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 100
CHULIN 100 - (11 Iyar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their
mother, ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (of Milwaukee).
1) THINGS THAT ARE NEVER "BATUL"
(a) (Mishnah): Similarly, a piece of Neveilah...
3) A PIECE BECOMES LIKE A "NEVEILAH"
(b) Question: It should be Batul to the majority!
(c) (A Mishnah teaches things that are sold by number are
never Batul (because they are important); Amora'im argue
about the text of the Mishnah.)
1. We understand according to the text 'Kol'
(everything) that it is normal to count (is
important, it is never Batul);
(d) Answer: A piece fitting to honor guests with is
important, it is never Batul.
2. But according to the text 'Es' (only what is
*always* counted), the piece should be Batul to the
(e) The Mishnah must teach both cases:
1. If it only taught that a Gid is never Batul, one
might have thought that this is because it is a
Briyah, but a piece can become Batul;
2. If we only heard that a piece of Neveilah is never
Batul, one might have thought that this is because
it is fitting to honor guests, but a Gid can become
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah): If a piece of Neveilah or of a
Tamei fish fell into a pot, it forbids the contents only
if the piece is big enough to give taste to the liquid,
sediments, and pieces of meat in the pot.
(b) (Rav): Once the Neveilah gives taste to another piece,
that piece is itself like a Neveilah, and it forbids all
the pieces, for they are the same Min.
(c) Question (Rav Safra): Rav's law is like R. Yehudah, who
holds that Min b'Mino is never Batul - even if the
Neveilah didn't give Ta'am to another piece, it would
forbid them all!
(d) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, the Neveilah was removed
from the pot before (some of) the other pieces were put
in, they did not absorb from it at all.
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): We can even explain when the Neveilah
was not removed from the pot;
4) IS THE "GID" OF A "TAMEI" ANIMAL FORBIDDEN?
1. Since the Neveilah is mixed with food of its own
type (pieces of meat) and other foods (the liquid
and sediments), we ignore its own type; (if there is
enough other food), the other food nullifies the
(a) (Mishnah): The prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh applies to
Tahor animals, not to Tamei animals;
(b) R. Yehudah says, it also applies to Tamei animals.
1. R. Yehudah: It was forbidden from the time of
Yakov's children, and Tamei animals were permitted
(c) (Gemara) Question: Does R. Yehudah really hold that Isur
Chal Al Isur (a prohibition takes effect even on
something that is already forbidden?!)
2. Chachamim: It only became forbidden when the Torah
was given at Sinai; it was written in the
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One might have thought if a
person eats Nivlas Of Tahor (he and) his clothes
(d) Answer #1: Really, R. Yehudah holds that the Gid has
taste; he holds that the Gid of a fetus is forbidden,
therefore, the Isurim of Gid and Tamei come
simultaneously, so both take effect.
i. "He will not become Tamei by eating a Neveilah
or Treifah" - the Tum'ah of eating applies only
to birds forbidden on account of Neveilah;
2. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yehudah holds that the Gid
ha'Nasheh has no taste (so the Isur of Tamei animals
does not apply to it, therefore the Isur Gid is
ii. It does not apply to Tamei birds, they are not
forbidden on account of Neveilah, rather,
because they are Tamei (i.e. the Isur of
Neveilah is not Chal on the Isur Tamei.)
3. Rejection: R. Yehudah holds that the Gid has taste!
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): One who eats the Gid of
a Tamei animal gets two sets of lashes;
ii. R. Shimon says, he is not lashed.
1. Question: Does R. Yehudah really forbid the Gid of a
(e) Objection: The Isurim do not come simultaneously!
i. (Mishnah): The prohibition of Gid applies to a
2. Answer: R. Yehudah only permits the Gid of a fetus
of a Tahor animal, about which it says "All that is
in the animal you may eat", but the Gid of a Tamei
fetus is forbidden.
ii. R. Yehudah says, it does not;
iii. The Chelev of a fetus is permitted.
1. (Mishnah): If a Nazir became Tamei through any of
the following, he must Megale'ach (shave, and bring
sacrifices and start Nezirus again):
(f) Answer #2: Indeed, the Isur Gid comes *after* the Isur
Tamei; it takes effect anyway, because the Gid was
forbidden to Benei No'ach (i.e. it is a more severe Isur
2. A Mes (corpse), a k'Zayis of a Mes...
i. Question: If he shaves for an olive's worth of
a Mes, there is no need to teach for a (full)
ii. Answer (R. Yochanan): The Chidush of a (full)
Mes applies to a Nefel (miscarriage) whose
limbs were not yet bound with Gidim.
iii. (Just like a human fetus is Metamei even before
it has Gidim, a fetus of a Tamei animal is
forbidden before it has Gidim)!
1. Support (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The Gid was forbidden
from the time of Yakov's children, and Tamei animals
were permitted to them!