(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 67

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.


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 ibid.).

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)


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.

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)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,