12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 75 (10 Elul) - This Daf has been dedicated in memory of Sheina Basha (daughter of Yakov and Dora) Zuckerman, who passed away on 10 Elul, by her children and sons in law.

1)

TOSFOS DH MAI BEINEIHU

úåñôåú ã"ä îàé áéðééäå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the question of the Gemara is regarding Beis Shamai and Rebbi Akiva, and defines "Mekartei'a.")

ìàå áéï øáé ò÷éáà åá"ä ÷à áòé ãîçìå÷úï îôåøù áäãéà ãìá"ä ãå÷à îùéîåúå

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara is not asking regarding the practical difference between the opinions of Rebbi Akiva and Beis Hillel, as their argument is clear being that Beis Hillel requires that the fish be dead (before it is able to become impure).

àìà áéï áéú ùîàé ìøáé ò÷éáà ÷àîø ãúøåééäå îçééí îèîå

1.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, the argument is between Beis Shamai and Rebbi Akiva, as both of them say it becomes impure while it still is somewhat alive.

åîôøù ãàéëà áéðééäå ãâ î÷øèò ôéøåù ù÷åôõ åîãìâ áçåæ÷ ãìáéú ùîàé èîà åìøáé ò÷éáà èäåø ëéåï ãàí æåø÷å áîéí äåà éëåì ìçéåú

2.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara explains that the difference between them is a fish that is "Mekartei'a." This means it is jumping and skipping strongly. According to Beis Shamai it can already become impure, while Rebbi Akiva holds it is pure being that if it would be thrown back in the water it can live.

åî÷øèò ìùåï ëç åçéåú âãåì

3.

Explanation (cont.): Mekartei'a is a term referring to something being strong and very alive.

ëîå ùäáéà áòøåê îãàîø áéìîãðå áôøùú áäòìåúê åëéåï ùäåà éåöà åøåàä àú äðø îéã äåà îúçéì ùîç åòåîã åî÷øèò ìôðéå

i.

Proof #1: This is as the Aruch quotes from the Yelamdeinu in Behalosecha that once he goes out and sees the candle, he immediately starts to be happy, and he stands and is Mekartei'a in front of it.

úãåõ ãàáä (àéåá îà) îúøâîéðï ÷ãîéä î÷øèò

ii.

Proof #2: "Tadutz D'avah" - "worry skips away" is translated in the Targum as "Katmei Mekartei'a."

2)

TOSFOS DH REBBI YOCHANAN

úåñôåú ã"ä øáé éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Yochanan is not arguing on Rebbi Yehudah.)

åäà ãùøé øáé éäåãä ìòéì çìáå ùì áï úùòä çé

(a)

Implied Question: Rebbi Yehudah earlier permits the fat of a nine month old that is alive. (How can Rebbi Yochanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah?)

ä"î ìàçø ùçéèä ãðéúø áùçéèú àîå

(b)

Answer: This is only after it is permitted by the slaughtering of its mother.

3)

TOSFOS DH MAH CHEILEV

úåñôåú ã"ä îä çìá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains a Toras Kohanim quoted here by Rashi.)

åàí úàîø îàé ÷àîø áú"ë ùäáéà á÷åðèøñ éëåì ìà éäà áòåðù åàæäøä àáì éäà áòîåã åä÷øá åäà ääåà ÷øà ãäçìá àùø òì ä÷øá ãîîòè îéðéä ùìéì ìòðéï ä÷øáä ëúéá

(a)

Question: What does the Toras Kohanim quoted by Rashi mean when it says, "One might think that this is not punished and forbidden, but rather can be ready to be offered?" The Pasuk, "the fat that is on the intestines" that excludes the fetus is referring to offering it (on the altar as part of) as a Korban! (It is clearly saying not to offer it!)

åé"ì ãäà ã÷àîø áú"ë åìà çìá ùìéì ìàå îùåí ãìéîòåè îääåà ÷øà àìà îùåí ãîùúøé îï ëì ááäîä åàéï çùåá çìá åáúø äëé ÷àîø ããìîà àò"â ãðô÷à ìï îëì ááäîä ãàéðå áòåðù åàæäøä î"î äåé áòîåã åä÷øá

(b)

Answer: It is possible to answer that when the Toras Kohanim says, "not the fat of the fetus" it doesn't mean that this is excluded from the Pasuk, "the fat that is on the intestines." Rather, it is permitted due to the Pasuk, "anything in the animal" and is not considered fat. The Toras Kohanim therefore says that even though the fat being permitted is derived from this Pasuk, perhaps this only means one is not punished and warned about eating it, but it possibly could be something that can be offered on the altar (along with the fats of its mother that are being offered on the altar).

4)

TOSFOS DH L'DIVREI HA'MATIR

úåñôåú ã"ä ìãáøé äîúéø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara does not contradict the Mishnah, nor the question asked earlier on 74a.)

åäà ãúðï ÷øòä èòåï ùçéèä àúéà àôéìå ìãáøé äîúéø

(a)

Implied Question: When the Mishnah states that if he tore it apart its fetus (inside of it) requires slaughtering, it is even according to the one who permits. (Doesn't this opinion seem to be against the Mishnah?)

ãäëà ãå÷à ìãáøé äîúéø àñåø ãîäðé ùçéèú èøôä ìòðéï èåîàä åäåé ëçöéå ùçåè åúå ìà îäðéà áéä ùçéèä àáì äúí ìà ðùçèä àîå ëìì

(b)

Answer: In our Gemara, it is specifically the opinion that permits the fetus when slaughtered that forbids it when the mother is a Treifah. This is because the slaughtering of a Treifah helps regarding the mother not becoming impure, and it therefore is considered half-slaughtered. Accordingly, slaughtering will not help the fetus. However, in the case of the Mishnah it was not slaughtered at all.

åëï äà ãàîøéðï ìòéì (ãó òã.) âáé áòéà ãäåùéè éãå ìîòé áäîä åùçè áä áï è' çé îäå àå ãéìîà àôéìå ìøáðï ã' ñéîðéï àëùø áéä øçîðà ìà ãîé ìäà ãàñøéðï äëà ìøáðï

(c)

Implied Question: Similarly, we asked earlier (74a) what the law would be if a person stuck his hand into the animal and slaughtered a nine month old fetus. We said that perhaps even according to the Rabbanan the Torah gave four possible Simanim (trachea and esophagus of both the mother and the fetus) to make this animal kosher. This is unlike the case here where we say the Rabbanan would say the fetus is forbidden. (Why?)

îùåí ãäëà ëçöéå ùçåè ëãôøéùéú

(d)

Answer: This is because our case where the animal is considered half slaughtered is worse, as we have explained (in b above).

åàôéìå ìøáà ãàîø äëà ã' ñéîðéï àëùø áéä øçîðà àéëà ìîéáòé ìòéì ããéìîà ùàðé äúí ãìà éöà ìàåéø äòåìí åàñåø àôéìå ìøáé îàéø

(e)

Observation: Even according to Rava who says here that the Torah said four Simanim can make it kosher, we can still ask the question asked earlier (74a). Perhaps only in that case, where the animal did not yet enter the world it should be forbidden even according to Rebbi Meir.

åä"ð áéï ìøáé éåçðï áéï ìø"ì ãôìéâé áúìù çìá îáï è' çé îéúå÷îà ääéà áòéà ìòéì

1.

Observation (cont.): We can also say that this question (74a) is according to Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish who argue regarding a piece of forbidden fat ripped off of a live nine month old fetus.

ãàôéìå ìøáé éåçðï ãàîø çãùéí âøîé äééðå ìçìá ùðúìù åéöà ìàåéø äòåìí åàéï àéñåø çìá çì òã ùéåìã ëãîåëç áô' âéã äðùä (ì÷îï ãó ÷â.) åáñåó ô' ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ãó ëâ:)

2.

Observation (cont.): Even according to Rebbi Yochanan who says that the months (of the age of the animal) cause it to be forbidden, this only applies if the forbidden fat was ripped off and came into the air of the world. The prohibition of forbidden fat does not apply until it is born, as implied later (103a) and in Kerisus (23b).

åàôé' ìø"ì ãàîø çãùéí åàåéøà âøîé àôùø ãáîòé àîå îäðé áéä ùçéèä ëé äéëé ãîäðéà ìéä ùçéèú àîå

3.

Observation (cont.): Even according to Reish Lakish who says that a combination of months and being outside its mother cause it to be forbidden, it is possible that slaughtering it will help when it is inside its mother, just as slaughtering its mother causes it to be considered slaughtered when it is inside its mother.

75b----------------------------------------75b

5)

TOSFOS DH V'LITAMEICH

úåñôåú ã"ä åìéèòîéê

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why Rav Chisda did not merely quote the Beraisa.)

úéîä ëéåï ãùîéò ìéä áøééúà ìéîà áøééúà

(a)

Question: This is difficult. If Rav Chisda heard a Beraisa to this effect, why didn't he merely quote it as a Beraisa (instead of saying it on his own)? (See the Rashba for a discussion of this question.)

6)

TOSFOS DH BEN PEKUAH

úåñôåú ã"ä áï ô÷åòä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues on Rashi's explanation why the offspring of a Ben Pekuah cannot be slaughtered.)

îä ùôéøù á÷åðèøñ ãäøé äåà ëîé ùàéï ìå àìà ñéîï àçã îöã àîå åáäîä áçã ñéîï ìà îúëùøä

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this offspring is as if it only has one Siman to slaughter because of its mother (who was a regular animal), and an animal cannot be permitted by the slaughtering of one Siman.

åâí ôéøù ãäàé áúøà ìà îöèøó ì÷îà ùàéï ìê ùäééä âãåìä éåúø îæå

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He also explained that this second Siman (the only Siman of the offspring) does not combine with the slaughtering of its mother/grandmother, as there would be no greater Shehiyah (waiting between slaughtering the two Simanim needed to slaughter an animal, which causes the slaughtering to be invalid) than this!

åâí ôéøù ãìøá îùøùéà ìéú ìéä äà ãàîøéðï ìòéì ã' ñéîðéí àëùø áéä øçîðà

2.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He also explained that Rav Mesharshiya does not agree with the earlier statement that a fetus has four Simanim which can be used to slaughter it.

åäëì îâåîâí ãàôéìå äéúä äáäîä ðéúøú áñéîï àçã àéï ìäëùéø ãçùéá ëì ñéîï åñéîï ëçöéå ùçåè åàéï øåá ñéîï ùéäà øàåé ìùçéèä

(b)

Question: This is all unclear. Even if the animal would be permitted with the slaughtering of its one Siman it cannot be permitted, as each Siman is considered half slaughtered. There is no most of a Siman which is required for slaughtering!

åàôéìå ìà äéúä äùäééä ôåñìú áùçéèä àéï ùééê ìäúéø ëéåï ãçöé äâåó ùì åìã äáà îëç àîå ìà ðùçè ëìì

1.

Question (cont.): Even if Shehiyah would not be a problem causing it to be unkosher it would not be possible to permit it, being that half of the body of the offspring which is coming from its mother was not slaughtered at all!

åàôéìå î"ã ìòéì ã' ñéîðéï àëùø áéä øçîðà îåãä äëà ãäúí ùçéèú èøôä ìà äåéà ùçéèä àáì ëàï äåé ëàéìå ðùçè çöéå

2.

Question (cont.): Even the opinion earlier that the Torah gave the fetus four Simanim to cause it to be kosher will admit to the law of our Gemara. This is because in that case the slaughtering of a Treifah is not considered slaughtering. However, here it is as if half of the animal is slaughtered.

åîåãä ðîé ìñåâéà ãøéù ôø÷éï (ìòéì ãó ñè.) âáé îäå ìçåù ìæøòå ùì òåáø ãîùîò ãòåáø äéåöà àéï ìå ú÷ðä áùçéèä ãäúí äñéîðéï ëùçåèéï åùåá àéðï áðé ùçéèä ìäúéø ëìåí åìôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ ëåìä ääéà ñåâéà ãìà ëååúéä åæä ãåç÷

3.

Question (cont.): He will also admit to the Gemara earlier (69a) regarding the offspring of this fetus. This indicates that the fetus that leaves the mother cannot be eaten due to slaughtering, as its Simanim are already considered slaughtered, and they can no longer cause the animal to be permitted. According to Rashi's explanation, this entire Gemara cannot be like Rav Mesharshiya.

7)

TOSFOS DH D'NAFAL

úåñôåú ã"ä ãðôì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we allow a Treifah Ben Peukah to be slaughtered.)

àò"â ãñáø ëøáðï ìà àñø îùåí ãøåñú äæàá

(a)

Implied Question: Despite the fact that he holds like the Rabbanan, he does not forbid an animal stomped upon by a wolf. (Why not?)

ããå÷à áùçéèä âæøå ãîéôøñîà àáì èøôåú ãéãéä ìà îéôøñîà ëì ëê

(b)

Answer: They only decreed that it required slaughtering, as this would be publicized (if it were not slaughtered). However, the fact that it had become a Treifah would not be so publicized (and therefore one can slaughter it after it is a Treifah, despite the fact that he could not eat it without slaughtering mid'Rabbanan).

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ðîé åìà äéä òåã éëåì ìçéåú åàôéìå äëé ùøé åëï ðøàä ãìà òì çðí äùîéòðå ãðôì ãåáà òìéä

(c)

Observation: Rashi also explains that the animal was no loner able to live, and even so it was permitted. This seems correct, as the Gemara would not mention it was trampled by a wolf for no reason.

8)

TOSFOS DH V'HA

úåñôåú ã"ä åäà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the point of this statement.)

ìà îééúé ìä àìà îùåí åìà òåã ãàé ìàå äëé îàé àìéîà ãøáéï îãæòéøé

(a)

Explanation: The point of the Gemara is the continuation of this statement, "Moreover etc." Otherwise, why should we say Rabin's statement has more weight than the statement of Zeiri?

9)

TOSFOS DH ANA

úåñôåú ã"ä àðà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains we rule like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri.)

åëï ÷é"ì ãôñé÷ ëàï äìëä ìîòùä

(a)

Opinion: This is how we rule, as this was a practical ruling in the Gemara (which has the most halachic weight).

åàäàé ñîëéðï ìäãìé÷ áùáú áëì ùîðéí

(b)

Observation: We rely on this opinion to allow us to light Shabbos candles with all types of oils.

àò"â ãø"ù ùæåøé ÷àîø áô' áîä îãìé÷éï (ùáú ãó ëå.) áòéèøï åáðôè ãå÷à

1.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rebbi Shimon Shezuri only says in Shabbos (26a) that one can light with tar and kerosene. (How do we know he holds one can use all oils?)

ãàé àó áòéèøï ÷àîø äééðå ú"÷

2.

Answer: If he would hold one can even use tar (but not other fuels), this is the same opinion as that of the Tana Kama (in Shabbos 26a). (The Gemara and Tosfos in Shabbos 26a do not have this text in Rebbi Shimon's statement.)

10)

TOSFOS DH AF B'CHOL

úåñôåú ã"ä àó áçåì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes a Yerushalmi that delves into the reasoning of the Tana Kama of this Mishnah.)

áéøåùì' îôøù ùàéîú ãéîåò òì ò"ä ãëéåï ùäåôøù çîåø áòéðéå éåúø ëùçåæø åîúòøá

(a)

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that an Am ha'Aretz is scared of a mixture of Terumah and Chulin. Being that the Terumas Ma'aser was already taken, it is more stringent in his eyes when it is mixed into Chulin.

åáèòîà ãú"÷ ãìà ùøé àìà áùáú ôìéâé áéøåùìîé çã àîø îôðé ëáåã ùáú åçã àîø îôðé ùàéîú ùáú òìéå åäåà àåîø àîú

(b)

Explanation: There is an argument in the Yerushalmi regarding the reason of the Tana Kama that he is only believed on Shabbos. One opinion is that this is due to the honor of Shabbos (that one can be lenient). The other opinion is that the Am ha'Aretz is scared to lie due to the sanctity of Shabbos.

åôøéê àé àéîú ùáú òìéå äà ãúðéà îåöàé ùáú ìà éàëì òã ùéòùø åàé àåîø àîú àîàé ìà éàëì îôðé ùàéï ùáú òìéå áàéîä

1.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks that if he is scared to lie due to Shabbos, why does the Mishnah in Dmai (4:1) say that on Motzei Shabbos he should not eat until he takes Ma'aser? The Yerushalmi answers that we suspect that he did not tell the truth on Shabbos. (The Maharsha explains that being that on Motzei Shabbos one can fix the situation, we do not rely on him having told the truth on Shabbos.)

åìî"ã îôðé ëáåã ùáú ì"ì ùåàìå ò"é òéìä (òåìä)

2.

Explanation (cont.): According to the opinion that is due to the honor of Shabbos, why does he have to ask the Am ha'Aretz at all? The Gemara answers that this is in order that he has an answer to rely upon (though it would not normally be accepted).

åòåã ôøéê úðéðà ùåàìå áçåì ìà éàëì áùáú åìîàï ãàîø îôðé ëáåã ùáú àîàé ìà éàëì áùáú å÷àîø ìà àîøå àìà áùåââ àáì áîæéã àñåø ãúðéðà åùëç ìòùøå

3.

Explanation (cont.): The Yerushalmi also asks that the Mishnah (ibid.) states that if one asked the Am ha'Aretz during the week, he cannot eat on Shabbos. According to the opinion that one can be lenient due to the honor of Shabbos, why can't he eat on Shabbos (based on this answer, as he has something to rely upon)? The Gemara answers that this leniency is only for those who are accidentally in this situation on Shabbos, not those who plan ahead to be in this situation. This is apparent from the fact that the Mishnah (ibid.) states, "and he forgot to take Ma'aser."

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF