ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 94
CHULIN 92-95 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) We can infer from the Lashon 'Shole'ach Adam *Yerech* ... ' - (implying a complete thigh) that one may not send to a Nochri, a thigh that has been cut up (because a Yisrael who purchases from him, assuming that the Gid has been removed, will proceed to eat it).
(b) The difference between a town where, assuming that all the Shochtim are Jewish, they announce whenever a Tereifah has been found in the abattoir, and one where they do not, is - that in the latter case, one is never permitted to purchase meat from a Nochri (in case it is a Tereifah), whereas in the former case, on days when no announcement has been made, it is permitted.
(c) That being the case, the problem with our Mishnah, if it speaking in a town where they ...
1. ... do not announce a Tereifah is - that the Tana should have permitted sending the Nochri even a cut thigh (since no Yisrael will buy from him anyway).
2. ... announce a Tereifah is - that the Tana should have forbidden selling him even a whole one, in case the Nochri will cut up the thigh, and on a day when no announcement is made, will then sell it (with the Gid ha'Nasheh) to a Yisrael, and the Yisrael, thinking that the Gid ha'Nasheh has been removed, will eat it.
(a) We establish the Mishnah according to both customs. Assuming that the Tana speaks in a place where it is customary ...
1. ... to announce Tereifos, one may sell a Nochri a whole thigh, and are not worried that he will cut up the thigh and sell it to a Yisrael - because even if he does, everyone knows the difference between the cut of a Yisrael (who cuts where the Gid is in order to remove it) and that of a Nochri.
(b) In the latter case, we offer an alternative (intrinsic) reason for the prohibition of selling a Nochri a cut thigh, based on a statement of Shmuel - who rules that it is forbidden to mislead someone (Gonev Da'as ha'Beriyos), even a Nochri.
2. ... not to announce Tereifos, one may not sell him a cut thigh, because despite the fact that a Yisrael is forbidden to buy from him anyway - we are afraid that the Nochri might receive the gift in the presence of a Yisrael, who will purchase it from the Nochri, thinking that the Yisrael who sent it removed the Gid ha'Nasheh.
(c) Likewise in our Mishnah, selling a Nochri a cut up thigh - misleads him into believing that the Yisrael went to the trouble of cutting it up and removing the Gid (rendering the gift more valuable) as a mark of friendship.
(a) In fact, Shmuel did not say what we just said in his name, only we infer it from an episode that occurred. Shmuel was cross with his servant when, following his instructions, he paid the ferryman for taking them across the river - because, Abaye explains, he paid him with a Tereifah chicken, and not with a Kasher one ('Tarnegoles Tereifah ... be'Mar di'Shechutah').
(b) 'be'Mar di'Shechutah' might mean 'be'Chezkas Shechutah' (letting him believe that it was Shechted, when really it died from its wound). Alternatively it means - that he gave him a Shechted animal that was a Tereifah instead of a Kasher Shechted one.
(c) The first explanation is unlikely - because it is not possible to fool someone by giving him an animal that died of its wound in place of a Shechted one.
(d) According to Rava, Shmuel's servant paid the ferryman with wine, and the reason that Shmuel was cross with him was - because instead of giving him undiluted wine (which is what the ferryman thought he was receiving), he gave him wine that was diluted.
(a) The significance of the fact that Shmuel did not actually make the statement that we quoted, only we infer it from the above episode is - that it is possible to query whether the reason that we ascribed to his ruling is correct.
(b) We therefore attribute Shmuel's anger, according to ...
1. ... the first Lashon - to the fact that the Shamash did not pay the ferryman sooner.
(c) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa forbids ...
2. ... the second Lashon - to the fact that he disregarded Shmuel's instructions, in paying with diluted wine, when 'Anpaka' (which is what Shmuel had instructed him to give) implies wine that is undiluted.
1. ... pleading with someone to eat by him - if he knows that the invitee has no intention of accepting his invitation.
(d) Otherwise, the guest would feel honored (unjustifiably) by the host's gesture - in going to the expense of opening a fresh barrel of wine on his behalf (even though it creates the possibility that the wine will go off), when in reality, the wine is already sold and he doesn't lose a Perutah.
2. ... sending him a lot of gifts - if he knows that he will return them.
3. ... invite someone to anoint himself with oil from an empty jar - when he knows that he will decline the offer.
4. ... opening for his guest, a fresh barrel of wine which he has sold to a wine merchant - unless he informs him that he did so.
(a) Rebbi Meir permits the above - if he does it so as to demonstrate to others that he genuinely means to honor the person concerned.
(b) When Ula once came to visit Rav Yehudah - the latter opened a fresh barrel of wine that had already been sold to a wine-merchant.
(c) To resolve this with what we just said, we give two answers. One of them, that he informed him that the remainder of the barrel had already been sold. The other - that Rav Yehudah held Ula in high esteem, and he would have opened the fresh barrel anyway (even if he it had not been sold).
(a) The Beraisa forbids going to a Beis-Aveil with an oil jar that is half full of oil ('ha'Miskashkesh' means that it rattles, like a half-empty jar tends to do). or full of water - because it misleads the Aveil into believing that he has brought him a full jar of oil, when in fact, he hasn't.
(b) The Tana permits doing this however - if there are a lot of people there, and he genuinely means to boost the Kavod of the Aveil in their eyes (because such is the importance of Kavod ha'Beriyos).
(c) Besides the fact that a leather shoe manufactured from the skin of an animal that died by itself is inferior, another Beraisa also forbids selling it on the pretext that the animal has been Shechted - because of the possibility that it died from snake-bite, and the snake venom, which remained in the skin, will poison the purchaser.
(a) The Tana also forbids sending one's friend a barrel of wine with oil floating on top (without informing him of the fact) - in case, thinking that the barrel is full of oil, he invites guests for a party, with the intention of using the supply of oil for the occasion (for lighting or frying).
(b) It happened once that someone did that - and upon discovering that the barrel contained wine and not oil, went and committed suicide out of embarrassment.
(c) The Tana permits a guest to offer food from the table to the host's children - only with the host's permission.
(a) The Beraisa describes how a guest once offered food from the table to the host's children without consulting the host. It was a year of drought, and all the host had to serve his three guests was three eggs. Each guest took one egg and handed it to the host's son.
(b) When the father entered the room, he found his son with one egg stuffed into his mouth, and one egg in either hand.
(c) In total frustration - he took his son and knocked him violently to the ground, killing him, following which he climbed on to the roof and jumped off. When his wife saw what had happened, she too climbed on to the roof and jumped off.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov concludes that because of this, three people in Yisrael died. The reason that the Tana of the Beraisa found it necessary to mention it is - to teach us that the author of the entire Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
(a) The Beraisa permits sending a Nochri a thigh. without removing the Gid ha'Nasheh, whether it is cut or whether it is whole. Regarding sending it to a Yisrael however, the Tana draws a distinction between sending him a complete thigh - which is permitted without first removing the Gid ha'Nasheh (because it is easy to see that it is still there), and one that is cut up - which is forbidden.
(b) The Tana prohibits the selling of Neveilos and Tereifos to a Nochri - 1. because of Geneivas Da'as (since they are inferior, for which reason it is permitted if he informs him); 2. in case he re-sells them to a Yisrael.
(c) The Tana also prohibits giving a Dinar to a Nochri to purchase meat (from a Jewish butcher) for two reasons. One of them is because of 'Anasim' - meaning that he may be a gangster, who will force the butcher to give him the meat free and pocket the Dinar.
(d) The other reason is - because we are afraid that the butcher will serve him Neveilos and Tereifos.
(a) The Tana who permits sending a Nochri a thigh without removing the Gid ha'Nasheh, whether it is cut up or whole, must be speaking about a place where the Minhag is not to announce Tereifos, because otherwise - one ought not to be permitted to send a cut-up thigh on a day when no announcement has been made.
(b) On the other hand, in ...
1. ... the Metzi'asa, where he forbids selling Neveilos and Tereifos to a Nochri, in case he re-sells them to a Yisrael - the Tana must be speaking about a place where the Minhag is to announce Tereifos.
(c) In the Metzi'asa, the Tana is worried that a Yisrael may purchase the Neveilos and Tereifos from the Nochri, despite the fact that under normal circumstances, they would have announced that day that there was a Tereifah in the abattoir) - because the Tana must be speaking in a case where an O'nes must have occurred which prevented hem from making the announcement (otherwise, there would have been no reason to forbid the sale).
2. ... the Seifa, where he prohibits giving a Dinar to a Nochri to purchase meat, in case the butcher serves him Neveilos and Tereifos - must be speaking where the Minhag is not to announce them (like the Reisha).
(d) The problem with the Beraisa now is - how the Tana can establish the Reisha and Seifa one way, and the Metzi'asa the other way.
(a) Abaye doesn't find this problematic - accepting the fact that the Reisha and Seifa refer to a place where the Minhag is not to announce Tereifos, and the Metzi'asa, where it is to announce them.
(b) Rava establishes the entire Beraisa in a place where it is customary to announce Neveilos and Tereifos, and the Reisha and the Seifa speak - on a day when they did indeed announce a Tereifah (whereas in the Metzi'asa, they did not).
(c) Rav Ashi, on the other hand, establishes the entire Beraisa in a place where it was not customary to announce Neveilos. Nevertheless, in the Metzi'asa, the Tana is afraid that the Nochri will sell it to a Yisrael who was present when the butcher sold them to the Nochri (but who did not hear when he told him that they were Neveilos and Tereifos).
(a) The Chachamim did not issue the same decree in the Reisha, where the Tana permitted sending a Nochri a thigh (whole or cut up) - because it is unlikely that a Yisrael would be in the Nochri's home when the gift arrived, and even if he was, it was equally unlikely that he would choose to purchase the thigh in question; whereas in the butchery, a. there are many Jewish customers, and b. it is plausible to suggest that one of them will purchase the thigh from the Nochri.
(b) Our Mishnah nevertheless forbids even sending a Nochri a cut-up thigh - because that Tana, unlike the Tana of the Beraisa, incorporates this in the decree (as we learned above).
(a) According to Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, the wording of the announcement in the butchery was 'Nafal Bisra li'Venei Cheila' - meaning that they had received meat for the Nochrim.
(b) They did not substitute 'Bisra' for 'T'reifsa' - because (based on the fact that Neveilos and Tereifos are inferior), that would discourage the Nochri from purchasing it.
(c) Nevertheless, this is not a contravention of the Isur of 'Geneivas Da'as' - because the Nochri should have inquired whether the meat was Shechutah or not, and if he didn't, they have only themselves to blame.
(d) The cases that we discussed earlier, such as that of opening a fresh barrel of wine that has already been sold, are different - inasmuch as they speak when for example, he specifically told his guest that he was opening it his honor (or where the recipient had good reason to believe that the owner was doing so).
(a) This new approach is based on an episode where Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman, who was traveling from Sichra to bei Mechuza, met Rava and Rav Safra, who had just left Mechuza on their way to Sichra. He commented - that it was not necessary for them to go to such trouble in coming out to meet him.
(b) Rav Safra replied - that even though they were unaware of his departure from Sichra, had they known about it, they would have had even more reason to leave Mechuza (in order to greet him).
(c) Rava objected to Rav Safra's response - because informing him that their departure from bei Mechuza was not in his honor, must have upset him.
(d) And Rava would have justified remaining silent - on the grounds that Mar Zutra had jumped to his own conclusion, and they had done nothing to cause him to think the way he did.