(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 136



(a) The Gemara rejects the contention that the Machlokes Tana'im (whether Shechitah renders an eighth-month baby animal Tahor or not), is based on whether an eighth-month baby is considered a Nefel or not - because, if that was the case, why do they argue over whether the animal is Tamei or not, and not about whether one is permitted to eat it or not?

(b) The Tana Kama argues that a Tereifah animal was once Kasher, and that is why the Shechitah renders it Tahor, whereas an eighth-month baby animal was never fit.

(c) Nor can we even compare an eighth-month animal an animal that was born a Tereifah, since the latter is of the same species as the one that became a Tereifah only after it was born, which, as we just explained, was once Kasher.

(a) No! Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that if one knows for sure that the full nine month period of pregnancy has passed (e.g. if the husband was away for nine months after the last Tashmish, or if one locked up the female animal after the male came on it), the baby is not a Nefel.

(b) Consequently ...

1. ... if a calf is born on Yom-Tov, it may be Shechted on the same day. It is not Muktzah, nor is one obligated to wait for the eighth day before Shechting it - provided one knew for sure that the full nine month period of pregnancy had passed.
2. ... If a first-born animal is born on Yom-Tov with a blemish, and the Dayanim were sitting there as it was born (so that it never had a Chazakah of being Asur to Shecht), it may be Shechted immediately on Yom-Tov.
(c) Shmuel ruled 'Halachah ke'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel' - from which we can see that, not only do the Rabbanan disagree with Raban Shimon, but that the Halachah is like Raban Shimon, and not like the Rabbanan.
(a) The Gemara at first contends that a healthy baby that fell from the roof or was eaten by a lion within thirty days, is not a Nefel, even according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. When does he say that it is a Nefel, when it simply expired from weakness. And even then, the Rabbanan will hold that the baby is considered to have been a live baby, and not a Nefel.

(b) The Rabbanan's reason is because we go after the majority of babies, who are not Nefalim.

(c) When Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua were served a seventh-day calf at the house of Rav Idi bar Avin's son - they declared what a pity it was that theowner had not waited until the night of the eighth before Shechting it; because if he had, they would have partaken it. Whereas now they could not eat it because it was a Safek Nefel. From here we see that even in the case of a healthy animal (which, as far as they knew, this animal was), is a Safek Nefel according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(d) The Gemara therefore, concludes, that when an animal expires and dies from weakness, it is a Safek Nefel - even according to the Rabbanan, and that the Machlokes between them is by a healthy animal that fell off the roof or was eaten by a lion. That is where Raban Gamliel considered it to be a Nefel, but according to the Rabbanan, it was alive.

(a) The Amora'im mourned for their respective sons who died within thirty days - because they knew with certainty that they were ninth-month babies.

(b) A woman whose only baby died within thirty days, if her husband dies too - is obligated to perform Chalitzah, since her baby was a Safek Nefel (like the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(c) According to Ravina, if, without performing Chalitzah, she got engaged to a Yisrael, she must now perform Chalitzah, and she is still permitted to go ahead and marry her betrothed. Whereas, if she is engaged to a Kohen, in which case, Chalitzah would prohibit her from subsequently marrying him, Chalitzah is not necessary (like the Rabbanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(d) When Ravina told Rav Sheravya that Rava had retracted from his initial stringency, he retorted 'You permitted her? May you also permit Chelev!'




(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from ...
1. ... "*ha*'Zachar" - that an Androginus is not included in the Erech of a man (he would however, be included in that of a woman, if not for the following Derashah) ...
2. ... "ve'*Im* Nekeivah Hi" - that someone who is neither a definite man nor a definite woman is precluded from Erchin altogether.
(b) We know that the author of this Beraisa (a Sifra) is Rebbi Yehudah, because of the principle 'S'tam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah also precludes an Androginus (like a woman) from placing the ashes into the water of the Parah Adumah (known as Kidush).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Himol Lachem Kol Zachar" - that even an Androginus is included in the Din of circumcising a baby on Shabbos, when the eighth day falls on Shabbos.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,