(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 66

CHULIN 66-68 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.


(a) What are the ramifications of the Machlokes between Tana de'bei Rav (the author of the first Beraisa) and Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael?

(b) Why do we refer to the first Tana as Tana de'bei Rav? What is the Toras Kohanim better known as?

(c) How does Tana de'bei Rav Darshen the Pasuk ("Asher Lo Kera'ayim" ... "Arbeh, Sol'am, Chargol, Chagav")?

(d) What do we mean (in the context of our Sugya) when we explain that he requires the Limud to be similar to the P'rat in two ways ('mi'Shenei Tzedadin' [see Rashash])?

(a) We have already explained how Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmel arrives by his conclusion.
What do we mean when we say 'u'Marbi Kol de'Dami Leih be'Chad Tzad'?

(b) What problem do we have regarding the two K'lalim that Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael Darshens?

(c) How do we resolve it?

(d) On what grounds does Tana de'bei Rav argue with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael?

(a) If not for "le'Miyneihu" (written in connection with Chagav), the Tana would not have required the other Simanim.
But how can that be? Why will we not learn from Arbeh and Chargol that it does?

(b) And how do we explain the discrepancy between the first Beraisa, which translates Sol'am as Nipol and Chargol as Rishon, and the second Beraisa, which switches the translations?

(c) According to Tana de'bei Rav, Sol'am does not possess a tail whereas Chargol does.
What does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael say?

(a) If "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" refers to animals and birds respectively, and "ve'Chol Nefesh ha'Chayah ha'Romeses ba'Mayim" to fish, to what does "u'le'Chol Nefesh ha'Shoretzes al ha'Aretz" refer?

(b) What is the significance of the order in which the Pasuk places them?

(a) The Beraisa now discusses the specifications of fish.
Why does the Tana need to inform us that ...
  1. ... a Sultanis (tunny-fish) and an Afian are permitted?
  2. ... Akunas, Afunas ... Atunas (possibly a tuna fish) are permitted? Why might we have thought that both of these groups of fish will be forbidden?
(b) What does the Mishnah in Nidah say about any fish that has ...
  1. ... scales?
  2. ... fins?
(c) And what does the Tana say about a fish on which one sees only ...
  1. ... scales?
  2. ... fins?
Answers to questions



(a) Why does the Torah then find it necessary to write fins ("S'napir")?
What problem would it create to write only scales (Kaskeses)?

(b) Now that the Torah does write them both, how do we know that "Kaskeses" means 'scales' and "S'napir", 'fins', and not vice-versa?

(c) Why does the Torah then see fit to mention fins at all?

(d) What do we learn from the fact that the Torah both permits fish that have fins and scales and forbids those that don't (rather than imply one from the other)?

(a) The Beraisa now discusses Sheretz ha'Mayim.
On what grounds do we query the Torah's insertion of the Pasuk "es Zeh Tochlu mi'Kol Asher ba'Mayim"? What else might the Torah have written?

(b) What is strange about the Kashya?

(a) What do we initially extrapolate from the Seifa of the Pasuk, ''ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim Tochelu"?

(b) What do we therefore learn from the Reisha "es Zeh Tochlu mi'Kol Asher ba'Mayim ... "?

(c) Why are we bound to learn this from "Tochlu" of the Reisha and not from "Tochlu" of the Seifa?

(a) We query this Kula however, on the grounds that we might just as well extrapolate a Chumra from the Pasuk (to forbid inside Keilim even fish that possess fins and scales) - What makes this explanation more logical?

(b) To answer this Kashya, we quote the Pasuk "ve'Chol Asher Ein Lo S'napir ve'Kaskeses ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim ... Sheketz Heim Lachem".
What do we lean from there?

(a) We then suggest that the second "ba'Mayim" (in the Pasuk "es Zeh Tochlu") is a 'K'lal' and "ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim", a 'P'rat'.
So what if it is?

(b) How do we answer this? What do we learn from the second "ba'Mayim"?

(c) What problem do we have with the juxtaposition of the two "ba'Mayim"?

(d) Ravina answers by establishing the Beraisa like 'they said in Eretz Yisrael'.
What did they say in Eretz Yisrael about two K'lalim that are juxtaposed?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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