(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 98

CHULIN 96-98 - 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) Rav Idi bar Avin asked Abaye - how Rav Nachman will reconcile his ruling 'Beitzah be'Shishim ... ' with the popular saying that eggs, like water, do not give taste.

(b) Abaye reconciled Rav Nachman with that - by establishing the former by an egg containing a chick (see Tosfos DH 'be'Beitzas Efro'ach').

(c) And he explains the Beraisa which forbids Kasher eggs that were cooked with Tamei eggs be'Nosen Ta'am - in the same way.

(d) The problem with this from the Seifa, which specifically forbids eggs that were cooked with an egg containing a chick is - that this implies that the Reisha is speaking about a plain Tamei egg (without a chick inside).

(a) We answer by explaining that the Seifa comes to explain the Reisha, and we try to prove that - by pointing out that if the Reisha was speaking about a plain Tamei egg, then why would the Tana find it necessary to add the Seifa (since we would automatically know it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the Reisha).

(b) We refute the proof however, inasmuch as it might be necessary for the Seifa to reveal that the Reisha is in fact, referring to a plain Tamei egg - to preclude from the suggestion that only an egg with a chick inside forbids the other eggs with which it is cooked, but not a plain Tamei egg.

(c) Rav Ashi intended to assess Shishim when a k'Zayis of Cheilev fell into a basket of Basar - by adding the Heter that became absorbed in the basket, to the Heter that remained, in order to complement the Shi'ur Shishim.

(d) The Rabbanan objected to that - on the grounds that just as the basket absorbed Heter, so too, did it absorb Isur, in which case, the two cancel each other out (see M'lo ha'Ro'im).

(a) When half a k'Zayis of Cheilev fell into a basket of Basar, Mar bar Rav Ashi intended - to permit the Basar bi'Sheloshim.

(b) Rav Ashi objected on the grounds - that Chatzi Shi'ur too, is Asur min ha'Torah (and one should certainly not deal lightly with d'Oraysos, even if they are not subject to Malkos).

(c) In fact however - he would not have agreed with him, even if Chatzi Shi'ur had been Asur only mi'de'Rabbanan, as he himself clearly stated.

(a) Rav Sh'man bar Aba citing ... a certain Zakein called Rebbi Ya'akov, quoted the Bei Nesi'a as saying 'Beitzah be'Shishim Asurah - be'Shishim ve'Achas, Muteres'?

(b) Based on the same statement of the two Gedolei ha'Dor Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi and Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini - who left in doubt whether the sixty-one eggs included the Tamei egg or not, Rebbi Zeira admonished Rav Sh'man bar Aba for his presumptuousness in permitting the eggs if there are sixty-one, without leaving open the possibility that one requires sixty-two (including the Tamei egg).

(c) The two Gedolei ha'Dor were quoting - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

(d) Rebbi Chelbo Amar Rav Huna however, resolves the quandary of the two Gedolei ha'Dor. He concludes - that sixty-two eggs are required, for the eggs to be permitted. Note, presumably the entire Sugya is speaking about an egg with a chick inside, and not just a Tamei egg, as we learned at the beginning of the Sugya.

(a) When someone came before Raban Gamliel, son of Rebbi, he cited his father who permitted forty-seven eggs that were cooked together with one Tamei egg. Consequently, he figured, since one does not require Shishim - forty-five will also be permitted.

(b) Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi, in a similar testimony - cited his father as permitting forty-five, and using the same logic as his brother, he permitted forty-five.

(c) Alternatively, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi might have been coming to teach us - that their father had not even permitted forty-seven and forty-five eggs (respectively), so how could they permit forty-five and forty three.

(d) When someone came before Rebbi Chiya, the latter exclaimed that there the Heter did not comprise Sheloshim. In light of the Shi'ur Shishim that is always required - Rebbi Chanina explained 'Guzma', meaning that all Rebbi Chiya meant was that there was not even Sheloshim against the Isur, let alone Shishim.

(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kapara stated that all Isurin in the Torah require Shishim (see Tosfos DH 've'Iba'i Lehu'), Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak countered with a statement by Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kapara - who required a hundred of Heter to be Mevateil the Isur.

(b) 'Shishim' and 'Me'ah' are actually - a Chumra, since they are required even when the Isur is not Nosen Ta'am or by Miyn be'Miyno, where one cannot identify the Ta'am (because when it is Nosen Ta'am, Shishim will not permit the mixture to be eaten [see Tosfos DH 'Kol Isurin']).

(c) Their common source is - 'Zero'a Besheilah' (the cooked right foreleg, as we shall now see).

(d) The ...

1. ... Zero'a Besheilah (the cooked foreleg) of the Shalmei Nazir - is given to the Kohen, whereas ...
2. ... the rest of the ram - is eaten by the owner.



(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa interprets the word "Besheilah" as whole (see Tosfos DH 'Ein ... '). Rebbi Shimon interprets it to mean - that it is cooked together with the rest of the ram.

(b) Assuming that both Tana'im require the Gid ha'Nasheh to be cooked together with the ram (like the simple explanation of the Pasuk), the basis of their Machlokes is - whether one detaches the Zero'a from the body of the ram before cooking (the Tana Kama), or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(c) According to the second Lashon, both Tana'im agree that one removes the Gid ha'Nasheh before cooking the Zero'a. And they argue whether - the Zero'a is cooked together with the rest of the ram (Rebbi Shimon) or independently, in a separate pot (the Rabbanan).

(d) The problem with cooking them together is - that the Zero'a ought to add taste to the rest of the ram, forbidding it on the owner.

(a) Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (be'Shishim) and Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi Mishum bar Kapara (be'Me'ah) argue, in the ...
1. ... first Lashon - according to both Tana'im (since they both require the Zero'a to be burned together with the rest of the ram).
2. ... second Lashon - according to Rebbi Shimon.
(b) Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak reckons the bones and the Basar, whereas Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - reckons only the Basar (since the bones do not exude taste anyway).

(c) The distinction between the two opinions is created by the fact - that the Zero'a Besheilah contains a higher proportion of bones (one sixtieth of the total animal) than of Basar (one hundredth) see Hagahos ha'Bach.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa (in connection with the Zero'a Besheilah) 'Zehu Heter ha'Ba mi'Chelal Isur' - which implies that Zero'a Besheilah is an exception, and that all other similar cases are Asur (a Kashya on the Amora'im who permit Bitul be'Shishim or be'Me'ah).

(b) Abaye answers - that the Beraisa comes to forbid Miyn be'Miyno, according to Rebbi Yehudah, whereas the D'rashah of Bitul be'Shishim or be'Me'ah, is referring to Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir" that Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil - from the fact that the Pasuk still refers to Dam ha'Sa'ir, despite the fact that the blood of the Par is far in excess of it.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah prefers to learn from the blood of the Par and of the Sa'ir that Miyn be'Miyno is not Bateil than from Zero'a Besheilah that it is - because Zero'a Besheilah is a Chidush, inasmuch as one is permitted to actually be positively Mevateil an Isur by cooking the Zero'a together with the ram.

(b) And the reason that he nevertheless learns Bitul be'Shishim or be'Me'ah of Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno from Gid ha'Nasheh is - because, seeing as min ha'Torah the Isur is Bateil be'Rov, declaring it Bateil be'Shishim ... is actually a Chumra (which can learn even from a Chidush).

(c) According to Rava, we need the Pasuk to permit Shishim or Me'ah regarding 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' - which is then Asur by Kodshim, but Mutar by Chulin.

(d) According to Rava, the D'rashah "Mishras", from which the Sugya in Pesachim learns 'Ta'am ke'Ikar" - is only an Asmachta, in support of the Rabbanan, who forbade it.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with a Chatas) "Kol Asher Yiga bi'Vesarah Yikdash" - that 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' is Asur by Kodshim.

(b) Consequently, assuming that a Shelamim touched a ...

1. ... a Kasher Chatas (and one of them was hot) - it has to be eaten on the same day, in the Azarah and by male Kohanim.
2. ... a Pasul Chatas - then it must be burned.
(c) We prefer to learn from a Chatas than from Zero'a Besheilah, because the latter is a Chidush, as we explained earlier (regarding the blood of the Par and the Chatas). Nevertheless, we learn the Din of Shishim and Me'ah by Chulin from the latter - because it is a Chumra (as we explained there).
Next daf


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