(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 117



(a) Our Mishnah lists the various Chumros of Cheilev over Dam and of Dam over Cheilev. Besides the fact that the Cheilev Kodshim is subject to Me'ilah and Dam Kodshim is not - it is also subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei which Dam Kodshim is not.

(b) When we say that Cheilev Kodshim is subject to Tum'ah, we mean - that if someone eats Cheilev Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf be'Shogeg, he is Chayav two Chata'os, one for Cheilev, and one for eating Kodshim be'Tum'as ha'Guf.

(c) The Isur Dam on the other hand, pertains to more species than Cheilev. Besides Dam Chayah, whose Cheilev is permitted, one is also Chayav on Dam Of and Dam Beheimah Temei'ah, but not on their Cheilev).

(d) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Cheilev) "min ha'Beheimah Asher Yakrivu Mimenah ... " - that one is only Chayav for eating the Cheilev of a Beheimah that is eligible to go on the Mizbe'ach (precluding, that of a bird, a Chayah and a Beheimah Temei'ah).

(a) The problem with the Pasuk (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "Ka'asher Yuram mi'Shor Zevach ha'Shelamim" is - that the Torah does not teach us anything with regard to the latter that is not mentioned directly by the former.

(b) Rebbi Yanai therefore explains - that the Pasuk really comes to compare (not the Par Kohen Mashi'ach to a Shelamim, but) the Eimurim of a Shelamim to those of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, to teach us that the Cheilev of a Shelamim is subject to Me'ilah just like those of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.

(c) What makes Me'ilah by the Eimurei Par Kohen Mashi'ach more obvious than by the Eimurei Shelamim - is the fact that like all Kodshei Kodshim, it is already subject to Me'ilah in its lifetime, whereas a Shelamim, which is Kodshim Kalim, is not.

(a) Rebbi learns the same thing from the Pasuk (ibid.) "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem" (to include that of a Shelamim).

(b) When Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Yanai why Rebbi's D'rashah was not good enough for him, Abaye answered - that Rebbi's D'rashah only teaches us Cheilev, in which case we still need Rebbi Yanai's Pasuk, to incorporate the two kidneys and the lobe of the liver (which are included in the Eimurim, even though they are not called Cheilev).

(c) On the other hand, we need "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem" - to include the Alyah (the fat-tail of the sheep) in the Din of Me'ilah ...

(d) ... which we would not otherwise learn from "Ka'asher Yuram ... ", because we would have thought that only the Chalavim that pertain to all the Kasher species is subject to Me'ilah, but not the Alyah (even of a sheep), which an ox does not have.

(a) The problem Rav Mari has with the fact that the Alyah is called 'Cheilev' is - that if it is, why is not Asur ba'Achilah?

(b) Rav Z'vid answered him, based on the Pasuk "Kol Cheilev Shor, ve'Chesev va'Eiz Lo Socheilu" - which indicates that the Torah only forbids to eat those sections of Cheilev that pertain to all the Kasher animals.

(c) Rav Ashi explains why the Alyah is not Asur ba'Achilah - because the Torah calls it "Chelbo ha'Alyah", but not Cheilev S'tam.

(d) We reject Rav Ashi's answer however, because if the Alyah would not be called Cheilev - then it would not be subject to Me'ilah either.

(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Dam) "va'Ani Nesativ *Lachem*" - that Dam Kodshim is not subject to Me'ilah.

(b) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns the same thing from "Lechaper" ('le'Chaparah Nesativ ve'Lo li'Me'ilah'). Whereas Rebbi Yochanan learns it from "ki ha'Dam *Hu* ... " - which teaches us that Dam Kodshim is the same before the Kaparah as it is after it (i.e. it is not subject to Me'ilah).

(c) It is not possible to learn the opposite ... that just as Me'ilah applies before Kaparah, so too, does it apply after Kaparah - because of the principle 'Ein Lecha Davar she'Na'aseh Mitzvaso u'Mo'alin Bo' (once a Mitzvah has been completed, there is no Me'ilah on the object involved).

(d) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Terumas ha'Deshen [the shovel-full of spent ashes that was placed each morning beside the Mizbe'ach]) "Ve'samo Eitzel ha'Mizbe'ach" - that it was forbidden to derive benefit from it, and it remained subject to Me'ilah (even though its Mitzvah has been completed).

(a) And we solve the problem - by citing the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'hinicham Sham", from which we learn that after the completion of the Avodah on Yom Kipur, the four white Begadim of the Kohen Gadol were forbidden to be used again, and were subject to Me'ilah. Consequently, we will apply the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Ein Melamdin' (when two Pesukim teach us the same thing, then they are the exceptions rather than the rule).

(b) That goes nicely with the Rabbanan, who hold that the Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol were Asur be'Hana'ah after Yom Kipur. Rebbi Dosa interprets "Ve'hinicham Sham" to mean - that the Kohen Gadol was forbidden to wear the same robes again on a subsequent Yom Kipur, but not that they were subject to Me'ilah.

(c) Rebbi Dosa - will simply replace Bigdei Kehunah with Eglah Arufah, which remains Asur be'Hana'ah even after its Mitzvah is complete, still leaving us with two Pesukim.

(d) Whereas those who hold 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in ke'Echad, Melamdin' - will learn the principle 'Kol Davar she'Na'asis Mitzvaso Ein Mo'alin Bo' from the word "Ve'sam*o*" by Terumas ha'Deshen (implying *it* and not other things whose Mitzvah has been completed) and from the 'Hey' of "ha'Arufah" (implying that only the Eglah Arufah remains Asur be'Hana'ah after the completion of its Mitzvah, but not other things).

(a) Now that we preclude Dam Kodshim from Me'ilah, from one of the three Pesukim ("Lachem", "Lechaper" and "Hu"), we need the other two Pesukim - to preclude it from the Isur of Nosar and of Tum'ah.

(b) We do not however, need a Pasuk to preclude Dam from Pigul - since only things that have a Matir are subject to Pigul (such as Basar Kodshim, which becomes permitted, either to eat or to burn on the Mizbe'ach, through the sprinkling of the blood), as we learned in the Mishnah in Zevachim, but not Dam, which is itself a Matir.

***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Basar' *****



***** Perek ha'Or veha'Rotav *****


(a) Our Mishnah lists skin among the things that combine with the Basar to complete the Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin - which is a k'Beitzah.

(b) When the Tana says 'Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin', he means - that if it subsequently touches water (or one of the other six liquids), it will be eligible to become Tamei should a Sheretz touch it).

(c) Despite the fact that the skin is not edible, it combines with the Basar to make up the Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin - because it protects it (and is therefore considered part of it in this regard).

(a) The Tana adds the Rotav (a semi-fluid, gravy-like substance that emanates from the meat), the Kifah (the spices with which the meat is cooked) and the Elel (which will be explained in the Sugya). The Rotav and the Kifah are included in the Shi'ur - because they too, are considered part of the Basar, inasmuch as the one makes it palatable, whereas the other is sometimes eaten together with it (if it has congealed on it.

(b) Finally, he adds the Gidin (incorporating the nerves, the sinews and the cords [Me'iri]), the bones, the horns and the hooves to the list. The horns (at the base) belong in the list because they are sometimes eaten together with the meat (which is presumably the reason for the Gidin, too), the bones (containing marrow) and the hooves are included - because, like the skin, they protect the Basar.

(a) The Shi'ur of Tum'as Neveilos is a 'k'Zayis.

(b) The Tana rules that the above - do not combine to make up the Shi'ur of Tum'as Neveilos.

(c) We will learn shortly the source as to why the bones, the Gidin and the skin do not combine to make up the Shi'ur Tum'as Neveilos, whereas the Kifah and the Rotav do not combine - because they are not part of the Neveilah, and the Elel and the Gidin - because they are not Basar.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah rules - that if a k'Zayis of Elel of a Neveilah is gathered in one place, one is Chayav Malkos for eating it.

(a) In similar vein, says the Tana, if someone Shechts a Beheimah Temei'ah for a Nochri, and the animal is still convulsing, the animal is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin. We might have thought that it is not - because the Nochri is not allowed to eat it until it stops convulsing.

(b) Despite the fact that a. Shechitah on a Beheimah Temei'ah is not effective, and b. the Nochri is forbidden to eat the animal anyway - the Shechitah is effective regarding Tum'as Ochlin, because under different circumstances, such a Shechitah performed by a Yisrael would be valid.

(c) If ...

1. ... the Nochri himself Shechted the animal - it would not be subject to Tum'as Ochlin.
2. ... the Yisrael performed Nechirah (tore the animal open), rather than Shechitah - it would not be subject to Tum'as Ochlin either, as would be the case if ...
3. ... the Yisrael Shechted the same animal for a Yisrael - because his Da'as would be Bateil to that of every Yisrael, for whom a Beheimah Temei'ah is not considered food (see also Daf 121a, close to the foor of the page, for addtional details).
(d) The same animal, says the Tana, will only be Metamei Tum'as Neveilos - once it stops convulsing, or when its head is cut off (even if it is still convulsing).
(a) Our Mishnah bears out the Beraisa 'Shornrim le'Tum'ah Kalah ve'Lo le'Tum'ah Chamurah'. The reason that the Tana refers to Tum'as Ochlin as 'Tum'ah Kalah' and Tum'as Neveilos as 'Tum'ah Chamurah' is - because the former (which is only a Toldah) is only Metamei food and drink, whereas the latter, which is an Av ha'Tum'ah, is Metamei Adam and Keilim as well.

(b) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk (in connection with Tum'as Ochlin) "al Kol Zera Zeru'a Asher Yizare'a" to mean - that it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin ('Shomrim le'Tum'ah Kalah' [once it has become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah]) in the way that one normally takes them out to be planted (i.e. together with the shells (which serve as Shomrim).

(c) When the Tana speaks about the shells ...

1. ... of wheat and barley, he is referring to - the outer shell that is attached to the crops whilst they are still growing. The shell that falls off at the time of grinding - is considered food.
2. ... of lentils, he is referring - to the outer shell that surrounds the lentil itself
(d) And from the Pasuk in "ha'Noge'a *be'Nivlasah* Yitma ... " - he precludes a Shomer (the bones, the Gidin and the skin) from combining to make up the Shi'ur Tum'as Neveilos.
Next daf


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