(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 75

CHULIN 75 (16 Nisan) - Today's Dafyomi study materials have been sponsored in memory of Rav Moshe ben Shalom Ehrlich, A"H, a distinguished Shliach Tzibbur and teacher of Torah, by his extended Rosenberg family



(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa 'Avar be'Nahar Huchshar, Halach le'Beis-Hakevaros Nitma' like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (quoted by Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa) who holds that a ben Peku'ah is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin even whilst it is alive. The Rabbanan maintain - that as long as an animal lives, it is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) He does not establish the Beraisa like the Rabbanan (of Rebbi Meir) in our Mishnah, who hold that the Ubar is considered as if it was in a basket - because they may well concur with the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who hold that the animal is nevertheless considered alive, and is not subject to Tum'ah.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning regarding a Mishnah in Uktzin. According to Beis Shamai there, fish become subject to Tum'ah from the time that they are caught. Beis Hillel holds - from the time that they die.

(d) Rebbi Akiva says 'from the moment that they can no longer live'. The practical difference between Beis Hillel and Rebbi Akiva is - a fish that is gasping its last breath (which is subject to Tum'ah according to Beis Hillel, but not according to Rebbi Akiva.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan declares - that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Beis Shamai say one and the same thing.

(b) We extrapolate from his statement that - the reason of the Rabbanan of Rebbi Hagelili must be that they hold that a live animal is not subject to Tum'ah ...

(c) ... and not because they hold like Rebbi Meir (that a ben Peku'ah requires Shechitah) - because if it was, then in the case of a fish, which does not require Shechitah, they would also agree with Beis Shamai.

(d) This explains our statement that Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning - because he equates Beis Shamai with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, and not with the Rabbanan.

(a) Rav Chisda asks what the Din will be regarding a fish which contracts Simnei Tereifus. This is not a question of eating it (since it does not require Shechitah anyway) - but of when it becomes subject to Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) Rav Chisda is asking - according to Rebbi Akiva (who declares it Tamei even before it is actually dead.

(c) The She'eilah, even assuming that ...

1. ... a Tereifah animal can live is - that a fish, which is not as strong as an animal, perhaps cannot, in which case it will be subject to Tum'as Ochlin immediately.
2. ... a Tereifah animal can live is - that perhaps a fish is better than an animal because there is no Din of Tereifus (regarding the Isur Achilah. (d) The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan forbids the Cheilev of a stillborn animal - because he considers the birth to be what renders it an independent animal, whose Cheilev is Asur ...

(b) ... even according to Rebbi Yehudah, who permitted it - but only as long as it was still inside the mother's womb.

(c) Resh Lakish - permits the Cheilev of a stillborn animal like a Chayah, because he considers the criterion to be - reaching the age of nine months (five months in the case of a small animal) in its mother's womb.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are not speaking about a baby animal of less than nine months (or five months in the case of a lamb) - because they both hold there - that the animal is not considered alive, and the Cheilev is permitted ...

(b) ... and they are arguing - over Cheilev that one cut from a ninth-month Ubar whilst it was still inside its mother's womb.

(c) Both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish maintain their previous opinions, and the reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan is - because according to him, the criterion for a fetus being called an independent animal is reaching the age of nine months (five months in the case of a small animal).
2. ... Resh Lakish - is a combination of nine months in its mother's womb and the birth.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Beraisa. From the fact that Torah inserts the Cheilev and the two kidneys among the parts of an Asham that are brought on the Mizbe'ach, the Tana - precludes the Cheilev of a Sh'lil of female Korbanos from the Chalavim that are brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan asks from there on Resh Lakish - that if the Cheilev of a Sh'lil was not considered Cheilev, then why would the Torah need to preclude it from the Din of the Chalavim of Kodshim.

(c) To which Resh Lakish answers - that this Pasuk is actually the source on which he bases his opinion,

(d) In the second Lashon Resh Lakish asks Rebbi Yochanan that if, as he maintains, a ninth-month Sh'lil is considered alive, why does the Pasuk preclude its Cheilev. To which Rebbi Yochanan replied - that this is precisely what the Torah is coming to teach us, in the same way as the Torah forbids an animal of less than eight days to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, even though it ought logically to be permitted.

(a) In connection with the previous Machlokes, Rebbi Ami rules that where one Shechts a Tereifah and finds a ninth-month Ubar, according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan - it is permitted via its mother's Shechitah.
2. ... Resh Lakish - it is forbidden, because neither does its own Shechitah permit it (since it is not considered an independent animal), nor does that of its mother, since it is a Tereifah.
(b) Rava permits the Ubar even according to Resh Lakish - because even though a ninth-month baby is permitted via the Shechitah of its mother, it is also permitted via its own Shechitah ('Arba'ah Simanim Achsher beih Rachmana') wherever necessary (as we learned earlier).



(a) Rav Chisda rules that if someone finds a ninth-month Ubar inside a Shechted Tereifah, it requires Shechitah - and it is also subject to the Mitzvah of Zero'a, Lechayayim ve'Keivah (giving the right foreleg, the cheeks and the stomach to the Kohen).

(b) The problem Rava has with Rav Chisda's final statement 've'Im Meis, Tahor mi'Letamei be'Masa' is - that his first two rulings seem to follow the opinion of Rebbi Meir, and the last one, like the Rabbanan.

(c) Rav Chisda counters Rava's Kashya with a Beraisa - which issues the same three rulings as he did (see Mesores ha'Shas), in which case, Rava might just as well ask the same Kashya on the Beraisa.

(a) Rava refuted Rav Chisda's Kashya by establishing the Beraisa when the Ubar was already dead - in which case the Seifa can also go like Rebbi Meir (who agrees that a dead ninth-month baby becomes permitted via the mother's Shechitah, as we already learned).

(b) We cannot however, establish Rav Chisda in the same way - since Rav Chisda himself did not do so.

(c) Rav Chisda reconcile his first two statements with the third one - by establishing that an Ubar has four Simanim, as we explained earlier, in which case the author of the Reisha can be the Rabbanan, too.

(a) When, upon Rebbi Zeira's arrival in Eretz Yisrael, the latter issued the same triple statement as Rav Chisda, Rebbi Asi commented 'Yeyasher (Kochacha); ve'Chein Amar Rebbi Yochanan'.

(b) Although Rebbi Asi was present when Rebbi Yochanan made this statement, he did not know whether Resh Lakish argued with Rebbi Yochanan or not - because Resh Lakish, who usually made his comments immediately, happened, on this occasion, to be drinking a glass of water as Rebbi Yochanan finishes speaking, as a result there was a momentary silence. And it was at that moment that Rebbi Asi had to leave the room. Others say that Resh Lakish always took his time before commenting on Rebbi Yochanan's rulings.

(a) Rav Kahana ascribes the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon Shezuri in our Mishnah (who permits even a five-year old ben Peku'ah plowing in the field with the Shechitah of its mother) and the Tana Kama (who also permitted a ben Peku'ah without Shechitah) to - whether a ben Peku'ah requires Shechitah once his feet touch the ground (and he walks [the Tana Kama]) or not (Rebbi Shimon Shezuri).

(b) The Tana Kama's reason is - due to a decree that if eating a ben Peku'ah without Shechitah is permitted, people might come to permit even regular animals too, without Shechitah.

(c) Abaye maintains - that even the Rabbanan will permit a Kalut ben Peku'ah that stood on the ground, without Shechitah, because this is something so unusual (which everybody talks about), that nobody will learn from it to permit other animals without Shechitah.

(d) In the second Lashon - he only permits a Kalut ben Kelutah ben Peku'ah, because it has two striking features, but not a Kalut ben Peku'ah).

(a) Rav Mesharshaya - forbids a baby that a ben Peku'ah fathers from a regular animal, according to Chananya (who contends with the seed of the father), because it is as if it has only one Siman from the mother, since the one that it inherited from its father has already been Shechted (as we already discussed earlier).

(b) Rav Mesharshaya's opinion - is not unanimous, since those who hold 'Arba'ah Simanim Achshar beih Rachmana', will disagree permit it.

(c) Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina rules like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, even as far as extending the Heter to Shecht a ben Peku'ah to its offspring, in his name. According to Rebbi Yochanan however - Rebbi Shimon Shezuri only permits the ben Peku'ah itself, but not its off-spring.

(a) In a case where a wolf attacked a ben Peku'ah and left it a Tereifah - Rav Ashi instructed the owner to Shecht it immediately.

(b) The owner was surprised - because even Rebbi Yochanan agrees that Rebbi Shimon Shezuri permits ben Peku'ah (even if it has been born) with its mother's Shechitah, and Ravin bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Chanina rules like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri ...

(c) ... and what's more, he concluded - the Halachah is always like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, wherever his name appears.

(d) Rav Ashi countered the owner by quoting Rebbi Yonasan (or Rebbi Yochanan), who states - 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri bi'Mesukan u'vi'Terumas Ma'aser shel D'mai'.

(a) In a case where someone who has been sentenced to death announces 'Write a Get for my wife!', the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in T'vul Yom rules that witnesses who heard the man's announcement should write the Get and hand it over - because, even though he failed to mention the handing over, it is obvious that this is what he meant, and failed to say only on account of his situation.

(b) The Tana Kama adds two cases that they added to the above, one of them is where the husband is about to embark on an overseas trip (a hazard in those days); the other - where he was about to join a long distance caravan.

(c) Rebbi Shimon Shezuri ...

1. ... added to the list - someone who is dangerously ill.
2. ... ruled, in the Mishnah in D'mai, that about Terumas Ma'aser shel D'mai that fell back into the original batch (which is a fraction more than the one in a hundred that is required for Terumah to become Bateil) - is permitted (even during the week) if one asked the Am ha'Aretz from whom one purchased it whether he Ma'asered it or not, and he replied in the affirmative.
Next daf


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