ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 123
CHULIN 123-125 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) The Shi'ur Yad that our Mishnah gives for a skin that is being flayed to
use as ...
1. ... a spread to sit or lie on (or as a rug) is - 'K'dei Achizah' (the
amount that is needed to hold it by [which will be clarified later]).
(b) By ...
2. ... a honey jar is - all the skin from the neck up to the chest (the
hardest part of the animal to flay), because since one pulls off the skin on
both sides simultaneously (as opposed to the previous case, where they cut
an opening down the length of the body first, making the flaying much
easier), a larger Yad is needed.
1. ... 'Lehachnis Tum'ah' we mean - that if he is Tamei, when he touches the
Yad, he renders the Basar Tamei...
(c) The Tana equates a Beheimah with a Chayah, a Tehorah with a Temei'ah and
a Dakah with a Gasah in this regard. By ...
2. ... 'Lehotzi Tum'ah' we mean - that in the case of a Neveilah, when he
touches the Yad, he becomes Tamei.
1. ... a Tehorah, he means - a Kasher animal that has been Shechted (but
which is Tamei [which is equivalent to 'Lehotzi']).
2. ... a Temei'ah, he means a Neveilah (and it is he who is Tahor [which is
equivalent to 'Lehachnis']).
(a) The Tana adds that in a case of Margil - where he begins the flaying
from the feet (with the intention of making a flask out of it, in which case
he removes the skin on both sides simultaneously, like in the previous
case]), it is all considered a Yad.
(b) Margil is different than Mafshit in this regard - in that one begins the
flaying from the hind legs, in which case one has a long way to go until
reaching the chest, and more Yad is needed (see Tiferes Yisrael).
(c) Even if the skin around the neck has not yet been removed, Rebbi
Yochanan ben Nuri does not consider it joined to the rest of the skin -
because one tends to flay it independently.
(d) The Chachamim however, hold - that as long as it is still attached, it
is considered joined.
(a) According to Rav, the skin between the 'K'dei Achizah and that which has
not yet been flayed is all Tahor. Rebbi Asi holds - that the Tefach next to
the skin which is still attached is a Yad, because one tends to hold it to
pull off the skin that is still joined to the Basar.
(b) The skin that is still joined to the body of the animal is - Tamei as a
Shomer (since it protects the Basar).
(c) Rebbi Asi explains that the Beraisa ...
1. ... (in connection with the Din of K'dei Achizah) 'mi'Ka'an va'Eilech
ha'No'ge'a be'Mufshat, Tahor' means - that the remainder of the detached
skin is Tahor, apart from the last Tefach.
(d) Abaye reconciles the Beraisa which gives the Shi'ur of K'dei Achizah as
a Tefach, with another Beraisa, which gives it as two Tefachim - by
explaining the first Beraisa to mean 'Tefach Kaful' (a double Tefach
[presumably because that is the way he holds the skin]).
2. ... 'Or she'Keneged ha'Basar Tamei' - incorporates the last Tefach that
is next to it.
3. ... which adds, after reiterating the opening statement in our Mishnah
've'Tefach ha'Samuch le'Basar, Tahor' - is talking about the Tefach that is
next to the Yad, which he never uses as a Yad. But after he has flayed a few
Tefachim, when the flayed skin becomes heavy, he begins flaying from that
(e) We prove Abaye right - from a third Beraisa, which specifically gives
the Shi'ur as Tefach Kaful.
(a) The Mishnah in Keilim speaks about a coat that became Tamei, which the
owner began to tear - in order to make it Tahor.
(b) The two parts are no longer considered joined - when the majority of the
coat is torn ...
(c) ... at which point - the coat becomes Tahor.
(d) The criterion for the coat becoming Tahor is - that it can no longer be
used for the purpose that it was made for.
(a) The Sugya in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh', 'Sheloshah al Sheloshah she'Hayah
Tamei Medras u'Maga ha'Zav, ve'Chilko, Tahor min ha'Medras ve'Adayin Tamei
Maga ha'Zav' - is speaking when there were two Tum'os to begin with, which
is why even after the one (whose Shi'ur is three Tefachim by three
Tefachim, becomes Bateil, the other one (whose Shi'ur is three by three
finger-breadths) remains intact. Whereas in our case, where there is only
one Tum'ah, once the garment becomes Bateil, it is Bateil, and we do not
contend with the fact that it is still fit to receive another Tum'ah.
(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah qualifies this ruling by making a
distinction between a Talis that is a T'vul-Yom and one that is not - in
that whereas in the case of the latter, the Chachamim decreed that, in order
to save his coat, he might not tear the majority, but claim that he did, in
the case of the former, this is unlikely, seeing as he already demonstrated
his good faith by Toveling the garment (even though Tevilah spoils it).
(a) Rabah disagrees. He maintains, that if anything, it is worse if the coat
is a T'vul-Yom - because then people who are not aware that the coat was
torn in order to be able to use it, will think that Tevilah does not require
(b) He also asks on Rav Nachman from Olas ha'Of according to Rebbi Elazar
b'Rebbi Shimon (in the first Perek), who requires the Kohen to be Molek Rov
Shenayim of an Olas ha'Of. Why do we not suspect there too, that he will
Shecht exactly a half, and then declare that he Shechted a majority?
(c) Rav Yosef however, defends Rav Nachman. He counters Rabah's ...
1. ... first objection - by arguing that the torn garment bears evidence
that it was the tear, and not the Tevilah, that rendered the garment Tahor.
2. ... second objection - by applying the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Heim',
and are not therefore subject to such suspicions.
(a) We query Rav Nachman from our Mishnah 'ha'Mafshit bi'Veheimah
u've'Chayah ... li'Sheti'ach, K'dei Achizah'. We do not suspect there that
he flayed K'dei Achizah and then, after touching something that is Tamei, he
claims that he already flayed more, in which case the Tahor Basar will
remain Tahor, when really it ought to be declared Tamei (see Tosdos DH
'Dilma') - because our Mishnah is speaking about a case of Tum'ah
de'Rabbanan (to which the Gezeirah does not apply, even if the animal is
Kodshim), such as someone who entered a gathering of drawn water with his
head and most of his body (or any one of the other eighteen things listed in
(b) Tum'ah de'Rabbanan is also applicable in the case of 'Tahor bi'Temei'ah'
(not where a Tahor person touched the Yad of a *Neveilah* or of a *Beheimah
Temei'ah*, but) - where a Tamei person touched the Yad of a Tereifah
Shechutah (which is not Tamei min ha'Torah).
(c) This latter ruling is based on a statement of Avuhah di'Shmuel, who
declared a Tereifah, Tamei - by a Beheimah of Kodshim.
(a) We query Rav Nachman again from another Beraisa quoted in the name of
Rebbi Shimon 'ha'Mafshit bi'Sheratzim Chibur' - because Sheratzim are
particularly difficult to flay.
(b) We can extrapolate from there - that with regard to Beheimos (even
Temei'os, such as camels), the flayed skin that is in excess of one Tefach,
is not considered a Chibur (i.e. a Yad) ...
(c) ... a Kashya on Rav Nachman - because their Tum'ah is d'Oraysa.
(d) We answer that Kashya - by switching the inference to the skin of the
neck, in a case of Margil, where one has not yet reached the skin of the
(e) ... according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who does not consider the skin
of the neck joined.
(a) Reverting to the Mishnah in Keilim 'Talis she'Hischil Bah Likro'a ...
Eino Chibur u'Tehorah', Rav Huna Mishum Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi Yossi rules
that in a case where the remaining minority is K'dei bbMa'afores (a
head-gear that hung over the neck) - which is Chashuv, it is still
(b) Resh Lakish too, qualifies the Mishnah According to him, the Miy'ut
would not become Bateil - if the torn garment was made of leather, which
becomes as good as new once it has been stitched.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan - does not differentiate.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish from a Mishnah in Keilim 'Or Tamei
Medras, Chishev Alav li'Retzu'os ve'Sadelim, Keivan she'Nasan bo Izmal (a
knife) Tahor'. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. The Chachamim hold -
that it remains Tamei until the Miy'ut that remains is less than five
Tefachim (which is the Shi'ur Tum'as Medras of leather) ...
(b) ... a Kashya on Resh Lakish, according to whom the piece of leather
should remain 'joined' as long as it is larger than 'K'dei Ma'afores'.
(c) Resh Lakish answers - by differentiating between the way one cuts a
Talis (one neat cut, leaving what remains nice and strong); and the way one
cuts a piece of leather (by making many cuts in it, which weakens the entire
(d) According to the Chachamim, the piece of leather remain Tamei until less
than the Shi'ur remains - since its status (of a piece of leather) has not
changed, whereas the Talis becomes Tahor once the Rov has been cut, even
though the Miy'ut contains a Shi'ur Tum'ah - because its status as a Beged
becomes Bateil once a majority has been cut.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks on Resh Lakish from our Mishnah 'ha'Mafshit
bi'Veheimah u've'Chayah ... li'Sheti'ach, K'dei Achizah' - from which we
infer 'Ha Yoser mi'Chedei Achizah, Tahor', a Kashya on Resh Lakish, who
maintaons that leather is strong.
(b) We answer however, that the two cases are not comparable - since in the
latter case, once the skin has been severed from the Basar, it does not
stand to be re-attached (like the leather in Resh Lakish's cased, which
stands to be re-sewn.
(a) Rav Yosef asked on Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Seifa
of our Mishnah 'Or she'al ha'Tzavar Eino Chibur' - which speaks when the
skin is still attached to the Basar, a Kashya on Rav Nachman.
(b) To which Abaye retorted - that rather than ask on Rav Nachman from Rebbi
Yochanan ben Nuri, Rav Yosef could just as well have supported him from the
Chachamim (who hold that it is a Chibur).
(c) Abaye therefore explains that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Chachamim
argue over - whether a Shomer that stands to be removed is considered a
Shomer (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri).
(d) On principle however - they both agree that if the skin was strong
(permanent), it would be considered joined (like Rav Nachman).