12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 90 (25 Elul) - Dedicated in memory of Yechiel Avraham Avigdor ben Eliyahu Glaser z'l, by his brother Yisrael and family. May Avigdor's young children merit to grow in Torah and Yiras Shamayim, and become sources of pride and Nachas to their father in Gan Eden.



תוספות ד"ה אלמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Gid ha'Nasheh does not take effect on Mukdashin, but does take effect on Aiver Min ha'Chai.)

אומר ר"ת משום דמתחלה הכל הוא בשר והבשר עצמו מתקשה אחרי כן ומתלבן ונעשה גיד


Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that this is because originally everything in the fetus is flesh. The flesh then proceeds to (have some of it) harden, whiten, and then turn into a Gid.

ובקונטרס פי' לקמן דמתחלה כשהגיד נוצר אינו על הכף ולא חייל עד שיבא ויתקשה על הכף


Explanation #2: Rashi explains later that originally when the Gid is created it is not on the "Kaf ha'Yarech" - "the quadriceps femoris muscle." The prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh is only when the Gid comes and hardens on the Kaf.

ואע"ג דהשתא ר"ל דאין איסור גיד חל על איסור מוקדשים


Implied Question: The Gemara now wants to say that the prohibition against Gid ha'Nasheh does not take effect when the prohibition of Mukdashin is already present. (According to this logic, there should also be no prohibition against Aiver Min ha'Chai together with the Gid!)

על איסור אבר מן החי דלא חמיר כמוקדשים חייל


Answer #1: The prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh does fall on Aiver Min ha'Chai, as Aiver Min ha'Chai is not as stringent of a prohibition as Mukdashin.

ועוד דאי אפשר לאיסור גיד להיות בענין אחר


Answer #2: Additionally, it is impossible for the prohibition against Gid to exist if it could not take effect despite the prohibition against Aiver Min ha'Chai (which is always present in every animal).

ועוד דאין איסור אבר מן החי חל עד שיולד דאמר בסוף פרקין (לקמן דף קג.) כגון שנטרפה עם יציאת רובה דאיסור טרפה ואיסור אבר מן החי חייל בהדי הדדי


Answer #3: Additionally, the prohibition against Aiver Min ha'Chai does not take effect until it is born. This is as the Gemara says later (103a) that the case would be if it became a Treifah when most of it came out, as then the prohibition of Treifah and Aiver Min ha'Chai would take effect at the same time.



תוספות ד"ה והא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not offer a more explicit proof that the Mishnah is unlike Rebbi Yehudah.)

ה"מ למימר מדקתני נוהג בשליל ופליג ר' יהודה


Implied Question: The Gemara could have proved the Mishnah is unlike Rebbi Yehudah by pointing out that the Mishnah says Gid ha'Nasheh applies to a fetus, and that Rebbi Yehudah argues (on that law in the Mishnah itself). (Why isn't this used as a proof that the Mishnah is unike Rebbi Yehudah?)

אלא רישא דמלתא נקט


Answer: Rather, it proved this from an earlier statement in the Mishnah (even though the latter statement is a more explicit proof).



תוספות ד"ה קדשים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara can entertain that a Gid ha'Nasheh of a Shelamim that was Mukdashin its entire life can be eaten.)

משמע דאפילו בשלמים ולאחר זריקה דשרי אף לזרים בעי למימר דלא חייל כלל איסור גיד ושרי באכילה אע"ג דלאחר זריקה פקע איסור קדשים


Explanation: This indicates that even with Shelamim after Zerikah, when it is permitted even to regular Jews, the Gemara wants to say that the prohibition of Gid does not take effect and that it is permitted to be eaten. This is despite the fact that after Zerikah the prohibition of Kodshim is no longer present.

מדלא אשכחן דחייל אלא במבכרת


Explanation (cont.): This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara's answer is that we can only find a case where the prohibition of Gid would apply if an animal is having a Bechor.

ותימה כיון דהשתא ליכא איסור קדשים אע"ג דיכול לבא לידי איסור כרת כגון אם אוכלו בטומאת הגוף אמאי לא יחול איסור גיד


Question: This is difficult. Since there is currently no prohibition of Kodshim on this Shelamim, even though one could technically be liable to receive Kares for eating it for example when he is impure, why shouldn't the prohibition of Gid take effect?

דאין כאן איסור חל על איסור כדאמר בפרק ארבעה אחין (יבמות דף לב.) דאחות אשה מתלא תלי וקאי כו'


Question (cont.): There is no prohibition taking effect on another prohibition, as this is comparable to the Gemara in Yevamos (32a) that says that the prohibition of a wife's sister is suspended etc. (In short, the Gemara (ibid.) explains that in a case where a person was forbidden to his brother's wife before she became his wife's sister after marrying her sister, the prohibition of her being his wife's sister is suspended until the prohibition of her being his brother's wife does not apply.)

וי"ל כיון דמחיים לא חייל איסור גיד דאיכא איסור מוקדשין דיכול לבא לידי כרת על ידי פיגול ונותר וטמא תו לא חייל איסור גיד לאחר שחיטה וזריקה דבעינן שיחול מחיים איסור גיד דומיא דיעקב שנשה לו גידו מחיים


Answer: Since the prohibition of Gid never applied when the animal was alive due to the prohibition of Mukdashin, which can possibly cause him to be liable to receive Kares due to Pigul, Nosar, or Tamei, the prohibition does not even apply after Shechitah or Zerikah. This is because we require that the prohibition of Gid be applicable when the animal is alive, comparable to Yaakov Avinu whose Gid was injured when he was alive.

וא"ת ונימא מגו דאיתוסף איסור גיד לבני נח איתוסף נמי לישראל


Question: Why don't we say that since the prohibition of Gid was added to the sons of Noach, it should also be added to Jews (even if the animal was Mukdashin its entire life)?

וי"ל דהא דנאסר לבני נח היינו דוקא לבני יעקב דקודם מתן תורה איקרו בני נח


Answer #1: The prohibition of Gid for Nochrim was specifically for the sons of Yaakov, who before the Torah was given were called "sons of Noach."

ואפילו נאסר מתחלה לכל אומות העולם הא אמר בפ' ארבע מיתות (סנהדרין דף נט.) כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח וא"כ לאחר מתן תורה שרו לכולהו לבר מישראל


Answer #2: Even if one will say that all of the nations of the world were originally forbidden in Gid ha'Nasheh, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (59a) says that any Mitzvah that was said to sons of Noach and was not repeated at Har Sinai only applies to Jews and not Nochrim. Accordingly, after the Torah was given Gid ha'Nasheh is permitted to all Nochrim, but not to Jews.

וא"ת ונימא מיגו דאיתוסף איסור גיד לגבוה דאסור להעלותו איתוסף נמי להדיוט איסור אכילה


Question: Why don't we say that since the prohibition of Gid is even towards Hash-m, as it is forbidden to offer it on the altar, it should also be prohibited to a regular person (even if the animal was Mukdashin its entire life)?

וי"ל דאיכא למאן דאמר בסמוך מחוברין יעלו


Answer: This opinion holds like the opinion later that says that if it is attached to the pieces that do go on the altar, it should be offered.



תוספות ד"ה הכא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Rebbi Yochanan's opinion regarding the prohibition of Gid and Mukashin taking effect at the same time.)

ובהדי הדדי קאתו וקמ"ל דלא מבטל איסור קדשים החמור איסור גיד הקל מלחול עמו


Explanation: The prohibitions (Gid, Mukdashin) take effect at the same time. The novelty of this Halachah is that the stringent prohibition of Kodshim does not stop the more lenient prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh from taking effect together with it.

וא"ת והא איסור גיד לרבי יוחנן קדים דאמר (לעיל דף עה.) תלש חלב מבן תשעה חי דחלבו כחלב בהמה והדר אתא איסור מוקדשין דחמיר וחייל עליה וא"כ לרבי יוחנן מוקדשין נוהגין בגיד מבעי ליה


Question: The prohibition against Gid ha'Nasheh should take effect first according to Rebbi Yochanan (75a) who says that if one tears off Cheilev from a nine month old fetus that is alive, its fat is like the (forbidden) Cheilev of an animal. Only later does the stringent prohibition of Mukdashin take effect. If so, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Mishnah should say that Mukdashin applies to Gid ha'Nasheh (which comes first, not that Gid applies to Mukdashin)!

ונראה דלר' יוחנן לא חייל איסור גיד ואיסור חלב עד שיצא לחוץ ממעי אמו לאויר העולם


Answer: It appears that according to Rebbi Yochanan the prohibition against Gid and Cheilev does not take effect until it (i.e. even the Cheilev alone) goes out of its mother's womb and into the air of the world.

וכן משמע דבסוף פירקין (לקמן דף קג.) קאמר רבי יוחנן גופיה כשנטרפה עם יציאת רובה דאיסור אבר ואיסור חלב ואיסור טרפה בהדי הדדי קאתו אלמא דליכא איסור חל במעי אמו


Answer (cont.): This is also implied later (103a) where Rebbi Yochanan says that if the animal becomes a Treifah when most of it comes out, the prohibition of Aiver Min haChai, Cheilev, and Treifah all occur at the same time. This indicates that these (Rashash - specifically Cheilev) prohibitions do not apply in the womb.



תוספות ד"ה פרשו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara quotes the first Beraisa when it seems that the second Beraisa would suffice.)

תימה אמאי מייתי הך ברייתא קמייתא


Question: This is difficult. Why did the Gemara quote the first Beraisa (when the second Beraisa contains the argument between Rebbi and the Rabanan)?

ונראה דאי לאו ברייתא קמייתא המ"ל דרבנן סברי שיש לרבות כל מה שנוכל לרבות ואפילו פרשו דאיסורא ולית לן למעוטי אלא פוקעים גרידא שהוא סוף העלאה


Answer: Without the first Beraisa, it would be possible to say that the Rabanan hold that we should include whatever we can include, even if things that were forbidden became separated. We should only exclude things that fell off the altar, which are the last things that would be put back on the altar.

ורבי סבר דרבויא ומיעוטא אית לן לאוקומי בתחלת העלאה ולא נמעט כמו כן אלא דבר אחד דהיינו פרשו דאיסורא אבל מחוברים דאיסורא ופרשו דהיתירא יעלו


Answer (cont.): Rebbi holds that we should establish these inclusive and exclusive Pesukim as regarding the beginning of putting items on the altar. We should similarly exclude one thing, meaning something that was separate and forbidden. However, forbidden things connected to parts of the animal that were supposed to be put on the altar and permitted items that separated from parts that were supposed to be on the altar should be permitted to be placed on the altar.

ולהכי מייתי ברייתא קמייתא דגידים דהיתירא נמי כשפרשו ירדו דומיא דעצמות דהיתירא


Answer (cont.): The first Beraisa is therefore quoted to teach that the Gidim that are permitted should be taken off the altar after they were already separated, similar to bones that are permitted.

ועל כרחך רבי היא אלמא לא מרבי רבי כל מה שיכול להרבות דהא אוקי נמי מיעוט בפרשו דהיתירא והכי נמי לרבנן לא מרבי כל מה שיכולין להרבות אלא ממעטין דאיסורא אפילו במחוברין


Answer (cont.): This must be according to Rebbi, indicating that Rebbi does not include anything that can be included, as he says that there is an exclusion for things that separate that are permitted. Accordingly, the Rabanan also must not include everything that can be included, but rather it must be that they exclude prohibited items even if they are attached to the meat.




תוספות ד"ה של שלמים

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the text "Shelamim.")

פירש בקונטרס דגרסינן חטאת ואשם משום דשלמים נאכלים בכל העיר ומה טיבו בעזרה


Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the text should read "Chatas v'Asham" since a Shelamim is eaten in all of Yerushalayim. Otherwise, why would the Gid be discussed as being in the Azarah?

ונראה משום דשוק וחזה ניתן לכהנים ששם גיד הנשה שהשוק הוא ברגל ולא ביד כדתנן לקמן בהזרוע (דף קלד:) והם היו רגילין לאכול מתנותיהם בעזרה


Opinion #2: It appears that (the text is correct, and Rashi's question is not difficult as) the thigh and chest of the Shelamim was given to the Kohanim. This included the Gid ha'Nasheh that was in the thigh which is the hind leg of the animal and not the foreleg, as stated by the Mishnah (134b). Kohanim were used to eating their Matanos in the Azarah (which is why it is discussed as being in the Azarah).

א"נ בשלמים של כהנים שכל קדשיהם היו רגילין לאכול בעזרה


Opinion #2 (cont.): Another reason that the Gemara could be discussing a Shelamim is that it is referring to a Shelamim brought by Kohanim who were used to eating all of their Korbanos in the Azarah.



תוספות ד"ה בשלשה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos deduces that Shmuel understands the Korban Tamid used to indeed be given to drink from a golden cup.)

אבל ההיא דתמיד (דף ל.) קסבר דאין זה הואי כדמפרש במסכת תמיד משום שאין עניות במקום עשירות


Explanation: However, Shmuel holds that giving the Korban Tamid a drink from a gold cup as stated in Tamid (30a) was not an exaggeration, since there is no poverty in a place of wealth.



תוספות ד"ה שלש מאות

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not the Paroches could become impure and why.)

וא"ת דאמר סוף פ"ק דביצה (דף יד:) מפני מה אמרו וילון טמא מפני שהשמש מתחמם כנגדו והאי פרוכת ליכא למיחש שיתחממו כנגדו דאסור ליהנות ממנו ואמאי מטבילין אותה


Question #1: The Gemara in Beitzah (14b) says, why did they say that a curtain is impure? This is because the servant wraps himself in its warmth (causing it to be like clothing). There is no suspicion that one will wrap themselves in the warmth of the Paroches, as it is forbidden to benefit from it! Why, then, would it ever require immersion in a Mikvah?

וליכא למימר דכיון שנארגה היו מטבילין אותה כדאמר בפ' חומר בקדש (חגיגה דף כג.) דכלים הנגמרים בטהרה צריכין טבילה לקדש


Answer: One cannot say that being that it was woven they would immerse it, as stated in Chagigah (23a) that vessels that were finished with a status of purity require immersion to be used for Kodesh.

דהתם לא מיירי אלא בכלים המקבלין טומאה דמשום חומר הקדש החמירו להטבילן כאילו נטמאו אבל פרוכת דלא מקבל טומאה לא


Question: The Gemara there is only referring to the immersion of vessels that can possibly become impure due to the stringency of their impending use for Kodesh. They were therefore stringent to immerse them as if they already became impure. However, a Paroches that cannot become impure should not require this immersion.

ועוד דבמסכת שקלים בפרק כל הרוקין (דף יב:) משמע בהדיא דפרוכת מקבל טומאה דתנן פרוכת שנטמא באב הטומאה מטבילין אותה בחוץ נטמא בולד הטומאה מטבילין אותה בפנים


Question #2: Additionally, in Shekalim (12b) the Gemara explicitly implies that the Paroches can become impure. This is as the Mishnah states, "A Paroches that became impure from an Av ha'Tumah is immersed outside. If it became impure from a Vlad ha'Tumah, it is immersed inside."

וי"ל דמקבל טומאה לפי שהוא אהל כדאמר בפרק קמא דסוכה (דף ז:) וסכות על הארון דכייף ליה מיכף עילויה דארון


Answer #1: It can become impure because it is a tent, as stated in Sukah (7b) "And you will hover over the Aron" implies that (a small part of it) hovers over the Aron.

ומיהו יש ספרים דגרסי בפרק קמא דביצה (דף יד:) מפני מה וילון אסור וכן גרסינן בהלכות גדולות פירוש מפני מה אסור לעשות וילון מכלאים


Answer #2: There are some Sefarim that have the text in Beitzah (14b), "Why is a curtain forbidden?" This is also the text in the Bahag. This means, why is it forbidden to make a curtain out of Kilayim?