(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 52

CHULIN 51-54 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.


(a) Rav Ashi permits a bird that gets caught in a glue-trap and falls to the ground.
What is a glue-trap?

(b) What does Ameimar rule in such a case?

(c) They both agree that if only one wing of the bird is stuck, it is Kasher.
Why is that?

(d) Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What does the Ba'al Halachos Gedolos say about all the cases that require Bedikah?

(b) Why do we not agree with him?

(c) What should one nevertheless do, when making the necessary Bedikah?

(a) Our Mishnah lists 'Nishtabru Rov Tzal'osehah' among the Tereifos.
What does 'Rov Tzal'osehah' comprise?

(b) Both Rabah bar bar Chanah and Rebbi Yochanan qualify our Mishnah. According to ...

  1. ... Rabah bar bar Chanah, whereabouts must the fracture take place for the animal to be Tereifah?
  2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, which ribs must the fracture involve?
(c) What distinction does Ula ben Zakai draw between where the ribs are merely broken or where they have been torn out?

(d) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(a) What does Rav say about one rib that has been torn out together with its vertebra?

(b) What was Rav's response, when Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked him what the Din will be if the two corresonding ribs (one on either side) have been torn out?

(c) We counter that seeing as, according to Rav, the rib together with its vertebra is missing, it is a Gistera according to him, too.
Why is that?

(d) How do we answer that Kashya?

(a) We extrapolate from the previous statement that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi are speaking when the two ribs were torn out without the vertebrae.
How do we know that?

(b) How do we reconcile Rav Kahana and Rav Asi with Ula ben Zakai, who only considers the animal Tereifah if the majority of ribs are torn out (though he is talking about a majority on one side), and not just two?

(c) What do we then ask on Rav Asi and Rav Kahana from Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) What do we mean when we answer by establishing Rav Kahana and Rav Asi by Buchna va'Asisa (and Rebbi Yochanan by Buchna be'Lo Asisa)?

(a) What problem do we have with establishing Rav Kahana and Rav Asi when the ribs were torn out together with half the vertebrae?

(b) If, as we reply, they asked Rav the She'eilah without having heard his opinion, why did they ask about two ribs that are torn out, and not one?

(c) Why can we not say the same now that they asked him about two? If he would answer Tereifah, they would still need to ask him about one?

(d) Why would he not also get excited in the case of one, to indicate that even two is Kasher, so why ask about one?

(e) But they did ask about two, yet Rav did not get excited?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rabah bar Rav Shilo ... Amar Shmuel say about a rib that is torn out without the vertebra, a skull the majority of which is crushed, and the flesh that covers the majority of the Keres?

(b) We already cited the Machlokes regarding a Shedrah in an Ohel ha'Meis that is missing one vertebra, which Beis Shamai declares Tamei, and Beis Hillel, Tahor.
What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say regarding the same case in a live animal?

(c) How so we now reconcile this with Shmuel's previous ruling (which considers one missing rib a Tereifah, but) which does not mention a missing vertebra?

(d) How is it possible for an animal to have a missing vertebra, yet all its ribs are intact? What are 'Kafli'?

(e) Rav Oshaya asked why the above Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (regarding Tereifus) is not listed in Iduyos together with all the cases where Beis Hillel is Machmir, and Beis Shamai, Meikel.
What did Rava reply?

(a) Shmuel's second ruling concerns a skull, the majority of which is crushed.
What She'eilah does Rebbi Yirmiyah ask? What might 'the majority' mean?

(b) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) In his third ruling, Shmuel renders Tereifah an animal whose flesh that covers the majority of the Keres is defected. What She'eilah does Rav Ashi ask? What defect might Shmuel be referring to?

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's interpretation of our Mishnah 'O she'Nikra Rov Chitzonah'.
How did Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explain 'Rov Chitzonah'?

(c) On what basis do we refute this proof? What do we mean when we say 'Midi Hu Ta'ama Ela li'Shmuel'?

(d) What did Rebbi Ya'akov bar Nachmeini cite Shmuel as saying?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comment on 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' and 'Derusas ha'Netz'?

(b) How do we refute the suggestion that ...

  1. ... Rav Yehudah means to preclude a cat (whose poison is too weak to render an animal Tereifah)?
  2. ... the Tana mentions 'Ze'ev' to teach us that a wolf is Doreis even a large animal?
(c) How do we counter the argument that the Tana Kama cannot disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, since Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes Amar Rebbi Ila'a (or Rebbi Elazar) specifically states that Rebbi Yehudah comes to explain the Tana Kama, and not to argue with him?
(a) So why does the Tana in our Mishnah mention 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' (according to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav)? What is it coming to teach us?

(b) Alternatively, Rav Yehudah comes to preclude a cat (from rendering a small animal a Tereifah).
How do we then answer the Kashya that we asked earlier, why we would not already know this from 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' in our Mishnah?

(a) Rav Chisda holds that a cat and a marten (Nemiyah) can be Doreis kid-goats and lambs.
How do we reconcile this with 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' of our Mishnah (according to what we just said)?

(b) What does he say about 'Derusas Chuldah (a weasel)'?

(c) We ask on Rav Chisda from a Beraisa 'Derusas Chasul, Netz u'Nemiyah ad she'Tinakev le'Chalal'.
What does this imply, that poses a Kashya on Rav Chisda?

(d) How do we reconcile this Beraisa with 'Derusas ha'Netz' of our Mishnah?

(a) We answer the Kashya on Rav Chisda by establishing him like B'rivi in another Beraisa.
How does B'rivi qualify the ruling that there is no Derusah by a Chasul?

(b) How does this explain Rav Chisda? Under which circumstances does he hold that there is?

(c) What happened in the case of the cat chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana's house? What did they subsequently discover on the door?

(d) How do we reconcile this with Rav Chisda, seeing as there was nobody trying to save the chicken?

(e) And how will the Rabbanan who argue with B'rivi (who maintain that even if there is someone saving the animal, there is no Din D'rusah by a cat) explain the five drops of blood on the door?

(a) Others establish the initial Beraisa 'Derusas Chasul ... ad she'Tinakev le'Chalal', like Berivi.
Under what circumstances is the Tana then speaking?

(b) How will B'rivi explain the five drops of blood on the door, in the case of the cat chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana's house?

(c) Like whom does Rav Chisda then hold? Under which circumstances is *he* speaking?

(d) According to Rav Chisda then, why does our Mishnah specifically mention 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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