(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 73

CHULIN 73 (14 Nisan) - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chayah bas Aryeh Leib Shpira (nee Sole), on the day of her Yahrzeit.



(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'va'Chachamim Omrim, Maga Tereifah Shechutah', implying that a Tereifah Shechutah is Metamei. Shmuel's father reconciles this with the fact that it is not - by establishing our Mishmah specifically by a Kodshim animal.

(b) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, according to Rava (or Kadi)'s emendment, countered the Rabanan ...

1. ... who declared Tahor a limb (that the fetus stuck out) due to the Shechitah of its mother - by proposing that if that were so, then it ought to be permitted to eat, too.
2. ... when they replied that from the Shechitah of a Tereifah we can learn that sometimes Shechitah dispences with the Tum'ah, without permitting the animal to be eaten - by claiming that is only in connection with the limb of the Ubar (which is not part of the animal itself), but that a Tereifah is better than a limbof the fetus.
(c) On the other hand, the Rabanan countered Rebbi Meir from the opening Mishnah in the Perek 'Chotech min ha'Ubar she'be'Me'eha' - where we see that, quite the opposite, a foreign body is better the animal itself.

(d) All this is based on Rava's emendment of the Beraisa, which we know to be correct - because another Beraisa corroborates it word for word.

(a) When Resh Lakish states that just as Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan argue over 'Ubrin', so too, do they argue over Eivarin- he means that they argue over whether the Shechitah of an animal renders a loose limb ('Eiver ha'Meduldal') Tahor or not, just as they argue over the limb of an Ubar.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says - that even the Rabanan will agree that the Shechitah of the animal renders any loose limbs Neveilah (because 'Shechitah Osah Nipul' [the Shechitah completes the act of severing the limb]).

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explains - that, Rebbi Yochanan considers Eivarin worse than Ubrin (according to the Rabanan) - because the limb of an Ubar can revert to its original Heter (in the event that it withdraws the limb, as Rebbi Yochanan explained earlier), whereas a loose limb cannot.

(a) We query the current version of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish however, from the Beraisa that we cited earlier. Rebbi Meir said there 'Lo, Im Tiharah Shechitas Tereifah Osah *ve'es ha'Eiver ha'Meduldal bah*, Davar she'Gufah ... '. According to Resh Lakish, Rebbi Meir said this to the Chachamim, in accordance with their way of thinking (even though Rebbi Meir himself does not permit either the Ubar or the Eiver ha'Meduldal).

(b) The problem according to Rebbi Yochanan is - what did Rebbi Meir mean when he said 'Im Tiharah Shechitas Tereifah ... ve'es ha'Eiver ha'Meduldal bah', seeing as neither Rebbi Meir nor the Rabanan declare the Eiver ha'Meduldal Tahor.

(c) We therefore reword the Machlokes. We cite Resh Lakish like we did before, whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan - even Rebbi Meir will agree that the Shechitah of the animal renders the Eiver ha'Meduldal Tahor (because 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipol').

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explains that Rebbi Meir is more lenient in the case of Eiver than he is in that of Ubar - because the Eiver is part of its body whereas the Ubar is not (a S'vara which he himself stated earlier to the Rabanan).




(a) Everyone agrees, says Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, that 'Misah Osah Nipul ve'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul'. Rebbi Yochanan cannot be referring to the case of Ubar - since that is subject to the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir ('Osah Nipul') and the Rabanan ('Ein Osah Nipul').

(b) When he says 'Misah Osah Nipul', he means - that the Shechitah completes the cut, as we explained, in which case the limb is not considered a Neveilah, but Eiver min ha'Chai.

(c) The ramifications of this ruling are - that a 'k'Zayis' of flesh from the limb is not Metamei (which it would have been if it had been considered a Neveilah), only the entire limb.

(d) The point Rebbi Yochanan is making is - that on the one hand, Rebbi Meir, who argues with the Rabanan regarding the Shechitah of an Ubar, concedes that the Shechitah of *the mother* does not render the Eiver Nipol; whilst on the other hand, the Rabanan, who argue with Rebbi Meir regarding the Shechitah of the Ubar, concede that '*Misah* Osah Nipul'.

(a) Rebbi Meir learns in a Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' (in connection with an animal with a loose limb and loose flesh) that should the animal die, the flesh requires Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah. And he adds that the loose limb - is Metamei because of Eiver min ha'Chai and not because of Eiver min ha'Neveilah (a proof that he holds 'Misah Osah Nipul').

(b) If the Tana held 'Ein Misah Osah Nipul, it would ...

1. ... not require Hechsher , because ...
2. ... it would fall under the heading of Neveilah.
(c) Nobody argues with Rebbi Meir in this point.
(a) In another Mishnah there, Rebbi Meir says (regarding the same animal) 'Nishchetah Beheimah, Huchsheru be'Dameha' - a proof that 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul', since it adopts the same Tum'ah as the mother (Tum'as Ochlin), and not Eiver min ha'Chai.

(b) Rebbi Shimon disagree - only because in his opinion, an animal cannot serve to be Machshir its own Eiver.

(c) The Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan from both of the above Mishnahs is - that seeing as both 'Misah Osah Nipul' and 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul' turn out to be Mishnahs, his dual statement appears superfluous.

(d) In answer to the second Kashya, we establish 'Huchsheru' with regard to - Basar from the animal itself.

(a) And we reconcile this answer with the fact that 'Huchsheru' is written in the plural - by establishing it with regard to Basar and from the animal and Basar from the Eiver.

(b) The Tana finds it necessary to mention Basar that comes off the Eiver ha'Meduldal, to refute the suggestion that it does not require Hechsher, even though Basar from the Shechted animal does - because when it was still attached to the Eiver min ha'Chai, it stood to be Metamei a stringent Tum'ah (i.e. Adam, and not just food) together with the Eiver. Consequently, we would have thought that it does not require Hechsher.

(a) Rav Yosef advocated following the opinion of Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef in Rebbi Yochanan - because Rabah bar bar Chanah quoted Rebbi Yochanan that way too.

(b) He found it necessary to say this - to preclude the initial statement of Rebbi Yochanan, where he maintained that even the Rabanan hold 'Shechitah Osah Nipul'.

(c) The Beraisa forbids an Eiver ha'Meduldal and Basar ha'Meduldalin of a Beheimah, Chayah or Of that one subsequently Shechted, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Li Sochelu". Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan comments - that the Beraisa is no more than an Asmachta, because the Isur is really mi'de'Rabanan.

Next daf


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