ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 45
CHULIN 45 (Purim d'Mukafim) - sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with long years filled with
Torah, Chidushei Torah, and Nachas!
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that many tiny holes (resembling a sieve) on
the circumference of the Gargeres - combine to make up a Shi'ur of Rov.
(b) Rav Yirmiyah queries Rav Yehudah from a Beraisa which discusses the
Shiur of holes on a skull. The Shiur of a hole that negates the Tum'as Ohel
of a skull is - the size of the head of a doctor's awl.
(c) The Shi'ur the Tana now gives if ...
1. ... the hole is elongated instead of round - is if the missing flesh
would be the size of a doctor's awl if it was round.
(d) This a Kashya on Rav Yehudah - because by the same token, he ought to
combine the holes if they are the size of an Isar (which is the size that
renders Chesaron ha'Gargeres Tereifah), and not the Shi'ur of Rov, like Rav
2. ... there are many small holes is - that they combine to make up the size
of the head of a doctor's awl.
(a) Rav Yirmiyah it seems, forgot the ruling of Rebbi Chelbo ... Amar Rav -
who gave the Shi'ur of holes with a Chesaron (flesh missing) as the size of
an Isar, and holes without a Chesaron as Rov.
(b) Since the tiny holes in the case that Rav Yehudah is talking about do
not have a Chesaron, Rav Yirmiyah's Kashya is not really a Kashya at all.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules - that a thin strip of flesh that has been
removed from the length of the Gargeres (leaving a Chesaron) - combines to
make the animal Tereifah, if, rolled up, it has the Shi'ur of an Isar.
(d) Rebbi Yitzchal bar Nachmeini asked Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi what the Din
will be if the Gargeres was punctured like a sieve round the circumference,
to which he replied - with the distinction between holes with a Chesaron
(whose Shi'ur is an Isar) and holes without a Chesaron (whose Shi'ur is
Rov), made by Rebbi Chelbo.
(a) Regarding the equivalent case by a bird ('Nikvah ke'Nafah'), Rebbi
Yitzchak bar Nachmeni explained - that if after cutting round the area
containing the holes and turning it inside the neck at ninety degrees, it
covers the majority of the hole, the bird is Tereifah. If not, it is Kasher.
(b) The Si'man Rav Papa gave by which to remember that this is the Shi'ur
(and not that of an Isar or of Rov) is - that the holes resemble a sieve, so
one now places it inside the neck like a sieve.
(a) And the Shi'ur Rav ...
1. ... Nachman gives in a case where the Kaneh is cut on three sides in the
form of a door is - that an Isar (coin) fits on to the 'door'. A more
lenient ruling than a case of a hole with a Chesaron - because in this case,
there is no Chesaron.
(b) The Halachah is more lenient when the split is lengthwise than when it
is widthwise - because when the animal breathes, and the neck stretch one
way and the lungs draw the other way, a split widthwise tends to open more
(preventing it from healing), whereas a split lengthwise tends to narrow
(pulling it together).
2. ... gives in a case where the Kaneh is split lengthwise is - if not even
a Chulya (three rings [or one, according to some]) at either end remains
(c) Rebbi Yochanan queries - why Rav requires a Chulya at each end to
prevent the animal from becoming a Tereifah, when a Mashehu will suffice.
(d) When they told him that Rebbi Yonasan echoed his own opinio - he praised
the 'Babylonian' (Rebbi Yonasan, who moved to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel), for
knowing how to explain this ruling properly.
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef quoting a Beraisa in front of Rebbi Yochanan, gave
the location of Shechitah as from the Taba'as ha'Gedolah right down to the
lower lobe of the lung. This ruling is not Halachah however - because it
follows the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, whereas we rule like
Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who permits Shechting beyond that point, as far
as the Shipuy Kova.
(b) Rava explains 'lower' in this case to mean - when the animal is hanging
with its head downwards (which in fact, would be on top if one was holding
(c) This does not constitute the end of the Kaneh - which extends up to the
point where the lobes join.
(a) Rava explains 'lower' in this way, and not when one is holding the Kaneh
in one's hand - because he only permits Shechting the part of the Kaneh that
becomes exposed when the animal grazes (incorporating the part that runs
between the first lobes), but not the rest (i.e. the part of the Kaneh that
runs beyond the first lobes).
(b) He warns the Shochet - not to pull the head manually, to extend the
Kaneh still further (in order to Shecht it at that point).
(c) Regarding the part of the Kaneh that is exposed when the animal
stretches its neck whilst it is being Shechted (see also Tosfos DH 'Ansah
Atzmah') - Rebbi Chanina (or Rebbi Chananya) asks whether that extra section
is included or not, and we remain with 'Teiku' (which, like all Sefeikos min
ha'Torah, we rule Lechumra).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish between them arrive at the conclusion
1. ... in a case where the Shochet stretches the Kaneh before Shechitah -
the animal is Tereifah.
2. ... the Shi'ur Tereifus regarding a hole in the area of the Kaneh beyond
the chest is (not be'Rov like a hole [which is not Chaser] in the Gargeres,
but) - be'Mashehu.
(a) A Beraisa defining the Chazah (the chest), gives as the lowest part, the
section that 'sees the ground'. One extremity is the neck, the other - the
(b) What are the ramifications of this definition?
(c) Before giving it to the Kohen - one cuts of the first two ribs on either
side of the Kaneh and gives it to him together with the Chazeh.
(a) Rav and Shmuel both confine Nikav K'rum shel Mo'ach (which our Mishnah
lists as Tereifah), to the upper membrane (that is attached to the inside of
the skull), even though the soft, lower membrane is still whole. According
to others however - the animal is only a Tereifah if both membranes are
(b) To remind us that the lower membrane exists, even though it is extremely
thin, Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni gives, as a Siman - 'the sack which encases
(c) Bearing this in mind, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi
cites - the membranes of the testicles with which to compare the two
membranes of the brain.
(d) The major distinction between the two membranes of the brain and the two
membranes of the testicles is - that the latter excludes the sack that
encases them both, whereas in the former, the upper membrane is itself the
(a) The difference between the Shi'ur Tereifus of the brain and that of the
spinal corn is - that whereas in the case of the former, a hole the size of
a Mashehu renders it a Tereifah, in the case of the latter, it only becomes
a Tereifah if the majority breaks.
(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi ... in the name of bar Kaparah, defines the border
between the two as - where it begins to flow from the 'dish' (shaped brain).
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni quoting Rebbi Yehoshua ban Levi, cites the
two glands that divides between the brain and the spinal cord - because what
is within the glands is considered brain, and what is without, spinal cord.
(d) He is not at first sure to which of the two the actual glands pertain.
He concludes however - that they have the Din of the brain, and he bases his
conclusion on logic.
(e) When (presumably for the first time), Rebbi Yirmiyah examined a bird, he
discovered the two glands on top of the 'dish'.
(a) Our Mishnah includes a hole in the heart that reaches the cavity. Abaye
tries to resolve Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah (whether this refers to the large
cavity or to one of the smaller cavities), from a statement by Rabah bar
Tachlifa ... Amar Rav, who established Rebbi Shimon's ruling in our Mishnah
'ad she'Tinakev (ha'Rei'ah) le'Beis ha'Simponos' - specifically by the large
(b) Rebbi Zeira refutes Abaye's proof however - on the grounds that whereas
'le'Beis ha'Simponos' of Rebbi Shimon implies the main central bronchi (into
which all other bronchi pour), 'le'Beis Chalalo' in our case implies any of
the cavities (otherwise, the Tana ought to have said 'le'Beis ha'Chalalim').
(c) Rav renders an animal with the smallest hole in the 'Kaneh ha'Leiv' a
Tereifah - Shmuel requires Rov.
(d) Rabah bar Yitzchak Amar Rav interprets Kaneh ha'Leiv as the Cheilev on
the walls. He cannot be referring to the sides of the animal - because life
is not dependent upon them, in which case a hole there would not render the
(e) What he therefore refers to is - the fat-covered 'pipe' that runs
between the walls (i.e. the two sides) of lungs.
(a) Ameimar citing Rav Nachman lists three such Kanim that branch off from
the Kaneh after it enters the chest area. One of them runs into the heart,
another into the lungs, and the third - into the liver.
(b) We just learned that Rav and Shmuel argue over the Shi'ur Tereifus of a
hole in the Kaneh ha'Leiv. The difference between the Shi'ur Tereifus of a
hole in the Kaneh ha'Rei'ah and that of a hole in the Kaneh ha'Kaved,
according to ...
1. ... the first Lashon is - that the former is like the lung itself (a
Mashehu), whereas the latter is like the Shi'ur of the liver (which is only
Tereifah if the entire organ is missing).
(c) The proof that the Halachah is like the first Lashon lies in the fact -
that Rebbi Yochanan concurs with it, when he rules (in connection with the
Kaneh ha'Rei'ah) 'Nikvah le'Matah min ha'Chazeh, Nidon ke'Rei'ah' (as we
learned on the previous Amud).
2. ... the second Lashon is - that the Kaneh ha'Rei'ah has the same Din as
the liver, and the Kaneh ha'Kaved, as that of the lung.
(a) When they first told Shmuel of Rav's ruling regarding a hole in the
Kaneh ha'Leiv - he exclaimed that if that is what Rav held, then he knew
nothing about Tereifus. He had previously been unaware of Rav's opinion -
because whereas Rav was Rosh Yeshivah in Sura, he was Rosh Yeshivah in
(b) According to some texts, Shmuel referred to Rav as 'Aba Chaveri' (in
which case, Aba was Rav's name). According to the version that reads just
'Aba' (which besides being a name is also a respectful title), Shmuel
referred to him by that name - out of respect, because Rav was greater than
(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa, gives the Shi'ur Tereifus of the Chut ha'Shedrah as
'Nifsak be'Rubo'. Rebbi Ya'akov says - that even a small hole renders the
animal a Tereifah.
(b) When an animal was brought before Rebbi with a spinal cord that had a
hole in it - he ruled that it was Tereifah (like Rebbi Ya'akov).
(c) Rav Huna nevertheless rules - like Rebbi that it is Kasher).
(a) Rav Huna interprets 'Rubo' as Rov Oro (the majority of the circumference
of the skin). Others interpret it as - Rov Mocho (the majority of the marrow
that runs along it).
1. The second opinion holds - that if Rov Mocho renders the animal Tereifah,
how much more so Rov Oro (since ultimately, all the marrow will leak out).
(c) When Rav Nasan bar Avin saw Rav check first for Rov Oro and then, when
he found the skin intact, for Rov Mocho, he commented - that if Rov Oro is
intact, the spinal cord requires no further examination.
2. The first opinion holds - that Rov Mocho does not render the animal a
Tereifah (as Nivli specifically cited on the name of Rav).
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi declares an animal
whose spinal cord is either Nismarech or Nismasmes, Tereifah.
1. 'Nismarech' means - where the marrow has liquefied to the point that, if
there was a hole in the skin, it would leak out.
(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah could not just present the case of Nismasmes, and
allow us to extrapolate Mismarech from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because we would
then translate Nismasmes as Nismarech (and declare what we now call
2. ... 'Nismasmes' means - where it has become sufficiently soft that if one
were to hold it in one's hand in a vertical position, the small part that
protrudes would bend and fold over (even though it would not leak, if there
was a hole).
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks about an animal with a heavy spinal cord, and
remains with a 'Teiku'. His She'eilah is - whether, assuming that the
spinal cord could not stand vertically (as we just explained regarding a
soft spinal cord), due to its heaviness, that is an illness that renders the
animal a Tereifah, or not.
(d) The current cases (assuming that they are Tereifah) belong - to the
category of 'Nifsak ha'Chut' (either because in the end, Chazal anticipate
that this is what is going to happen, or because it itself is considered
(a) Bei Rav rules 'Nismasmes Pasul, Nismazmez Kasher'. 'Nismazmez' means -
that some of the marrow has emptied from the spinal cord.
(b) Bei Rav needs to repeat 'Nismasmes, Pasul' - to avoid the misconception
that 'Nismazmez' is equivalent to 'Mismasmes', and that Bei Rav is coming to
argue with Rabah bar bar Chanah.
(c) Bei Rav amend the Beraisa 'Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Omer, Nismazmez
Mochah, Tereifah' to read - 'Mismasmes Mochah Tereifah'.
(a) When Levi saw someone bang his head violently in the bathhouse, he
commented - 'Nismazmez Mocho de'Dein' (this man's head is Nismazmez).
(b) According to Bei Rav, he did not mean that the man was Tereifah - but
that he was unable to conceive children.
(c) The spinal cord extends - as far as the tail.
(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that the Din Tereifus applies only up
to the Bein ha'Parshos - comprising an area towards the back of the spinal
cord from which pairs of nerves branch off on either side.
(e) The first pair of nerves branch off - to the thighs.
(a) When Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak brought Rav Yehudah a fat goat (Shechted and
cut open) to demonstrate the location of Bein ha'Parshos, he was unable to
do so - because the animal was so fat, that the fat covered over the cord,
which, due to its whiteness, would otherwise have been visible through the
(b) Rav Yehudah was too busy to cut the animal open and show Rav Dimi what
he needed to know on the inside.
(c) So Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak - brought Rav Yehudah another goat, but this
time, a particularly scrawny one ...
(d) ... so that Rav Yehudah was still unable to show him the Beis
ha'Parshos - because the sciatic nerve pressing against the flesh caused it
to press against the marrow, making the branches very thin and indiscernible
from the outside.
(a) So he taught him the principle 'ad Achas, Tereifah, Shelishis, Tereifah
... ' by which he meant - that at the point where the first pair of nerves
branch off it is definitely subject to Tereifus, whereas at the point of the
third pair, it is definitely not.
(b) And he concluded 'Sheniyah Eini Yode'a'.