ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 113
(a) We query Rava (who forbids Kasher meat that has been salted together
with Tereifah meat) from the Beraisa which permits a Tahor fish that has
been salted together with a Tamei one. The Kashya assumes - that both fish
(b) To reconcile Rava with its ruling, we establish the Beraisa - when only
the Tahor fish was salted, but not the Tamei one.
(c) If the Tamei fish was salted and the Tahor one was not - then the latter
would most certainly be Asur (as we shall see shortly).
(d) We reconcile this interpretation of the Beraisa with the Seifa 'Hayah
Tahor Meli'ach, ve'Tamei Tapal, Mutar' (which seems to merely repeat the
Reisha) - by establishing that the Seifa comes to explain the Reisha (which
initially appears ambiguous).
(a) We try to prove that the Seifa must be coming to explain the Reisha,
because otherwise it would be superfluous - since if the Tahor fish remains
Kasher even when it too, was salted, how much more so if it was not!
(b) We refute this proof however - by suggesting that the Tana learned the
Seifa to teach us that the Reisha is indeed speaking when both fish were
(c) We try to prove from the Seifa de Seifa 'Aval im Hayah Tamei Malu'ach,
ve'Tahor Tapal, Asur' (by inference) - that if both fish were salted, the
Tahor fish would be permitted (a Kashya on Rava).
(d) We refute this proof however - with the argument that the Tana may well
have seen fit to learn the Seifa de'Seifa, even if 'Sheneihem Meluchim,
Asur', to balance with the Reisha de'Seifa 'Tahor Meli'ach, ve'Tamei Tapal'
(and not to teach us the inference).
(a) The two conditions that Shmuel requires for meat to become rid of all
its blood are - a. a thorough salting and b. a thorough rinsing.
(b) Rav Huna learns 'Mole'ach u'Madi'ach'. The Beraisa - Madi'ach, Mo'le'ach
(c) We reconcile Rav Huna with the Beraisa - by establishing him there where
the meat was already rinsed in the butchery.
(d) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a would salt the meat using rock-salt - as a
result of which he had to shake it off later. This would not have been
necessary had he used fine salt, which melts and drains by itself.
(a) Rav Mesharshaya states - that the intestines do not contain blood, and
do not therefore require salting.
(b) However, we restrict this to the Kark'sha (the rectum), the Me'aya and
the Hadra de'Kanta (the small intestine that surrounds the entrails). The
'Me'aya' incorporates - the Keivah, the Keres and the large intestines.
(c) Besides the heart, the liver and the lungs, this precludes - the
entrails themselves (all of which do contain blood, and which therefore
(a) Shmuel requires the salting to take place - in a vessel that contains
holes (for the blood to drain, as we already learned).
(b) Rav Sheishes would salt the limbs one by one - to prevent the blood from
one limb becoming absorbed in the other, during the salting.
(c) We prove this unnecessary - because if it was, then by the same token,
we ought to suspect that the blood will drip from one part of a limb and
become absorbed in the other (which would negate the salting process
(d) Rav Sheishes' mistake was - that during the salting, whilst meat is busy
exuding, it does not absorb.
(a) When Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Chiya says that someone who breaks the
neck of an animal before it is dead makes the animal heavier, he means -
that as a result of the additional pain, the animal is unable to heave the
deep sigh that it normally does following the Shechitah, which draws the
blood to the Beis ha'Shechitah, releasing it from the body. As a result, the
blood is distributed to the other limbs in the body, making them all
(b) The ramifications of this statement are - that one is stealing from the
purchasers (as Shmuel himself concludes).
(c) Bearing in mind Shmuel's three statements ('Machbid ... Gozel ...
Mavli'a ... ') we ask whether the Isur is confined to 'Bein Adam la'Chavero'
(as the statement suggests), or whether it incorporate the Isur Dam (since
the excessive blood cannot be extracted through salting).
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.
(a) Our Mishnah learns that someone who places Basar Of on the table
together with cheese has not contravened a La Sa'aseh. This not an intrinsic
Chidush - since even bringing Basar Beheimah on to the table with cheese is
not an Isur Torah either.
(b) So we suggest that the Tana is coming to teach us - the inference, that
someone who eats them together has transgressed.
(c) This precludes the opinion of Rebbi Akiva - who learns that Basar Of
together with cheese, is not d'Oraysa, (as we shall see in the next
(d) We refute this proof however - by interpreting his words to mean that
bringing Basar Of on the table together with cheese will not lead to a Lo
(a) On the one hand, our Mishnah forbids cooking Basar Beheimah Tehorah with
Chalav Beheimah Tehorah or deriving benefit from it if one did; on the
other, it permits cooking and deriving benefit from Basar Beheimah Tehorah
with Chalav Beheimah Teme'ah, or vice-versa.
(b) Rebbi Akiva rules - that Basar Chayah ve'Of together with cheese - is
not Asur min ha'Torah.
(c) In spite of the principle 'Chayah bi'Chelal Beheimah', Rebbi Akiva
precludes Chayos from the Din of Basar be'Chalav - from the word "G'di",
which is superfluous.
(d) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" ... "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " - from the fact
that they appear in the same Pasuk, that whatever is subject to Neveilah
(including a Chayah) is forbidden to cook together with milk.
2. ... "ba'Chaleiv Imo" - that the La'av precludes Basar Of (which is also
subject to Neveilah, but) whose mother does not have milk.
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... (in connection with Yehudah and Tamar) "Va'yishlach Yehudah es G'di
ha'Izim" - that only there does "G'di" refer to a goat; elsewhere (such as
in the Parshah of Basar be'Chalav) it refers to any Kasher animal.
(b) Neither can we learn from the second Pasuk (or even from both Pesukim),
that G'di always means specifically a kid-goat - because of the principle
'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin' (When two Pesulim teach us
the same thing, they are exceptions rather than the rule).
2. ... (in connection with Eisav and Ya'akov)"ve'es Oros Gedayei ha'Izim" -
that the previous Pasuk is not a Binyan Av (from which we would learn that
everywhere else in the Torah, 'G'di' means a kid-goat too).
(c) Those who hold 'Melamdin' learn - from the extra 'Hey' (in "Izim -
ha'Izim") that is written by each one that only there does "G'di" mean a
kid-goat, but not anywhere else.
(a) Shmuel Darshens six things from the word "G'di". When he says "G'di",
'Lerabos es ...
1. ... he'Cheilev", he means - that if one cooks the Cheilev of an animal
together with milk, he transgresses the La'av of Basar be'Chalav, as well as
that of Cheilev.
(b) The third thing that he includes from "G'di" - is Basar Sh'lil (the
flesh of a fetus).
2. ... Lerabos es ha'Meisah", he means that if he cooks a piece of meat from
a Neveilah together with milk, he will transgress the La'av of Basar
be'Chalav, as well as that of Neveilah.
(c) Shmuel also precludes three things from "G'di". Besides Dam (be'Chalav)
and Shilya (be'Chalav), he also precludes - Teme'ah (be'Chalav).
(d) And besides the milk of a male animal and the milk of a Shechutah, he
also precludes from "ba'Chalev Imo" - the milk of a Temei'ah'.
(a) The problem with the fact that Shmuel Darshens six things from "G'di"
is - that the word "G'di only appears three times (and not six).
(b) To begin with, we learn 'Cheilev' and 'Meisah' from the same Pasuk -
because both are of the species of 'G'di', in which case we apply the
principle 'Hei Minaihu Mafkas' (which one should we preclude from the
D'rashah? [so we include both]).
(c) At the same time, Shmuel learns from there the principle - 'Isur Chal al
Isur' (since we see that the Isur of Basar be'Chalav takes effect on the
Isur of Cheilev and of Neveilah).
(d) We reject the wording 'ka'Savar Shmuel Isur Chal al Isur' - because if
he were to hold of that (before the D'rashah of "G'di"), then he would not
require a Pasuk for Cheilev and Meisah (like we will say later, regarding
the opinion of Rebbi Akiva).
(a) That still leaves us with five D'rashos from three words. So we comment
on the D'rashah that precludes 'Dam' and 'Shilya' - that in reality, they do
not require a Pasuk to preclude them, since they are not included in 'G'di'
to begin with.
(b) Bearing in mind that "G'di" incorporates all species of Kasher animals -
the Torah could just as well have written "Lo Sevashel ba'Chalev Imo",
implying that one should not cook any animal that has mother's milk,
together with milk (rendering "G'di" superfluous).
(a) Shmuel in the name of Rebbi Eliezer learns from the Pasuk "u'Meisu Bo ki
Yechaleluhu" - that it is only if a Tamei Kohen eats Tahor Terumah (which he
desecrates in the process) that he is Chayav Misah, but not if he eats Tamei
Terumah (which is already desecrated before he eats it), because the Isur of
a Tamei Kohen eating Terumah cannot take effect on that of a Kohen eating
Tamei Terumah ...
(b) ... even though the former is an Isur La'av that is subject to Kareis,
and the latter, only an Isur Asei.
(c) It seems from there - that Shmuel holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', whereas
according to what we just learned (regarding 'Cheilev u'Meisah'), he holds
'Isur Chal al Isur'.
(a) One of two answers that we give is that really Shmuel holds 'Isur Chal
al Isur', and the case of a Kohen is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'. The alternative
answer is - that really he holds 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur', and our case (of
Cheilev and Neveilah) is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'.
(b) A third answer suggests that Shmuel really holds 'Isur Chal al Isur'
across the board - and the D'rashah of "u'Meisu Bo ... " is not his personal
opinion, but that of his Rebbe, Rebbi Eliezer.
(c) The Lashon 'Amar Shmuel Mishum Rebbi Eliezer' (as opposed to 'Amar
Shmuel Amar Rebbi Eliezer') - implies that he heard it from a third party,
which must be the case here, because Rebbi Eliezer, a Tana (a Talmid of
Raban Yochanan ben Zakai) lived at the time of the Churban, many years
before Shmuel (who was an Amora).
(a) Rav Achdevui bar Ami asked Rav whether someone who cooks meat in the
milk of an animal that has not yet suckled its young is Chayav or not. He
might not be Chayav - because "ba'Chaleiv Imo" may be taken literally to
mean that the animal was actually a mother.
(b) Rav resolved the She'eilah from Shmuel's statement, precluding the milk
of a male from the Isur of Basar be'Chalav - implying that the milk of a
female, even if it is has not mothered a baby, is included (seeing as,
unlike a male animal, it stands to become a mother one day).
(c) Initially, we connect the Machlokes between Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi as
to whether Cheilev is subject to the La'av of Basar be'Chalav or not - with
the question of whether we hold 'Isur Chal al Isur, or not (as we already
saw in the Sugya of Shmuel).
(a) We conclude that in reality, both opinions hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur'.
Nevertheless, one of them rules 'Chayav' - because they are talking (not
about eating Cheilev that has been cooked in milk, but) about cooking them
(b) ... and the reason of the one who holds that he is Patur from Malkos
is - because the Torah deliberately presents the Isur of eating them
together, using a Lashon of 'Bishul' ("Lo Sevashel G'di ... "), to teach us
that whenever one is not Chayav for eating two items together, one is not
Chayav for cooking them together either.
(c) In the second explanation, everyone holds that one receives Malkos for
cooking Cheilev in milk, and they argue over eating them together. Both
opinions hold 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur, and the one who holds that there is
Malkos for eating it is - (based on the same logic as the previous answer),
the Torah writes "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " with regard to the Isur of eating,
to teach us that whenever one is Chayav for cooking two items together, one
is Chayav for eating them together too.
(d) Alternatively, Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi are not even arguing - because
the one who says Chayav is talking about cooking them together, whereas the
one who says Patur, is talking about eating them together.