(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 74



(a) When Rav Yosef, quoting Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, stated in front of Rav Huna that someone who eats an Eiver ha'Meduldal receives Malkos - a certain Talmid-Chacham protested, quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel ... Amar Rav who specifically said that it does not.

(b) When Rav Huna expressed doubts as to who had quoted Rav correctly, Rav Yosef reacted - by turning his face away in frustration, since Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel was referring to a case where the animal died ('Misah Oseh Nipul'), whereas *he* was talking about where the animal was Shechted ('Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul').

(c) In Rav Yosef's case, one would have to warn the person eating an Eiver ha'Meduldal - on the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai, for him to receive Malkos.

(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Sheratzim [though this has nothing to do with the Limud]) ...
1. ... "ve'Chol Asher Yipol Alav Meihem *be'Mosam* Yitma" - that only 'Misah Osah Nipul', but not Shechitah.
2. ... "ve'Chi Yipol mi'Nivlasam" - that it is only after the animal dies that the Eiver ha'Meduldal is Metamei, but not whilst it is still alive.
(b) When Rav Ada bar Ahavah queried Rava from the fact that the Pasuk is talking about Sheratzim, which are not subject to Shechitah, he replied - with the principle 'Im Eino Inyan ... ' (i.e. if a Pasuk is not needed for itself (Sheratzim), then we apply it to something that it is needed for (Beheimos).

(c) We also learn from 'be'Mosam' that the Sheratzim must be ke'Ein Misah' - meaning that dead Sheratzim are only Metamei as long as they are fresh (like they were at the time of death), but not once they have gone dry.

(d) In fact, we learn the above two D'rashos (not from the same word but) from two different words - seeing as "be'Mosam" is written twice.

(a) With reference to the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, Rav Chisda draws a distinction between the limb of a living Ubar - where the Rabbanan hold 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul', and of a dead one - where they concede to Rebbi Meir that 'Shechitah Osah Nipul'.

(b) According to Rabah however - they hold 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul' whether the Ubar is alive or dead.

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa queries the Rabbanan from a live, born eighth-month baby animal, which is not subject to Shechitah, even though it is of a species which is subject to Shechitah. It is not permitted via the Shechitah of its mother - because that only applies to one that is as yet unborn.

(b) Rav Kahana reconciles this Beraisa with our Mishnah, where the Tana wrote of an eighth-month baby that none of its species (i.e. of miscarriages) may be eaten - in that the Tana of our Mishnah does not consider the fact that it is permitted via the Shechitah of the mother, as being 'of the same species'.

(c) But the Beraisa does, creating the problem - from where we will know that the Shechitah of a Tereifah becomes permitted via the Shechitah of its mother (seeing as it is no better than an eighth-month baby, which does not, despite the fact that, like a Tereifah, it belongs to a species which may be eaten),

(d) And we answer, by citing Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (or a Beraisa), who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus *min* ha'Beheimah" - that some animals are Metamei and some are not (the latter with reference to a Tereifah that is Shechted).

(a) Rav Hoshaya asked what the Din will be if someone Shechts a ben Peku'ah whilst it is still inside the mother. He could not have asked the same She'eilah with regard to an eighth-month old baby - which, even after it is born, will not be subject to Shechitah.

(b) The She'eilah according to Rebbi Meir (who holds that a ben Peku'ah requires Shechitah) is - whether the Shechitah, which it would require after it is born, will be effective whilst it is still in the womb, or not.

(c) Assuming the second side of the She'eilah, the Shechitah will certainly not be effective according to the Rabbanan (who would not require Shechitah even if the Ubar was born).

(d) And the second side of the She'eilah is - whether even though a ben Peku'ah does not require Shechitah, that is only because the Torah gave it an extra set of Simanim (i.e. those of its mother), but not that it no longer has its own .

(e) If that is so - then the Shechitah will certainly be valid according to Rebbi Meir.

(a) Rav Chananyah tries to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Harei she'Noldah Tereifah min ha'Beten' (to prove that even the Shechitah of an animal that did not have a Sha'as ha'Kosher renders the animal Tahor) - a proof that the Ubar cannot be Shechted inside the womb, because if it could, then it would indeed have a Sha'as ha'Kosher.

(b) Rava therefore amends 'she'Noldah Tereifah' in the Mishnah to read - 'she'Notzrah Tereifah' (meaning that it was a Tereifah from the moment it was formed ...

(c) ... such as one that was formed with five legs.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if one finds an eighth-month baby alive or dead, or a dead ninth-month old baby inside a Shechted animal - one only needs to tear it open and drain its blood and it is permitted.

(b) If the ninth-month baby is alive, Rebbi Meir requires Shechitah - because the criterion for being considered an independent animal is its having spent nine months in its mother's womb.

(c) The other Isur that takes effect at the same time - is that of 'Oso ve'es B'no' (the prohibition of Shechting an animal and its mother on the same day.

(a) The Rabbanan argue with him, permitting the baby via the Shechitah of its mother - because they hold that it is the conbination of nine months in ts mother's womb plus being exposed to the air outside that render it an independent animal.

(b) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri says - that even a five-year old ben Peku'ah plowing in the field becomes permitted with its mother's Shechitah.

(c) And finally, our Mishnah rules that if they tore open an animal (without Shechting it) and found a ninth-month old baby inside it - that baby requires Shechitah.




(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya - confines the Heter of eating an Ubar without Shechitah to the Din of Shechitah exclusively.

(b) After explaining that this comes to preclude the Cheilev and the Gid ha'Nasheh, which remain forbidden, we reject the Kashya 'Chelbo ve'Gido de'Mai' - because it is obvious that it comes to preclude the Cheilev and Gid of a Sh'lil, since that is what Rebbi Elazar is referring to.

(c) The problem with his statement is - that whether a Sh'lil is subject to the Isur of Cheilev and Dam or not is an established Machlokes Tana'im. (d) Rebbi Meir declares a Sh'lil subject to the Isur of Cheilev Gid ha'Nasheh. Rebbi Yehudah - maintains that they are not.

(a) The Kashya is based however, on a statement of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya, who says (based on his previous statement), after establishing that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are arguing over a live, ninth-month baby - that Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan follow their previous opinions, where Rebbi Meir considers an Ubar an animal as regards Shechitah, whereas the Rabbanan do not.

(b) And for the same reason, Rebbi Elazar cannot be speaking about Cheilev de'Gid (because that is a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah). When Rebbi Meir says 'Gid ha'Nasheh ... ve'Chotet Shamno Me'ikaro', he means - that one must even cut away the Cheilev of the Gid ha'Nasheh that is absorbed in the flesh.

(c) Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah - one only needs to cut off the Cheilev together with the Gid, but no more - because he holds that the Cheilev of Gid ha'Nasheh is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas according to Rebbi Meir, it is Asur min ha'Torah.

(d) We therefore amend Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya's initial statement from ' ... Ela al Iskei Shechitah Bil'vad', to ' ...Ela al Iskei Achilah Bil'vad' - in which case he is coming to teach us that the Kula of Sh'lil does not apply to the area of Revi'ah (the prohibition of bestiality) and Kil'ayim (plowing with two different species of animals tied to the same harness).

(a) According to Resh Lakish, those who permit the Cheilev of a Sh'lil, also permit its blood. Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that both are forbidden.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from our Mishnah, which requires the blood of a ben Peku'ah to be drained. To reconcile Resh Lakish with the Mishnah, we explain that he only means to exempt the Ubar's blood from Kareis, but not to permit it altogether (i.e. a La'av remains.

(c) We query this answer too, based on another ruling of Rebbi Yehudah (the Tana who permits the Cheilev of a Sh'lil). The Beraisa discusses Dam ha'Tamtzis - which is the last lot of blood to ooze out of the animal following the Shechitah (after the Dam ha'Nefesh).

(d) According to the Tana Kama, Dam ha'Tamtzis is subject to a La'av. Rebbi Yehudah holds - that it is subject to Kareis. And why, asks Rebbi Yochanan, should the Dam Evarim of the Ubar be any better than Dam ha'Tamtzis?

(a) To reconcile Resh Lakish with Rebbi Yehudah, Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rav Sala Chasida explains - that wherever one is Chayav Kareis for Dam ha'Nefesh, one is also Chayav for Dam ha'Tamtzis, but where there is no Dam ha'Nefesh (such as in the case of a Sh'lil, one is not Chayav for Dam Evarim either..

(b) The reason for this is - because Rebbi Yehudah learned the Isur of Dam ha'Tamtzis from Dam ha'Nefesh (where the Torah in Tzav writes "*ve'Chol* Dam" to include it). Consequently, it is dependent on it.

(a) We ask whether a ben Peku'ah may be used to redeem a first-born donkey. This She'eilah does not pertain to Rebbi Meir - because seeing as he requires the lamb to be Shechted, he clearly considers it a live lamb.

(b) The She'eilah according to the Rabbanan is whether one redeem a lamb with it, because (despite the fact that biologically, it seems to be a perfectly normal lamb) - it is as if it was cut up and placed in a basket.

(c) We reconcile the She'eilah with the Sugya in Bechoros, which permits redeeming a Petter Chamor even with cooked vegetables - by confining that Sugya to where the owner wants to redeem the donkey for its full value, whereas our Sugya is speaking about a case where he wants to redeem with it even it is worth less.

(d) Mar Zutra rules 'Ein Podin', Rav Ashi - 'Podin'.

(a) Assuming that Mar Zutra learns his Din from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Seh" "Seh" from the Korban Pesach, he knows that a ben Peku'ah is not eligible to be brought as a Korban Pesach - because the Torah writes in Emor (in connection with Kodshim) "Shor ... ki Yivaled" (precluding a Yotzei Dofen).

(b) In that case, Rav Ashi asked him, perhaps we should also require the lamb to be a male without blemish, in its first year, in reply to which - Mar Zutra cited the Pasuk in Bo "Tifdeh", which comes to include them.

(c) Seeing as we now have a Ribuy ("Tifdeh") and a Miy'ut ("Seh" "Seh"), it makes more sends to preclude a ben Peku'ah (and to include the other three), because 'it is as if it were lying in a basket', as we explained earlier.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, if a dead Sheretz touches the mother after it has been Shechted, it becomes a Rishon, and the live, unborn ben Peku'ah, a Sheini. Resh Lakish rules - that the ben Peku'ah becomes a Rishon, too, since (by virtue of the fact that it becomes permitted via the mother's Shechitah) it is considered part of the mother.

(b) Resh Lakish queries Rebbi Yochanan from the Mishnah earlier, which renders the Ubar whose extended foot has been severed, Maga Neveilah according to Rebbi Meir, and Maga Tereifah according to the Rabbanan. He himself has no problem with how the ben Peku'ah became Huchshar le'Tum'ah, which occurred via the Dam Shechitah of the mother. But according to Rebbi Yochanan - how did the ben Peku'ah become Huchshar ... ?

(c) And Rebbi Yochanan replies by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who ruled (in the Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet') - that it is the Shechitah, and not the blood, that renders the animal Huchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah. Consequently, the Hechsher of the mother, which covers the ben Peku'ah as well, will achieve it here.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa (in connection with a born ben Peku'ah) 'Halach be'Nahar, Huchshar, Halach le'Beis ha'Kevaros, Nitma'. Now according to Resh Lakish, he asks - why does the ben Peku'ah need to become Huchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah, why is not Huchshar already via the blood of its mother?

(b) And Resh Lakish replies by establishing the Beraisa - by a dry Shechitah (where the Shechitah produces no blood), and not like Rebbi Shimon.

Next daf


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