ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 89
CHULIN 86-90 - 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) According to Rava, for Avraham Avinu's words to the King of S'dom ...
1. ... "Im mi'Chut" - his descendants merited the Techeiles thread of
(b) The reward inherent in ...
2. ... "ve'ad Seroch Na'al" - they merited the strap of the Tefilin.
1. ... the strap of the Tefilin (shel Rosh) is - that when the nations of
the world will see the Tefilin shel Rosh, they will be afraid of Yisrael, as
the Pasuk writes in Ki Savo "Ve'ra'u Kol Amei ha'Aretz ki Sheim Hashem Nikra
(c) Rebbi Aba states that - even great Tzadikim cannot achieve atonement for
theft that has been used up ...
2. ... the thread of Techeiles is - that by virtue of the fact that it
resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky, the sky, the dark-blue
sapphire brick (which Hashem took from the walls that Yisrael built in
Egypt), and the sapphire brick, the Kisei ha'Kavod.
(d) ... and he learns it from Avraham Avinu, who insisted on the men who
fought with him against the four kings, keeping their portion of the spoil,
despite his own firm refusal to accept any of the spoil for himself.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan, quoting Rebi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon declared - that one
should pay close attention to anything that Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili said in the realm of Agadah.
(b) The latter interpreted the Pasuk "Lo me'Rubchem mi'Kol ha'Amim Chashak
Hashem Bachem" to mean - that it was not on account of their great numbers
that Hashem desired them.
(c) In fact, Hashem's desire for Yisrael is based on the fact that they
respond to greatness by making themselves small, as the Pasuk concludes
there - "ki Atem ha'Me'at mi'Kol ha'Amim" (see Rashi on the Torah).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan gives three examples of Jews who reacted to greatness in
this way. And he quotes ...
1. ... Avraham Avinu - who responded to greatness with the comment "I am
dust and ashes".
2. ... Moshe and Aharon - who responded with "And what are we"?
3. ... David ha'Melech - who responded with "And I am a worm and not a man".
(a) Rava (or Rebbi Yochanan) - comments that the "Nachnu Mah" of Moshe and
Aharon reflects a higher level of humility than the 'Anochi Afar va'Eifer"
of Avraham, since it constitutes total self-nullification.
(b) Not so, the nations of the world. For the greatness that Hashem granted
1. ... Nimrod, the response He received was - the 'Tower of Bavel' (a
rebellion against Himself).
2. ... Paroh - the latter asked Moshe 'Who is Hashem, that I should obey His
(c) Sancheriv (King of Ashur) boasted that there was no-one among the gods
of the nations that could match him, and Nevuchadnetzar (King of Bavel),
that he would float above the world in a thick cloud - whilst Chiram (King
of Tzor [Tyre]) boasted that he had made himself seven copper heavens (by
means of witchcraft), and sat above them.
(d) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Nachnu Mah" and the Pasuk "Toleh Eretz al
B'limah", Rava (or Rebbi Yochanan) - states that the whole world was only
created for the sake of Moshe and Aharon (who totally submitted themselves
(a) According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Ila'a, based on the same Pasuk ("Toleh Eretz al B'limah") the
world was created for people - who 'keep their mouths shut' during the
course of a quarrel, because the acronym of "B'limah" is 'Bolem Iv' (keeping
[one's mouth] shut).
(b) What the Pasuk means is that - it is those people who are always trodden
underfoot who are the power behind the world's continued existence.
2. ... Rebbi Avahu, based on the Pasuk "u'mi'Tachas Zero'os Olam', the world
was created for people - who consider themselves non-existent.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak interprets the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ha'Umnam Eilem" to mean - that in truth a person's occupation in
this world is to keep one's mouth shut (Ileim = dumb).
2. ... "Tzedek Tedaberun" to mean - that words of Torah are precluded from
3. ... "Meisharim Tishpotu" means - that one should make sure to remain
humble in the process.
(a) The problem with Rebbi Ze'ira (or Rabah bar Yirmiyah), who permits
performing Kisuy ha'Dam with the ashes of an Ir ha'Nidachas is - that, based
on the Pasuk there "ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah ... ", everything in an
Ir ha'Nidachas is Asur be'Hana'ah, so how can one use it for anything?
(b) Ze'iri answers that Rebbi Ze'ira is referring to the burned earth of the
city. The earth is not subject to the Mitzvah of burning, since it first
needs to be detached, and (based on the Pasuk "ve'es Kol She'lalah Tikbotz
el Toch Rechovah Ve'sarafta ... "), the Torah includes only what requires
'gathering and burning', and not what needs detaching, too).
(c) Rava circumvents the Kashya altogether, with the basic
principle -'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' (a benefit that consists purely of
a Mitzvah is not considered Hana'ah in this regard).
(a) The Beraisa rules that a Shofar and a Lulav of Avodah-Zarah - may not be
used for their respective Mitzvos.
(b) Assuming that the Tana speaks even Bedieved - Rav Rechumi asks Ravina
from there on Rava, according to whom there is no reason not to be Yotzei.
(c) To answer the Kashya, Ravina establishes the Beraisa - Lechatchilah, but
one is Yotzei Bedi'eved.
(d) According to Rava, it is forbidden Lechatchilah - because it is
disgusting to perform a Mitzvah with an object that was used for
(a) Rav Ashi circumvents the Kashya on Rava altogether - by presenting the
principle of 'Kitusi Michtas Shi'ura' meaning that seeing as Avodah-Zarah
must be burned, it is considered as if it has already been burned, in which
case the Shofar and the Lulav no longer have the required Shi'ur.
***** Hadran Alach 'Kisuy ha'Dam' *****
(b) This principle will not apply by the case of Ir ha'Nidachas - where the
more broken up the earth is, the better.
***** Perek Gid ha'Nasheh *****
(a) Our Mishnah lists the circumstances ('ba'Aretz u've'Chutzah la'Aretz ...
') under which the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applies. In fact - there are no
circumstances which the Tana precludes from the Isur.
(b) It applies both to a Beheimah and to a Chayah - to both legs.
(c) It does not however - apply to a bird, which does not have 'a Kaf'
(spoon of the thigh, which will be explained in the Sugya).
(a) Gid ha'Nasheh does not apply to a Sh'lil (a ninth-month old baby that is
found inside a Beheimah [or a fifth-month baby of a small animal]).
(b) The Tana adds - that the Cheilev of a Sh'lil is permitted.
(c) According to Rebbi Meir (despite the principle 'Eid Echad Ne'eman
be'Isurin) a Shochet is not believed to say that he has removed the Gid
ha'Nasheh - because it entails a great deal of effort to root it out
completely (as we shall see later).
(d) The Chachamim however, disagree. In fact - they believe the Shochet both
as regards that, and as regards the removal of the Cheilev.
(a) The Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh takes effect - from the time the fetus is
(b) ... and the problem with our Mishnah is - why the Tana finds it
necessary to teach us that the Isur pertains to Kodshim, too, since it is
obvious that the Isur will not simply fall away because the owner declares
the animal Hekdesh.
(c) We suggest that the Gid ha'Nasheh possesses a taste ('Yesh be'Gidin
be'Nosen Ta'am') and that apart from that (itself a Chidush), what the Tana
is coming to teach us is - that the Isur of Kodshim takes effect on that of
Gid ha'Nasheh ('Isur Chal al Isur').
(d) We reject this suggestion, however, because the Mishnah ought then to
have said - 'Mukdashin Noheg be'Gid' (rather than 'Gid Noheg be'Mukdashin').
(a) So we try to answer that in fact, the Tana holds 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen
Ta'am' and the Tana is teaching us - that one only transgresses the Isur of
Gid ha'Nasheh, and not that of Hekdesh.
(b) We reject this explanation, too however, on the basis of the Mishnah
later - which forbids the thigh of an animal that is cooked together with
the Gid ha'Nasheh, provided the latter gives taste (i.e. that it consists of
more than one sixtieth), a clear proof that our Mishnah holds 'Yesh be'Gidin
(a) So we establish the case by a baby of Kodshim, and the Tana is then
coming to teach us - that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh takes effect when the
baby is formed, at the same time as that of Kodshim ('Gid ha'Nasheh Noheg
(b) We might otherwise have thought - that it only takes effect after the
baby is born, in which case we would apple the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al
Isur' (seeing as the Isur of Hekdesh preceded it).
(c) To refute the Kashya that the Seifa states 've'Noheg bi'Sh'lil',
implying that the Reisha is not talking about a Sh'lil - we view the Seifa
as an extension of the Reisha, as if the Tana was saying that the earlier
statement ('Gid ha'Nasheh Noheg bi'Sh'lil') is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im
between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) We query this explanation however, from a Mishnah in Nazir. Discussing
the Tum'os that require a Nazir to shave off all his hair, and begin his
Nezirus from scratch, the Tana lists 'al ha'Meis ve'al K'zayis min ha'Meis',
a problem - because if a k'Zayis min ha'Meis renders a Nazir Tamei (in the
way that we explained), then why does the Tana find it necessary to add 'a
(b) Rebbi Yochanan answers the Kashya by establishing 'al ha'Meis by a
Nefel - by which he means one that is complete, though in its early stages,
where none of its limbs have yet developed Gidin.
(c) This poses a Kashya on the current interpretation of our Mishnah - since
it teaches us that a baby is formed before its Gidin are, in which case, the
Isur of Kodshim in our Mishnah, will precede that of Gid ha'Nasheh, and not
take effect simultaneously, as we previously assumed.
(d) So we conclude - that even though the Isur of Mukdashin preceded that of
Gid ha'Nasheh the latter will nevertheless take effect - because it extends
to B'nei No'ach (i.e. before Matan Torah), and is therefore more Chamur than