POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 52
CHULIN 51-54 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
1) A BIRD THAT FELL (cont.)
(a) If a bird lands on any if the following, we are not
concerned for crushed limbs:
2) BROKEN RIBS
1. A garment that was doubled over (for then it cannot
be stretched tightly); the sides of bundles of flax;
legumes other than clover; peas.
(b) (Rav Ashi): If a bird's wings were glued (to a stick) and
it fell, we are not concerned;
2. The rule is - we are concerned if it fell on
something that is not smooth, not if it fell on
(c) (Ameimar): We are concerned.
(d) Version #1: If only one wing was glued, all agree that it
is Kosher; they argue when both wings were glued:
1. Ameimar says, it cannot fly at all, it is like an
animal that fell.
(e) Version #2: If both wings were glued, all agree that it
is like a fallen animal; they argue when one wing was
2. Rav Ashi says, it can flutter somewhat using the
base of the wings (where people cut them off the
bird), to soften the fall.
1. Rav Ashi says, it can fly somewhat using the unglued
(f) The Halachah is, if both wings were glued, it is like a
fallen animal; if one wing was glued, it is Kosher.
2. Ameimar says, since one wing is glued, it cannot fly
with the other wing, it is like a fallen animal.
(a) (Mishnah): If most of the ribs were broken.
(b) (Beraisa): If the majority were broken (it is Tereifah) -
this is six on each side, or even all 11 on one side, and
one on the other side.
1. (Ze'iri): A rib is considered broken only if it is
broken on the half closer to the spine.
(c) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): We consider the majority of the
large ribs that have marrow inside.
(d) (Ula): If the majority of ribs on one side were uprooted,
or the majority of both sides were broken, it is
(e) (R. Yochanan): In either case, we require a majority of
(f) (Rav): If one rib and the vertebra to which it is
attached are uprooted, it is Tereifah.
(g) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): What if the ribs on
both sides of a vertebra are uprooted, but the vertebra
itself is still attached?
(h) Answer (Rav): That is like an animal cut into two pieces
(it is Nevelah)!
1. Question: But also in Rav's case, it was cut into
(i) (Rabah bar Rav Shilo citing Shmuel): Any of the following
makes an animal Tereifah:
2. Answer: In Rav's case the rib was uprooted but the
vertebra was intact.
3. Objection: But Rav said, 'If one rib *and the
4. Answer: He meant, a rib and *part of* the vertebra
to which it is attached.
5. Question: If so, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked about
when the ribs alone are detached, and Rav said that
the animal is Nevelah;
i. But Ula taught, if the majority of ribs on one
side were uprooted (not just two), or the
majority of both sides were broken, it is
Tereifah (but not Nevelah)!
6. Answer: It is worse when two ribs of the same
vertebra are uprooted.
7. Question: But R. Yochanan said, if the majority of
the ribs on both sides are uprooted it is Tereifah -
this always includes two ribs on different sides of
the same vertebra!
8. Answer: R. Yochanan discusses when the vertebra is
complete; Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked about when
part of the vertebra is missing.
9. Question: If so, Rav's law answers their question!
10. Answer: They had not heard Rav's law.
11. Question: If so, they should rather have asked
regarding Rav's case (one rib is uprooted)!
12. Answer: It is better to ask about when two are
uprooted, for then one can derive the law when one
i. If they asked about one, and were told that it
is Tereifah, all the more so when two are
uprooted - but if they were told that it is
Kosher, they would not know the law regarding
13. Question: But if they will be told that it is
Tereifah, they will not know the law by one!
ii. Rather, they asked about two - if they will
hear that it is Kosher, all the more so when
one is uprooted.
14. Answer: They can learn from Rav's response:
i. If the law is that even one is Tereifah, Rav
will respond in anger (since their question
presumes that one is Kosher.)
15. Question: But indeed, (Rav holds that) even one is
Tereifah, but he did not respond angrily!
16. Answer: His amazement ('It is even Nevelah'!) is
equivalent to responding angrily.
1. A rib is uprooted from the spine; the majority of
the skull was crushed, or a problem in the flesh
covering the majority of the Keres.
(j) Question: This contradicts another teaching of Shmuel!
3) OTHER TEACHINGS OF SHMUEL
1. (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): If two vertebrae are
missing from the spine, the spine is not Metamei
(k) Answer: Here, Shmuel teaches that a detached rib makes a
Tereifah, even if the vertebra is intact; there, he
teaches that a missing vertebra makes a Tereifah, even if
the ribs are intact.
2. Beis Hillel say, even if one vertebra is missing it
is not Metamei b'Ohel.
3. (Shmuel): They argue similarly regarding how much
must be missing to make (a person or animal)
Tereifah (even without a rib being detached)!
(l) Question: Surely, a rib can be detached and the vertebra
is intact - but how can a vertebra be missing and the
ribs are intact?
(m) Answer: The lower vertebrae do not have ribs attached to
(n) Question (R. Oshiya): According to Shmuel, this Mishnah
should be taught among the Mishnayos in Maseches Idiyos
in which Beis Shamai are more lenient than Beis Hillel!
(o) Answer (Rava): They Mishnah was taught regarding Tum'ah,
with respect to Tum'ah Beis Shamai are more stringent.
(a) (Shmuel): If the majority of the skull was crushed it is
(b) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Does this refer to the majority
of the height, or the majority of the circumference?
1. This question is unresolved.
(c) (Shmuel): (A problem in) the flesh covering the majority
of the Keres is Tereifah.
(d) Question (Rav Ashi): Does he refer to the flesh being
torn, or missing?
1. Suggestion: We can learn from our Mishnah.
i. (Mishnah): If the majority of the outer Keres
was torn (it is Tereifah.)
2. Rejection: No, Shmuel explains the Mishnah
ii. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): The outer Keres is the
flesh covering the majority of the Keres (i.e.
Shmuel explains the Mishnah, he means, if it
i. (R. Yakov bar Nachmani citing Shmuel): The
outer Keres is the part without hair.
3. (Here, Shmuel teaches a Tereifah not explicit in the
Mishnah; we do not resolve our question.)
(a) (Mishnah): An animal Nidras (clawed and poisoned) by a
wolf (is Tereifah.)
(b) (Rav): A (venomous) animal at least like large like a
wolf is Matrif (makes Tereifah through Derisah) an
animal, a bird at least like large like a Netz (small
hawk or cuckoo?) is Matrif a bird.
(c) Question: What does Rav come to exclude?
1. Suggestion: Perhaps he excludes something Nidras by
(d) Answer #1: Rav argues with R. Binyamin, he says that R.
Yehudah argues with the first Tana.
2. Rejection: We already know this - the Mishnah says,
something Nidras by a wolf (implying, not by anyhing
3. Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah teaches that a wolf
is Matrif even a large animal (but animals smaller
than a wolf can Matrif small animals.)
4. Rejection (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): A wolf is Matrif
small animals, a lion is Matrif large animals (but a
wolf is not.)
5. Suggestion: That is R. Yehudah's opinion, but the
first Tana holds that a wolf is Matrif even large
6. Rejection: R. Binyamin bar Yefet taught, R. Yehudah
explains the first Tana.
(e) Answer #2: Really, the Mishnah teaches a wolf to exclude
1. Rav must teach this, so we should not think that the
Mishnah discusses a wolf because it is common.
(f) (Rav Amram): A cat or marten is Matrif a kid or lamb, a
weasel is Matrif a bird.
(g) Question (Beraisa): A cat, Netz or marten is not Matrif,
unless an interior organ was punctured (but the venom
will not kill it.)
1. Counter-question: Our Mishnah says that a Netz is
(h) Version #1 - Answer: Rav Chisda holds like Beribi.
2. Answer: A Netz is Matrif birds, not kids or lambs.
3. The question against Rav Chisda remains.
1. (Beraisa - Beribi): A cat is not Matrif when no one
saves its prey, but if someone saves its prey, it is
(i) Version #2 - Answer: The Beraisa is like Beribi.
2. Question: A case occurred which disproves this!
i. A cat was chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana's
house. The chicken closed a door in front of
the cat; the cat clawed the door, blood exuded
from all five claws (indicating venom)!
3. Answer: The chicken saved itself, this is like being
saved by a person.
4. Chachamim agree that it exudes venom (in such
situations), but they say that it is not Matrif.
1. (Beraisa - Beribi): A cat is Matrif when someone
saves its prey, but if not, it is not Matrif.
2. Question: A case occurred (with Rav Kahana's
chicken) that disproves this!
3. Answer: The chicken saved itself, this is like being
saved by a person.