(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 116

CHULIN 116 (27 Iyar) - Dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky in honor of the sixth Yahrzeit of her father, Zev ben Ephraim v'Chaya Krause.



(a) We just concluded that there is no Pircha to ask on the case of Kil'ayim (vis-a-vis Basar be'Chalav). And we query this with the Pircha 'Mah li'Kelai ha'Kerem she'Kein Lo Haysah Lah Sha'as ha'Kosher' (like we asked on Orlah). This Kashya is based on the misconception - that the original seeds do not become forbidden, only what grows from the roots.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah therefore answers - that once Kil'ayim grows, even the roots become forbidden (which were originally permitted).

(a) Rav Shemaya bar Ze'ira queries this however, from a Beraisa, where the Tana, discussing a plant pot with a hole containing seeds that one transports through a vine-yard ...
1. ... forbids the growth as long as - so much grew that there is less than two hundred of the Heter to the one of Isur that grew after it entered the field.
2. ... permits it - as long as less than that grew, leaving at least two hundred of Heter against the one of Isur.
(b) This proves - that only what subsequently grows (beyond the Shi'ur of two hundred is Asur, but not the original seeds), just like we originally thought.

(c) Abaye answers by citing two Pesukim in Ki Seitzei. He establishes ...

1. ... "Pen Tikdash ha'Melei'ah" - by a vineyard to which seeds, which where planted be'Heter, were brought only later. These remain Heter, and it is only what subsequently grows (by two hundred per cent) that becomes forbidden.
2. ... "ha'Zera" - by seeds that were sown in the vineyard be'Isur, which become Asur as soon as they take root.
(d) We establish our Mishnah not like Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, who learns in the name of Rebbi Shimon (from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Am Kadosh Atah" and "ve'Anshei Kodesh Tih'yun Li") - that just as Tereifah is Mutar be'Hana'ah, so too is Basar be'Chalav.
(a) The problem with Rebbi Akiva, who precludes Chayah, Of and Beheimah Teme'ah from the prohibition of Basar be'Chalav from the three times *G'di*" in the Torah is - that we need all three of them for Shmuel's D'rashos (one to include Cheilev and Meisah, one to include a Sh'lil and one to preclude a Beheimah Temei'ah [the only which coincides with Rebbi Akiva]).

(b) We dispense with the Kashya from ...

1. ... 'Cheilev' and 'Meisah' - in that Rebbi Akiva holds 'Isur Chal al Isur' (already before the D'rashah).
2. ... 'Sh'lil' - in that he considers a Sh'lil to be a Beheimah,] and that it does not therefore need a Pasuk to include it.
(a) One of the differences between Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah ('Chayah ve'Of Einah min ha'Torah') and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili ('es she'Asur Mishum Neveilah Asur Levashel be'Chalav') is a Chayah - which is Asur d'Oraysa according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, but only mi'de'Rabbanan, according to Rebbi Akiva.

(b) Alternatively, they argue over Of - which Rebbi maintains is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, whilst Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds that the Rabbanan issued no such a decree.

(c) This latter interpretation of their Machlokes has the support of a Beraisa, which testifies how the residents of Rebbi Eliezer's town (based on his opinion that 'All necessary preparations for a Mitzvah that overrides Shabbos, override Shabbos, too') used to cut wood on Shabbos to burn a fire to make charcoal - in order to fashion a knife, so as to be able to perform a B'ris that has fallen due on the same day.

(d) The Tana also testifies - that in Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's town they used to cook fowl in milk.

(a) When Levi arrived at the house of Yosef the bird hunter and saw that they served a peacock's head that had been cooked in milk - he said nothing.

(b) Rebbi maintained - that he should have placed them in Cherem.

(c) Levi however, justified his silence - inasmuch as he assumed that the place, whose Rav was Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - followed the opinion of Rebbi Hagelili, who permitted it, even mi'de'Rabbanan, as we just learned.

(a) When our Mishnah forbids the Keivah of Nochrim and of Neveilah - it is referring to the congealed milk that one finds inside the stomach of such animals.

(b) The Tana forbids placing milk inside an animal's stomach (to manufacture cheese [i.e. the cheese is forbidden]) - if the stomach is Nosen Ta'am.

(c) And he forbids the milk that a Kasher animal suckled from a Tereifah - but permits the milk that a Tereifah suckled from a Kesheirah ...

(d) ... because milk that an animal suckles does not become part of it, but is rather considered as if it was lying in a jar.




(a) Some Poskim want to permit congealed milk that one finds inside an animal's stomach if they were salted together, or if one added other milk, in order to manufacture cheese - because they consider this to be a case of 'Nat bat Nat' (since the congealed milk adopted the taste of the meat, which it then instilled into the other milk.

(b) And they cite as a precedent fish that was cooked in a meat pot, which may be eaten together with a milk dish (as we learned above).

(c) But in reality, there is no comparison at all between the two cases - since the first taste in the latter case, is Heter, whereas the first taste in our case (the milk in the stomach) is Isur (because of the principle 'Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah', as we already learned).

(d) Neither can the milk that one added become Bateil - because we rule 'Miyn be'Miyno Eino Bateil'.

(a) Rashi originally permitted the congealed milk, provided no other milk was added - because he considered it 'Pirsha b'Alma' (waste matter whose Chashivus has become Bateil).

(b) And he based this error on a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah - which permits a Kohen who is not finnicky to eat it, because it is 'Pirsha be'Alma' ...

(c) ... which really means - that it has not become part of the Olah (though it is still considered milk).

(d) And the reason that the Mishnah there forbids the same congealed milk if it is found inside an animal of Avodah-Zarah - is because those who serve it are pleased that it is there, since it causes the animal to weigh more (which renders it part of the Avodah-Zarah animal).

(a) The problem with our Mishnah, which refers to 'the stomach that one obtains from a Nochri and the stomach of Neveilah' is - that surely the former is a Neveilah too (so why does the Tana need to add 'Neveilah')?

(b) Rav Huna establishes the former by the stomach of a kid-goat that one purchased from a Nochri, and we are afraid that it may have suckled from a Tereifah. We query this however from a Beraisa - which permits purchasing eggs from a Nochri, (and do not suspect that they are perhaps eggs that were found inside a Neveilah or laid by a Tereifah). By the same token, we ought not to suspect that the kid suckled from a Tereifah either.

(c) So we ascribe the prohibition to the fear that the kid may have suckled from a Beheimah Temei'ah, which is more like than a Tereifah - because it is more common.

(d) And the reason that we do not forbid the milk that one finds inside the stomach of a kid-goat, even if it belongs to a Yisrael is - because we are careful to keep our animals away from non-Kasher species (in which case they are no more common than Tereifos.

(a) Shmuel explains that 'Keivas Akum ve'shel Neveilah' is actually one statement, meaning - that the congealed milk in the stomach of a kid, lamb or calf is considered Neveilah.

(b) The reason that Shmuel gives for the prohibition of cheese that is manufactured by a Nochri - is because they would place the milk inside the stomach of a Neveilah.

(c) We reconcile that with his current statement, which considers the congealed milk itself, Neveilah - by establishing the latter (our Mishnah), before Rebbi Yehoshua retracted, and the former, after the retraction.

(a) Originally, Rebbi Yehoshua attributed the Chachamim's prohibition on Nochri cheese - to the fact that they would place it in the congealed milk of a Neveilah.

(b) However, Rebbi Yishmael forced Rebbi Yehoshua to retract - by asking him how that could possibly be, seeing as the Isur of Olah is more stringent than that of Neveilah, yet Chazal permitted a Kohen to eat it (as we learned above).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua subsequently attributed the prohibition to the fact - that the Nochrim place the cheese in the actual stomach of calves of Avodah-Zarah.

(a) The Seifa of our Mishnah permits the congealed milk that one finds inside a Tereifah. Rav Chisda tries to reconcile this with the Reisha, which forbids 'Keivas Akum ve'shel Neveilah', by differentiating between Neveilah - which is disgusting (because it appears that one is eating Neveilos), which is why the Chachamim forbade it, and Tereifah (which is not, seeing as the animal was Shechted).

(b) Rava rejects Rav Chisda's answer on the grounds that, if anything, the opposite is more logical - because the more disgusting it is, the less reason there is to forbid the milk, since one is less likely to then eat the stomach; whereas in the case where it is not disgusting, there is more reason to issue a decree, in case one does.

(c) So Rav Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan reconciles the Reisha of the Mishnah with the Seifa - by establishing the former before Rebbi Yehoshua retracted (as we explained a little earlier), and the latter, after the retraction.

(d) Despite the fact that the Seifa speaks after Rebbi Yehoshua retracted, Rebbi did not remove the Reisha from the text - because that is what he often does (in order not to confuse those who already learned it and fixed it in their minds.

(a) Regarding making cheese by placing it in congealed milk, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan - permitted doing so in the congealed milk found inside a Neveilah, but forbade if it was found inside an animal Shechted by a Nochri.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon bar Aba suggested that this was the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - he was referring to Rebbi Eliezer who learns that S'tam Machsheves Oved-Kochavim la'Avodas Kochavim'.

(c) This renders it Asur - because the owner is pleased that the animal weighs more (as we explained earlier), since it is a Kavod for the Avodah-Zarah.

(d) Following Rebbi Shimon bar Aba's suggestion, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba commented - 'Who else' (meaning that of course it was (the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer).

(a) We finally rule that placing cheese ...
1. ... in the stomach of a Neveilah - is forbidden (if it is Nosen Ta'am).
2. ... in the congealed milk that one finds in the stomach of a Neveilah - is permitted (like Rebbi Yehoshua after he retracted).
3. ... in the congealed milk that one finds inside an animal that was Shechted by a Nochri - is permitted ...
(b) ... because we do not rule like Rebbi Eliezer.
Next daf


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