(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 125

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


(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone touches the thigh-bone of a dead person or of Hekdesh, he is Tamei.
What is the minimum Shi'ur of the former?

(b) What does 'of Hekdesh' mean? What is the source of this Tum'ah?

(a) If the two above bones are Metamei, irrespective of whether they are closed or holed, what does the Tana say about the thigh-bones of a Neveilah or of a Sheretz? Why the difference?

(b) Then why do the bones need to be holed?

(c) What is the minimum Shi'ur of the hole?

(d) From where does the Tana learn that they are Metamei be'Masa as well?

(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah renders the Kulyas ha'Meis Tamei Maga but not Tamei Ohel, we explain, because the Tana is speaking when it contains less than a k'Zayis of Basar.
How about the marrow?

(b) Why would it otherwise be Metamei, even though it is totally covered by the bone?

(c) On what grounds do we suggest that the bone ought perhaps to be Metamei even if it contains neither a k'Zayis Basar on the outside, nor a k'Zayis of marrow inside?

(d) On what grounds does Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rav Chiya reject this supposition?

(e) We just learned that the minimum Shi'ur for a bone of a Meis is the size of a barley.
What is the minimum Shi'ur for the limb of a Sheretz?

(a) If the Tana is speaking when the bone of the Meis contains less than a k'Zayis of marrow, then how will we explain 'Kulyas ha'Mukdashin, Kulyas Neveilah and Kulyas ha'Sheretz'?

(b) Why can we not answer that the bone itself combines to make up the Shi'ur k'Zayis?

(c) If, as we just explained, 'Kulyas ha'Meis' comes to teach us that the marrow inside the bone does not cause the flesh to re-grow, what is the Tana coming to teach us in the case of 'Kulyas ...

  1. ... ha'Mukdashin'?
  2. ... ha'Neveilah' and 'Kulyas ha'Sheretz'?
(d) How come that we do not already know the Chidush of Kulyas ha'Mukdashin from the Mishnah in Pesachim?
(a) Abaye disagrees with Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rav Chiya's explanation of Kulyas ha'Meis. He maintains that the marrow inside the bone does cause the Basar to re-grow.
In that cased, why is the bone not Metamei in any event (because it is considered an Eiver, like we suggested earlier)?

(b) What distinction does Rebbi Elazar, whom he quotes, draw between mutilating a strip of skin around the animal's girth, or doing so along its length?

(c) And what does Rebbi Elazar mean when he concludes 've'Simnayich Dikla'?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan goes even further than Abaye. According to him, the Tana is speaking where there is a k'Zayis of Basar or a k'Zayis of marrow inside the bone, which causes the flesh to re-grow.
How does he then interpret 'ha'Noge'a' with regard to Kulyas ha'Meis?

(b) What does he gain by explaining the Mishnah like this?

(c) What problem does this explanation create with the Seifa (with regard to Kulyas ha'Neveilah and Kulyas ha'Sheretz)?

(d) How does Rebbi Binyamin bar Gidal Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore establish the Mishnah? What sort of marrow are we bbtalking about?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Ohalos say in a case where someone 'touches' half a k'Zayis of a Meis and either forms an Ohel over another half-k'Zayis or the other half-k'Zayis forms an Ohel over him?

(b) Under what condition do the two half-k'Zeisim combine?

(c) How do we try to support Rebbi Yochanan from there?

(d) We think that 'touches' means that he forms an Ohel, based on another Mishnah there.
What does the other Mishnah say about combining two half-Shi'urim of Tum'ah?

Answers to questions



(a) We counter this proof however, from the Seifa of the Mishnah.
What does the Tana there rule in a case where someone touches half a k'Zayis of a Meis, whilst something else forms an Ohel over another half-k'Zayis of Meis and over him?

(b) What does this prove?

(c) So Rebbi Zeira establishes the Reisha where the half-k'Zayis over which he is Ma'ahil is lying in a space between two wooden cupboards that are less than a Tefach apart.
What does this mean? How does it explain the Beraisa?

(d) What is the source of this Halachah ('Tum'ah Retzutah ... ')?

(e) In what way is the proof for Rebbi Yochanan now rejected?

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa say about a spoonful of rot (dust) of a Meis that is found in a coffin?

(b) What is the source of this Halachah (M'lo Kaf Rekev ... ')?

(c) What is the problem with saying 'Metamei be'Maga'?

(d) So how do we interpret it?

(a) What is the problem with interpreting 'Maga' as Ohel?

(b) Abaye therefore differentiates between below a Tefach (Maga) and above a Tefach (Ohel). What does Rava say? What does 'be'Hamshachah' mean?

(c) What do we prove from Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi?

(d) Why can we not say this according to Abaye?

(e) Why are we forced to say that?

(a) Rava proves that Rebbi Yossi calls even above a Tefach 'Maga', from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana rule regarding a case where ropes of a bed or lattice-work of a window are placed ...
  1. ... to cover a gap between two beams in a ceiling?
  2. ... above the Meis?
(b) Why is there a difference between the two rulings regarding the space above the holes? Why in the ...
  1. ... first ruling, is even the space above the holes Tahor?
  2. ... second ruling, is it Tamei?
(c) How does Rava prove his point from there? How does he know that the items are placed above a Tefach from the body of the Meis?

(d) How does Abaye counter Rava's proof? Why might Rebbi Yossi nevertheless be speaking about ropes or a lattice-work that are lying within a Tefach of the Meis?

(a) What is the problem with Abaye establishing the previous case by ropes and lattice-work that is spread within a Tefach of the Meis?

(b) How does he therefore establish Rebbi Yossi?

(c) And he proves it from a Mishnah in Ohalos.
What does the Tana Kama say there about the draw of a wooden cupboard that is a Tefach deep, but whose entrance point is less than a Tefach, assuming that ...

  1. ... it contains a piece of Meis?
  2. ... it contains a Tahor object, and there is a piece of Meis lying in the room?
(a) Seeing as the entrance is less than a Tefach, why is the room Tamei, in the first case?

(b) Then why is the object in the drawer Tahor, in the second case?

(c) On what grounds then, does Rebbi Yossi rule that even in the first case, what is lying in the room is Tahor, too?

(d) What does the Tana Kama rule in the Seifa, where the cupboard is standing on the threshold of the room, with the opening facing outwards, assuming that the Tum'ah is ...

  1. ... in the drawer?
  2. ... in the room?
(a) And we learned on this Beraisa 'Rebbi Yossi Metaher'.
What is the problem with this statement?

(b) So we ascribe it to a second reason for the Tana Kama's ruling in the Reisha 'Tum'ah be'Sochah, ha'Bayis Tamei'.
What is the second reason for the Tum'ah?

(c) How will that reason now affect the Seifa?

(d) What does Rebbi Yossi now say?

(e) And what does Abaye now prove from his ruling?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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