (and the animal is Tereifah) - in a case where the hole is located in the thick part of the spleen (and the animal is Tereifah).

(c) They qualified this ruling however - by confining it to where the hole pierced to within the thickness of a golden Dinar of the spleen's wall. Otherwise, the animal is Kasher.




(a) The B'nei Eretz Yisrael learn the principle 'Kol ha'Posel be'Rei'ah, Kasher be'Kulya' - from a the Din of a hole, which is Tereifah in the lung, but Kasher in the kidneys.

(b) Initially, we extrapolate from their ruling - that whatever is Kasher in the case of a lung, is certainly Kasher in that of a kidney.

(c) Rebbi Tanchuma asks on this from the Din of ...

1. ... pus - which is Kasher in the lungs but Tereifah in the kidneys.
2. ... pure water that is Kasher even by a Kulya - even though it is caused by a wound, just like pus (yet it does not render the animal Tereifah, like pus does), a proof that one cannot compare one Tereifus to another (Tosfos DH 've'Harei').
(d) So Rav Ashi concludes - that one cannot in fact, learn one case from another in Tereifos (just as we sometimes find that something is Kasher when it is cut from one place and Tereifah when it is cut from another, even though it may appear to be illogical, as we learned earlier), and that consequently, it is even feasible for something to be Kasher in the lungs and Tereifah in the kidneys.
(a) Even ...
1. ... pure water in the kidney will render the animal Tereifah - if it is not clear.
2. ... clear water will render it Tereifah - if it smells putrid.
(b) If the kidney of a small animal which shrunk to the size of a bean renders the animal Tereifah, the kidney of a large animal - must shrink to the size of a medium-size grape to do so.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah 'Nitlah Lechi ha'Tachton, Kesheirah'. The Tana will agree however, that the animal with a dislocated lower jaw is Tereifah - if one is unable to feed it.

(d) The 'Eim' of the animal is the womb - and so is the Tarpachas (mentioned later in the Perek) and the Shalfuchis (mentioned earlier).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Charusah bi'Yedei Shamayim, Kesheirah'. 'bi'Yedei Shamayim' means - through the elements (such as thunder or hail).

(b) A shriveled lung will render the animal Tereifah - in a case where it was frightened by a noise made by a human being.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar adds 'Af bi'Yedei Kol ha'Beriyos' - which either comes to add to the leniency of the Charusah bi'Yedei Shamayim, or to the stringency of Charusah bi'Yedei Adam (we are not, at first sure, which).

(a) We resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, where the Tana Kama states 'Charusah bi'Yedei Adam Tereifah', and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar comments 'Af bi'Yedei Kol ha'Beriyos'.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's statement is less ambiguous there than it is in the previous Beraisa - because there is only one opinion to which it can refer.

(c) When Rabah bar bar Chanah found some rams in the desert whose lungs had shriveled, the Talmidim in the Beis Hamedrash advised him to place them in water and leave them for twenty-four hours to see what would happen. He would know whether they had shriveled bi'Yedei Shamayim (and were Kasher) - if they re-inflated, or bi'Yedei Adam (and were Tereifah) - if they did not.

(d) The test differed in the summer from in the winter - inasmuch as in the summer, he was advised to use a bowl of white earthenware and fill it with cold water; whereas in the winter, it was a bowl of black earthenware which he was to fill with warm water.

(a) In a Beraisa which cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir (Kasher) and the Chachamim (Tereifah) over a Geludah, Elazar Safra and Yochanan ben Gudgoda testify - that a Geludah is Tereifah.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar states - that Rebbi Meir retracted from his original view.

(c) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Oshaya B'no shel Rebbi Yehudah ha'Basam (the spice-seller) testified before Rebi Akiva that a Geludah is Kasher only as long as a Sela remains intact. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar comments there - that Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim do not argue that a Geludah is Tereifah.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles this with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's own previous statement that Rebbi Meir retracted - by interpreting 'do not argue' to mean that Rebbi Meir did not continue to argue.

(a) They asked where the 'ke'Sela' of skin has to remain for a Geludah to be Kasher. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav replied - along the entire surface of the spine.

(b) This might mean that all that is required is the total volume of a Sela coin, even though it entails no more than a thin strip of skin all the way along the Shedrah. It might also mean - the width of a Sela all along the spinal cord.

(c) We resolve this She'eilah from a statement by Rebbi Nehorai in the name of Shmuel, who says - 'ke'Rochav Sela al-P'nei Kol ha'Shedrah'.

(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah and Rebbi Elazar ben Antignus in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai disagree with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. When Rabah bar bar Chanah says 'Roshei Perakim', he means - that the volume of a Sela must remain intact by each and every joint of the vertebrae, of the bones and of the thighs.

(e) According to Rebbi Elazar ben Antignus in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai, the animal will not be a Geludah - if there is a ke'Sela of skin on the navel.

(a) Rebbi Yanai b'Rebbi Yishmael asks what the Din will be - if all the skin remains except for three areas required by Shmuel, Rabah bar bar Chanah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai, respectively.

(b) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku.

(c) Rav is more lenient than all the above opinions. According to him, a ke'Sela anywhere will render the animal Kasher, except for the skin of the 'Beis ha'Perasos' - which is the skin below the knee which he does consider flesh, because of its softness.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan is more lenient still - because he includes the skin of the Beis ha'Perasos, too.

(a) When Rebbi Yochanan said this to Rebbi Asi, the latter queried him from a Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' - where the Tana lists the skin of Beis ha'Perasos among those skins that have the Din of flesh (regarding Tum'as Ochlin), a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan was not impressed by the Kashya however - because he considers the Mishnah in question the opinion of a Yachid (Rebbi Shimon, as we shall now see [see also Tosfos DH 'be'Lashon Yachid']).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan's answer is based on a Beraisa, which discusses someone who Shechts an Olah with the intention of burning the skin under the fat-tail either in the wrong place or at the wrong time. If someone Shechts an Olah with the intention of burning some of the flesh...

1. ... in the wrong place and then eats it - although the Olah is Pasul, it is not Pigul, in which case he is not Chayav Kareis.
2. ... at the wrong time, and then eats it (even within the official time-frame) - it is Pigul and he is Chayav Kareis.
(d) In the equivalent case, but where he intends to burn some of the skin at the wrong time - it is not even Pigul, because skin is not considered Basar, and he is not Chayav for eating it.
(a) The Tana Kama rules that in a case where someone Shechts a Korban with the intention of burning the skin under the fat-tail in the wrong time and then eats it - he is Chayav Kareis, because the skin under the fat-tail is soft, and is considered Basar.

(b) Besides the skin of the head of a tender calf, Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Ish K'far Ikus in the name of Rebbi Shimon, adds to the skin under the fat-tail ...

1. ... specifically - the skin of Beis ha'Perasos.
2. ... by inference from 'Kol she'Manu Chachamim Gabei Tum'ah Eilu she'Oroseihen ki'Besaran' - the skin of the womb of a female animal.
(c) We do not also include a 'Shelil' (a fetus) - because Shelil is not applicable by an Olah, which is a male animal. Note, that in that case, neither is Or Beis ha'Boshes (see Maharam Shif and Tosfos DH 'Lehavi').

(d) Rebbi has now proved from this Beraisa - that it is only Rebbi who considers the skin of the Beis ha'Perasos flesh, but not the Rabbanan.

Next daf


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