ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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.
(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.
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.
(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
(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
(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 ...
(c) Nobody argues with Rebbi Meir in this point.
2. ... it would fall under the heading of Neveilah.
(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
(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
(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.