(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 67

CHULIN 66-68 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.



(a) We now Darshen the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' from the two times "ba'Mayim" and "ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim Tochelu" ...
1. ... to include all water that flows (thereby prohibiting Sheratzim in ditches and trenches), from the second 'K'lal'.
2. ... to exclude all water that is still (permitting Sheratzim in pits) from the P'rat. Note, that this Sugya is only concerned with water Sheratzim.
(b) If not for the first "Tochelu", we would have confined the Heter from the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' - to Sheratzim in Keilim, and included in the prohibition of those in pits, because they resemble the water in seas and rivers, inasmuch as they are also gathered on the ground.
(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns exactly like Tana de'bei Rav, only he treats the two times ''ba'Mayim'' and "ba'Yamim u've'Naharos" as a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - because that is what he maintains happens when the two K'lalim are juxtaposed.

(b) A 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' differs in principle from a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' - in that ...

1. ... in a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' - we begin by saying 'Ein bi'Chelal Ela Mah she'be'P'rat', and the last K'lal comes to add things that are similar to the 'P'rat'; whereas ...
2. ... in a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - the 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut' teaches us the same as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', whereas the last 'K'lal' adds everything else except for the one thing that is the least similar to the P'rat.
(c) In our case, *he* ...
1. ... will include from the second 'Ribuy' - water in pits and caves.
2. ... exclude from the 'Miy'ut' - water in ditches and trenches.
(d) He learns from the first "Tochelu" - that we include in the Heter even water in pits and caves (where the water is gathered on the ground), and not just water in Keilim (in the same way as we explained according to those who Darshen it as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal').
(a) In fact, Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael arrives at exactly the same conclusion as Tana de'Bei Rav, and he argues with him - regarding the latter's need for the first "Tochelu", which he would have considered unnecessary had he Darshened a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal ...

(b) ... because whereas the Tana Kama considers the second K'lal to be the major one (in which case, we include more than the minimum that is implied by the 'P'rat'), Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael goes after the first K'lal, leaving the last K'lal to include only what is similar in every detail to the 'P'rat' (as we learned earlier, with regard to So'lam).

(c) We ask why Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who includes ditches and trenches in the prohibition of Sheratzim, and excludes pits and caves, does not learn the other way round. We do not ask the same Kashya on Tana de'bei Rav, who learns it from a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' - because there we know already that we only exclude whatever is more similar to the 'P'rat', which pits and caves obviously are.

(d) And we answer with a Beraisa cited Matisyah bar Yehudah, who explains - that it is nevertheless logical to include ditches and trenches in the prohibition, since they are open like the seas and rivers to which the Pasuk refers, whereas pits and caves which are enclosed like Keilim, are more likely to be permitted.

(a) The original Beraisa explained that we learn the Heter of Sheretz ha'Mayim in Keilim 'Sasum min ha'Meforash' - with reference to the Pasuk "Yesh Lo S'naper ve'Kaskeses" ("es Zeh Tochlu") and that of "Ein Lo S'napir ve'Kaskeses".

(b) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over this point. The one who opts for the Pasuk of ...

1. ... "Yesh Lo S'napir ve'Kaskeses" considers the Limud from "Yamim ve'Naharos" there more explicit than the Pasuk of "Ein Lo S'napir ve'Kaskeses" - because in the latter case, "Lo Sochelu" is written in a different Pasuk than "Kol Asher Ein Lo S'nair ve'Kaskeses", and if not for the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', appears to pertain to all water (even in Keilim too).
2. ... "Ein Lo S'napir ve'Kaskeses" considers the Limud from "Yamim ve'Naharos" there more explicit than the Pasuk of "Yesh Lo S'napir ve'Kaskeses" - because in the latter case, the implication is that in Keilim, even fish with fins and scales are forbidden [as we explained above]).
(a) Rav Huna - forbids pouring date-beer (which is particularly wormy) into a cup via a sieve made of thin strips of wood and stubble, at night-time ...

(b) ... because of the possibility that a worm fell on to the wood (adopting the status of "Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz"), before fallng into the strained beer.

(c) The problem does not exist however, with regard to drinking the beer straight from the vessel in which it was produced - because even if a worm did creep on to the wall of the jar and then fell back into the jar, it is permitted (as long as it has not left the precincts of the jar) - because of the S'vara 'Haynu Reviseih' (that is the way it grows).

(d) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Tochlu mi'Kol Asher ba'Mayim" - that one is permitted to bend down and drink water directly from a pit or from a cave.

(e) And the Tana extends this even to where the worm actually crawled up the wall before falling into the water once more - from the S'vara 'Haynu Reviseih' (that we just cited).

(a) Rav Chisda supports Rav Huna's statement from a Beraisa, which includes from the Pasuk "*Kol* ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - little flies that remained in the sieve through which someone poured water.

(b) And he extrapolates from there - that if they had not passed through a sieve, they would be permitted (like Rav Huna).




(a) Shmuel forbids hops that became wormy whilst they were still attached to the ground - because of "ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" (bearing in mind that the tree is attached to the ground).

(b) We can extrapolate from Shmuel - that should they become wormy after they have been picked, they will be permitted (as long as they have not crawled on the ground).

(a) One Beraisa precludes from "al ha'Aretz" little insects that one finds inside lentils, chickpeas, dates and figs; another Beraisa learns from "Kol ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - that worms on olive-trees and vines (she'be'Ikrei Zeisim ve'she'be'Ikrei Gefanim') are forbidden.

(b) We try to establish the first Beraisa when the fruit became wormy after being detached, and the second, when it became wormy, before - a proof for Shmuel.

(c) We conclude however, that both Beraisos speak when the fruit is still attached to the tree, and the Beraisa that forbids them speaks - when the worms are on the tree itself ...

(d) ... as is implied by the Lashon 'Tola'as she'be'Ikrei Zeisim ve'she'be'Ikrei Gefanim'.

(e) This implies that worms that have not emerged from the fruit, even if the fruit is still attached to the tree, are not considered "Shoretz al ha'Aretz" and are permitted - proving Shmuel wrong (see Tosfos DH 'Diyka Nami').

(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be regarding a worm that emerged from the fruit, fell on the floor and died. He is referring to a case where the fruit become wormy - after it became detached (to avoid the Machlokes between Shmuel and those who disagree with him).

(b) Despite the fact that the worm reached the ground, Rav Ashi thinks that it might be permitted - because it cannot be defined as literally "Shoretz al ha'Aretz".

(c) It might nevertheless be forbidden, because perhaps the Torah is particular (not about whether it has actually crawled along the ground, but) - that it is able to do so.

(d) He then asks, assuming that ...

1. ... once the entire worm has reached the ground it is forbidden - what the Din will be if only half the worm reached the ground?
2. ... even if half the worm reaches the ground it is forbidden, what the Din will be - if it falls from thr fruit into the air, and dies before it reaches the ground.
(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the worm crawls to the top of the fruit, which might be permitted - because of the S'vara 'Haynu Reviseih' (seeing as it has not crawled on a second body).

(b) Assuming that ...

1. ... once the worm leaves the actual fruit it is forbidden, he asks - whether it might not be permitted if it only leaves the pit (where it grew).
2. ... in the previous case it is permitted - whether it will also be permitted if it crawls from the fruit where it grew directly into a second fruit, without being exposed to the air at all.
(c) The outcome of both Rav Yosef and Rav Ashi's She'eilos is 'Teiku'.
(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi declares 'Kuki'ani' (worms in an animal's liver and lungs) forbidden. He does not permit it due to 'Haynu Reviseih' - because he assumes that they did not grow internally, but entered its body together with the food that it ate.

(b) Rav Ashi objects to this however, on the grounds that - if that were so, then they ought to be found in its rectal tract (which in fact, it is not).

(c) In the second Lashon, Rav Shisha permits Kuki'ani, because they grow from the animal itself ('Haynu Reviseih'), which Rav Ashi condones - since they are not found in the rectal tract.

(d) We nevertheless rule like the first Lashon, overruling Rav Ashi's objection - because in fact, they do not enter the animal's body together with its food, but via its nostrils as it sleeps (from where they move on to the lungs and the liver).

(a) The distinction between Darni (larva of the horse-fly) that one finds in meat and those that one finds in fish is - that whereas the former are forbidden, the latter are permitted.

(b) Ravina asked his mother - to mix the latter with the fish, so that they should not be discernible, as they would be too disgusting to eat if he saw them.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Tamei birds) "ve'es Nivlasam Teshaketzu" - that Darni in the meat are forbidden.

(b) When Rav Mesharshaya b'rei de'Rav Acha asked Ravina why the Darni in the fish should be any better than the Darni of the meat, he replied - that it was because Darni de'Bisra were forbidden because, the latter were alive, and led an independent life, in which case the Shechitah which permits the animal, does not affect them, and they remain Eiver min ha'Chai; whereas the former, whose host (the fish) become permitted through gathering, in which case, the worms inside them become permitted together with it.

(c) And the reason that a ben Peku'ah (a live animal that one finds inside the stomach of an animal that one has Shechted) is permitted is - because of a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ("mi'Kol Asher ba'Beheimah Tochelu").

(d) If ...

1. ... "Holech al Gachon" (ibid) includes the snake among the forbidden animals, "Kol (Holech ... )" comes to include - worms.
2. ... "al Arba" includes the scorpion, and "Kol" - the beetle (both of which possess four pairs of legs).
3. ... "Marbeh Raglayim" includes a centipede, and "ad Kol" - all types of insects that are even vaguely similar to it.
(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Durmaskis citing a Pasuk, rules - that the Livyasan is Kasher.

(b) "Afikei Maginim" (the strength of its shields) refers to its scales, and "Chidudei Cheres" - to its fins, which are called by that name - because they are sharp like pieces of broken clay shards.

***** Hadran Alach 'Eilu Tereifos' *****

Next daf


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