(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 124

CHULIN 123-125 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah queries Resh Lakish from a Mishnah in Keilim, which requires a Tamei oven to be broken into three parts, in order to become Tahor.
Why not two?

(b) What second requirement is needed?

(c) Rebbi Meir does not need the last two requirements.
What does he need?

(d) What is now the Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(a) How did Rava counter Rebbi Yirmiyah's Kashya?

(b) How does Rava therefore amend the Mishnah? What are Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan really arguing over?

(c) What will the Din then be in the original case?

(a) We ask on Rava's interpretation from another Mishnah in Keilim. The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Meir, who gives the minimum size of a large oven (as regards Tum'ah), and the remains of a larger one as four Tefachim. But they argue with him as regards a small one.
What is 'a small oven' used for?

(b) They give the minimum size of a small oven as a Kol-Shehu (once it has been used).
What Shi'ur does Rebbi Yanai ascribe to a 'Kol-Shehu'?

(c) What Shi'ur do the Rabbanan ascribe to the remains of a small oven?

(d) In which point do the Rabbanan in this Mishnah, who require remains of four Tefachim, appear to contradict what they said in the previous one?

(a) How do we resolve the two Mishnahs, based on the way the oven is broken?

(b) We ask on the Din regarding a small oven 'Sheyarav be'Rubo', what one can do with the remains of an oven that is less than a Tefach.
How does Abaye therefore interpret 'Sheyarav be'Rubo'?

(c) How do we reconcile this with what we just said that the Rabbanan too, give the Shi'ur of the remains of a large oven as four Tefachim?

(d) Why are the Rabbanan forced to say that the remains of an oven of seven Tefachim is four Amos, and not three and a half plus?

(a) In the second Lashon, what does Rav Huna citing Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi say about the minority of the Tamei garment which the owner tore is the size of a Ma'afores?

(b) In this Lashon too, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over the Din of a Tamei leather Beged that the owner tore.
But what is the basis of their Machlokes this time?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan ask Resh Lakish from the Mishnah in Keilim where the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Yehudah that if the piece of Tamei leather is less than five Tefachim, it is Tahor?

(d) What does Resh Lakish answer? What does the owner intend to do with the piece of leather?

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if a k'Zayis of Basar is attached to a piece of skin, and someone touches a strip of flesh or a hair that protrudes from the skin, he becomes Tamei.
Why is he rendered Tamei by ...
  1. ... the strip of flesh?
  2. ... hair?
(b) On what condition does the latter render him Tamei?

(c) If the piece of skin contains two half k'Zeisim of Basar, then, according to Rebbi Yishmael, he becomes Tamei Masa (if he carries) it but not Tamei Maga (if he touches it).
Why is that?

(d) What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(e) In which case will Rebbi Akiva concede that the two half-k'Zeisim render a person Tamei?

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the first ruling in our Mishnah.
In which case will the Tana agree that the k'Zayis Basar that is attached to the skin is not Metamei?

(b) Rav Nachman asked Ula incredulously whether Rebbi Yochanan even said this with regard to the amount of a Tarta or even of a Nafya.
What is ...

  1. ... a ke'Tarta'?
  2. ... a ke'Nafya'?
(c) What was Rav Nachman's response to that?

(d) What did Rebbi Ami have to say, when Rav Oshaya repeated the above dialogue between Ula and Rav Nachman to him?

(a) On another occasion, Rav Oshaya heard Rebbi Ami citing Rebbi Yochanan on the Seifa.
What did he then say?

(b) What did Rebbi Ami ask Rav Oshaya, after the latter expressed surprise that he cited Rebbi Yochanan on the Seifa?

(c) And what did he comment when Rav Oshaya answered in the affirmative?

(d) Yet when Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, as well as all 'the Nechusei Yama (the Talmidei-Chachamim who accompanied him)', he supported Ula's version.
To answer Rav Nachman and Rav Oshaya's blatant Kashya, we cite a statement of Rav Papa (on a different Sugya).
What did Rav Papa say? How does that resolve the problem?

Answers to questions



(a) How does bar Pada qualify Rebbi Yishmael's ruling ' ... ve'Ein Metamei be'Maga'? In which case will the latter hold that it is Metamei be'Maga as well as be'Masa?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) We equate Rebbi Yochanan's opinion with another statement that he made, equating the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael with Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas in a Mishnah in Ohalos.
What does the latter say about two half-k'Zeisim of a Meis that are placed in a room?

(a) What do we extrapolate from Rebbi Yochanan's statement regarding Rebbi Yishmael with regard to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva?

(b) What is the problem with that?

(c) How do we answer the Kashya, based on the reason that our Mishnah attributes to Rebbi Akiva?

(d) What will Rebbi Akiva hold with regard to 'Ein Noge'a ve'Chozer ve'Noge'a'?

(a) Rav Ukva bar Chama queries bar Pada from a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Yishmael there learn from the Pasuk in Shemini ...
  1. ... "be'Nivlasam"?
  2. ... "ve'ha'Nosei Yitma"?
(b) And what does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Hekesh of "ve'ha'Nosei" to "ve'ha'Noge'a"?

(c) How does this pose a Kashya on bar Pada (from Rebbi Akiva's Kashya)?

(d) How does Rava therefore explain Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah (to accommodate bar Pada)?

(a) Based on Rava's previous interpretation of Rebbi Akiva, Rav Ivya Saba asked Rabah bar Rav Huna whether Rebbi Yishmael will, or will not, concede that a thigh-bone containing marrow is not Metamei be'Masa.
On what grounds might he ...
  1. ... *concede to Rebbi Akiva* that it is not?
  2. ... *not*?
(b) What did Rabah bar Rav Huna mean when he said in reply 'Urva Parach'?

(c) And what did Rava his son mean when he reminded his father how he had only words of praise for Rav Ivya Saba from Pumbedisa? So what if he did?

(d) What did his father reply?

(a) What does Ula rule regarding someone who carries two half-k'Zeisim impaled on a long splinter of wood all day long?

(b) How does he explain it (based on the fact that Torah writes the word "ve'ha'Nosei" without a 'Vav')?

(c) We ask on him from Rebbi Yishmael and from Rebbi Akiva (in the case where the two half-k'Zeisim were impaled on a long splinter of wood), both of whom rule in this very case 'Metam'in be'Masa ... '.
How does Rav Papa establish the cases to accommodate Ula?

(a) In fact, Ula's ruling is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im.
What is the Tana Kama in the Beraisa referring to when he says 'Echad ha'Noge'a ve'Echad ha'Nosei? What is he coming to teach us?

(b) What do we ask on Rebbi Eliezer, who says 'Af ha'Nosei'?

(c) How do we therefore interpret Rebbi Eliezer's ruling?

(d) Then why did he say 'Af ha'Nosei'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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