ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 120
CHULIN 120 (2 Sivan) - This Daf has been dedicated in memory of Harry
Bernard Zuckerman, Baruch Hersh ben Yitzchak (and Miryam Toba), by his
children and sons-in-law.
(a) Some opinions cite the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish
with regard to our Mishnah 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav ... Mitztarfin Letamei Tum'as
Ochlin'. Resh Lakish qualifies this ruling, restricting it to a bone which
has a Din Shomer. According to Resh Lakish, this will not pertain to a
strand of hair - because he considers it a Shomer al-Gabei Shomer.
(b) According to this Lashon, they are arguing with regard to Shomer and not
Yad - because Yad does not combine to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah of food, as
we learned earlier.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that a strand of hair is not considered a
Shomer al-Gabei Shomer - because it pierces the skin right through to the
(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from the Beraisa 'Or she'Yesh Alav
k'Zayis Basar ... ha'Noge'a ... be'Sa'arah she'Kenegdo Tamei', which he
assumes is talking about a hair that is a Shomer. To which Resh Lakish's
replies - that the Beraisa is talking about Yad, and not Shomer.
(b) And when Rebbi Yochanan asks Resh Lakish what purpose one strand of hair
serves, he replies - 'bi'Melai she'Bein ha'Mela'in' (like Rebbi Ilai).
(a) When Rava defines 'Rotav' in our Mishnah as Shuman (Kasher fat), Abaye
objects - on the grounds that Shuman is a food in its own right, and does
not require Tziruf.
(b) So Rava amends his definition of 'Rotav' - to a viscous fluid that oozed
from the Basar and congealed).
(c) Resh Lakish rules - that someone who eats vegetable juice (or fish-juice
that is used as a condiment) together with vegetables on Yom Kipur is
(d) Nevertheless, Rava requires the Rotav in our Mishnah to be congealed -
because where the Torah requires Achilah, food and drink do not combine
under any circumstances; but on Yom Kipur, where the Torah requires 'Inuy'
(affliction), eating a vegetable together with its juice is sufficient to
remove the affliction ...
(e) ... but not if someone eats and drinks a combined Shi'ur of a Koseves on
Yom Kipur. Under such circumstances - food and drink combined will not
remove the Inuy.
(a) When Rava defines 'Kifah' in our Mishnah as the sediment of meat, Abaye
objects on the grounds - that sediment is a food in its own right, and does
not require Tziruf.
(b) Rav Papa therefore defines it as - the spices with which the meat was
(a) The Mishnah in Menachos rules - that someone who eats congealed blood
(see Tosfos DH 'Hikpah') or drinks melted Cheilev is Chayav.
(b) The problem with the latter ruling is - that the Torah uses a Lashon
'Achilah' regarding Cheilev, so why should he be Chayav for drinking it?
(c) We take for granted that one is Chayav for eating blood - because
congealed blood is more Chashuv than melted blood (though it is unclear why
we need a source to be Mechayev him, since, in Parshas Acharei-Mos, the
Torah constantly uses a Lashon of 'Achilah' with regard to blood [see Tosfos
(d) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Isur of blood)
"Ve'nichresah *ha'Nefesh* ha'Hi" - that one is Chayav for drinking blood
(because the Lashon 'Nefesh' has connotations of satisfaction and pleasure).
(a) There is no problem with the Beraisa, which rules that someone who
drinks melted Matzah has not fulfilled his obligation - because it is
obvious that this is not considered "Lechem Oni".
(b) Resh Lakish learns that if someone eats melted Chametz he is Chayav
(despite the Lashon 'Achilah' used by the Torah in this regard) - because
here too, the Torah in Parshas Bo, uses the word "Nefesh".
(c) The third area of Halachah where, again based on "Nefesh" (in Parshas
Acharei-Mos), Resh Lakish gives drinking the same Din as eating is - that of
someone who eats Nivlas Of Tahor, who becomes Tamei together with the
clothes he is wearing.
(d) The Beraisa restricts this to where the carcass was melted by fire,
precluding there where it was melted by the sun - because then it becomes
putrid (and loses its status of Sheretz).
(a) Even though we know that 'Shesiyah ka'Achilah' (drinking is like eating)
by Cheilev, we cannot learn ...
1. ... Chametz from it - because unlike Cheilev, it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher
(b) And we cannot learn ...
2. ... Neveilah from it - because it is subject to Kareis, which Neveilah is
1. ... Cheilev from Chametz - since 'Cheilev Hutar mi'Kelalo' (there is an
occasion when the Isur Cheilev becomes permitted) which is not the case by
(c) Neither can we learn ...
2. ... Neveilah from Chametz - because it is not subject to Kareis like
3. ... Cheilev and Chametz from Neveilah - because Neveilah is Metamei,
whereas they are not.
1. ... Neveilah from Cheilev and Chametz - because it is not subject to
Kareis ... .
2. ... Chametz from Neveilah and Cheilev - because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher
3. ... Cheilev from Chametz and Neveilah - because it is 'Hutar mi'Kelalo'
(a) We suggest that 'Cheilev Hutar mi'Kelalo' means that ...
1. ... it is permitted to Hashem (by being placed on the Mizbe'ach). The
same however, can be said about Neveilah - in the case of Olas ha'Of, which
is killed by means of Melikah (which renders it Neveilah), and then placed
on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) We conclude like the second suggestion however - in that the Kohanim eat
as guests at Hashem's table, in which case the Cheilev is Mutar to Hashem
Kevayachol (which it is anyway by all Korbanos), and not to the Kohanim.
Cheilev Chayah is indeed unique in this matter.
2. ... Cheilev Chayah is permitted. We initially think that here as well,
the same can be said about Neveilah - in the form of Chatas ha'Of, which is
permitted to the Kohanim after Melikah.
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ha'Teme'im" (in connection with
Sheratzim) that the various body juices of a Sheretz and the sediment at the
bottom of the pot in which they have been cooked are included in the Isur of
(b) We need an independent Pasuk by Sheratzim - to teach us that the Shi'ur
Achilah is that of a lentil (ke'Adashah), and not a k'Zayis, which (due to
the principle of 'Dayo Lavo min ha'Din Lih'yos ke'Nadun' [anything that is
learned from 'Kal-va'Chomer adopts the same Din as what it is being learned
from]) would have been the case had we learnt it from Cheilev, Chametz and
(c) We learn the Shi'ur Achilah of Sheratzim for which one receives Malkos -
from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ve'hivdaltem Bein ha'Beheimah ha'Tehorah ... ",
which begins with Achilah and ends with Tum'ah, to teach us that the Shi'ur
Achilah is the same as the Shi'ur Tum'ah (ke'Adashah).
(d) On the other hand, we need Pesukim by Cheilev, Chametz and Neveilah to
teach us that one is Chayav for drinking them - because, had we tried to
learn it from Sheratzim - we would have refuted it with the Pircha that
Sheratzim are different, because they posses the strict Shi'ur of a
ke'Adashah (as regards both Tum'ah and Isur).
(a) The Beraisa states that the juice of Tevel, Chadash, Hekdesh, Shevi'is
and Kil'ayim - has the same Din as the fruit.
(b) By the juice of ...
1. ... Chadash, the Tana means - the beer that is made from barley that was
cut before the Omer has been brought.
(c) We refute the suggestion that we learn these from the above three, on
the grounds that the latter constitute an Isur that comes automatically -
precluding Hekdesh, which becomes Asur only through the owner's declaration.
2. ... Shevi'is, the Tana means - juice that is manufactured from Sh'mitah
produce, that must be disposed of before the Z'man ha'Biy'ur.
(d) We therefore try to learn the above items from Bikurim (which also
became Kadosh through the owner's declaration). We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "me'Reishis Kol *P'ri*" - that one must declare the fruit Bikurim in
its original state (and not as juice).
2. ... "Tavi" - that it is order to press it and take the juice to
Yerushalayim after it has been declared Bikurim.
(a) We refute the Limud from Bikurim however - on the grounds that Bikurim
require K'riyah (reading the Parshah of "Arami Oved Ami") and Hanachah
(placing beside the Mizbe'ach), which the above don't.
(b) So we suggest that we learn 'Shesiyah ka'Achilah' from Terumah - which
in turn, we learn from Bikurim.
(c) We cannot learn the above from ...
1. ... Terumah - because Terumah is unique in that one is Chayav Misah
(bi'Yedei Shamayim for eating it be'Meizid, and an extra fifth, be'Shogeg).
(d) So we ultimately learn 'Shesiyah ka'Achilah' by the above items from -
Terumah (or Bikurim) plus Neveilah (or Sheratzim - see Tosfos DH 'Ela').
2. ... a 'Mah Matzinu' from Terumah and Bikurim either - for the same reason
(since Bikurim possesses the same characteristics.
(a) In the Mishnah in Terumos, Rebbi Eliezer obligates someone who drinks
date-honey, apple-cider or vinegar of winter grapes of Terumah to pay the
principle plus a fifth. He can only be speaking be'Shogeg - because someone
who eats Terumah be'Meizid does not pay the extra fifth?
(b) When we say that he holds 'Don Miynah u'Miynah', we mean - that when he
learns one thing from another with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' or a 'Binyan Av', he
learns it in its entirety, together with the relevant details).
(c) Consequently, when he learns Terumah (which only applies to Dagan,
Tirosh [wine] and Yitzhar [olive oil] min ha'Torah) from Bikurim (which
applies to the seven fruits plus their liquids), we extend it to all kinds
(d) The fact that the other fruit-juices are only mi'de'Rabbanan, means -
that according to Rebbi Eliezer, 'Don Miynah u'Miynah' is La'av Davka, in
this case (although that is undoubtedly what he holds in other cases).
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua holds - 'Don Miynah ve'Uki be'Asra', which means that we
learn the basic Limud from the case in question, but not the details.
(b) Consequently - he learns the basic Din of liquids by Terumah from
Bikurim, but he restricts it to the fruit that is subject to Terumah min
ha'Torah (i.e. wine [or grape-juice] and olive oil).
(a) When the Tana there says 'Ein Mevi'in Bikurim Mashkeh Ela ha'Yotzei min
ha'Zeisim u'min ha'Anavim', he must be talking about bringing fruit that has
already been Bikurim and squeezing it afterwards - because otherwise, even
wine would not be considered Bikurim either (as we learned earlier).
(b) The author of this Mishnah is - Rebbi Yehoshua, who, after learning
Terumah from Bikurim (as we explained), then learns Bikurim from Terumah
(with the same 'Hekesh' (based on the fact that the Torah in Naso, refers to
Bikurim as Terumah), restricting the Din of liquids to wine and oil (like
(c) And in the same vein - the author of the Mishnah there which confines
Malkos for eating Orlah to someone who drinks olive oil or wine (or
grape-juice), but not other beverages of Orlah - is also Rebbi Yehoshua, who
learns Orlah from Bikurim with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "P'ri" "Pri'.