(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 127



(a) The Beraisa learns that "ha'Tzav *le'Mineihu*" comes to include an Arod, ben ha'Nefilin and Salamander (different types of toad [or ferret]).
1. An Arod is - a cross between a Tzav and a snake.
2. A Salamander is - a Sheretz that is created by means of Kishuf (magic) in a furnace, from the wood of a myrtle-tree. Its blood prevents burning (if rubbed in the skin).
(b) When Rebbi Akiva came to the Pasuk in Borchi Nafshi "Mah Rabu Ma'asecha Hashem", he exclaimed how Hashem created ...
1. ... creatures that live on land and creatures that live on the sea ...
2. ... creatures that live in fire and creatures that live in the air - and that if they were to switch their habitats, they would immediately die.
(c) Rebbi Akiva's statement is cited here - because the Beraisa just mentioned the salamander, which (is presumably the only creature that) lives in fire.

(d) The Beraisa states - that the only land creature that has no equivalent in the sea is the weasel, and Rebbi Zeira supports this with the Pasuk in Tehilim "Ha'azinu Kol Yoshvei *Chaled*".

(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua stated that the beavers of Neiresh - lived only in the water.

(b) Rav Papa said - that the residents of Neiresh were wicked and deserved to be placed in Cherem ...

(c) ... 'Tarbeih, Mashcheih ve'Iliseih' (the Cheilev, the skin and the fat-tail), meaning - every single one of them.

(d) And based on the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Eretz, Eretz, Eretz Shim'i D'var Hashem", he commented - they did not listen to the word of Hashem.

(a) Rav Gidal Amar Rav advised a person who was kissed by someone from Neiresh - to count his teeth.

(b) And he advised a traveler who was joined by someone from ...

1. ... N'har Pakud - to watch his coat.
2. ... Pumbedisa - to change his hotel (because they were expert thieves).
(c) When Rav Huna bar Tursa once went to Va'ad, he saw - a snake constantly wrapping itself round a Tzav. Eventually, the latter gave birth to an Arod.

(d) Rebbi Shimon he'Chasid commented - that it was because the people of Va'ad (see Shitah Mekubetzes) used to interbreed animals (forming species that Hashem did not create) that Hashem did likewise ('Midah k'Neged Midah') and mixed breeds, to bring into the world an Arod (which He did not create), whose bite is lethal, to punish them.

(a) What did Mar said - that when different species are intimate - they can only become pregnant from each other if 1. they are intimate in the same position (either face to face or face to back), and 2. their period of pregnancy is the same.

(b) And by the same token - they are incapable of feeding each other's babies.

(c) The problem with the snake and the Tzav then is - that the former's pregnancy period is nine years, whereas the latter's is six months.

(d) We resolve it - by ascribing it to a miracle, and a miracle for the bad, to boot.




(a) Our Mishnah rules that a loose Eiver or loose Basar of a live animal are Metamei Tum'as Ochlin 'bi'Mekoman' - but only if the owner has in mind to feed it to a Nochri, which would not be necessary in a case where the Eiver or the Basar was severed.

(b) The Tana also rules that they require Hechsher. They are not Tamei Tum'as Ochlin even without Hechsher (ostensibly because they are destined to be Mitamei Tum'ah Chamurah when the animal dies) - because maybe they will Shecht it.

(c) The Tana that according to Rebbi Meir, once the animal is Shechted, they become Huchsher Lekabel Tum'ah via the blood of the Shechitah. In spite of the fact that they are Asur anyway (because of "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah ... ", as we learned in 'Beheimah ha'Makshah'), they are not Tamei Neveilah - because of the principle 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul' (meaning that when one Shechts, loose limbs are not considered detached).

(d) Rebbi Shimon says - 'Lo Huchsheru'.

(a) If the animal dies, the Basar requires Hechsher. It is not Tamei Neveilah however - because we hold 'Misah Osah Nipul' (even though Shechitah does not).

(b) It needs Hechsher - in order to receive Tum'ah from a Sheretz.

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, the Eiver is Metamei because of Eiver min ha'Chai - because 'Ein Misah Osah Nipul', as we just explained.

(d) Rebbi Shimon rules - that it is Tahor (as will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) Our Mishnah ascribes Tum'as Ochlin to a loose limb or Basar, but not Tum'as Neveilos. The problem with that is 'mi'Mah Nafshach' - if it is destined to heal, then it should not be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin either, whereas if it is not, then why is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos too?

(b) We conclude that the Tana is speaking when it will not heal, and it is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos - because Tum'as Neveilos only applies when it is actually detached ...

(c) ... as the Torah writes in Shemini "Ki Yipol".

(d) Even though this Pasuk is written in connection with Sheratzim - we know that the same applies to animals, because "Ki Yipol" is written twice by Sheratzim, once for Sheratzim and once for animals.

(a) The Beraisa that we cite to support this, also serves to support a statement of Rav Chiya bar Ashi, who, quoting Shmuel, says that if figs dried-up on the tree ...
1. ... they are Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.
2. ... one is Chayav for picking them on Shabbos.
(b) He would be Patur regarding Shabbos however - if the stalk had dried up as well as the fruit (since the fruit would then be considered completely detached).

(c) The above Beraisa proves Shmuel's ruling - in that, similar to the Beraisa, Shmuel declares the fruit Tamei Tum'as Ochlin, even though they are considered attached in certain respects (in Shmuel's case, regarding breaking Shabbos, in the Beraisa, regarding Neveilah).

(a) We try to bring an additional proof from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that vegetables such as cabbages and pumpkins that withered on their stems *are not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin*. But where they withered after being detached - *they are*.

(b) The problem with this latter ruling is - that once cabbages and pumpkins have withered, they are no longer considered food, so how can they be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak therefore establishes 'Katzetzan ve'Yavshan' to mean - that one cut them in order to dry them (to make a K'li out of them or to use them for firewood).

(b) We infer from the fact that the Tana mentions specifically cabbages and pumpkins - that in the Reisha, other fruit, that are still fit to eat even after they have withered, will be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.

(c) Assuming that the Tana must be speaking when the *stalks* have not withered (because otherwise, what would the Tana be coming to teach us), we now try to prove from here - that fruit that has dried up, is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin (like Shmuel).

(d) And we conclude that he may well be speaking when they have withered, and the Chidush lies in the Seifa (in the actual ruling itself, rather than in the inference) - to teach us that even though the owner cut the cabbages and the pumpkin in order to dry them, as long as they have not dried, they remain food and are subject to Tum'ah.

(a) Another Beraisa rules that if a branch containing fresh fruit breaks loose from a tree, the fruit is considered detached. On the other hand, he rules that dry fruit that is still attached - retains the Din of attached fruit.

(b) On the assumption that we compare the Seifa to the Reisha, this poses a Kashya on Shmuel - in that just as the fruit in the Reisha is considered detached in all respects (both as regards Shabbos and as regards Tum'ah), so too, is the fruit in the Seifa considered attached in all respects.

(c) To reconcile Shmuel with the Beraisa, we therefore explain the Beraisa - 'Ha k'de'Isa, ve'Ha k'de'Isa' (the Reisha speaks with respect to both Shabbos and Tum'ah, whereas the Seifa speaks with respect to Shabbos exclusively; but as far as Tum'ah is concerned, the fruit is in fact, considered detached).

(a) Our ow do HowMishnah cites the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir, who considers the loosed limb and Basar Huchshar in the blood of its own Shechitah and Rebbi Shimon, who doesn't. Rabah attributes the basis of their Machlokes to whether an animal is considered a Yad for a limb or not. In general however - both Tana'im will agree that a Yad that becomes wet will transmit Hechsher to food.

(b) Abaye disagrees. According to him, there is no such thing as a Yad le'Hechsher, and the question is whether the animal and the limb are considered one entity or not - whether a small and a large article which are in fact joined, are considered joined, even though, if one were to pick up the small section, the large one would break off (Rebbi Meir), or not (Rebbi Shimon).

Next daf


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