ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafShabbos 136
(a) The Gemara rejects the contention that the Machlokes Tana'im (whether
Shechitah renders an eighth-month baby animal Tahor or not), is based on
whether an eighth-month baby is considered a Nefel or not - because, if
that was the case, why do they argue over whether the animal is Tamei or
not, and not about whether one is permitted to eat it or not?
(b) The Tana Kama argues that a Tereifah animal was once Kasher, and that
is why the Shechitah renders it Tahor, whereas an eighth-month baby animal
was never fit.
(c) Nor can we even compare an eighth-month animal an animal that was born
a Tereifah, since the latter is of the same species as the one that became
a Tereifah only after it was born, which, as we just explained, was once
(a) No! Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that if one knows for sure that the
full nine month period of pregnancy has passed (e.g. if the husband was
away for nine months after the last Tashmish, or if one locked up the
female animal after the male came on it), the baby is not a Nefel.
(b) Consequently ...
1. ... if a calf is born on Yom-Tov, it may be Shechted on the same day. It
is not Muktzah, nor is one obligated to wait for the eighth day before
Shechting it - provided one knew for sure that the full nine month period
of pregnancy had passed.
(c) Shmuel ruled 'Halachah ke'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel' - from which we can
see that, not only do the Rabbanan disagree with Raban Shimon, but that the
Halachah is like Raban Shimon, and not like the Rabbanan.
2. ... If a first-born animal is born on Yom-Tov with a blemish, and the
Dayanim were sitting there as it was born (so that it never had a Chazakah
of being Asur to Shecht), it may be Shechted immediately on Yom-Tov.
(a) The Gemara at first contends that a healthy baby that fell from the
roof or was eaten by a lion within thirty days, is not a Nefel, even
according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. When does he say that it is a
Nefel, when it simply expired from weakness. And even then, the Rabbanan
will hold that the baby is considered to have been a live baby, and not a
(b) The Rabbanan's reason is because we go after the majority of babies,
who are not Nefalim.
(c) When Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua were served a
seventh-day calf at the house of Rav Idi bar Avin's son - they declared
what a pity it was that theowner had not waited until the night of the
eighth before Shechting it; because if he had, they would have partaken it.
Whereas now they could not eat it because it was a Safek Nefel. From here
we see that even in the case of a healthy animal (which, as far as they
knew, this animal was), is a Safek Nefel according to Raban Shimon ben
(d) The Gemara therefore, concludes, that when an animal expires and dies
from weakness, it is a Safek Nefel - even according to the Rabbanan, and
that the Machlokes between them is by a healthy animal that fell off the
roof or was eaten by a lion. That is where Raban Gamliel considered it to
be a Nefel, but according to the Rabbanan, it was alive.
(a) The Amora'im mourned for their respective sons who died within thirty
days - because they knew with certainty that they were ninth-month babies.
(b) A woman whose only baby died within thirty days, if her husband dies
too - is obligated to perform Chalitzah, since her baby was a Safek Nefel
(like the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).
(c) According to Ravina, if, without performing Chalitzah, she got engaged
to a Yisrael, she must now perform Chalitzah, and she is still permitted to
go ahead and marry her betrothed. Whereas, if she is engaged to a Kohen, in
which case, Chalitzah would prohibit her from subsequently marrying him,
Chalitzah is not necessary (like the Rabbanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).
(d) When Ravina told Rav Sheravya that Rava had retracted from his initial
stringency, he retorted 'You permitted her? May you also permit Chelev!'
(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from ...
1. ... "*ha*'Zachar" - that an Androginus is not included in the Erech of a
man (he would however, be included in that of a woman, if not for the
following Derashah) ...
(b) We know that the author of this Beraisa (a Sifra) is Rebbi Yehudah,
because of the principle 'S'tam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah'.
2. ... "ve'*Im* Nekeivah Hi" - that someone who is neither a definite man
nor a definite woman is precluded from Erchin altogether.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah also precludes an Androginus (like a woman) from placing
the ashes into the water of the Parah Adumah (known as Kidush).
(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar" - that even an
Androginus is included in the Din of circumcising a baby on Shabbos, when
the eighth day falls on Shabbos.