ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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.
(a) Rav Ashi permits a bird that gets caught in a glue-trap and falls to the
ground. A glue-trap - comprises a board that is placed on a branch of a
tree, on which glue has been poured, and to which a bird that alights on it
(b) Ameimar - declares the bird Tereifah.
(c) They both agree that if only one wing of the bird is stuck, it is
Kasher - because it is able to flap the other one, thereby slowing down its
(d) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether it is able to slow down its
fall by flapping the tips of its wings (Rav Ashi) or not (Ameimar).
(a) The Ba'al Halachos Gedolos says - that the Din Bedikah, which Chazal
permitted in cases of Safek Tereifah (i.e. Nefulah, Shevurah and Derusah),
no longer applies, since we are not experts, like they used to be.
(b) We do not however, agree with him - because - (based on the Pasuk in
Shoftim "ve'el ha'Shofet Asher Yih'yeh ba'Yamim ha'Heim"), we have a
principle 'Ein le'Dayan Ela Mah she'Einav Ro'os' (one can rely on one's own
perception, and does not need to compare oneself to previous generations).
(c) Nevertheless, when making the necessary Bedikah - one should invite all
the Shochtim and other experts to verify one's inspection.
(a) Our Mishnah lists 'Nishtabru Rov Tzal'osehah' among the Tereifos. 'Rov
Tzal'osehah' comprises - either eleven ribs on one side plus one on the
other (or any such combination that adds up to twelve is [presumably] in
order), or all twelve ribs on one side.
(b) Both Rabah bar bar Chanah and Rebbi Yochanan qualify our Mishnah.
According to ...
1. ... Rabah bar bar Chanah, the fracture must take place - on the half of
the rib that is closest to the spine, for the animal to be Tereifah.
(c) Ula ben Zakai draws a distinction between where the ribs are merely
broken - where he applies the previous ruling, permitting the animal as long
as less than twelve ribs are broken, but declaring it Tereifah if six ribs
have been torn out from one side (even though all eleven ribs remain intact
on the other).
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, the fracture must involve - the large ribs which
contain marrow (to preclude the ribs of the chest at one end and the
thirteenth rib at the other end, which are all soft).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan - requires twelve ribs either way.
(a) According to Rav, one rib that has been torn out together with its
vertebra - is Tereifah.
(b) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav what the Din will be if the two
corresponding ribs (one on either side) have been torn out - he replied that
this is a case of Gistera, which is not only a Tereifah but a Neveilah (as
we already learned in the first Perek).
(c) We counter that seeing as, according to Rav, the rib together with its
vertebra is missing, then it is a Gistera according to him too - because a
rib cannot stand on its own (without a vertebra which attaches it to the
(d) We answer that - Rav is speaking when the rib plus half the vertebra has
been torn out from the spinal cord (and not the entire vertebra, as we
(a) We extrapolate from the previous statement that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi
are speaking when the two ribs were torn out without the vertebrae - because
if part of the vertebrae were torn out too, bearing in mind that according
to Rav, even if one of them had been torn out with its vertebra, the animal
would be Tereifah, and what is there She'eilah?
(b) We reconcile Rav Kahana and Rav Asi with Ula ben Zakai, who only
considers the animal Tereifah if the majority of ribs are torn out (though
he is talking about a majority on one side), and not just two - by pointing
out that when the two torn out ribs are the two corresponding ones, it is
worse than two, three, four or five, on one side.
(c) We then ask on Rav Asi and Rav Kahana from Rebbi Yochanan - who requires
the majority of ribs to be torn out from both sides, in which case it is
impossible for that not to include two corresponding ribs.
(d) We answer by establishing Rav Kahana and Rav Asi by Butane va'Asisa -
meaning that the two ribs are torn out together with half the vertebra
(Butane = pestle, and Asisa = mortar [and Rebbi Yochanan by Butane be'Lo
(a) The problem with establishing Rav Kahana and Rav Asi when the ribs were
torn out together with half the vertebrae is - that they are then speaking
about the same case as Rav.
(b) We reply that they asked Rav the She'eilah without having heard his
opinion, and the reason that they asked about two ribs that are torn out is
because - had they asked about one, and Rav had replied Kasher, they would
have had to ask him what the Din would be in the case of one.
(c) But now that they asked him about two, if he would answer 'Tereifah',
they would not need to ask him about one - because by virtue of his excited
tone of voice, they would understand that even one is Tereifah, so there was
no need to ask about two.
(d) He would not get excited in the case of one, to indicate that even two
is Kasher, so why ask about one - because it would not have bothered him if
they had believed that two is Tereifah (and it was only when they seemed to
think that one was Kasher that he became excited).
(e) Yes, they asked about two - and Rav's answer 'Gistera ka'Amrisu!' was an
indication of his excitement.
(a) Rabah bar Rav Shilo ... Amar Shmuel rules that a rib that is torn out
without the vertebra, a skull the majority of which is crushed, and the
flesh that covers the majority of the Keres - all render the animal
(b) We already cited the Machlokes regarding a Shedrah in an Ohel ha'Meis
that is missing one vertebra, which Beis Shamai declares Tamei, and Beis
Hillel, Tahor. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav states - 've'Chein li'Tereifah'.
Consequently, in the same case in a live animal, the animal will be Kasher
according to Beis Shamai, and Tereifah, according to Beis Hillel.
(c) This is no contradiction to Shmuel's previous ruling (which considers
one missing rib a Tereifah, but) which does not mention a missing vertebra -
because there he discusses the one, whilst here he discusses the other (in
fact, both are Tereifah).
(d) And it is possible for an animal to have a missing vertebra, yet all its
ribs are intact - with regard to the vertebrae (known as 'Kafli') which are
not attached to any ribs.
(e) Rav Oshaya asked why the above Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis
Hillel (regarding Tereifus) is not listed in Iduyos together with all the
cases where Beis Hillel is Machmir, and Beis Shamai, Meikel. Rava
replied - that this is because the She'eilah in Iduyos happened to have been
asked with regard to Tum'as Meis, where Beis Hillel is the one who is
Meikel, and Beis Shamai, Machmir.
(a) Shmuel's second ruling concerns a skull, the majority of which is
crushed. Rebbi Yirmiyah asks -whether 'the majority' means the majority of
the height or the majority of the circumference.
(b) And the outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos
(a) In his third ruling, Shmuel renders Tereifah an animal whose flesh that
covers the majority of the Keres is defected. Rav Ashi asks whether Shmuel
is referring even to where the flesh is just torn (and certainly to where it
is missing, or to where it is missing, (but not to where it is just torn).
(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's
interpretation of our Mishnah 'O she'Nikra Rov Chitzonah' - He interprets
'Rov Chitzonah' as 'Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres.
(c) We refute this proof however, by arguing that 'Midi Hu Ta'ama Ela
li'Shmuel'. The above explanation in 'Rov Chitzonah' is that of Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Chanina; whereas the She'eilah is in Shmuel, who does not learn the
Mishnah that way.
(d) According to him, 'Rov Chitzonah refers to - the area of the Keres that
is not covered with fluff, as Rebbi Ya'akov bar Nachmeini cites him.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comments on 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' and 'Derusas
ha'Netz' - 'min ha'Ze'ev u'Lema'alah, u've'Ofos, min ha'Netz u'Lema'alah.
(b) We refute the suggestion that ...
1. ... Rav Yehudah means to preclude a cat (whose poison is too weak to
render an animal Tereifah) - by citing our Mishnah 'u'Derusas ha'Ze'ev'
(from which we can already extrapolate that).
(c) We counter the argument that the Tana Kama cannot disagree with Rebbi
Yehudah, due to the fact Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes Amar Rebbi Ila'a (or Rebbi
Elazar) specifically states that Rebbi Yehudah comes to explain the Tana
Kama, and not to argue with him - since there is no reason why Rav should
not argue with Rebbi Ila'a.
2. ... the Tana mentions 'Ze'ev' to teach us that a wolf is Doreis even a
large animal - on the grounds that Rebbi Yehudah specifically states
'Derusas ha'Ze'ev be'Dakah' (in which case it must indeed come to preclude a
(a) The Tana in our Mishnah mentions 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' (according to Rav
Yehudah Amar Rav [not to exclude a Chasul, but]) - to teach us Derusas
ha'Ze'ev be'Gasah (not like Rebbi Yehudah).
(b) Alternatively, Rav Yehudah comes to preclude a cat (from rendering a
small animal a Tereifah). And as for 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' in our Mishnah, we
might have thought that the Tana mentions it (not to preclude a cat, but) -
because it is more common for a wolf to attack an animal than for a cat.
(a) Rav Chisda holds that a cat and a marten (Nemiyah) can be Doreis
kid-goats and lambs (Dakin she'be'Dakin). And according to what we just
said, 'Derusas ha'Ze'ev' of our Mishnah - refers to rams and sheep (Dakin).
(b) And he also rules - 'Derusas Chuldah (a weasel) be'Ofos'.
(c) We ask on Rav Chisda from a Beraisa 'Derusas Chasul, Netz u'Nemiyah ad
she'Tinakev le'Chalal' - implying that their claws cause no more damage than
a thorn (but that they do not poison the animals that they claw, a Kashya on
(d) We reconcile this Beraisa with 'Derusas ha'Netz' of our Mishnah - by
establishing the latter with regard to birds, whereas the former speaks with
regards to kid-goats and lambs.
(a) We answer the Kashya on Rav Chisda by establishing him like B'rivi in
another Beraisa - where he qualifies the ruling that there is no Derusah by
a Chasul - by confining it to where there is nobody trying to save the
animal from the cat, but where there is, the cat injects its venom into its
(b) This explains Rav Chisda - who is speaking in a case where someone is
trying to save the lamb or the kid from the cat's clutches.
(c) In the case where a cat was chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana's house, the
door slammed on the cat's paw, and they subsequently discovered - five drops
of blood on the door ...
(d) ... even though there was nobody saving the chicken in that case -
nevertheless, the chicken running away has the same effect.
(e) The Rabbanan, who argue with B'rivi (maintaining that even if there is
someone saving the animal, there is no Din Derusah by a cat) - will explain
that even though the cat does eject poison, it is not sufficiently potent to
poison its victim.
(a) Others establish the initial Beraisa 'Derusas Chasul ... ad she'Tinakev
le'Chalal' like Berivi, and the Tana is speaking - when there is nobody
trying to save the animal.
(b) In the case of the cat chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana's house, B'rivi
explains the five drops of blood on the door - exactly as he explained it
according to the first Lashon.
(c) Rav Chisda - then holds like the Chachamim, who in turn now ascribe
Derisah to a cat, even if nobody is trying to save the cat's victim.
(d) And according to Rav Chisda, our Mishnah specifically mentions 'Derusas
ha'Ze'ev' - because the Tana is speaking about sheep and rams.