THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHULIN 66-68 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
1) HALACHAH: BUGS IN PRODUCE ATTACHED TO THE GROUND
OPINIONS: Shmuel rules that bugs that infested a cucumber while it was
attached to the ground are prohibited as a "Sheretz ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz"
(Vayikra 11:29), even though they never left the cucumber. The Gemara
suggests a proof to Shmuel's ruling from a Beraisa, but then refutes the
proof and shows that the Beraisa may even permit bugs in produce that was
attached to the ground.
Does the Halachah follow the view of Shmuel or the view of the Beraisa?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Daika) quotes the opinion of RABEINU TAM, RABEINU CHANANEL,
and the RIVA who rule in accordance with the Gemara's final understanding of
the Beraisa, and not in accordance with Shmuel. Bugs that develop in a fruit
while it is attached to the tree, or in a vegetable while it is attached to
the ground, do not become prohibited as "Sheretz ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz" as
long as they did not emerge from the fruit.
(b) The BEHAG and SHE'ILTOS rule like Shmuel that bugs that grow in a fruit
while the fruit is attached to the tree are prohibited as "Sheretz
ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz."
Tosfos points out that even those who prohibit bugs in a growing fruit
prohibit them only in a situation in which the bug has enough room to move
around. Tosfos infers this from the words of RASHI. Rashi (DH b'Ivyah)
explains that Shmuel's reasoning is that since the cucumber is attached to
the ground, when the bugs move around it is considered as though they are
moving around on the ground. If the cucumber became infested only after it
was picked, then the bugs become prohibited only after they emerge from the
cucumber. Therefore, if the bug was trapped in an area which did not allow
it any movement at all, then even in an attached fruit the bug does not
become prohibited (since it was not "Shoretz"). This is also the opinion of
the ROSH (3:68) and MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG (quoted by the HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS,
Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 2:4).
Although the SHULCHAN ARUCH rules like Shmuel, he agrees with the exception
of Tosfos and the Rosh (see YD 84:6). He therefore says that if a bug was
covered by the outside of a bean and, when the bean was opened, the bug was
found to be in a hole in which it could not move, it is not prohibited as
"Sheretz ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz."
However, the RAN argues that Shmuel's logic is not related to whether or not
the bug actually moves. As long as the bug was attached to the ground via
the fruit, the bug is called a "Sheretz ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz." The ARUCH
HA'SHULCHAN (YD 84:52) explains that the Ran means that just as the bug is
called a "Sheretz ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz" when it is discovered in a hole in
the ground with no room to move, so, too, when it is found in a fruit
connected to the ground it is forbidden. This is also the opinion of the
RASHBA (see TUR YD 84) and RABEINU YECHIEL (quoted by the Hagahos Maimoniyos
The REMA (in DARCHEI MOSHE) writes that one should be stringent like the
opinion of the RASHBA. The Aruch ha'Shulchan says that this can also be
inferred from his comment in the Rema on the statement of the Shulchan
Aruch. The TAZ, SHACH, and other Acharonim also rule stringently, although
they mention certain instances in which one may rely on the lenient opinion.
(Z. Wainstein, Y. Montrose)
2) "KUKYANEI" WORMS
QUESTION: The Gemara cites Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi who rules that
Kukyanei worms are prohibited, because they originated from outside the
animal and are thus "Sheretz ha'Shoretz Al ha'Aretz." The Gemara cites a
second version of the statement, in which Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi rules
that Kukyanei are permitted, because they grow inside of the animal. RASHI
explains that Kukyanei are worms found in the liver and lungs of an animal.
3) IS THE "LIVYASAN" KOSHER
TOSFOS (DH Kukyanei) asks that the Gemara later rules that Darnei,
parasitical bugs found beneath the skin of an animal, are prohibited because
they developed from an animal that was prohibited (before Shechitah) as Ever
Min ha'Chai. Kukyanei, which also develops from the animal, should be
prohibited for the same reason! Why are Kukyanei permitted?
(a) RABEINU TAM argues with Rashi and maintains that Kukyanei are bugs found
in fish, and not in animals. The prohibition of Ever Min ha'Chai does not
apply to fish.
(b) The TIFERES YAKOV answers as follows. We learn from the word
"ba'Behemah" (Devarim 14:6) that whatever is inside of the animal (such as a
fetus) at the time of the Shechitah is permitted through the Shechitah.
Kukyanei, bugs that are inside the liver and lungs of an animal, are
considered included in "ba'Behemah" and become permitted through the
Shechitah of the animal.
In contrast, bugs that are under the skin of an animal are not considered to
be "ba'Behemah" (since they are not in the internal cavity of the animal).
Consequently, the Shechitah of the animal cannot permit them. (Z. Wainstein)
QUESTION: The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yosi ben Durmaskis who proves from verses
in Iyov that the Livyasan has scales and fins and thus is a Kosher fish.
The MAHARSHA asks why Rebbi Yosi needs to prove this from verses. We know
that in the World to Come, Hashem will prepare the Livyasan as a meal for
the righteous (Bava Basra 75a). Why is that not sufficient proof that the
Livyasan is Kosher?
(a) The MAHARSHA explains that there never was any doubt that the Livyasan
is Kosher. Rebbi Yosi ben Durmaskis is merely proving that the Livyasan is a
type of fish and not a type of aquatic bird.
(b) The MAHARATZ CHAYOS suggests another answer. The Midrash (Vayikra Rabah
13:3) relates that the Behemoth (another giant beast reserved as reward for
the righteous in the World to Come) will be slaughtered by using the fins of
the Livyasan. Although jagged objects normally may not be used for
Shechitah, the Midrash tells us that Hashem will permit the Behemoth
nevertheless as a Hora'as Sha'ah. Accordingly, we might have thought that
just as there will be a Hora'as Sha'ah permitting the Shechitah of the
Behemoth, there will also be a Hora'as Sha'ah with regard to the Kashrus of
the Livyasan, but the Livyasan actually is not a Kosher fish. Rebbi Yosi ben
Durmaskis teaches that the Livyasan is a Kosher fish and there is no need
for a Hora'as Sha'ah. (Z. Wainstein)