ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 137
CHULIN 137-140 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dapim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) We suggest that we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk
"u'mi'Gez Kivsi Yischamem" and "Reishis Gez Tzoncha" - that Reishis ha'Gez
pertains only to the wool of sheep.
(b) The Beraisa learns that although the Pasuk writes "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor
Shorecha, ve'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzonecha" - "Lo Sa'avod" applies equally to a
sheep that is a Bechor, and "Lo Sagoz" to an ox ...
(c) ... a proof that 'Gizah' pertains just as much to an ox as to a sheep,
in which case we ought rather to learn "Gez" "Gez" from Bechor (to include
an ox in Reishis ha'Gez) than to exclude it from the Pasuk in Iyov.
(d) So we learn from the Pasuk there ...
1. ... "Titen Lo" - 've'Lo le'Sako'', to preclude the hair of a cow from the
Mitzvah (since one derives very little benefit from it).
2. ... "Gez" - to preclude the hair of a goat, which is not shorn.
(a) When we establish the last D'rashah like Rebbi Yossi (whom we will
discuss shortly), we mean - that he is the one to adhere strictly to the
specifications dictated by the Torah (so that the wool must be shorn, as
prescribed by the Torah).
(b) Nevertheless, we refute the D'rashah, because, as we shall soon see,
Rebbi Yossi cannot preclude the hair of a goat based on "Gez" - because he
only preludes something that is unconventional, which cutting off the hair
of goats is not.
(c) So we cite Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who learns from the Pasuk there
"La'amod Leshareis" (which is written next to "Gez Tzoncha") - that the wool
of Reishis ha'Gez must be fit for the Bigdei Kehunah, which sheep's wool
(from which one manufactures Techeiles, dark-blue wool of sheep) is, but
goats hair is not.
(d) And from "Gez" "Gez" (in Iyov) we learn like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael
in a Beraisa - who derives from there that Reishis ha'Gez must be a 'soft'
wool that warms the wearer, precluding a 'hard' wool from the Mitzvah.
(a) A Beraisa precludes the wool that one shears from goats and that one
removes from sheep by washing them. Based on what we learned a little
earlier, we reconcile this with another Beraisa, which includes the latter
in the Din of Reishis ha'Gez - by establishing the author of the former
Beraisa as Rebbi Yossi (who requires the fulfillment of the Pasuk as it is
written), and of the latter one, as the Rabbanan.
(b) Another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Leket Ketzircha", 've'Lo Leket
Kituf'. The problem with Rebbi Yossi, who continues 'Ein Leket Ela ha'Ba
Machmas Katzir' is - that he is merely mimicking the words of the Tana Kama.
(c) We resolve the problem - by establishing the whole Beraisa like Rebbi
Yossi, and adding the prefix 'she' to the Seifa 'she'Rebbi Yossi Omer ... '.
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava qualifies Rebbi Yossi's ruling - by confining it
to where the deviation from the Pasuk's specification is unconventional (as
we already explained).
(b) And he proves it from a Beraisa, where the Tana incorporates uprooting
the crops (such as one does in the case of lentils) in the Din of Leket,
from "Liktzor" - and tearing off (as one does in the case of beans), from
(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava knows that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi
Yossi - because he is the Tana who otherwise requires fulfilling the Torah's
specifications as they are written.
(a) Ravina supports Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava from a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where
Rebbi Yossi obligates leaving Pe'ah from each row of onions that are growing
in between the rows of other vegetables. According to the Rabbanan - one
Pe'ah will suffice for all the rows.
(b) Onions (and garlic) are subject to Pe'ah even though other vegetables
are not - because unlike other vegetables, they tend to be placed in
(c) Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because he considers the rows of vegetables
among the rows of onions a Hefsek (an interruption).
(d) We prove from here - that onions are subject to Pe'ah, according to
Rebbi Yossi - because they are picked in the conventional manner, even
though they are not harvested (Ketzirah) the way corn is, and their picking
does not conform with the term "Liktzor" used by the Torah.
(a) We have no problem with Beis Shamai, who requires two sheep for the
Mitzvah of Reishis ha'Gez, based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah " ... u'Sh'tei
Tzon" (as we learned in our Mishnah). Rav Kahana attempts to explain the
Pasuk in Shmuel "Chamesh Tzon Asuyos", to mean that five sheep make up two
Mitzvos, Reishis ha'Gez and Matanos (negating Beis Shamai's proof from the
Pasuk in Yeshayah).
(b) We refute the suggestion however, that "Asuyos" refers to ...
1. ... Reishis ha'Gez and Matanos - because by the same token, perhaps it
refers to Bechoros and Matanos.
(c) This in turn, also dispels the suggestion that "Asuyos" refers to
Reishis ha'Gez and Matanos, because by the same token - one animal is
already subject to Matanos, so who needs five?
2. ... Bechorah and Matanos - because one sheep is already Chayav Bechorah,
so who needs five?
(d) Rav Ashi therefore explains Beis Hillel based on the same Pasuk - to
mean that "five sheep force upon their owner a new Mitzvah that has not been
taught before", namely that of Reishes ha'Gez.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father, learns from the Pasuk
in Mishpatim "ve'Arba Tzon Tachas ha'Seh" - that four sheep are important
enough to obligate Reishis ha'Gez.
(b) The advantage of this Pasuk over the respective Pesukim of Beis Shamai
and Beis Hillel is - that whereas the Pesukim that they quote are Divrei
Kabalah (from Nevi'im), his Pasuk is from the Torah.
(c) Rebbi commented on Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's ruling - that if Beis
Hillel and Beis Shamai had quoted from the Torah, and 'b'Rivi' from Nevi'im,
he would have ruled like b'Rivi, how much more so now that he is the one to
quote from the Torah, and they, from Nevi'im.
(d) Rebbi referred to Rebbi Yossi as 'B'rivi' - because he was one of the
Gedolei ha'Dor (indeed, Chazal say about him 'Nimuko Imo' [that his
reasoning is always sound]).
(a) When we query Rebbi from Mar's statement "Ein Hachra'ah Shelishis
Machra'as" - we mean that we never rule like an opinion which comes to
compromise (as Rebbi Yossi does here [between Beis Shamai and Beis
(b) We would rule like a compromise opinion though - there were the initial
disputants hinted the possibility of a compromise, but rejected it.
(c) We nevertheless justify Rebbi ruling like Rebbi Yossi - by attributing
his ruling to a Kabalah going back directly to Chagai, Zacharyah and
Mal'achi, as stated by Rebbi Yochanan.
(a) The Chachamim in our Mishnah agree with Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas who
requires five sheep, only instead of each sheep needing to produce a Manah
u'Pras, they require only a 'Kol-she'Hein'. Rav describes 'Kol-she'Hein' as
a Manah u'Pras - in total, whereas Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas requires each
sheep to produce this amount.
(b) Rav qualifies his words - by adding that the wool should be spread out
equally (seven and a half Sela'im from each sheep).
(c) Shmuel defines 'Kol-she'Hein' as - sixty Sela'im (as against the
thirty-seven and a half of Rav) ...
(d) ... of which one has to give the Kohen - one Sela.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Kol-she'Hein' means six Sela'im - of which
one has to give one Sela to the Kohen.
(b) The objection Ula Amar Rebbi Elazar raises to the opinion o Rebbi
Yochanan (as well as to those of Rav and Shmuel) is - that 'Kol-she'Hein' is
'Kol-she'Hein', in which case one Sela-weight of wool will suffice.
(c) When we state that we have no problem with Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, only
with Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar - we are referring to the Mishnah's requirement
to give five Sela'im of wool, as Rebbi Yochanan specifically rules (and
which Rav may well agree with), but which Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar certainly
(a) We counter this with a statement of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that
Reishis ha'Gez requires one sixtieth. The problem that this creates even
with Rav is - that a sixtieth of a Manah u'P'ras is less than a Sela, and
even if we count a Manah as being forty Sela'im (as we shall see later), it
only amounts to a Sela, leaving us with a Kashya on Rav, too.
(b) We deal with the problem by quoting a statement by Rav and Shmuel, who
explained - that when the Tana requires a minimum of five Sela'im, he is not
referring to the absolute minimum that one must give, but to someone who has
a lot of wool to give to the Kohen, who should not give less than five
Sela'im-weight to each Kohen that he gives.
(c) Besides Reishis ha'Gez, Rav and Shmuel ascribe a Shi'ur of Shishim to -
Terumah and Pe'ah.
(a) The Mishnah in T'rumos ascribes the Shi'ur of - a fortieth to Terumah
(regarding a generous person) ...
(b) ... posing the Kashya on Rav and Shmuel - why they give a Shi'ur that
pertains to a miserly person.
(c) We reject the suggestion that Rav and Shmuel are referring to the Torah
Shi'ur, and the Mishnah in T'rumos to the Shi'ur de'Rabbanan, on the basis
of Shmuel himself, who stated - that min ha'Torah, one grain will suffice.
(d) In view of Shmuel's latter statement - we establish the Mishnah in
T'rumos by the Rabbanan's Shi'ur of Terumah d'Oraysa (corn, wine and oil),
whereas Rav and Shmuel are referring to the Rabbanan's Shi'ur of Terumah
de'Rabbanan (other fruit).
(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah ...
1. ... 'Eilu Devarim she'Ein Lahem Shi'ur, ha'Pe'ah ... ' - is referring to
the Din Torah, whereas Rav and Shmuel are talking about the Shi'ur
(b) The Mishnah in Pe'ah does not include Terumah in its list of things that
have no Shi'ur min ha'Torah - because two of the Shi'urim de'Rabbanan are
already hinted in the Torah. See also Tosfos (DH 'Eilu Devarim').
2. ... 'Ein Pochsin le'Pe'ah mi'Shishim Af-al-Pi she'Amru ha'Pe'ah Ein Lah
Shi'ur' - is referring to Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rav and Shmuel are coming
to teach us the Din in Chutz la'Aretz.
(c) The Tosefta, by way of hint, learns from the Pasuk (in connection with
the tax that the people had to give the Levi'im) "Tikach Echad min
ha'Chamishim" - that the Shi'ur that one gives the Kohen elsewhere (as the
average Shi'ur Terumah), they should now give to the Levi'im. Note also,
that the acronym of Terumah is 'T'rei me'Me'ah' (two per hundred).
(d) And the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Shishisam ha'Eifah me'Chomer ha'Chitim" -
hints to the Shi'ur of a sixtieth (of a miserly person), since a sixth of an
Eifah is half a Sa'ah, which is a sixtieth of a Chomer (thirty Sa'ah).
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan instructed Isi bar Hini to change the text (of our
Mishnah) that he was teaching his son, from 'Recheilim' to 'Recheilos', the
latter replied - that he was merely using the word that the Torah used.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied - that 'Lashon Torah Lechud Lashon Chachamim
(c) He was upset that Isi bar Hini referred to the Rosh Yeshivah in Bavel as
Aba Aricha, and not - Rav.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan held Rav in such high esteem - because he remembered how
before Rav moved to Bavel, he sat thirteen rows ahead of him, before Rebbi,
and how, when Rebbi and Rav would converse in Halachah, he did not
understand what they were saying.
(a) When in reply to his question, Rebbi Yochanan gave the minimum of the
wool that is Chayav Reishis ha'Gez as sixty Sela'im, Isi commented - from
our Mishnah, which quoting the Chachamim, gave the Shi'ur as Kol-she'Hein'
(like Rebbi Elazar above).
(b) When Rebbi Yochanan responded with 'Im Kein Mah Bein Li va'Lach', he
meant - that if he could answer such a question, then he was no greater than
(c) Rebbi Yochanan (who did not answer Isi directly) interpreted 'Kol
she'Hein' - as La'av Davka (only since Rebbi Dosa gave a big Shi'ur, the
Chachamim responded with a small one). In any event, it would require at
least six Sela'im, in order to give the Kohen one Sela.
(d) When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rav as
giving the Shi'ur as sixty Sa'ah (like Shmuel earlier), and Rebbi Yochanan
Mishum Rebbi Yanai - six.
(a) When Abaye commented on Rav Dimi's statement 'Anchas Lan Chada,
ve'Akshas Lan Chada', he meant - that although one of his statements was
acceptable, the other one was not.
(b) He saw no discrepancy between Rav Dimi's presentation of Rebbi
Yochanan - which he quoted in the name of his Rebbe Rebbi Yanai, and Rebbi
Yochanan's previous ruling, which is his own opinion.
(c) Rav's two statements however, appear to clash - since 'Manah u'P'ras' is
the equivalent of thirty-seven and a half Sela'im, and not sixty, as we
(d) And we resolve it - by introducing a Manah of forty Sela, as we shall
(a) To prove that there is such a thing as a Manah of forty Sa'ah, we cite a
Beraisa. The Tana declares Tahor a new leather flask, which still requires
stitching, even though the unstitched section will not allow a pomegranate
to fall out - because it does not become a K'li until it is complete.
(b) The same flask will be subject to Tum'ah, in a case where a finished
flask tears, but not sufficient to allow a pomegranate to fall out - because
it is already a K'li, and cannot lose its status as such until it has a hole
that will let a pomegranate fall out.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagrees with the Tana Kama on principle -
because he maintains, leather flasks are generally made to hold balls of
wool and not fruit. So that is how we have to guageb their Shi'ur.
(d) And the size ball of wool that will have to be able to fall through the
hole for the flask to be Tahor, according to him, is - one of ten Sela (of
which there are four to a Manah), because there are forty Sa'ah in a Manah.