ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 83
CHULIN 81-84 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama sentences someone who eats two Gid
ha'Nashehs from two different animals, to two sets of Malkos. By 'two Gid
ha'Nashehs from two different animals' he means - the two right Gidin, like
Rebbi Yehudah, who restricts the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh to the right Gid.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah himself however, disagrees with that ruling. He
maintains - that one only receives one set of Malkus.
(c) The Beraisa cannot be speaking when he ate one Gid after the other with
two warnings - because on what grounds would Rebbi Yehudah argue with that?
(d) Rav Yosef tries to prove from there - that seeing as we are talking
about eating them in one go with one warning, the author must be Sumchus (as
we have explained many times in the Sugya), a proof that Sumchus renders
Chayav two Malkiyos even when they do not come from two bodies.
(a) We refute Rav Yosef's proof, by establishing the Beraisa even in a case
where he ate the Gidin one after the other, and the reason that Rebbi
Yehudah sentences him to only one set of Malkos is - because the Tana speaks
when one of the Gidin is less than a k'Zayis.
(b) The Mishnah cannot be speaking when neither Gid comprises a 'k'Zayis -
because that would entail combining the two half-k'Zeisim, which is not
possible, since they must have been eaten outside the time limit of 'K'dei
Achilas P'ras' apart (otherwise, it would not be considered 'one after the
(c) The Tana Kama, on the other hand - considers a Gid to be a Beryah (a
complete entity), for which one is Chayav even if it is less than a
(a) Four times a year our Mishnah obligates someone who sells a Kasher
animal to inform the purchaser that he already sold its mother or its child.
The reason that he is Chayav then, and not during the rest of the year is -
because on those days specifically, people tend to purchase animals in order
to Shecht them for the big Se'udos that they inevitably serve the following
(b) One of those occasions is Erev Shemini Atzeres (i.e. Hosha'ana Rabah) -
because Shemini Atzeres is an independent Yom-Tov, and people tend to reach
high levels of Simchah on it (and we have a principle 'Ein Simchah Ela
(c) Two of the remaining three days are Erev Pesach and Erev Shavu'os, the
third is - Erev Rosh Hashanah (see Tosfos DH 'u'che'Divrei' as to why Erev
Succos is not included in the four days).
(d) The fifth day the Tana adds in the Galil, according to Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili is - Erev Yom Kipur. According to the other Tana'im, they would eat
fowl on that day (see Tosfos DH 'u'che'Divrei')?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the above ruling - by confining it to where the
seller sold the first animal earlier on that same day, but if he sold it
before that, he is not obligated to inform the purchaser ...
(b) ... except for when he sells the mother to the Chasan after selling the
child to the Kalah (or vice-versa), in which case, the obligation remains
intact in any case.
(c) The other ruling that our Mishnah issues with regard to the above four
occasions is - that the owner is obligated to Shecht the animal, even on
behalf of one solitary purchaser who only bought a Dinar's-worth of meat.
(d) As a result - should the animal die before the owner has had a chance to
Shecht it, the purchaser loses his money.
(a) Someone who buys an animal on any of the four specified dates - is not
obligated to make inquiries as to whether the owner already sold the mother
or the child of the animal earlier that day.
(b) The Tana deliberately refers to having sold the mother to the Chasan and
the child to the Kalah (and not vice-versa) - based on the Minhag for the
Chasan to prepare the bulk of the Chasunah Se'udah.
(c) Bearing in mind that money does not acquire (Metaltelin), the problem
with the latter ruling in the Mishnah, (which renders the purchaser liable
to lose his Dinar should the animal die) is - that since he did not make a
Kinyan, what makes him liable to bear the loss?
(d) And we know that the Tana is speaking in a case where he did not make a
Kinyan (in spite of Rav Huna Amar Rav, who tries to establish the Mishnah
when he did indeed, perform Meshichah) - because if he did, he ought also to
lose his money during the rest of the year.
(a) Consequently, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak establishes the Mishnah where
the owner appointed a third person (without consulting the customer) to
acquire the Dinar's-worth of the animal on behalf of the purchaser - a
Z'chus (merit) on any of the four specified days, but a Chov (a liability)
during the rest of the year. And we have a principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo
be'Fanav, Aval Ein Chavin Ela be'Fanav' (One can acquire a merit on
someone's behalf even without his knowledge, but can only create a liability
for him with his consent).
(b) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah when no Kinyan
was made other than the money that the purchaser paid the seller, only - on
the four special occasions, when it is a Mitzvah to eat meat, the Chachamim
reinstated the Torah-law that money acquires, but not during the rest of the
(c) Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning, that although min ha'Torah,
paying for an article acquires it, the Rabbanan decreed that it should not.
1. ... source for the Torah law is - the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection
with Hekdesh) "Ve'nasan ha'Kesef Ve'kam Lo".
2. ... reason for the Rabbanan's decree is - because they were afraid that
if Reuven gives Shimon money for wheat that is lying in a storehouse, let us
say, and a fire subsequently breaks out before Shimon has had a chance to
remove it, Shimon will not take the trouble to extinguish the fire, since
its contents do not belong to him anyway. If, on the other hand, Reuven had
made Meshichah, he would probably have moved the wheat to his own storehouse
at the same time.
(a) Our Mishnah defines the day with regard to 'Oso v'Es Beno' as - the
twenty-four hour period beginning with the night.
(b) ben Zoma learns it from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yom Echad" "Yom Echad" -
from the creation (in Parshas Bereishis), where the Torah writes "Va'yehi
Erev, Va'yehi Voker".
(c) If not for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', we might have thought that the night
ought to follow the day - because 'Oso v'Es Beno' is written next to
Kodshim, where the night follows the day ...
(d) ... as the Torah writes in Tzav (in connection with the Korban Todah)
"be'Yom Korbano Ye'achel, Lo Yani'ach Mimenu ad Boker".
(e) What additional D'rashah does Rebbi also Darshens from "Yom Echad" of
Oso v'Es Beno (implying a special occasion ['Yom Meyuchad']) - that there
are some 'special days' on which the owner is obligated to announce that he
already sold the animal's mother or child (as we learned in the previous
***** Hadran Alach 'Oso v'Es Beno' *****
***** Perek Kisuy ha'Dam *****
(a) Although Kisuy ha'Dam has nothing to do with the land, our Mishnah
informs us that it applies even in Chutz la'Aretz, and even not in the time
of the Beis Hamikdash - because the Tana wants to add 'be'Chulin Aval Lo
(b) It applies - to (Kasher) Chayos and birds.
(c) The basic difference between this Mitzvah and that of Shilu'ach ha'Kein
is - that whereas the latter pertains only to birds that one has not
prepared, the former pertains both to those that one has prepared and to
those that one has not.
(a) The Tana needs to inform us that the blood of a Coy requires Kisuy -
because it is a Safek Beheimah, Safek Chayah (as we have already learned).
(b) And he adds that - one should not Shecht it on Yom-Tov (since perhaps it
requires Kisuy, which is a Melachah), but that if one did, one must leave
the blood uncovered (since one may not break Yom-Tov mi'Safek).
(a) Rebbi Zeira learns from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es Damo Ve'chisahu
*be'Afar*" - that the blood needs to be covered both underneath and on top.
(b) Based on Rebbi Zeira's D'rashah, the problem with Shechting a Korban Of,
and covering its blood, assuming that one ...
1. ... negates the earth that one spreads underneath the bird is - that one
is adding to the Mizbe'ach (bearing in mind that the Beis-Hamikdash was
built according to the exact specifications that Hashem taught David, as
recorded in Divrei Hayamim), to which one may not add, and from which one
may not detract.
2. ... did not negate the earth that one spread underneath the bird - then
it is a Chatzitzah (an interruption between the blood and the wall of the
Mizbe'ach (and the Pasuk writes in Vayikra "ve'Nimtzah Damo al Kir
(c) Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef rules in a Beraisa, that someone who Shechts ...
1. ... a Chayah and then a Beheimah (so that the blood of the latter covers
the former) - he is Patur from Kisuy ha'Dam.
(d) But that is only because (based on the principle 'Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah
Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo ... ') - it was initially possible to have spread
earth underneath the blood of the Chayah. The blood of a Korban Of on the
other hand, where this is not possible (as we just explained), is not
subject to Kisuy ha'Dam at all.
2. ... a Beheimah and then a Chayah (so that the blood of the Chayah is on
top) - the latter requires Kisuy ha'Dam.
(a) We suggest another way of covering the blood of a Korban Of, based on a
Mishnah later in the Perek. The Tana there rules that blood that sticks to
the Shechitah knife is subject to Kisuy ha'Dam, which one achieves - by
scraping it off the knife and dropping it to the ground.
(b) By the same token, one can do that to the blood of a Chatas ha'Of.
Consequently, when the Tana says 'Aval Lo be'Mukdashin' - he is referring
(not to Kodshei Mizbe'ach, but) to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis ...
(c) ... which are not subject to Kisuy ha'Dam - because they are Asur
be'Hana'ah (and therefore will not be eaten).