12th Cycle dedication

CHULIN 116 (Shmini Atzeres) - l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim Noach ben ha'Chaver Reb Yehudah (Kruskal). Dedicated by his son and family.

1)

TOSFOS DH CHADA MI'TARTI

úåñôåú ã"ä çãà îúøúé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask that Chametz grows from the ground.)

îùîò àò"â ãìà äãø ãéðà

(a)

Explanation: This implies that the question would hold up even if we could not make a Tzad ha'Shaveh.

åà"ú à"ë îéã ëùàîø çîõ áôñç éåëéç ðôøåê ùëï âãåìé ÷ø÷ò åùåá ìà éåëì ìåîø ëìàé äëøí éåëéç

(b)

Question: If so, when the Gemara said that Chametz on Pesach should be proof, we should ask that Chametz grows from the ground. This would make us unable to prove anything from Kilai ha'Kerem!

åé"ì ãîúçìä äéä éëåì ìåîø çîõ áôñç åëìàé äëøí éåëéçå ãäåå ìäå úìúà

(c)

Answer #1: It could have already said that Chametz and Kilai ha'Kerem should prove (regarding being forbidden from benefit), as this would be three sources.

åòåã ãäåä îöé ìîéîø áùø ú÷øåáú òáåãú ëåëáéí éåëéç

(d)

Answer #2: Additionally, it could have said that meat sacrificed to idols should be proof.

åëé úéîà îä ìú÷øåáú ùëï îèîà

1.

Implied Question: One might say that sacrifices to idols are different, as they are impure. (How could it learn from sacrifices to idolatry?)

äà ãîèîà äééðå îãøáðï ëãôøéùéú áô"÷ (ìòéì ãó éâ: ã"ä ú÷øåáú)

2.

Answer: They are only impure according to Rabbinic law, as I explained earlier (13b, DH "Tikroves").

2)

TOSFOS DH IKRAN

úåñôåú ã"ä òé÷øï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when branches and straw that are part of Kilayim become forbidden from benefit.)

îùîò ùàó ä÷ùéí åäòõ ðàñøéï

(a)

Explanation: This implies that even the straw and wood are prohibited.

åëï îùîò áôø÷ ëì ùòä (ôñçéí ãó ëå:) ãàîøéðï úðåø ùäñé÷åäå á÷ìéôé òøìä àå á÷ùéí ùì ëìàé äëøí çãù éåúõ

(b)

Proof: This is implied in Pesachim (26b), as the Gemara there says that if a new (earthenware) oven was lit with peels of Orlah or straw of Kilai ha'Kerem, it should be broken.

åúéîä ãáôø÷ äàùä ùðôìå ìä ðëñéí (ëúåáåú ãó ô.) îùîò ãùøå âáé äîåöéà äåöàåú òì ðëñé àùúå òáã øá éäåãä òåáãà áçáéìé æîåøåú

(c)

Question: This is difficult. In Kesuvos (80a), the Gemara implies this is permitted. It discusses a person who spent money on the possessions of his wife, who is a minor (and later refuses the marriage through Miun). Rav Yehudah ruled regarding a bundle of branches. (The Halachah is that if he had benefit from her possessions, even a small amount, there is no reckoning of how much he receives back from her. Rav Yehudah ruled this is even true if he took a bundle of branches and gave them to his animal.)

øá éäåãä ìèòîéä ãàîø àëìä òøìä ùáéòéú åëìàéí äøé æå çæ÷ä ôéøåù ãàæ àéðå éëåì ìàëåì àìà æîåøåú

1.

Question (cont.): This is based on Rav Yehudah's understanding that if someone used branches in a field while the trees were Orlah, or it was Shemitah, or what grew was Kilayim, he is considered to have a Chazakah (i.e. add that time to his three years of establishing a Chazakah on this property). This means that it was at a time when he could use the branches (as he was allowed to benefit for them, unlike what we stated above)!

åé"ì ã÷ùéï åòõ ùäéå ÷åãí ùðæøò ëìàéí îåúø òã ùéåñéó îàúéí åøåá ôòîéí ùäôøé äåñéó îàúéí åðàñøå ä÷ùéï åäòõ ùäéå î÷åãí ëáø âãåìéï åùåá ìà éåñéôå îàúéí

(d)

Answer: Straw and wood that were extant before the Kilayim were planted are still permitted for benefit until they grow one two hundredth more due to the Kilayim. Many times when the fruit adds one two hundredth of growth and therefore becomes forbidden, the straw and wood that were there before the growth of the Kilayim do not add one two hundredth.

àáì åãàé ëì îä ùâãì àçø ùðæøò ëìàéí àñåø àó ä÷ùéï åäòõ

1.

Answer (cont.): However, certainly whatever grew one two hundredth after the Kilayim was planted is forbidden from benefit, even if it is straw and wood.

3)

TOSFOS DH V'HAYSAH LAHEM

úåñôåú ã"ä åäéúä ìäí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what part of Kilayim is considered to have at one time been permitted.)

ä÷ùä äøá øáé îùä ëäï ãáô"÷ ãîðçåú (ãó å.) àîø àé îîù÷ä éùøàì ä"à äéëà ãìà äéúä ìäï ùòú äëåùø ãåîéà ãòøìä åëìàé äëøí åäëà îùîò ãäéúä ìäï ùòú äëåùø

(a)

Question: Rebbi Moshe Kohen asked that in Menachos (6a) the Gemara says that if the source was "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael," I would say that it is only regarding things that were never permitted such as Orlah and Kilai ha'Kerem. However, our Gemara implies that they are considered to have been permitted at one time!

åé"ì ãäúí îééøé áééï ùòåùéï îîðå ðñëéí ìîæáç ãáòé ùéäéä îîù÷ä éùøàì åàåúå ìà äéä ìå ùòú äëåùø ãîä ùâãì ìàçø æøéòú äëìàéí äåà àñåø (åàåúå ìà äéúä ìå ùòú äëåùø) åîä ùâãì ÷åãí îåúø

(b)

Answer: The Gemara there is referring to wine that becomes libations for the altar, and which must confine to the parameters of "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael." The wine did not have a time when it was permitted, as what grew after the Kilayim was planted is forbidden, and what grew beforehand is permitted.

åàéðå ðàñø ëùäåñéó îàúéí àìà îùåí úòøåáú ùðúòøá òí îä ùâãì àç"ë åäâøòéðéí ùðæøòå äåà ãäéúä ìäï ùòú äëåùø

1.

Answer (cont.): The permitted part is only forbidden because it is mixed together with what grew after the Kilayim was planted. However, the seeds that were originally planted were at one time permitted.

4)

TOSFOS DH MAH L'HALAN

úåñôåú ã"ä îä ìäìï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Shimon does not derive Basar b'Chalav is forbidden from benefit from the Kal v'Chomer mentioned earlier.)

àò"â ãàéëà ìîéìó àéñåø äðàä á÷ì åçåîø ëãìòéì

(a)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that one can derive the fact that it is prohibited from benefit from a Kal v'Chomer, as stated earlier. (Why does Rebbi Shimon hold otherwise?)

÷à ñáø àéï â"ù ìîçöä åéìéó îéðéä àó äéúø äðàä åääåà ãìòéì ñáø ãàäðé â"ù åàäðé ÷"å

(b)

Answer #1: Rebbi Shimon holds that one cannot make a Gezeirah Shaveh halfway, and we should therefore derive that it is even permitted for benefit. The Gemara earlier held that one can derive this Gezeirah Shaveh, and yet use the Kal v'Chomer to show that it is prohibited from benefit.

àé ðîé îùåí ãáääåà ÷øà ãèøôä àééøé ðîé á÷ãùéí ùéöàå çåõ ìîçéöúï ëãàîø ôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ìòéì ãó ñç:) ãàñéøé àó áäðàä åâìé ìï ÷"å ãéìôéðï îéðééäå åø"ù ãäëà ñáø ãôùèéä ã÷øà áèøôä îééøé

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pasuk regarding Treifah is also referring to Kodshim that went out of their boundary as the Gemara states earlier (68b), and they are even forbidden from benefit. The Kal v'Chomer teaches that we derive from them. Rebbi Shimon here argues that the simple understanding of the Pasuk is only regarding Treifah (and therefore Basar b'Chalav is not forbidden from benefit).

5)

TOSFOS DH HA'MA'AMID

úåñôåú ã"ä äîòîéã

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why cheese of a Nochri is prohibited because of its contact with Neveilah.)

úéîä ãáâîøà îôøù èòîà ãàñøå âáéðåú äòåáãé ëåëáéí îôðé ùîòîéãéï àåúí áòåø ÷áú ðáìä îàé àéøéà ðáìä àôéìå ëùøä ðîé

(a)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara explains that the reason that they forbade cheese of a Nochri is because it sits in the skin of the stomach of a Neveilah. According to our Gemara, why should it make a difference if it is a Neveilah? Even if it would be from a kosher animal it should be forbidden!

åéù ìåîø ãîùåí áùø áçìá ìà äéå àñåøéï îñô÷ îùåí ãìéëà àìà àéñåøà ãøáðï ããøê áéùåì àñøä úåøä

(b)

Answer: We would not have forbidden cheeses due to a possibility of Basar b'Chalav because there is only a possible Rabbinic prohibition, as the Torah only forbade Basar b'Chalav when meat and milk are cooked together.

116b----------------------------------------116b

6)

TOSFOS DH CHAISHINAN

úåñôåú ã"ä çééùéðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos observes that we do not rule like Rav Huna.)

ìà ÷ééîà ìï äëé ãäìëä ëùîåàì ãîùðé îúðéúéï áùéðåéà àçøéðà

(a)

Opinion: We do not rule this way, as we rule like Shmuel who explains the Mishnah differently.

åàðå îòîéãéï á÷áú òâìéí ùàðå ìå÷çéí îï äòåáãé ëåëáéí åìà çééùéðï ùîà éð÷ îï äèîàä

1.

Opinion (cont.): We do let cheese stand in the skin of the stomach of calves that we purchase from Nochrim, and we do not worry that they nursed from a non kosher (or Treifah) animal.

7)

TOSFOS DH CHADA

úåñôåú ã"ä çãà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos questions the novelty of teaching that the stomach of a dead Nochri animal is Neveilah.)

úéîä îàé ÷à îùîò ìï ã÷áú òåáã ëåëáéí ðáìä äà ùîòéðï îôø÷ ÷îà áîúðéúéï åìà äåä ìéä ìîéúðé äëà àìà ÷áú òåáã ëåëáéí àñåøä

(a)

Question: This is difficult. What is the novelty of teaching that the stomach of a Nochri's dead animal is considered Neveilah? We already know this from the first chapter of Chulin (13a)! The Mishnah should have only said that the stomach of a Nochri owned animal is forbidden!

8)

TOSFOS DH U'MI

úåñôåú ã"ä åîé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask a question on Shmuel from the Mishnah.)

áìàå äëé äåä îöé ìîéôøê îîúðéúéï òì ùîåàì

(a)

Implied Question: Without another statement of Shmuel, the Gemara could have asked a question on him from the Mishnah. (Why didn't it do so?)

àìà äà òãéôà ìéä ãîãîôøù ùîåàì îúðéúéï àìîà ñáø ëååúä

(b)

Answer: Rather, it would rather ask a contradiction in Shmuel himself. Since Shmuel is coming to explain the Mishnah, it is clear that he agrees with it.

9)

TOSFOS DH KA'AN

úåñôåú ã"ä ëàï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that nowadays we are stringent regarding the milk in the stomach of a Neveilah.)

åìôé æä ùøéà ÷áú ðáìä

(a)

Explanation: According to this answer, the milk in the stomach of a Neveilah is permitted.

àìà òëùéå ðäâå äòåìí äãáø ìàéñåø åàéï ìä÷ì ìé÷ç ÷áú òåáã ëåëáéí

(b)

Opinion: However, the custom currently is to prohibit it, and one should not be lenient to buy stomachs from animals of Nochrim.

åáãéòáã îåúø ãàôéìå ìëúçìä ùøé äéëà ãéãòéðï ùìà ðîìçä áòåøä àí ìà ùîëåòø äãáø äåàéì åäçæé÷å áå àéñåø åîéäå äéëà ãðîìçä ä÷áä áòåøä àñåøä åãàé îùåí áùø áçìá

1.

Opinion (cont.): B'Dieved it is permitted. Even Lechatchilah it would be permitted if we knew that it was not salted with its skin, if it would not be for the fact that it is an "ugly" leniency since people now treat it as forbidden. However, if the stomach was salted together with its skin it is indeed forbidden due to Basar b'Chalav.

10)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN

úåñôåú ã"ä äëé âøñéðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that there is a difference between liquid milk and congealed milk when it is found in the stomach.)

åìëàåøä ìâéøñà æå ÷ùéà îúðé' ãúðà ëùøä ùéð÷ä îï äèøôä ÷áúä àñåøä åëï áøééúà ãìòéì áôéø÷éï (ãó ÷è:) ÷áä ùáùìä áçìáä àñåøä

(a)

Implied Question: It would seem that according to this text the Mishnah is difficult. The Mishnah states that the stomach of a kosher animal that nurses from a Treifah is forbidden. This is also stated by the Beraisa earlier (109b), where it says that a stomach cooked in its own milk is forbidden.

åàåîø ø"ú ãäðé îéìé çìá öìåì ùáúåê ä÷áä ãìà çùåá ôéøùà àáì ä÷øåù ùáúåê ä÷áä çùåá ôéøùà åàåúå ä÷øåù ìôé ãáøéå àôéìå ðîìç áúåê ä÷áä îåúø

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that this is only regarding clear milk in the stomach which is not considered waste. However, what is congealed in the stomach is considered waste. This congealed milk, according to Rabeinu Tam, would even be permitted if it was salted in the stomach.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF