(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 101

CHULIN 101-102 - 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 just quoted the Beraisa which discusses someone who ate the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Beheimah Teme'ah. The problem with Rebbi Shimon, who exempts him from Malkos, assuming that he holds ...
1. ... 'Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am' is - that If he holds 'Isur Chal al Isur', then the sinner ought to receive two sets of Malkos, whereas if he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', then he ought to at least receive Malkos for eating Gid ha'Nasheh.
2. ... 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am' - then he ought to receive Malkos for eating Gid ha'Nasheh.
(b) We answer that he holds 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am', and that he exempts him from Malkos for having eaten Gid ha'Nasheh - because of the Pasuk "al-Kein Lo Yochlu B'nei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh", implying that one is only Chayav for eating the Gid ha'Nasheh of an animal that would otherwise be permitted, not of one that is Asur anyway.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cites a Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim. According to Rebbi Meir, someone who eats a Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah receives two sets of Malkos. The Chachamim - sentence him to only one ...

(b) ... for the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh, which took effect first (from the time that the Gid was formed).

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, he receives Malkos for Neveilah as well, even assuming that he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur - because it is an Isur Kolel (an incorporating Isur [seeing as the Isur takes effect on the Basar, it takes effect on the Gid, too]).

(a) Even the Chachamim will agree, Rav Yehudah adds, that someone who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of an Olah or of a Shor ha'Niskal (e.g. that gored a person to death) receives two sets of Malkos - because not only is that an Isur Kolel, but an Isur Mosif too, since it is a more stringent Isur (see also Tosfos DH 'Isur Kolel') ...

(b) ... inasmuch as it is also Asur be'Hana'ah.

(c) Rava assumes that the Chachamim will concede that 'Isur Chal al Isur' by Isur Kollel if it also Chamur - because we find no indication to the contrary.

(d) The Chachamim must then be - Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (as we shall now see).

(a) In the Mishnah in Zevachim, the Tana Kama declares Chayav Kareis, a Tamei person who eats Kodesh, irrespective of whether the Kodesh is Tahor or Tamei. For eating Tamei Kodshim be'Meizid, a Tahor person is Chayav - Malkos (and not Kareis).

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - restricts the Chiyuv to where he ate Tahor Kodesh, but if it was Tamei, he is Patur.

(c) The Rabbanan query Rebbi Yossi Hagelili however - on the grounds that the moment he touches the Kodesh, which he normally does (see Tosfos DH 'Shapir ka'Amri Leih') he renders it Tamei anyway.

(d) We comment - that their query is seemingly justified.

(a) Rava explains that in fact, Rebbi Yossi Hageleili will agree that in the case cited by the Rabbanan, the Tamei person is Chayav - seeing as the Chiyuv Kareis took effect first ...

(b) ... and he renders him Patur - only if the Tum'as Basar preceded that of the person who subsequently ate it.

(c) In spite of the fact that we hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', the Rabbanan nevertheless render him Chayav - because the Tum'as ha'Guf is an Isur Kolel (seeing as the person's Tum'ah incorporates Tahor Kodshim, which were previously permitted to him).

(d) Whereas Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', even by Isur Kolel.

(a) Based on what we learned earlier, the problem with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's ruling is - why the Tamei person is not Chayav anyway, since, even assuming that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili does not hold of Isur Kolel, he surely holds of Isur Kolel when it is Chamur (Mosif) too, like we explained earlier?

(b) We refute this Kashya however - by suggesting that the Isur of Tum'as Basar is more Chamur than Tum'as ha'Guf, because, whereas Basar Tamei is not subject to Tevilah, Tum'as ha'Guf is.




(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa (quoted in Shevu'os), someone who eats Neveilah on Yom Kipur be'Shogeg is Patur from a Chatas - in which case he does not hold of Isur Kolel, even when it is Isur Mosif, too. This explains why Rav Yehudah Amar Rav cannot be speaking according to him (see Hagahos Radal).

(b) The Beraisa discusses someone who performed be'Shogeg, a Melachah on Yom Kipur that falls on Shabbos. According to Rebbi Akiva, he is Chayav one Korban (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Akiva'). Based on the Pesukim "Shabbos Hi" and "Yom ha'Kipurim Hu", Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - is Mechayev him two.

(c) What makes ...

1. ... Shabbos an Isur Mosif compared to Yom Kipur is - the fact that it adds a Chiyuv Misas Beis-Din to the Chiyuv Kareis of Yom Kipur.
2. ... Yom Kipur an Isur Kolel compared to Shabbos is the fact - that it incorporates the Isur of eating.
(d) It is important to know this, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - because if he did not hold of Isur Kolel and Isur Mosif, he would not hold of Isur Bas Achas either (in which case, the sinner would not be Chayav two Chata'os).
(a) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on our previous interpretation of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - where we maintained that he does not hold Isur Kolel on its own.

(b) Ravin quoting Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina inverts the opinions (so that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is only Mechayav one Korban). He might have solved the problem - by establishing that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds of Isur Bas Achas, even if he does hold of Isur Kolel.

(c) Alternatively, we might have explained that the Isur Shabbos precedes the Isur Yom Kipur - based on the fact that Shabbos is fixed since the creation, whereas Yom-Tov depends on the fixture of the Beis-Din, and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is Mechayav two Chata'os because Yom Kipur is an Isur Kolel.

(d) And we reject this explanation - on the basis of Rava, who will shortly take for granted that Shabbos and Yom Kipur are Isur Bas Achas, even according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that according to Ravin's amendment, if someone performed a Melachah with Shigegas Shabbos and Zadon Yom ha'Kipurim, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, he will be Chayav a Chatas. In the reverse case, he says - he will be Patur.

(b) Abaye explains this, based on the fact that when Rebbi Yossi Hagelili ruled 'Eino Chayav Ela Achas', he meant because of Shabbos - and he is Patur from Yom Kipur, due to the fact that Shabbos preceded Yom Kipur, as we just explained

(c) And he is Patur if he was Shogeg on Yom Kipur and Meizid on Shabbos - because one does not bring a Chatas for a sin that is performed be'Meizid.

(d) Rava disagrees with Abaye's explanation - because he considers Shabbos and Yom Kipur Isur Bas Achas (since they both take effect simultaneously).

(a) What happened was - that that year was a year of Sh'mad (where the Nochrim threatened those who observed Yom Kipur), so the Chachamim annulled Yom Kipur, and instituted it on a Shabbos (when people do not work anyway) only so that the people should not forget Yom Kipur.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan in fact - did not mention Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, whose name crept in to this context by mistake.

(c) This explains Rebbi Yochanan - because seeing as it was not really Yom Kipur, someone who remembered Shabbos, but forgot Yom Kipur, would not be Chayav for Yom Kipur.

(d) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael - he testified that Rava's interpretation was unanimously accepted.

(a) From the fact that the Torah writes in Vayishlach "al-Kein Lo Yochlu B'nei Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh", rather than "B'nei Ya'akov", the Chachamim in a Beraisa prove - that the Isur was only said at Sinai and not where it is written in Vayishlach.

(b) One cannot ask on the Rabbanan from the Pasuk (in connection with Ya'akov and his family going down to Egypt) cited by Rava "Vayis'u B'nei Yisrael es Ya'akov Avihem" - since that Pasuk is written long after the Pasuk in Vayishlach, at which time they were not yet called the B'nei Yisrael.

(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi why the Gid ha'Nasheh did not then become prohibited from that time on - in which case it would remain a proof for Rebbi Yehudah, who claims that Gid ha'Nasheh was given whilst they were still B'nei No'ach (which they were in any case until the Torah was given at Har Sinai).

(d) Rav Ashi replied - that this was not possible, seeing as the Pasuk in Vayechi took place after the incident with the angel, and before Matan Torah. Either we go after the time of the incident or after Matan Torah, but not after any time in between.

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa, Eiver min ha'Chai applies to Beheimah, Chayah and Of, both Teme'in and Tehorin. The Chachamim - restrict it to Tehorin.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains that both opinions derive their rulings from the same Pasuk "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam ... ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar". The last phrase "ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" - pertains to Eiver min ha'Chai.


1. Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar learn from "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam ... ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" - that any species that are subject to the Isur Dam (including Tamei ones), are also subject to the Isur Eiver min ha'Chai.
2. The Rabbanan learn from "ve'Lo Sochal ha'Nefesh im ha'Basar" - that one is only Chayav for the Eiver of Basar which is permitted, but not of that which is forbidden (since the Pasuk implies that when there is no Dam ha'Nefesh together with the Basar, then one may eat it).
Next daf


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