(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 100

CHULIN 100 - (11 Iyar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their mother, ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (of Milwaukee).


(a) With reference to our Mishnah, we ask why a Gid ha'Nasheh that is cooked together with the thigh is not Bateil be'Rov.
Under what condition would this be conceivable?

(b) What do we answer? Why indeed is it not Bateil?

(c) And we ask, also with reference to our Mishnah, why a piece of Neveilah or of a Tamei fish, is not Bateil in other pieces.
What do we mean when we say that this is not a Kashya according to those who hold 'Kol she'Darko Limanos Shaninu'?

(d) The Kashya remains however, according to those who hold 'es she'Darko Limanos Shaninu'.
Why is that?

(a) So why is the large piece of meat or fish not Bateil?

(b) Why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us that both a Gid ha'Nasheh and a large piece of meat or fish are not Bateil? Why will one not suffice?

(a) What did Rabah bar bar Chanah Darshen regarding a piece of Neveilah or of a Tamei fish.
Under which circumstances will it render the pieces with which it is cooked, Asur?

(b) And what did Rav appoint an Amora to Darshen regarding a piece of Kasher meat that is cooked next to a piece of Neveilah, which gives it taste (even if there are other pieces in the pot), or if they are cooked together, and the other pieces are added only later?

(c) How do we initially interpret his reason 'Mipnei she'Hein Miyno'?

(d) According to this interpretation, what did Rav Safra ask Abaye concerning the terms of the actual statement?

(a) In answer to Rav Safra's Kashya, Abaye establishes Rav 'be'she'Kadam ve'Silko'.
What does he mean by that? What did he remove?

(b) What would Rav then be coming to teach us?

(a) Rava establishes Rav even where he did not remove the piece of Neveilah first.
Why will the pieces in the pot not become Asur if the piece of Neveilah does not give taste to the first piece? What principle governs Rava's answer?

(b) What does this mean with regard to our case?

(c) Even if the first piece did become Neveilah, why is it not Bateil in the other pieces?

Answers to questions



(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh does not apply to a Beheimah Teme'ah.
Is this connected to the Din of 'Yesh' or 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am'?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does.
How does he prove it (from the location of the La'av)?

(c) How do the Chachamim counter his proof?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal le'Tam'ah Vah"?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa confines this ruling to the Neveilah of a Tahor bird.
How does he preclude that of a Tamei bird from the same Pasuk?

(c) What principle does this teach us?

(d) What Kashya does this pose on Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah? How do we initially interpret his ruling 'including a Beheimah Teme'ah in the Din of Gid ha'Nasheh'?

(a) So we suggest that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am'.
How will that answer the Kashya?

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah sentences someone who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Beheimah Teme'ah to two Malkos. What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) What does this Beraisa prove? How does this refute the previous suggestion in Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) So we conclude that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am', but he also holds that the Isur extends to a Sh'lil.
How will that answer the Kashya?

(a) How do we reconcile the previous statement of Rebbi Yehudah with the Mishnah above, where Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Eino Noheg bi'Shelil'?

(b) What problem do we have with the Mishnah in Nazir, which lists among the things that a Nazir must shave for (should he form an Ohel over them) a Meis and a k'Zayis from a Meis?

(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan resolve the problem? What sort of Meis is the Tana referring to?

(d) How does this refute the current answer (that our Mishnah speaks when the Isur Beheimah Teme'ah and that of Gid take effect simultaneously)?

(a) So we answer that the Isur Gid nevertheless takes effect on that of Beheimah Teme'ah, because it is Chamur.
In what way is it Chamur, according to Rebbi Yehudah?

(b) How do we support this answer from Rebbi Yehudah's own words in our Mishnah?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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