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 123-125 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) "UNTIL THE GROUND"
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yirmeyah (end of 123b) challenges the view of Reish Lakish
from the Mishnah in Kelim (5:7). The Mishnah says that in order to be
Metaher an oven that became Tamei, one must break it into three parts and
scrape off the plaster, "until the ground." What does the Mishnah mean
when it says "until the ground"?
(a) The RASH in Kelim and RASHI here (DH Ad) explains that the Mishnah
means that the plaster around the oven must be removed until ground level.
(b) The Rash there suggests further that when one breaks the oven into
three pieces, the cracks must reach all the way down to the ground. It is
not sufficient to crack the oven partially.
(c) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos to Kelim) explains that the plaster
underneath the oven must be removed until the oven itself rests on the
The VILNA GA'ON in Kelim adds that the Rambam's explanation best fits the
wording of the Mishnah, because the Mishnah says, "Ad *she'Yehei*
ba'Aretz," using the masculine form of "it will be" -- "she'Yehei." The
word "Tanur" (oven) is masculine, while "Tefeilah" (plaster) is feminine.
QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the hide of an animal that has a k'Zayis
of meat (of Neveilah) attached to it. The Mishnah says that one who
touches a "Tziv" that protrudes from the meat, or a hair that is opposite
the meat, becomes Tamei. RASHI (DH Tziv) explains that a Tziv is a strand
of flesh protruding from the meat, that is loosely attached to the meat.
The Tziv itself does not contain a k'Zayis of meat, but it makes someone
who touches it become Tamei because it is attached to the piece of meat
that is a k'Zayis.
3) "EVEN IF YEHOSHUA BIN NUN WOULD HAVE TOLD ME THIS"
Rashi's explanation of the Mishnah is difficult to understand. If the
point of the Mishnah is to teach that the Tziv causes a person who touches
it to become Tamei even though it is only loosely attached to the original
piece of meat, then why does the Mishnah need to discuss a case of *hide*
that has a k'Zayis of meat on it? It would have sufficed for the Mishnah
to say merely that one who touches a Tziv that protrudes from a k'Zayis of
Tamei meat becomes Tamei! Why does the Mishnah need to mention the hide at
Moreover, why does the Mishnah need to teach that the Tziv conveys Tum'ah?
In every case in which a person touches Tum'ah, the person needs only to
touch part of the Tum'ah and not the entire quantity of the Tamei item.
Why is touching a Tziv different from touching any other part of the meat?
(a) The TIFERES YAKOV answers that there certainly is no novelty in saying
that a strip protruding from Tamei meat also causes one to become Tamei.
What, then, is the Chidush of the Mishnah? We know that the hide is
Mevatel any attached meat that is less than a k'Zayis, as the Gemara says
later. Rebbi Akiva (124b) even maintains that when there are two pieces of
meat attached to the hide that, when combined, equal a k'Zayis of meat,
the hide is still Mevatel the meat. The Mishnah therefore teaches us that
although small pieces of meat are nullified by the hide, when a small
piece of meat (a Tziv) is attached to a piece of meat that is a k'Zayis,
it retains its identity and is not nullified. This also explains why the
Mishnah discuss meat attached to a hide; the whole point of the Mishnah is
to teach that, in this case, the hide does not annul the small piece of
(b) The Tiferes Yakov suggests another explanation. The hide, in the
Mishnah's case, might be supporting the meat as well as the Tziv. If the
skin would be peeled away, the Tziv would also be separated from the
k'Zayis piece of meat. We might have thought that since the Tziv's entire
connection to the meat is only due to the skin, it is not considered
connected to the meat, and thus one who touches it does not become Tamei.
The Mishnah, therefore, teaches that it is still considered part of the
(c) The Tiferes Yakov points out that he gives these two explanations only
in order to explain the Mishnah according to Rashi's interpretation of
"Tziv." If not for Rashi's interpretation, he would have suggested that
the Tziv is actually strips of the *skin* which are on the same side as
the meat. He says that this is apparently the interpretation of the RAMBAM
(in Perush ha'Mishnayos). Accordingly, the Mishnah is teaching the novel
law that touching a strip of skin located near the meat makes one Tamei as
though he touched the meat itself. The Tiferes Yakov favors this
explanation. (Y. Montrose)
QUESTION: The Gemara relates that there were times at which Rebbi Oshiya
found Rebbi Ami teaching the statement of Ula in the name of Rebbi
Yochanan with regard to the end of the Mishnah. When Rebbi Oshiya asked
Rebbi Ami that the statement of Ula in the name of Rebbi Yochanan was said
with regard to the first part of the Mishnah, Rebbi Ami replied,
"ha'Elokim! Even if Yehoshua bin Nun would have told me this, I would not
have paid attention to him!"
If Rebbi Ami wanted to emphasize that he did not accept that Rebbi
Yochanan's statement was said with regard to the beginning of the Mishnah,
then why did he mention only Yehoshua bin Nun? He should have said, "Even
if *Moshe Rabeinu* would have told me this..."!
ANSWER: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 242:36) rules that a person is punished
with Malkus (d'Rabanan) for saying to his friend, "Even if you would be
Moshe Rabeinu, I would not agree with you!" Such talk is considered a
disgrace to Moshe Rabeinu.
The VILNA GA'ON (YD 242:82) explains that the Shulchan Aruch's ruling is
derived from our Gemara, in which the Amora'im mention only Yehoshua, and
not Moshe Rabeinu.
The TAZ (YD 242:20) explains that the source in the Torah that it is
disrespectful to Moshe Rabeinu to say to someone, "Even if you would be
Moshe Rabeinu...," is the verse, "No prophet ever arose in Yisrael like
Moshe" (Devarim 34:10).
4) COMBINING TWO HALF "K'ZEISIM" TO CAUSE "TUM'AH"
QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan says that Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Dosa are of
the same opinion with regard to combining partial Shi'urim of object to
cause Tum'ah. The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Ohalos (3:4) in which Rebbi
Dosa says that two half-k'Zeisim of a Mes that enter a house do not
combine to make the house Tamei with Tum'as Ohel.
How can Rebbi Yochanan say that Rebbi Yishmael agrees with Rebbi Dosa?
Rebbi Yishmael rules that two such pieces do combine to make one who
carries them Tamei with Tum'as Masa, since they are both being carried at
once. Accordingly, Rebbi Yishmael should also maintain that two half
k'Zeisim that are under the same roof combine to be Metamei with Tum'as
(a) The RASHBA (DH Ha), quoting the RA'AVAD, explains that carrying two
half-k'Zeisim of a Mes can be done in a single act of carrying. However,
when two pieces of Mes are under one ceiling, a different part of the
ceiling is covering each one, and it is as though they are under two
different ceilings. RASHI (DH Metaher) mentions a similar line of
(b) TOSFOS (DH Ein) explains that with regard to carrying parts of a Mes,
the Gemara says that we derive from a verse (Vayikra 11:25; note that the
verse is not quoted accurately by the Gemara or Tosfos) that two
half-k'Zeisim can be combined to create Tum'ah. Since the verse does not
mention Tum'as Ohel, we cannot derive from the verse that two
half-k'Zeisim combine with regard to Tum'as Ohel.