(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 58

CHULIN 57-58 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.



(a) Based on Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's ruling (that a Tereifah can give birth), Ameimar rules that ...
1. ... the batch of eggs that a bird is carrying when it becomes Tereifah is forbidden - due to the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' (a fetus is considered part of its mother), so the eggs become Tereifah together with the mother.
2. ... subsequent batches are Kasher - due to the principle 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar' (somethingthat is created by both Isur [the mother] and Heter [the father] is permitted).
(b) Rav Ashi queried Ameimar from a Beraisa 've'Shavin be'Beitzas Tereifah she'Asurah, Mipnei she'Gadlah be'Isur', to which he replied - that the Tana is speaking about a Sapana me'Ar'a (an egg that was formed without a male [through rubbing itself against the ground]).

(c) He did not answer the previous question by establishing the Mishnah with regard to the first batch, because then the Tana ought to have said (not 'Mipnei she'Gadlah be'Isur' [because it grew up be'Isur], but) 'Mipnei she'Gamrah be'Isur' (because it was completed be'Isur').

(d) The word 've'Shavin' refers to a Beraisa - where Rebbi Eliezer holds that the baby born of a Tereifah animal cannot be brought as a Korban, and Rebbi Yehoshua, holds that he can.

(a) The basis of their Machlokes (which speaks in a case where a Tereifah animal became pregnant) is - whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar' (Rebbi Yehoshua) or ' ... Asur' (Rebbi Eliezer) ...

(b) ... and they present it with regard to Kodshim (whether the baby is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach) and not with regard to Chulin (whether it is Kasher) - to teach us the extend of Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion (that he even permits the animal to be brought on the Mizbe'ach).

(c) The Tana declines to rather present it with regard to Chulin to teach the extent of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion - because of the principle 'Ko'ach de'Hetera Adif', which means that teaching Heter is a bigger Chidush (since a Rav who is in doubt will automatically rule le'Chumra, whereas he will only rule le'Kula if he is sure of his ruling).

(d) In a case ...

1. ... where a pregnant animal became Tereifah - Rebbi Yehoshua will concede that the baby is Tereifah too (on account of the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu').
2. ... of an egg that is a Sapana me'Ar'a - he will also hold Tereifah, since there is only one Gorem the mother, who is a Tereifah).
(a) Rav Acha cites Ameimar ('Hani Bei'i di'Tereifah') like we did, because he holds like Rav Acha bar Ya'akov (who holds that a Tereifah can give birth). Ravina rejects our version of Ameimar - because he disagrees with Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, and if the animal cannot give birth, then much of Ameimar's statement is not applicable.

(b) According to Ravina's version, Ameimar is talking about the eggs of a Safek Tereifah, and what he now says is - that the initial batch is put aside to see if the chicken lays more eggs. If it does, then we know that it is not a Tereifah, and the first batch of eggs (as well as the subsequent batches) is permitted.

(c) And Ameimar ...

1. ... establishes the Beraisa 've'Shavin be'Beitzas Tereifah she'Asurah ... ' - by the first batch.
2. ... amends the concluding words of the Beraisa 'Mipnei she'Gadlah be'Isur' - to 'Mipnei she'Gamrah be'Isur'
(a) According to Ravina, seeing that a Tereifah is anable to give birth, Ameimar will establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua - by a pregnant animal that became Tereifah. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu', Rebbi Yehoshua, 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo'. Consequently ...

(b) ... the Seifa 'u'Modim be'Beitzas Tereifah she'Asurah' must be speaking in a case where the eggs are still attached to the chicken's body - in which even Rebbi Yehoshua will agree that they are part of the mother.

(c) With regard to ascertaining whether a Safek Tereifah is Tereifah or not, we rule - that a male animal is not a Tereifah if it survives twelve months (like Rav Huna), and a female, if it gives birth (like Ravina).

(a) Rav Huna rules that any creature that has no bones - will disintegrate within twelve months.

(b) Rav Papa connects Rav Huna's ruling with a statement of Shmuel, who forbids Kishos (cucumbers) that become wormy whilst they are still growing. If they became wormy after they were detached - they would be permitted as long as they had not emerged and crawled on the ground (as we shall see later in the Perek).

(c) Nevertheless, they are forbidden in the earlier case - because, since the cucumbers are attached to the ground, it is as if the worms are crawling on the ground).

(d) Based on Shmuel's statement, Rav Papa now appies Rav Huna's ruling - to dates that have been preserved in a jar, and which are discovered to be wormy, though one is uncertain whether that occurred before they were picked or afterwards. According to Rav Huna, the dates will be permitted as from twelve months after they were picked (Mah Nafshach).




(a) Rav maintains that a gnat (or mosquito) disintegrates within one day - a fly, within one year.

(b) Based on a popular saying, the she-gnat rebeled against the he-gnat for seven years - because when a man from Mechuza left the water after a swim, and wrapped himself in a towel to dry, the he-gnat settled on his body and sucked his blood without informing the she-gnat.

(c) They presented this Mashalparicularly with reference to a man from Mechuza - because the people of Mechuza were very spoiled and fat (and therefore preferred by gnats).

(a) This Mashal poses a Kashya on Rav - inasmuch as it talks about seven years, when according to Rav, its entire life-span is only one.

(b) We counter with another Mashal, which attributes sixty Manah of iron to the gnat's hammer - meaning that one should avoid its bite, which is (relatively) powerful.

(c) Taking into account the minute size of the gnat, we prove from this Mashal - that the people were speaking in terms of a gnat size Manah ...

(d) ... in which case, in the first Mashal too, they were speaking in gnat years.

(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros rules - that a five or three-legged animal is Tereifah.

(b) The reason regarding the five-legged animal is - because an extra limb is considered as if it was missing one (and an animal with a missing leg is certainly a Ba'al-Mum).

(c) By the same token, Rav Huna confines this ruling to the animal's foreleg - because an animal with a missing hind leg is not just a Ba'al Mum, but a Tereifah.

(a) When an animal was brought before Ravina that had two Sanya Divis (caecums), he ruled (based on Rav Huna's ruling) - that it was Tereifah.

(b) It would be Kasher however - if they were not completely joined, so that they poured into each other.

(c) The objection ...

1. ... Rav Huna Mar bar Chiya raised when Rav Ashi wanted to declare Tereifah an animal in which a strip of flesh ran from the Beis ha'Kosos to the Meses was - that all the animals in that area were like that.
2. ... Rav Oshaya raised when Mar bar Rav Ashi (based on the previous episode) wanted to declare Kasher an animal in which a strip of flesh ran from the Beis ha'Kosos to the Keres was - that one cannot compare all cases in this way. They may have made that statement with regard to the former, but that does mean that the latter case is automatically Kasher, too.
(d) He then declared an animal in which a strip of flesh ran from the Beis ha'Kosos to the Keres, Tereifah - because of the principle 'Kol Yeser ke'Natul Dami' (because in effect, it is an extra intestine).
(a) We reconcile the previous ruling with our refutation earlier of Rava, who declared an animal with an extra Una on the lung Tereifah - by recalling that this only applies if the Una is in line with the other Unos (which is a fairly common occurance), but otherwise not.

(b) Rav Nasan bar Shilo (the chief Shochet in Tzopori) sent Rebbi a ruling that if two intestines were found inside ...

1. ... an animal - the animal is Tereifah.
2. ... a bird - the bird is Kasher, because it is a common occurrence (and if we consider the pipe-like string of flesh that runs from the crop to the Kurkevan an intestine, then *all* birds have two intestines).
(c) The former will be Kasher, too - if a. they both emerge from the same point in the stomach, and b. they reconnect within the space of an Etzba.

(d) In fact, Rav Ami and Rav Asi argue over this. According to one of them, the animal is Kasher even if the two intestines do not reconnect within the space of an Etzba - and when Rav Shilo said 'ad ke'Etzba', he meant - that they must reconnetct within a ke'Etzba of the hole where the intestines comes to an end.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan suggests that Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (who declares a bird whose body fluff has been removed, Tereifah) and Rebbi Yishmael are one and the same. Rebbi Yishmael, in the Mishnah in Taharos (in connection with Pigul [see also Tosfos DH 'ha'Notzah']) rules - that if the Kohen performs the Avodah on a Chatas ha'Of, having in mind to eat a k'Zayis of meat including body fluff, he renders the Chatas, Pigul.

(b) Rava however, refutes Rebbi Yochanan's connection. He maintains that...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah might confine his opinion to Tereifus - because, in his opinion, the body fluff protects the bird, but disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael, because he does not consider it edible.
2. ... Rebbi Yishmael confines his opinion to Pigul - because he considers the body fluff edible, but disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, because he does not believe that it protects.
(a) Our Mishnah now discusses illneses that affect the entire body of the animal. The Tana declares an animal that ...
1. ... became ill due to a sudden influx of blood, inhaled smoke or became ill from cold - Kasher.
2. ... ate animal poison or chicken excrement, or that drank foul water - Kasher.
3. ... ate human poison or was bitten by a snake - permitted from the point of view of Tereifus, but forbidden because it is dangerous to eat it.
(b) Shmuel declares an animal that one fed Chiltis (a spice with a sharp point), Tereifah - because it tears a hole in the intestines.

(c) Rav Shizbi queries Shmuel from a Beraisa, which cites the cases in our Mishnah plus a few others, such as an animal that one fed 'Tura', a bitter herb called acronite and Chiltis, which he declares Kasher. The Tana rules that an animal that ...

1. ... ate poison - is Kasher.
2. ... was bitten by a mad dog - is permitted from the point of view of Tereifus, but forbidden because it is dangerous to eat.
(d) We reconcile the Beraisa (which declares an animal that ate ...
1. ... Chiltis, Kasher) with Shmuel - by establishing the former when he ate the leaves, and the latter, when he ate the actual grains.
2. ... human poison, Kasher, with our Mishnah - by establishing the former by animal poison, which is not dangerous, and the latter, by human poison, which is.
13) In spite of having already listed animal poison, the Beraisa adds 'Hardufni' - because it is somehow different than regular animal poisons ('T'rei Gavni Sam ha'Maves').

Next daf


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