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 76-78 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
1) PERMITTING EVERY "SAFEK TEREIFAH" BECAUSE OF THE RULE THAT "HA'TORAH
CHASAH AL MAMONAN SHEL YISRAEL"
QUESTION: The Gemara (76b) relates that Rava rules in a case of a broken
bone that was covered by soft sinews that the animal is not a Tereifah. His
reasoning is based on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, who rules that soft
sinews are considered like flesh (with regard to one whose share of the
Korban Pesach is the sinews). In addition, since the Torah is concerned for
the money of Yisrael, we should not be stringent. Rav Papa questions Rava's
ruling, asking how he could be lenient against the opinion of Reish Lakish,
and when the issue involves an Isur d'Oraisa.
2) THE PLACENTRA THAT PARTIALLY EMERGED FROM THE WOMB
How can Rava use the logic that the Torah does not want to cause a financial
loss to a Jew when a Safek Tereifah is involved? According to that
reasoning, we should permit every case of a Safek Tereifah! (TORAS CHAYIM)
ANSWER: The LEV ARYEH answers as follows. Rava understands that Reish
Lakish -- who argues with Rebbi Yochanan and maintains that a person may not
eat as his portion of the Korban Pesach a soft sinew that eventually will
harden -- agrees in that a soft sinew that will harden is considered *meat*.
Reish Lakish maintains that it is prohibited to eat as one's share of the
Korban Pesach only mid'Rabanan; the Rabanan were concerned that people might
eat the sinew even after it hardened. Accordingly, it is possible that even
Reish Lakish agrees that the Rabanan did not apply this stringency to the
laws of Tereifos, because the Torah is concerned for the money of Yisrael.
Rav Papa asks that Reish Lakish maintains that a sinew that will harden is
not considered meat even mid'Oraisa. Consequently, it is clear that Reish
Lakish does not consider it to be meat with regard to Tereifos as well.
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a Shilya (placenta) that partially
emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered is forbidden to be
eaten. The Gemara first cites a verse as the source for this law, but then
the Gemara explains that it is logical that the Shilya is forbidden (and the
verse cited is an "Asmachta"), since there certainly is a fetus within every
placenta. Accordingly, once the fetus has emerged from the womb, it does not
become permitted with the Shechitah of its mother.
3) THE SOURCE FOR THE PROHIBITION OF "DARCHEI HA'EMORI"
Why, though, is it obvious that once the Shilya emerged, it becomes
forbidden? What forbids it? Why is it not considered part of the mother
until the entire fetus emerges?
Furthermore, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:5) writes that "the
Shilya that emerged together with the fetus is forbidden to eat, but one who
eats it is exempt from Malkus, because it is not considered meat." What is
the Rambam's source for saying that the Shilya is not considered meat and
thus one does not receive Malkus for eating it?
(a) The KEHILOS YAKOV (Pesachim #14, DH v'Od) writes that the reason why the
Shilya is forbidden is because it is "Yotzei Min ha'Chai" -- whatever
emerges from a living animal is forbidden (unless there is an explicit verse
or source to permit it).
There are two possible sources for the law that "Yotzei Min ha'Chai" is
forbidden. First, the Gemara later (112b) cites the verse, "[Eleh]
ha'Teme'im [Lachem]" - "These are the Teme'im to you" (Vayikra 11:31), and
says that "this includes the juice, gravy, and jelly of the meat" (that is,
everything that comes out of the meat is forbidden).
Second, the Gemara earlier (64b) derives from the verse, "v'Es Bas
ha'Ya'anah" (Vayikra 11:16), that the egg of an impure bird is forbidden
(see Insights there).
The Kehilos Yakov answers the second question, regarding the source for the
Rambam's ruling that one who eats the Shilya does not receive Malkus, by
comparing this Halachah to another Halachah recorded by the Rambam (Hilchos
Ma'achalos Asuros 3:6). The Rambam rules that milk or eggs of an impure
animal are forbidden, but one who consumes them does not receive Malkus. The
MAGID MISHNEH says that the source for this ruling is the Gemara earlier
(64a) that says that one receives Malkus for eating the egg of an impure
bird only when the chick has begun to form and develop limbs. Prior to this
state, one does not receive Malkus for eating the egg, even though the egg
certainly is forbidden. Similarly, one who eats an undeveloped fetus does
not receive Malkus.
(b) The CHAZON ISH (Bechoros 16:16) offers a different approach. He writes
that the Shilya is forbidden because it has the status of Neveilah. Even
though the Mishnah states that the Shilya is *not* Tamei as a Neveilah, this
is not because the Shilya itself is not a Neveilah, but rather because the
Shilya itself is not full-fledged meat ("Basar Gamur"). Eating the Shilya is
like eating a Chatzi Shi'ur of Isur (such as eating half of a k'Zayis of
Chametz on Pesach, which is forbidden mid'Oraisa but for which one does not
receive Malkus). Similarly, less than a Shi'ur of actual Neveilah is not
Metamei. Since a Shilya is not considered meat, even a large piece of it is
not Metamei, even though it is forbidden to be eaten because it is Neveilah.
This is also the source for the Rambam's ruling that one does not receive
Malkus for eating the Shilya. The Rambam himself compares eating the milk or
eggs of an impure animal to eating a Chatzi Shi'ur of Isur. Accordingly,
since a Shilya is considered like Chatzi Shi'ur of Neveilah, one does not
receive Malkus for eating it. (D. Bloom)
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that we may not bury a Shilya at a crossroads
nor may we hang it on a tree, because these acts are the ways of idolaters
("Darchei ha'Emori"). RASHI here (DH Darchei) and in Avodah Zarah (11a, DH
v'Lo) writes that the source for the Isur of doing acts that are Darchei
ha'Emori is the verse, "v'Lo Sa'aseh k'Ma'aseihem" -- "... do not do like
their actions" (Shemos 23:24; see also RAMBAN there).
However, Rashi in Shabbos (67a, DH Darchei) gives a different source for the
Isur of Darchei ha'Emori. He writes there that the source is the verse,
"uve'Chukoseihem Lo Selechu" -- "... nor shall you walk in their ordinances"
(Vayikra 18:3). This is also the verse that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (11a)
and Sanhedrin (52b) quotes with regard to the Isur of Darchei ha'Emori. Why
does Rashi here give a different verse as the source for the Isur?
ANSWER: The verse (Shemos 23:24) that Rashi here mentions is discussing
idolatry. We might have thought that this verse is referring only to
practices of the Emorites that were originally used for the service of
Avodah Zarah. The verse in Vayikra teaches that *any* superstitious practice
of the Emorites is forbidden, even if it is not done for the sake of idol
worship. (See also TOSFOS in Sanhedrin 52b, who similarly distinguishes
between the two forms of Darchei ha'Emori.) (M. Kornfeld)
4) "DARCHEI HA'EMORI" IN AN ACT DONE FOR "REFU'AH"
OPINIONS: Abaye and Rava rule that any act that is done for the purpose of
Refu'ah does not constitute Darchei ha'Emori, while any act that is not done
for the purpose of Refu'ah constitutes Darchei ha'Emori. What is considered
an act done for Refu'ah?
5) HEALING WITH VERSES FROM THE TORAH
(a) RASHI (DH Yesh Bo) says that an act done for the purpose of Refu'ah
includes using any liquid or potion (that has no quantifiable medicinal
value) for healing, or chanting an incantation over a wound. Rashi (DH Ein
Bo) explains that an act that is not done for the purpose of Refu'ah refers
to any act that is not done "on a sick area," such as burying a Shilya at a
junction in the road. The PANIM ME'IROS (1:36) understands that Rashi means
to say that we are allowed to do an act, even for the sake of healing,
directly over the body of a sick person, but we may not do an act from a
distance. For this reason, the Panim Me'iros rules that it is forbidden to
make a amulet to be hung in a tree to help a baby sleep better. (See,
however, the PISCHEI TESHUVAH (YD 179:5), who disagrees with the
understanding of the Panim Me'iros (his grandfather) of the words of Rashi.)
(b) RASHI in Shabbos (67a, DH she'Yesh) defines Refu'ah as an act that is an
effective treatment for the illness from an empirical perspective. This
seems to exclude an incantation that is whispered over a wound in order to
The RAMBAM (Moreh Nevuchim) also writes that the act must have some
medicinal quality to its healing ability in order to be permitted. The
RASHBA (Teshuvos 1:413) questions the Rambam's opinion from the case in the
Mishnah in Shabbos (67a). The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Meir who permits one to
wear a fox tooth in order to help him sleep. The Rambam himself rules in
accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Meir (Hilchos Shabbos 19:13), which is
difficult, since there seems to be no empirical therapeutic effectiveness in
wearing a fox tooth.
(c) The RAN here quotes Rashi in Shabbos and asks (like the Rashba) that the
Gemara permits one to wear a fox tooth to help him sleep, even though its
therapeutic property is not understood from a scientific perspective. The
Ran therefore defines an act done for the sake of Refu'ah as any act that we
know works to heal, even if it works metaphysically. An act that is not done
for the sake of Refu'ah is an act that has no known results.
QUESTION: Abaye and Rava rule that any act that is done for the purpose of
Refu'ah does not constitute Darchei ha'Emori, while any act that is not done
for the purpose of Refu'ah constitutes Darchei ha'Emori. RASHI (DH Yesh Bo)
writes that chanting an incantation over a wound is included in the category
of Refu'ah and thus is permitted.
However, the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (90a) states that one who whispers over a
wound the verse, "Every illness that I placed upon Mitzrayim, I shall not
place upon you..." (Shemos 15:26), has no portion in the World to Come!
Similarly, the Gemara in Shevuos (15b) says that it is forbidden to heal
oneself with words of Torah!
How, then, can Rashi say that it is permitted to whisper an incantation
(such a verse) over a wound, since it is being done for the sake of Refu'ah?
(a) The MAHARSHA in Shabbos (67a) writes that when one's intention is to
heal a spiritual ailment with a verse, it is permitted. (See RAMBAM, Hilchos
Avodas Kochavim 11:12.)
(b) The MAHARSHA in Eruvin (54a) suggests that the prohibition to heal
oneself with words of Torah applies only to reciting a verse with the
specific intent that it serve to heal him. If he learns Torah primarily for
the sake of learning, but also with the secondary intention that it help
cure him, then it is permitted.
The PERISHAH (YD 179:17) explains similarly that the prohibition applies
only when one pronounces a verse from the Torah expecting it to heal him
superstitiously, like an incantation. However, when he studies Torah in
order to do the Mitzvah of Hashem and he trusts that Hashem will heal him in
the merit of the Mitzvah, it is permissible.
(c) TOSFOS in Shevuos (15b, DH Asur) and Pesachim (111a, DH Niftach) writes
that if the illness poses a mortal danger, then one may use a verse for
healing. This is also the Halachah as recorded by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD
(d) The REMA (YD 179:8) writes that the opinion of RASHI in the name of his
teacher (in Sanhedrin 101a, DH uv'Rokek) is that the prohibition to use a
verse for healing applies only when the verse is said in Hebrew, but not
when it is said in a different language. (See SHACH there, #11.)