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
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (117b) states that "Alal" does not convey Tum'as
Ochlin unless it is combined with other foods. Reish Lakish explains that
this refers to small pieces of flesh that remain stuck to the hide. These
pieces of flesh are not Metamei by themselves, but they are Metamei when
they join other food.
The Gemara asks why such pieces of meat are not Metamei by themselves. If
the owner intended to eat them, then they certainly should be Metamei. If,
on the other hand, he did not intent to eat them, then they should be
entirely Batel and not be Metamei even when combined with other food.
Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meisha give two explanations for why the Alal is not
Metamei by itself, but it combines with other food to be Metamei. One
answers that the Mishnah is discussing one who planned to eat only part of
the Alal, thus giving only part of it the status of food. The other
answers that part of the Alal was torn from the animal (while attached to
the hide) by a wild animal that bit the animal before it was slaughtered,
while another part of the Alal was torn from the animal by the knife of
the person skinning it.
How do these answers explain why the Alal can combine to make a Shi'ur
Tum'ah, but by itself it is not Metamei?
(a) RASHI explains that since the person gave significance to part of the
Alal by intending to eat part of it (or, according to the second answer,
it retains its significance since he did not expressly remove it from his
intent to eat it), his intention is able to make the entire Alal able to
join with another food to combine to be a Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah. His
"partial intention" does not make the Alal itself fit to be Metamei (even
if it is a k'Beitzah in size), but it does make it fit to join with
another food to equal the size of a k'Beitzah.
(b) The MAHARSHAL quotes another version of Rashi, in which Rashi explains
that when the owner had intention to eat part of the Alal, and he did not
have intention to eat the other part, his intention on one part helps to
make even the other part have the significance of food, and it therefore
can be combined with another food (or, as the Maharshal writes, with the
other half-k'Beitzah of Alal) to make a Shi'ur Tum'ah. (This seems to be
the intention of the Maharshal. Even though he mentions only combining the
half of the Alal that the owner intended to eat with the other half that
he did not intend to eat, nevertheless it seems logical that if his
intention to eat half is able to give the other half significance, then
that half may also combine with another food to make a Shi'ur of a
k'Beitzah. By combining the second half (that he did not plan on eating)
with the first half or with any other edible food, the owner displays his
intention to use that half as food.)
2) THE "TUM'AH" OF "BASAR MIN HA'CHAI"
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a Jew slaughtered a non-Kosher
animal for a Nochri and it is still quivering (Mefarcheses), it is Mekabel
Tum'as Ochlin but not Tum'as Neveilah. If a limb or piece of flesh
separates from it, it is considered as though it has separated from a
3) "EIN BAH TUM'AH SHEL KLUM"
RASHI (DH k'Poresh, DH u'Vasar) explains that a limb removed from an
animal that is Mefarcheses "is Metamei immediately, like Ever Min
ha'Chai," while flesh that is removed is not Metamei, but it is forbidden
to a Nochri.
What does Rashi mean when he adds that the limb is Metamei "immediately"?
(a) The TIFERES YAKOV suggests a novel explanation. Rashi means to say
that a limb is Metamei immediately, while flesh of a live animal is not
Metamei *immediately*, but it *is* Metamei after a certain point. When the
animal ceases to be Mefarcheses and is considered a Neveilah, even flesh
removed from it while it was Mefarcheses is Metamei as part of a Neveilah!
The Gemara later supports the Tiferes Yakov's suggestion. The Gemara says
that when a Jew wants to eat meat from a slaughtered animal while it is
Mefarcheses, he may cut some meat from where it was slaughtered, salt it
very well and rinse it very well, and wait to eat it until the animal
dies. We see from the Gemara there that after the animal dies, the meat
taken from the animal while it was Mefarcheses has the same status as the
rest of the meat of the dead animal (and is permitted to be eaten).
(b) However, the Tiferes Yakov's suggestion contradicts the Mishnah later
(127b) which asserts that Basar Min ha'Chai is not Metamei even after the
animal dies (see Rashi there, DH Meisah). The case of a Jew eating meat
from a Mefarcheses is not comparable to the Tum'ah of flesh taken from a
non-Kosher Mefarcheses, because the reason why one must wait for the
Mefarcheses to die in order to eat the meat is because of the verse, "Lo
Sochlu Al ha'Dam" (Vayikra 19:26), as Rashi (DH u'Mamtin) explains, and
not because the Shechitah takes effect at that moment on the meat that was
detached while the animal was still Mefarcheses.
It therefore seems that Rashi adds the word "immediately" for exactly the
opposite reason. Rashi wants to show that an *Ever* Min ha'Chai is Metamei
even *before* the death of animal from which it was taken, while the rest
of the animal becomes Tamei only when it dies. (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a Jew slaughtered one Siman of a
non-Kosher animal for a Nochri and it is still quivering (Mefarcheses), it
does not become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin. If the Jew killed the animal
through Nechirah (he cut the Simanim but without a proper act of
Shechitah), the animal has no Tum'ah.
4) SHECHITAH THAT WAS BEGUN BY A JEW AND FINISHED BY A NOCHRI
Why does the Beraisa change its wording from "the animal does not become
Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin" (in a case of Shechitah done to one Siman) to
"it is not Tamei at all" (in a case of Nechirah)? There is no difference
between an animal that was killed with Nechirah and one that was killed by
having one Siman slaughtered!
(a) TOSFOS (DH Nachrah) explains that there indeed is no difference
between an act of Shechitah that was done to only one Siman, and an act of
Nechirah. The Gemara used a different wording only because it is more
obvious to most people that an animal is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin after
being killed with Nechirah.
(b) The TIFERES YAKOV explains that when one of the Simanim was cut, the
Shochet can still complete the Shechitah. The Beraisa is teaching that
even though the animal is going to become food after the Shechitah,
nevertheless at the present moment it is not Mekabel Tum'ah as food. In
contrast, when the animal was killed with Nechirah, it will *never* be
Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. (Z. Wainstein)
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a Jew began the Shechitah of an
animal and a Nochri finished it, whether or not the Jew cut enough to make
the animal a Tereifah, the Shechitah is invalid.
5) MEAT TAKEN FROM A "MEFARCHESES"
Does this ruling apply even when the Jew slaughtered a majority of the
Simanim, which in itself is considered a valid Shechitah?
ANSWER: The DERISHAH (YD 23:4) says that in such a case the Shechitah is
valid, even though the Nochri finished the Shechitah.
However, he asks that this does not seem to be the opinion of RASHI
earlier (32a, DH Teiku). The Gemara there discusses Shehiyah (pausing in
middle of the act of Shechitah), which is one of the things which renders
Shechitah invalid. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nasan asks what the Halachah is in
a case in which the Shochet was "Shahah b'Mi'ut Simanim" -- he cut most of
the Simanim, waited, and then cut the rest. The Gemara leaves his question
unanswered ("Teiku"). Rashi there understands that the question is whether
we consider the animal to be properly slaughtered already, since a
majority of its Simanim was cut, or whether the Shehiyah still invalidates
the Shechitah (see Insights to Chulin 32:1). Since the Gemara there leaves
the question unanswered, we must be stringent and invalidate such a
Shechitah. Accordingly, in the case of the Gemara here, we should also be
stringent and invalidate the Shechitah, even though a majority of the
Simanim was cut by a Jew.
The Derishah suggests an answer to this question to explain how even Rashi
will agree that in the case of the Gemara here, the Shechitah is valid.
The Acharonim understand the Derishah in two different ways.
1. The BACH in KUNTRUS ACHARON (YD 23) understands that the Derishah's
question is that if the Jew cut most of the Simanim and a Nochri cut the
rest, then according to Rashi the Shechitah should be invalid because of
Shehiyah, just as the Shechitah is invalid when a Jew cuts the most of the
Simanim, pauses, and then cuts the rest. He understands that the Derishah
answers that there is a problem of Shehiyah only when one person cuts,
pauses, and cuts the rest. There is no problem of Shehiyah when the cut is
done by two separate people.
The Bach does not accept the Derishah's answer. He asserts that it is
possible that Shehiyah applies when two people slaughter as well.
Nevertheless, we can still infer from our Gemara that when a Jew cuts most
of the Simanim and a Nochri cuts the rest the Shechitah is valid, since a
Nochri is not warned against Shehiyah (that is, if he slaughters an animal
with Shehiyah, the animal is permitted to him), and thus he cannot render
a Shechitah invalid because of Shehiyah. Only when a Jew cuts the
remaining part of the Simanim, after a pause, is the Shechitah invalid.
2. The SHACH (YD 2:27) argues with the Bach's understanding of the
Derishah. The Gemara here makes no mention at all of any pause between the
Jew's act of cutting and the Nochri's act of cutting. How, then, can we
infer any Halachah about Shehiyah from our Gemara?
The Shach explains that the Derishah is asking a different question
altogether. The Derishah is asking that according to Rashi earlier (32a),
who rules that even though most of the Simanim were cut there is still a
problem of Shehiyah in the remaining minority of the Simanim, we should
say that even when one who is fit to slaughter (i.e. a Jew) cuts most of
the Simanim, and a Nochri cuts the rest, the Shechitah is invalid because
it is considered as though the Nochri performed the Shechitah.
The Derishah answers that the second act of cutting is considered
Shechitah only when one person does both parts of the Shechitah. Both
actions are called one action of Shechitah. However, when one person cuts
most of the Simanim and a second cuts the rest, there is no reason why the
second action should be called Shechitah. That act of cutting is no better
than cutting the leg of the animal. In contrast to the Bach, the Shach
understands that the Derishah might maintain that if the Nochri cuts the
last minority of the Simanim after the amount of time of Shehiyah has
passed, then he *would* render the Shechitah invalid. (Y. Montrose)
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that when one wants to eat meat from a
slaughtered animal before it completely dies (while it is still
quivering), he may cut some meat from where it was slaughtered, salt it
very well and rinse it very well, and wait to eat it until the animal
RASHI (DH Yafeh Yafeh) explains that meat from an animal that is
Mefarcheses must be salted and rinsed more than normal meat. Normally, at
the time that the animal completely dies after Shechitah, its life leaves
it entirely and its blood is forced out of the meat. When one takes meat
from the animal before its life leaves it entirely, there is more blood in
that meat, since the blood did not yet have a chance to leave the meat.
Rashi's comment is difficult to understand, because when the Gemara
earlier (113a) describes how ordinary meat should be salted, it uses the
same expression, "Salt it very well and rinse it very well"! Why, then,
does Rashi explain that meat from an animal that is Mefarcheses is salted
differently from other meat?
ANSWER: TOSFOS (33a, DH Molcho) and the RAN (7b of the pages of the Rif,
DH Echad) explain that the Gemara here is discussing one who wants to eat
meat of a Mefarcheses by roasting it, and not by cooking it. Tosfos proves
this from the fact that the Gemara does not say that the meat needs to be
washed before salting (which is required for cooking but not for
roasting). The Ran proves this from the fact that the Gemara says that one
must wait until the animal dies in order to eat the meat. If the person is
cooking the meat, then it is obvious that the animal is dead by the time
he eats the meat, because it takes a long time to prepare meat for cooking
(since it must be salted for a lengthy period) and to cook it. It must be
that the Gemara is discussing meat that one wants to roast, which takes
much less time to prepare.
However, if the meat is being roasted, then why must it be salted and
rinsed? Salting and rinsing it well is required only in order to cook it;
it is not necessary to salt and rinse meat that one wants to roast, since
roasting itself removes the blood from the meat (111a)! It must be that
the meat of a Mefarcheses is treated differently from ordinary meat, for
the reason that Rashi gives. (The Ran writes that it must be salted, even
though it is going to be roasted, because the meat was taken from the area
where the Shechitah was performed, and in that area there is a
concentration of blood.) (M. Kornfeld, Z. Wainstein)