ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 110
(a) When, upon arrival in Eretz Yisrael, Rebbi Elazar asked for the name of
the 'Tana' who had taught Rav the Din of K'chal, he was referring to - Rav's
ruling forbidding K'chal that was cooked without tearing it open like the
second version cited by Rebbi Zeira on the previous Amud [see also Tosfos DH
(b) When Rebbi Elazar was referred to Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, he replied
to Rebbi Elazar's question when the latter was referred to him - that he had
not taught Rav anything, but that he had found it necessary to issue a
stringent ruling in this regard, for reasons that will now become clear.
(c) Rav overheard one woman ask another in the town of Tatelpush - how much
milk one requires in which to cook a litra of meat. That was when he decided
that a decree was necessary.
(a) That was Rav Kahana's version of the story. According to Rebbi Yossi bar
Aba, Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi did in fact teach Rav the Din of K'chal -
namely, the milk that is found in the udders of a feeding cow, which is of
course, real milk, and which renders the K'chal Asur if one cooks it without
first tearing it open?
(b) Whhen Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi taught the Din to Rebbi Chiya and his
Talmidim - he taught them 'K'chal' S'tam, in the kowledge that Rebbi Chiya
would understand that he was referring to the case that we just described.
However, he failed to realize that Rebbi Chiya's Talmidim were not as sharp
as he was, and that they would err.
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef and Ravin were once staying with Rav Papi - that
his wife served them a dish of K'chal. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef ate it, Ravin
(b) Abaye asked Ravin by way of rebuke - why he declined to eat, bearing in
mind that Rav Papi's wife was the daughter of Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, who was
a Posek, and from she must have learned that K'chal is permitted.
(c) He referred to him as 'Ravin Tichla' - meaning Ravin who buries his
children, as that is what happened to him.
(a) In Sura, they did not eat K'chal at all. In Pumbedisa - they did (at
(b) This was very much to Rami bar Tamri's advantage, as we shall now see.
Rami bar Tamri (alias Rami bar Dikuli). was - from Pumbedisa.
(a) When Rami bar Tamri once arrived in Sura on Erev Yom Kipur, after the
residents had all thrown out their K'chalim - he took them and ate them.
(b) When they brought before Rav Chisda, who asked him ...
1. ... why he did that, he replied - that he was from Rav Yehudah's town
(c) And when Rav Yehudah asked him why he was not wearing ...
2. ... why he disregarded the Mishnah in Pesachim 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Makom
... she'Halach le'Sham' - he explained that he had eaten the K'chalim
outside the T'chum Shabbos of the town.
3. ...why he was not concerned that the grape pits that he used as fuel
might be from Yayin Nesech - he pointed out that they were more than a year
old, by which time the Din of Yayin Nesech no longer applies (as we learned
in a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah).
4. ... why he was not concerned that they may be Asur because of Gezel - he
answered that they had already gone moldy, a sure sign that the owner has
given up hope (Yi'ush) which renders them Hefker.
1. ... Tefilin, he replied - that he had stomach trouble, and someone with
stomach trouble, is Patur from Tefilin.
(d) With regard to the last two She'eilos he quoted - Rav Yehudah.
2. ... Tzitzis, as the garment he was wearing had four corners,he explained
that the garment he was wearing was borrowed and a borrowed garment is Patur
(a) Rav Chisda took the man whom they brought before him (in the presence of
Rami bar Tamri) for refusing to honor his parents - and bent him over the
Amud, with the intention of giving him Malkos.
(b) The P'tur Malkos for contravening a Mitzvas Asei - is confined to
someone who has already failed to observe it, but not to someone who
refuses to fulfill it. About such a person Chazal have said 'Kofin Oso ad
(c) Rami bar Tamri objected to Rav Chisda's intended sentence on the basis
of the principle - that any Mitzvah next to which the Torah inserts the
reward (as it does by Tzedakah and Kibud Av va'Eim), is not subject to
Malkos (even if it is to induce the person to keep the Mitzvah).
(d) When Rav Chisda remarked at Rami bar Tamri's sharpness, he replied -
that if he had been in Rav Yehudah's domain, he would have really
demonstrated what he could do.
(a) Abaye asked Rav Safra to inquire about the Din of cooked liver, when he
went to Eretz Yisrael. The problem with cooked liver is - whether once the
heat extracts blood from the liver, it becomes Asur, and therefore forbids
the liver that is still in the pot.
(b) Rebbi Zerika subsequently told Rav Safra - that he used to boil a liver
for Rebbi Ami, which he would subsequently send him, and Rebbi Ami used to
(c) When, upon his return to Bavel, Rav Safra reported his findings to
Abaye, the latter replied that this was not what he wanted to now, as he
knew it already - because since the liver is busy exuding blood into the
pot, it is obvious that it will not absorb the blood that it has already
(a) What Abaye wanted to know was - whether the blood that emerges from the
liver, forbids other meat that is cooking together with it in the same pot.
(b) Rav Safra cited the Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Kaveid Oseres ve'Einah
Ne'eseres', which poses a Kashya on Abaye - because just as the Tana informs
us that the liver does not become Asur (and which Abaye obviously knew), he
also informs us that it renders Asur another piece of meat that is cooking
together with it in the same pot (so why did he ask the She'eilah)?
(c) Abaye replied - that the Tana might well be speaking about the liver of
a Tereifah, which will forbid the piece of meat, not because of the Isur
Dam, but because of Tereifus.
(d) What makes Abaye think that the blood might not render the piece of meat
Tereifah - is the fact that it is blood of Heter, which it was whilst it was
liver, and Abaye wanted to know whether it became Asur when it emerged from
the liver or not.