ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 96
CHULIN 96-98 - 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) What made Rava initially think that Simanim are better than Tevi'as Ayin
(recognition) - is the fact that one returns a lost article with Simanim,
but not with Tevi'as Ayin (see Tosfos DH 've'Lo Mehadrinan').
(b) He changed his mind however - on account of the cases that we just
cited, where the Amora'im permitted Isur through Tevi'as Ayin (though it is
unclear how he learns from there that Tevi'as Ayin is superior to Simanim
and not just equal to them).
(c) The problem if Tevi'as Ayin is not superior to Simanim is - how a man
could ever be intimate with his wife by night, and a blind man even by day,
unless we rely upon recognition of the voice (which is a branch of Tevi'as
(a) Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Mesharshaya supports Rava from the witnesses
in a murder case - who are believed if they say that they recognize the
litigants, but not if they give Simanim to describe them.
(b) And Rav Ashi proves him right from the fact - that if Reuven describes
Shimon to Levi, it is far from clear that he will recognize him; whereas
with Tevi'as Ayin, he definitely will.
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah requires the removal of the entire Gid
ha'Nasheh. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir - who requires the Gid to be
dug out by its roots (as we have already learned).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah requires - only the removal of the part that is visible.
(c) The Tana rules that somebody who eats ...
1. ... a k'Zayis of a Gid ha'Nasheh - receives Malkos.
(d) We already discussed the Seifa of the Mishnah, where the Tana sentences
someone who eats a k'Zayis of each Gid to two sets of Malkos. Rebbi
Yehudah - sentences him to only one set (for eating the right Gid).
2. .... a Gid ha'Nasheh that comprises less than a k'Zayis - receives Malkos
(a) When bar Pivli cut away only the visible part of the Gid ha'Nasheh, like
Rebbi Yehudah, Shmuel commented - that he should cut away more. and that if
he hadn't seen him, he (bar Pivli) would have served him Isur.
(b) When out of frustration, bar Pivli dropped his knife - Shmuel reassured
him that he was not accusing him of cutting away too little out of
ignorance, but realized that he had been taught like Rebbi Yehudah (whereas
he held like Rebbi Meir).
(c) From Rav Sheishes' initial statement, that bar Pivli fulfilled Rebbi
Yehudah's Torah obligation - we can imply that he did not fulfill Rebbi
Yehudah's obligation mi'de'Rabbanan.
(d) The problem then is - like whom had they taught bar Pivli?
(e) So we amend Rav Sheishes' statement to read - that bar Pivli fulfilled
Rebbi Meir's Torah obligation, but not what Rebbi Meir requires to be cut
(a) Shmuel issued a ruling, based on the Pasuk "al Kaf ha'Yarech" - that the
Torah only forbade the part of the Gid that lies on the spoon of the thigh
(b) ... but not the remainder of the Gid (which extends well below that
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa sentences a person to Malkos for eating a Gid
ha'Nasheh that is less than a k'Zayis - due to the fact that it is a Beryah
(a complete entity [see Tosfos DH 'Beryah').
(b) Rebbi Yehudah counters that by citing the Pasuk "Al-kein Lo Yochlu B'nei
Yisrael es Gid ha'Nasheh" - and 'Achilah' always implies a k'Zayis.
(c) The Rabbanan learn from "Yochlu" - that one is Chayav even for eating a
k'Zayis of a large Gid ha'Nasheh, even though he did not eat the complete
(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns that from "Asher al Kaf ha'Yarech". But the
Rabbanan learn from there - that one is only Chayav for eating the Gid that
is on the Kaf ha'Yerech (like Shmuel).
(a) The Rabbanan counter Rebbi Yehudah's D'rashah from "ha'Yarech",
'de'Kulah Yerech' (even the part of the Gid that is not on the Kaf) - by
using that Pasuk to teach us that one is only Chayav for the inner Gid,
which stretches down the entire thigh (as we learned earlier).
(b) We not indeed need "Kaf" to preclude the Gid ha'Nasheh of a bird. The
Torah however - writes "Gid" twice.
(c) We have proved from this Beraisa - that Shmuel's D'rashah (from "al Kaf
ha'Yarech") is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im (the opinion of the Rabbanan,
but not Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) Our Mishnah rules that a thigh that has been cooked together with the
Gid ha'Nasheh - is Asur as long as it adds taste.
(b) The Tana measures the Shi'ur as if the thigh was a turnip, and the Gid,
meat (even though, if it was a different kind of vegetable, it would require
a little more or a little less) - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' (This Din
will be explained in the Sugya).
(c) And the Tana rules that if a Gid ha'Nasheh has been cooked together with
other Gidin in a case where ...
1. ... one recognizes the Gid ha'Nasheh - then, after removing the Isur, the
remaining pieces will be permitted, as long as the Gid ha'Nasheh did not add
taste to them.
2. ... one does not recognize it - then the entire pot is Asur.
(a) The gravy of such a mixture - will be permitted as long as the forbidden
pieces do not contain sufficient to add taste.
(b) The Tana finally rules - exactly the same with regard to a piece of
Neveilah or Tamei fish that is cooked with other Kasher pieces of the same
kind, as it did by Gid ha'Nasheh.
(a) Shmuel qualifies the opening Din in our Mishnah - by confining it to
where the thigh was specifically cooked together with its Gid. But if they
were roasted together, he permits eating the thigh right up to the Gid (see
Tosfos DH 'ad she'Magi'a le'Gid')., because there is no gravy to carry the
taste of the Gid to the rest of the thigh.
(b) Rav Huna - forbids a kid that one roasted together with its Cheilev ...
(c) When he said 'even from the tips of its ears', he meant - that even the
tips of its ears are forbidden, in spite of their distance from (Tosfos DH
(d) This is not in contradiction with Shmuel's ruling - because Cheilev,
unlike Gid ha'Nasheh (which is dry), spreads across the entire body.