ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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. This would be conceivable -
only if one did not recognize the Gid ha'Nasheh (because if he did, it could
not become Bateil [see Tosfos DH 'Beryah Sha'ani]).
(b) We answer that it cannot become Bateil - because it is a Beryah (as we
already explained), and a Beryah does not become 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. When we say that this is
not a Kashya according to those who hold 'Kol she'Darko Limanos Shaninu', we
mean - that according to those who hold that anything which is sometimes
sold by numbers (such as large pieces of meat are, when the purchaser has
guests), is not Bateil.
(d) The Kashya remains however, according to those who hold 'es she'Darko
Limanos Shaninu' - because according to them, only those things that are
always sold by numbers (which is not the cases by large pieces of meat) are
(a) The large piece of meat or fish is not Bateil - because it is a
'Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskabed Lifnei ha'Orchim' (a piece which one would
serve an important guest) which does not become Bateil.
(b) The Tana finds it necessary to teach us that both a Gid ha'Nasheh and a
large piece of meat or fish are not Bateil - because each S'vara is
independent, and we would not be able to learn one from the other.
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Darshened that a piece of Neveilah or of a Tamei
fish which is cooked together with pieces of Kasher meat, will only render
them Asur - if it adds taste to all the ingredients of the pot (to the gravy
and the sediment, as well as to the pieces).
(b) Rav appointed an Amora to Darshen that a piece of Kasher meat that is
cooked next to a piece of Neveilah, which gives it taste - becomes Neveilah,
and renders Asur any other pieces that are in the same pot or that are added
(c) Initially, we interpret his reason 'Mipnei she'Hein Miynah' - as being
based on the principle 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil' (like Rebbi Yehudah), even
if there is Shishim in the pot against the two pieces.
(d) In which case, Rav Safra asked Abaye - why Rav needed to mention that
the piece of Neveilah gave taste to the piece of Kasher meat with which it
was first cooked?
(a) In answer to Rav Safra's Kashya, Abaye establishes Rav 'be'she'Kadam
ve'Silko', which means - that he removed the piece of Neveilah together with
the gravy, before adding the other pieces. Consequently, unless the first
piece of Kasher meat became 'Neveilah', there would be nothing to render the
other pieces Asur.
(b) And Rav would then be coming to teach us - the principle of 'Chatichah
(a) Rava establishes Rav even where he did not remove the piece of Neveilah
first. And the reason that the pieces in the pot do not become Asur if the
piece of Neveilah does not give taste to the first piece, is due to the
principle 'Miyn u'Miyno ve'Davar Acher, Saleik es Miyno ke'Mi she'Eino,
ve'she'Ein Miyno Rabah Alav u'Mevatlo'.
(b) This means - that as long as the first piece of Shechutah did not become
Neveilah, we put it aside, and measure the other contents of the pot (the
gravy and the sediment which are considered Ein Miyno). If they contain
Shishim times the piece of Neveilah, they will be permitted.
(c) Even if the first piece did become Neveilah, it is not Bateil in the
other pieces - because Rav holds 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil' (and it is
unlikely that there the pot will contains sufficient gravy and sediment to
be Mevateil both pieces.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh
does not apply to a Beheimah Teme'ah - irrespective of whether 'Yesh' or
'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am'.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does, and he proves it from the fact - that
the Torah inserts it in Vayishlach, when Ya'akov and his sons were still
B'nei No'ach (since they only became B'nei Yisrael at Har Sinai), and had
not yet been commanded the Isur of Beheimah Teme'ah.
(c) The Chachamim maintain however - that the Mitzvah of Gid ha'Nasheh was
given at Har Sinai, and Moshe only inserted it here because the incident of
Ya'akov is the source of the Isur.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal le'Tam'ah Vah" -
that someone who eats a Nivlas Of Tahor, becomes Tamei, as do the clothes
that he is wearing.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa confines this ruling to the Neveilah of a
Tahor bird. He precludes that of a Tamei bird from the same Pasuk - which
implies that it only pertains exclusively to where only the Neveilah is
Asur, but not to where the bird is Asur even when it is Shechted.
(c) This teaches us the principle of - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' ...
(d) ... a Kashya on (the same) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who includes a
Beheimah Teme'ah in the Din of Gid ha'Nasheh, implying that the Isur Gid
takes effect on that of Beheimah Teme'ah (in which case, he holds 'Isur Chal
(a) So we suggest that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am' -
in which case, he will only be Chayav for Gid ha'Nasheh, and not Beheimah
Teme'ah (eliminating the Kashya from 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur').
(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah sentences someone who eats the Gid
ha'Nasheh of a Beheimah Teme'ah to two Malkos - Rebbi Shimon exempts him
(c) This Beraisa proves - that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen
Ta'am', refuting our previous suggestion to answer the Kashya on Rebbi
Yehudah in our Mishnah.
(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 - in which case, the
Isur of Beheimah Teme'ah and that of Gid ha'Nasheh take effect
simultaneously, and the Kashya regarding 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' is
(a) We reconcile the previous statement of Rebbi Yehudah with the Mishnah
above, where Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Eino Noheg bi'Shelil' - by confining the
latter to the Sh'lil of a Beheimah Tehorah, which is permitted via its
mother's Shechitah, whereas Rebbi Yehudah's current ruling refers to the
Sh'lil of a Beheimah Teme'ah.
(b) The problem 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 is - that having mentioned a k'Zayis from a Meis, why
does the Tana need to add a Meis?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan resolves the problem by establishing 'Meis' as a
stillborn baby, whose body is formed, but not his Gidin.
(d) This refutes the current answer (that our Mishnah speaks when the Isur
Beheimah Teme'ah and that of Gid take effect simultaneously) - since we now
see that the limbs of a person (and presumably of an animal, too) are formed
before his Gidin, in which case, the Isur of Beheimah must precede that of
(a) So we answer that the Isur Gid nevertheless takes effect on that of
Beheimah Teme'ah, because it is Chamur, according to Rebbi Yehudah - in that
it already applied to the B'nei Yisrael before Matan Torah, when they were
still B'nei No'ach.
(b) And we support this answer from Rebbi Yehudah's own words in our
Mishnah - 'va'ha'Lo mi'B'nei Ya'akov Ne'esar Gid ha'Nasheh, va'Adayin
Beheimah Teme'ah Muteres'.