ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 70
(a) Assuming that our Tana 'ha'Mevakeres ha'Maksheh Leiled Mechatech Eiver
Eiver ... ' speaks about cutting the Bechor into limbs and feeding them
all to the dogs, the Mishnah poses a Kashya on Rav Huna (who holds
'Lemafre'a Kadosh') - according to whom the Din ought to be 'Yikaver'.
(b) Rav Huna will therefore establish our Mishnah - when the Bechor is cut
up and fed to the dogs limb by limb (as we explained in the Mishnah).
(c) The problem with this from the Seifa 'Yatza Rubo, Yikaver' is that,
according to Rav Huna - the Tana should rather have taught us the Din in a
case where the Bechor was cut up into limbs and left in a pile.
(d) Rav Huna will explain - that the Seifa is indeed in such a case, and
what the Tana means is that if it is cut up and put into a pile, then it is
as if the majority of the Bechor had emerged in one go.
(a) Rava asks whether we go after the Rov with regard to Evarim, to consider
the Bechor born or not. We suggest that he is speaking about a case where
the majority of the animal that emerged includes the minority of a limb (the
majority of which remained inside the mother), in which case the She'eilah
will be - whether the minority of the limb complements the half animal that
emerged to make up a Rov, or does it go after its own Rov, in which case it
is considered unborn and will not combine with the half animal that emerged
(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that it is obvious
that the section of limb will combine with the bulk of the animal rather
than with its own remainder.
(c) The case is therefore where half the Bechor emerged including the
majority of one limb, and the She'eilah is - whether the remainder of that
limb is considered born, to complement the Rov or not.
(d) It is permitted to cut off part of a Bechor and feed it the dogs (as we
already learned in our Mishnah) - because as long as the majority has not
yet been born, it has no Kedushah, and the Isur of making a blemish on
Kodshim does not apply to it (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai La'av').
(a) We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Yatza Rubo, Harei
Zeh Yikaver' which cannot be taken literally - because we do not need our
Mishnah to teach us the principle of 'Rubo ke'Kulo'.
(b) The Chidush cannot be that 'Mechatech u'Meni'ach Na'aseh ke'Mi
she'Yatzta Rubo' (like we explained above according to Rav Huna) - because
we only answered that in order to reconcile the Mishnah with Rav Huna, but
strictly speaking, that is not what the Mishnah means (see Tif'eres
(c) We therefore suggest that the Tana is speaking in Rava's case, and he is
coming to teach us that we consider the minority of the limb that remained
inside, born, resolving Rava's She'eilah. We reject this suggestion
however - on the grounds that he might be speaking about the case that we
just took for granted (where the majority of the animal that emerged
includes the minority of a limb (the majority of which remained inside the
mother), and the Tana is coming to teach us that the minority of that limb
combines with the half animal rather than with its own majority.
(a) Rava asks whether, if the Bechor emerged from the womb, but after the
midwife wrapped him in a creeper from a date-palm (or in a shawl [Rashi does
not seem to have this in his text]). Rava's She'eilah is - whether, even
though the baby emerges from the womb (and not via a cut in the stomach) the
creeper is not considered a Chatzitzah, and it is considered a 'Yotzei
Dofen' (a Bechor that is not born via the womb) and is not therefore
considered a Bechor.
(b) He then asks what the Din will be if it is wrapped in its placenta,
which we establish by the placenta of another baby and not its own - because
since it is natural for a baby to be wrapped in its own placenta, it is
obvious that it is not considered a Chatzitzah.
(c) Rava finds it necessary to ask this She'eilah - on the assumption that
in the previous one, the creeper (which is not natural) is in fact, a
(d) He then asks whether, if a woman (the owner of the animal [see also
Tosfos DH 'Korchaso') holds the baby to assist in its birth, it is
considered a Chatzitzah. Perhaps it is not (because it is normal for a woman
to do this, in which case it may not be considered a Chatzitzah. Presumably,
this She'eilah assumes that in the previous case, it is not considered a
(e) We establish all the She'eilos when the Bechor emerged from the womb
backwards - because if the head emerged first, the baby would be declared a
Bechor, irrespective of what happened afterwards.
(a) Rava then asks what the Din will be if, whilst it is still inside its
mother's womb, a weasel swallowed it, and extracted it from the womb. We
reject the She'eilah the way it stands however - because then there is no
reason why it should not be a Chatzitzah.
(b) So we establish it - when the weasel did indeed swallow the Bechor and
extract it, but it then returned it into the mother's womb and vomited it
there. And the She'eilah is - since the fetus was at one stage Patur from
the Bechorah, can it become Chayav again (when it emerges from the womb the
(c) And finally, Rava asks what the Din will be if someone holds the
mother's womb next to the womb of another animal, and the fetus moves from
one to the other. The She'eilah now is - whether the second animal is not
Patur from the Bechorah, when it subsequently gives birth to its own Bechor
(since its womb was already opened to give birth to the first animal's
(d) The outcome of Rava's She'eilos is - Teiku.
(a) Rav Acha asks whether the Bechor has a Din Bechor, if the walls of the
womb stretched and it was born without touching them. He is not sure
whether - the criterion is the air of the womb (which there was) or touching
its walls (which it did not).
(b) When Mar bar Rav Ashi asks whether a Bechor becomes Kadosh if it is born
from its mother's womb which is torn out (which obviously cannot be taken
literally), he means - that it was moved back from its natural location, and
the She'eilah is whether the womb sanctifies a Bechor which emerges from it,
when it is not its regular location.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira what the Din with regard to 'Nigmemu
Koslei Beis ha'Rechem'. The She'eilah, assuming that 'Nigmemu means that the
1. ... part of the thickness of the walls of the womb has been removed, is -
whether it will suffice for the Bechor to touch the remaining thickness of
the wall (which under normal circumstances, it does not get to touch) in
order to adopt Kedushas ha'Bechor.
(b) Rebbi Zeira's reaction to Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah was - that he could
learn the answer to it via a She'eilah that he himself once asked (some say
from Rebbi Asi).
2. ... section of the womb has been removed is - whether it will suffice for
the Bechor to touch outer section of the womb.
(c) Rebbi Zeira asked two She'eilos. One where the major section of the womb
was still intact, and that is where the baby was born. The other - where the
major section of the womb is broken, but where the baby was born via the
part that was still intact.
(d) Rebbi Zeira concluded - that at least in the She'eilos that he asked,
part of the womb is still intact. But if part of the womb is actually
missing (as is the case in Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah), the Bechor is
definitely not Kadosh.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if a shepherd places his hand inside the stomach
of a Kasher animal and touches the dead Ubar that lying inside it - he
(b) The Tana Kama extends this Din to a Tamei animal. Rebbi Yossi Hagelili
however - declares the shepherd Tamei there.
(c) The Tana Kama learns his ruling from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - if the mother
permits the baby to be eaten (through its Shechitah) then it certainly ought
to save it from Tum'as Neveilah.
(d) And it might also be based on the principle - of 'Tum'ah Belu'ah (where
the source of Tum'ah is hidden inside a body [though Rebbi Akiva does not
agree with that]).
(a) The Pasuk writes "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah Asher Hi Lachem
le'Ochlah". "Asher Hi Lachem le'Ochlah" refers to Kasher animals, and
"ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah" - to Tamei ones.
(b) The Tana Kama learns from this Hekesh - that just as a dead Ubar inside
a Tahor animal is not Metamei, so too, is a dead Ubar inside a Tamei one not
(c) To explain Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, Rebbi Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk
there "ve'Chol Holech al Kapav be'Chol Chayah ha'Holeches ... " - that
whatever walks on paws (i.e. a Tamei animal) that is inside its mother, is
(d) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, a dead ...
1. ... Kalut in the stomach of a cow is not Metamei - because whereas the
Pasuk is referring to Mehalchei Kapav bi'Mehalchei Arba, this is a case of
Arba bi'Mehalchei Shemoneh (seeing as it has cloven hooves).
(e) We know that the latter case is not Metamei - because Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili stated S'tam 'u'Tehorah Tahor'.
2. ... cow in the stomach of a camel Metamei (even though it is not
Mehalchei Kapav) - because we include it from the 'Vav' in "ve'Chol Holech
3. ... Kalut (which is also "Holech al Kapav) in the stomach of a Kelutah
not Metamei - because, seeing as they are both Kasher, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili
will concede to the 'Kal va'Chomer' of Rav Chisda in this case.
(a) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami queries all this from a dead Chazir in the stomach
of a Chazirta - which is Metamei, and which ought to be Tahor, seeing as it
is a case of Holech al Shemonah be'Mehalchei Shemonah.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore learns Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's ruling
from the Pasuk "Nefesh ki Siga be'Chol Tamei O be'Nivlas Chayah Teme'ah O
be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah O be'Nivlas Sheretz Tamei". The problem with the
words "Beheimah Teme'ah" is - that seeing as the Pasuk is talking about a
Neveilah, what difference does it make whether it is a Tamei animal or a
(c) He therefore establishes the Pasuk - by a dead Ubar inside a live
animal, which is Tamei if it is inside a Tamei animal, but Tahor inside a
Kasher one, like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
(d) Even though we learn this from Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, we still need
Rebbi Yitzchak's D'rashah ("ve'Chol Holech al Kapav") without which we would
use "Beheimah Teme'ah" solely for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that Rebbi (on the
next Amud) will learn from it, because Beheimah is already included in
(a) Rebbi Yonasan commented to ben Azai that even though we have explicit
Pesukim to teach us that the Neveilos of a Beheimah Tehorah, a Beheimah
Teme'ah and a Chayah Teme'ah are Metamei - there is no such Pasuk to teach
us this with regard to the Neveilah of a Chayah Teme'ah.
(b) He refuted ben Azai's reply, when he quoted the Pasuk "Kol Holech al
Kapav, be'Chol ha'Chayah ha'Holeches ... ha'Noge'a be'Nivlasah, Yitma", on
the grounds - that this Pasuk is referring to a dead Ubar in the stomach of
a Tamei animal (as we learned earlier, and as is implied in the 'Beis' of
(c) When ben Azai asked Rebbi Yonasan reply what Rebbi Yishmael said in this
regard, he replied - with the principle that Chayah is included in Beheimah.
Consequently, since the Neveilah of a Beheimah Tehorah is Metamei, so is
that of a Chayah Tehorah.
(d) Rebbi Yonasan also cited Rebbi Yishmael as saying - that Beheimah is
included in Chayah (where it is needed). And he went on to elaborate:
'Chayah Tehorah is included in Beheimah Tehorah, and Chayah Teme'ah in
Beheimah Teme'ah, Beheimah Teme'ah is included in Chayah Teme'ah and
Beheimah Tehorah in Chayah Tehorah'.
(e) When ben Azai heard this from Rebbi Yonasan, he lamented - 'What a pity,
ben Azai, that you did not learn by Rebbi Yishmael'.