CHULIN 31-43 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH GO'EH O HITILAH RE'I V'KISK'SAH B'OZNAH HAREI ZEH PIRCHUS

úåñôåú ã"ä âåòä àå äèéìä øéòé åëùëùä áàæðä ä"æ ôéøëåñ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Sugya both according to Rav and according to Shmuel.)

àôéìå ìøùá"â ãîçîéø åáòé ôéøëåñ éã åøâì, çùéá äàé ôéøëåñ.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): Even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is stringent and who requires Pirchus of both the foreleg and the hind leg, will concede that this is considered Pirchus.

åìäëé ôøéê ùôéø îáøééúà ã÷úðé áñîåê 'âåòä åäèéìä øéòé, àéï æä ôéøëåñ'.

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): Consequently, the Gemara's Kashya from the Beraisa which it asks shortly 'If the cow lows or defecates, this is not Pirchus' is justified.

åùîåàì ãàîø 'àéöèøéê ìéä ìàáà àæåæé àåðé', ñáø ëøáðï ãàîøé 'àå éã àå øâì'.

(c)

Clarification (Part 3): Whereas Shmuel, who asks whether Rav requires the animal to move its ear, holds like the Rabbanan, according to whom either the foreleg or the hind leg will suffice ...

åìäëé ôøéê òìéä ãøá òðï ãîôøù îéìúéä ãùîåàì 'úðéðà' - ãôùéèà ãàìéáà ãøáðï ôùåèä åëôôä, ä"æ ôéøëåñ; ëôåôä åôùèä ìà äåé ôéøëåñ.

(d)

Clarification (Part 4): Which explains why the Gemara asks on Rav Anan, who explains Shmuel's opinion - that this is a Mishnah and it is therefore obvious that according to the Rabbanan if the animal's leg was straight and it bent it, that this is considered Pirchus, where if it was bent and it straightened it, it is not considered Pirchus.

2)

TOSFOS DH ITZRICH LEIH L'ABA

úåñôåú ã"ä àöèøéê ìéä ìàáà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses Rashi and the Aruch's respective interpretations of 'Aba'.)

ôé' á÷åðèø' - ãùîåàì äåä ÷øé äëé ìøá áìùåï ëáåã.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Shmuel referred to Rav by that name by way of respect.

åáòøåê ôéøù ùëê ùîå, åøá äéå ÷åøéï àåúå òì ùí çùéáåúå, ëîå ãáëì ãåëúé äåå ÷øå ìéä 'øáé' ìø' éäåãä äðùéà. åùîåàì ùäéä çáéøå äéä ÷åøäå áùîå.

(b)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Whereas according to the Aruch, this was his real name, and they called him Rav on account of his eminence, in the same way as they referred Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, whom they referred to as 'Rebbi'. Only Shmuel, who was his Chaver, called him by his real name.

åëï ì÷îï 'àé äëé àîø àáà, ìà éãò áèøôåú ëìåí', åáòøáé ôñçéí (ôñçéí ãó ÷éè:) 'ëâåï âåæìééà ìé åàøæéìééà ìàáà, åáôø÷ ëì ââåú (òéøåáéï ãó öã.) 'àé ÷ôéã àáà, ÷èøå áéä äîééðà'.

1.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Likewise further on, where the Gemara says 'If that is what Aba said, then he knows nothing about T'reifos!', in Arvei Pesachim (Pesachim 119:) where it says 'for example, young pigeons for me and mushrooms for Aba!'; and in Perek Kol Gagos (Eruvin 94.) 'If Aba is particular, then let him take his belt and tie the Tallis!'.

åëôéøåùå îùîò ñåó ôø÷ øàùéú äâæ (ì÷îï ãó ÷ìæ:) ãàîø øáé éåçðï ìàéñé 'îàï øéù ñãøà áááì?' à"ì 'àáà àøéëà'. åëòñ òìéå ø' éåçðï òì ù÷øàå ëï, îùîò áäãéà ã'àáà' ìàå ìùåï çùéáåú.

(c)

Proof: And his explanation is implied at the end of Perek Reishis ha'Gez (later 137:), where Rebbi Yochanan was angry with Isi, when in reply to his query as to who led the learning Seider in Bavel, replied 'Aba Aricha', for calling him by that name, a clear indication that Aba is not a title of Kavod.

åîéäå îîä ùäéä ÷åøäå áùîå ìçåãéä ìà äéä ëåòñ, àé ìàå îùåí ãàîø 'àøéëà', ùæäå ìùåï âðàé, ãø' éåçðï âåôéä äéä ÷åøäå 'àáà' áôø÷ ëñåé äãí (ì÷îï ôã.) 'àáà îîùôçú áøéàéí äåä', àò"ô ùøá äéä çùåá äøáä îø' éåçðï.

(d)

Clarification: He would not have been angry however, merely because he called him by his name alone, if he had not have added 'Aricha' (lanky) which is degrading, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan himself called him 'Aba', in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (later on Daf 84.), when he said 'Aba is from a family of healthy people' - even though Rav was much more Chashuv than he was.

îéäå òì øá äåðà ãàîø áô' éä"ë (éåîà ãó ôæ.) '÷à àæéì àáà ìîé÷èì âáøà' ÷ùä, ùäéä úìîéãå å÷åøäå áùîå?

(e)

Question: On Rav Huna though, who said in Perek Yom ha'Kipurim (87.) 'Aba is going to kill a man', since he called him by his name, even though he was is Talmid.

åàîø áçì÷ (ñðäãøéï ÷.) 'îôðé îä ðòðù âçæé îôðé ù÷øà ìøáå áùîå'.

(f)

Source: And the Gemara in Cheilek (Sanhedrin 100.) explains that Gechazi was punished because he called his Rebbi (Elisha) by his name.

åìôéøåù ä÷åðè' ã'àáà' ìùåï çùéáåú, ðéçà.

(g)

Conclusion: According to Rashi however, who explains that 'Aba' is a Lashon of Chashivus, the Kashya falls away.

3)

TOSFOS DH ILEIMA B'SOF SHECHITAH KOL HEICHI TEISI VETEIZIL

úåñôåú ã"ä àéìéîà áñåó ùçéèä ëì äéëé úéçé åúéæéì

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the source of the Kashya must be the conclusion of the Tana's statement.)

åîôøù øáéðå úí, ãîã÷úðé 'ùàéðä àìà äåöàú ðôù' ãéé÷ ...

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara infers this from the fact that the Tana concludes 'she'Einah Ela Hotza'as Nefesh'.

ãàèå îé ìà çéúä äøáä àí ìà äåöéàä ðôùä òã ñåó ùçéèä?

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): (And what the Gemara is therefore asking is) would it not be considered a full life, if it only expired at the end of the Shechitah?

4)

TOSFOS DH RAVA AMAR PIRCHUS SHE'AMRU B'SOF SHECHITAH

úåñôåú ã"ä øáà àîø ôéøëåñ ùàîøå áñåó ùçéèä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not suspect that Zinuk occurred at the beginning of the Shechitah.)

åäà ãìà çééùéðï ãìîà áúçìú ùçéèä æéð÷ ...

(a)

Implied Question: Why do we not suspect that perhaps at the beginning of the Shechitah it squirted blood (Zinuk, which is considered Pirchus as we learned earlier)?

îùåí ãìà ùëéçà ùéäéä æéðå÷ àìà áñåó.

(b)

Answer: Because it is unusual for Zinuk to occur before the end of the Shechitah.

5)

TOSFOS DH KI YIVALED PRAT L'YOTZEI DOFEN (Belongs to Amud Beis)

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé éåìã ôøè ìéåöà ãåôï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the real source from which we preclude a Yotzei Dofen from Tum'as Leidah, and reconciles it with another source cited in the Sugya there).

ìàå îìùåï ìéãä ãøéù àìà âîø "ìéãä" "ìéãä" îáëåø, ëãàîøéðï áøéù ôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó î.).

(a)

Clarification: It is not from the Lashon "Leidah" that the Gemara extrapolates it but from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Leidah" Leidah" from B'chor, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 40.).

åäà ããøùéðï äúí "àùä ëé úæøéò åéìãä" - 'òã ùúìã îî÷åí ùîæøòú', ãîùîò ãöøéê îéòåè ìîòè éåöà ãåôï, åìà îîòèéðï ìéä î"ìéãä" "ìéãä" îáëåø?

(b)

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara there then Darshen "Ishah ki Sazri'a ve'Yaldah" - 'until she gives birth from the location where the seed is sown, implying that it comes to preclude a 'Yotzei Dofen. Why do we not learn it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Leidah" Leidah" from B'chor?

îùåí ãàé ìàå "ëé úæøéò", äåä ãøùéðï "úìã" 'ìøáåú éåöà ãåôï', ëøáé ùîòåï.

(c)

Answer: Because were it not for the Pasuk "ki Sazria", we would have Darshened "Teiled" 'to include a Yotzei Dofen, like Rebbi Shimon.

38b----------------------------------------38b

6)

TOSFOS DH O KESEV PRAT L'KIL'AYIM

úåñôåú ã"ä àå ëùá ôøè ìëìàéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why sometimes "O" comes to include and sometimes to exclude.)

úéîä, ãäëà "àå" - ìîòè, åáô"÷ (ìòéì ãó ëâ.) ÷àîø "àå" - ìøáåú ôìâñ?

(a)

Question #1: Why here, does "O" come to exclude, whereas in the first Perek (23.) we learned "O" to include a Palgas?

åâáé 'àåúå åàú áðå' ðîé ãøùéðï (ì÷îï ãó òç:) "àå ùä" - ìøáåú ëìàéí?

(b)

Question #2: And with regard to 'Oso ve'es B'no' too, we Darshen (later on Daf 78:) "O Seh" 'to include Kil'ayim'?

åéù ìåîø, ãâáé ôìâñ îîéìà àéîòéè, åìà öøéê ÷øà àìà ìøáåú.

(c)

Answer (Part 1): by Palgas, it is automatically precluded, and we only need a Pasuk to include it.

åëï ìâáé 'àåúå åàú áðå' îîéìà àéîòéè ëìàéí, ã'ùåø åùä' àé àúä éëåì ìäåöéà ëìàéí îáéðéäí.

(d)

Answer (Part 2): And by the same token, by 'Oso ve'es B'no', Kil'ayim is automatically excluded, seeing as an ox and a lamb cannot produce Kil'ayim (in which case the Pasuk must come to include it).

àáì äëà "ëùá åòæ" ëúéá, ùàúä éëåì ìäåöéà ëìàéí îáéðéäí, åîîéìà àéúøáå; ìäëé ëúéá "àå" ìîòè.

(e)

Answer (Part 3): Whereas here the Torah writes "Kesev va'Eiz" - which can produce Kil'ayim, which is therefore automatically included (in which case the Pasuk must come to preclude it).

åáëé äàé âåðà îùðé áîøåáä (á"÷ ãó òæ:) âáé "åèáçå àå îëøå".

(f)

Precedent: And the Gemara gives a similar answer in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama 77:) with regard to 'u'Tevacho O Mecharo".

åàí úàîø, àí ëï î"àå òæ" äéä ìîòè ëìàéí, ùàúä éëåì ìäåöéà ëìàéí îáéðéäí, "åîàå ëùá" ðãîä?

(g)

Question: In tahat case, we ought to preclude 'Kil'ayim' from "O Eiz" seeing as with a lamb it can produce Kil'ayim, and 'Nidmeh' from "O Kesev"?

åéù ìåîø, ãðãîä àéðå øàåé ëì ëê ìîòåèé ëîå ëìàéí; åìäëé îòåèà ÷îà îå÷îéðï áããîé èôé áëìàéí, åäãø îîòèéðï ðãîä, ãðãîä ìà îîòèéðï àìà îùåí ããîé ìëìàéí.

(h)

Answer: Nidmeh is not as apt to preclude as Kil'ayim; That is why we establish the first Miy'ut to preclude what is more apt - Kil'ayim, and only the second one, Nidmeh, since we only preclude Nidmeh because it is similar to Kil'ayim.

7)

TOSFOS DH ELA D'MEISAH V'HADAR YELIDTIHAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà ãîúä åäãø éìéãúéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this Gemara with other Sugyos which maintain that the fetus dies first.)

åäà ãàîø áôø÷ éåöà ãåôï (ðãä ãó îã.) åáôø÷ îé ùîú (á"á ãó ÷îá:) ã'òåáø îééú áøéùà' ...

(a)

Implied Question: When the Gemara says in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah 44.) and in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra 142:) that it is the fetus that dies first ...

äééðå äéëà ãîúä îòöîä, ëãàîø áô"÷ ãòøëéï (ãó æ.) ã'ååìã àééãé ãæåèø çéåúéä òééìà èéôúà ãîìàê äîåú åîçúëà ìñéîðéå ...

(b)

Answer (Part 1): That is specifically where the mother died by itself, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 7.) - because since the life of the fetus is minimal, the drop of the Angel of Death enters it and cuts the Simanim.

àáì ðäøâä ìà.

(c)

Answer (Part 2): But not where it (the mother) is killed (where she dies immediately).

8)

TOSFOS DH ELA ZEH PIRESH L'MISAH V'ZEH PIRESH L'CHAYIM

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà æä ôéøù ìîéúä åæä ôéøù ìçééí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot learn from here that 'Efshar Letzamtzem' even bi'Yedei Shamayim.)

àéï ìäåëéç îëàï ãàôéìå áéãé ùîéí àôùø ìöîöí ...

(a)

Refuted Proof: We cannot prove from here that 'Efshar Letzamtzem' (it is possible to define the exact moment), even bi'Yedei Shamayim (with regard to natural events).

ã÷øà àéëà ìîéîø ãàéöèøéê àí éáà àìéäå åéàîø ùáöîöåí ðòùä ...

(b)

Refutation (Part 1): Since it is possible to establish the Pasuk in a case where Eliyahu ha'Navi would come and testify that the two occurred precisely at the same moment.

åùá÷éðï ì÷øà ãàéäå ãçé÷ åîå÷é àðôùéä.

(c)

Refutation (Part 2): And we leave the Pasuk to establish itself (even if it is forced).

9)

TOSFOS DH ME'CHATZAR KAVEID SHE'LAH

úåñôåú ã"ä îçöø ëáã ùìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara mentions specifically the lobe of the liver.)

ìàå ãå÷à ð÷è éåúøú äëáã, îùåí ãòåìä ìâáåä, åäåéà ëçìá åãí?

(a)

Implied Question (Part 1): The Gemara does not specifically mention the lobe of the liver, seeing as the entire Olah goes up to Hash-m (i.e. is burned), in which case the entire animal is like the Cheilev and the Dam.

àìà àôéìå ëæéú ùì ùàø áùø ðîé, ëãàîøéðï áâîøà 'éäéá æåæà ìèáçà éùøàì, îàé?'

(b)

Implied Question (Part 2): Consequently, it refers to a k'Zayis of any other part of the flesh, like we say in the Gemara 'If he gave a Zuz to a Jewish butcher, what is the Din?'

åàåøçà ãîìúà äåà ãð÷è.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara therefore mentions it because it is common.

10)

TOSFOS DH PESULAH SHE'STAM MACHSHEVES OVEID KOCHAVIM L'AVODASKOCHAVIM

úåñôåú ã"ä ôñåìä ùñúí îçùáú òåáã ëåëáéí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we cannot extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer says 'Pesulah', that it is not Zivchei Meisim, like we do on the following Daf..

åàí úàîø, ì÷îï (ãó ìè: åùí) âáé 'äùåçè ìùí äøéí' ã÷úðé 'ôñåìä', åãéé÷ òìä 'ôñåìä àéï, æáçé îúéí ìà!' ôéøåù åìà îéúñøé áäðàä

(a)

Question (Part 1): Later (on Daf 39: & 40.) the Gemara comments on the Mishnah which invalidates the Shechitah of someone who Shechts in the name of mountains 'Pasul yes, Zivchei Meisim, no!' (meaning that it is not Asur be'Hana'ah ...

åäëà ÷úðé 'øáé àìéòæø àåîø ôñåìä, åàò"â ãàñåø àó áäðàä', ëã÷úðé ù'ñúí îçùáú òåáã ëåëáéí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí'?

(b)

Question (Part 2): Whereas here, Rebbi Eliezer says 'Pesulah', even though it is also Asur be'Hana'ah, as the Mishnah goes on to explain 'because the thought of a Nochri S'tam is for Avodah-Zarah'?

åéù ìåîø, ãì÷îï ãéé÷ îãìà ÷úðé 'äøé àìå æáçé îúéí'; àáì äëà, àééãé ãàîøé øáðï 'ëùøä', àîø øáé àìéòæø 'ô ñåìä'.

(c)

Answer: The inference of the Gemara later is based on the fact that it did not say 'Harei Eilu Zivchei Meisim'; whereas here Rebbi Eliezer says 'Pesulah' because the Chachamim said 'Kesheirah'.

11)

TOSFOS DH HANI TENA'I IS L'HU D'REBBI ELIEZER B'REBBI YOSSI

úåñôåú ã"ä äðé úðàé àéú ìäå ãøáé àìéòæø áø' éåñé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this cannot incorporate Rebbi Yossi.)

ôéøåù øáðï åøáé àìéòæø ãîúðéúéï.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): This refers to the Rabbanan and Rebii Eliezer in our Mishnah ...

àáì ø' éåñé ìà ñáø ìéä ëååúéä ...

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): But not to Rebbi Yossi, who cannot hold like Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi ...

ãäà àîø ã'àéï äëì äåìê àìà àçø äòåáã'.

(c)

Reason: Since he maintains that it all depends on the one who is performing the Avodah.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF