1)

TOSFOS DH MAR SAVAR

úåñôåú ã"ä îø ñáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rebbi Yochanan does not hold of Issur Kollel or Issur Mosif.)

îùîò ãàé ìàå ìàáøéí òåîãú ãàéñåø èøôä ÷ãéí ìà àúé àéñåø àáø åçééì òìä àò"â ãàéñåø îåñéó äåà ãàñåø ìáðé ðç

(a)

Explanation: This implies that if an animal is not meant for its limbs the prohibition of Treifah would be before Aiver Min ha'Chai, and therefore Aiver Min ha'Chai would not take effect despite the fact that it is an Issur Mosif because it is also forbidden to Nochrim.

åúéîä ãáôø÷ â' ãùáåòåú (ãó ëà:) åáô' áúøà ãéåîà (ãó òâ:) âáé ùáåòä ùìà àåëì ðáìåú åèøôåú ÷àîø øáé éåçðï áëåìì ãáøéí äîåúøéí òí äãáøéí äàñåøéí àìîà àéú ìéä àéñåø ëåìì åà"ë ë"ù àéñåø îåñéó ëãîåëç áôø÷ àøáòä àçéï (éáîåú ãó ìá:)

(b)

Question: This is difficult. In Shevuos (21b) and Yoma (73b), regarding a person who swears that he will not eat Neveilos and Treifos, Rebbi Yochanan says that when one includes permitted items in his oath along with items that are already forbidden to him that the oath is valid. This implies that he does hold of Issur Kollel. If so, certainly he should hold of Issur Mosif, as is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (32b that if one holds of Issur Kollel he certainly holds of Issur Mosif as well).

åé"ì àó òì âá ùôéøù øáé éåçðï îúðéúéï ãäúí áëåìì ìãéãéä ìà ñ"ì äëé

(c)

Answer: It is possible to say that even though Rebbi Yochanan explains the Mishnah there as referring to an Issur Kollel, he himself does not hold of Issur Kollel.

2)

TOSFOS DH U'MAR SAVAR

úåñôåú ã"ä åîø ñáø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Reish Lakish's position in an earlier argument.)

åà"ú ëîàï ñ"ì àé ëøáé àìòæø ãàîø ìòéì (ãó ÷á.) ëì ùàúä îöååä òì ãîå àúä îöååä òì àáøéå àí ëï ìéçééá ðîé äëà èøôä îùåí àáø îï äçé

(a)

Question: Who does he hold like? If he holds like Rebbi Elazar who says earlier (102a), "If you are commanded regarding its blood, you are commanded regarding its limbs" he should also be liable for the Aiver Min ha'Chai of this Treifah!

åàé ëøáðï ãàîøé ëì ùáùøå îåúø ëå' àí ëï ìîä ìï èòîà ãìàå ìàáøéí òåîãú

1.

Question (cont.): If he holds like the Rabbanan (ibid.) who say, "Any whose flesh is permitted etc." why does he need the reason that an animal is not for its limbs?

åé"ì ããøùéðï ëì îéï ùáùøå îåúø

(b)

Answer: We derive any type whose flesh is permitted etc.

3)

TOSFOS DH D'ISSUR CHEILEV

úåñôåú ã"ä ãàéñåø çìá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when prohibitions take effect even though other prohibitions are already present.)

ôé' ä÷åðèøñ ãëùðåìãä çì àéñåø çìá ãäà çìá ùìéì îåúø îëì ááäîä úàëìå

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that when it is born the prohibition of Cheilev takes effect, as the Cheilev of a fetus is permitted from the Pasuk, "From all that is in an animal you should eat."

å÷ùä ãäà à"ø éåçðï áô' áäîä äî÷ùä (ìòéì ãó òä.) úìù çìá áï è' çé çìáå ëçìá áäîä à"ë àéñåø çìá ÷ãéí

(b)

Question: This is difficult, as Rebbi Yochanan says (75a) that if a person tore off a piece of Cheilev from a living nine month old fetus, its Cheilev is like the Cheilev of an animal. If so, we see that the prohibition of Cheilev is before the other prohibitions!

åé"ì ãî"î àéñåø èøôä åàáø çééìé ààéñåø çìá ã÷éì ùäåúø îëììå

(c)

Answer: The prohibition against Treifah and Aiver Min ha'Chai take effect on the prohibition against Cheilev which is more lenient, as it is permitted in certain circumstances (i.e. the same fat of an undomesticated animal is permitted).

åáäãé äããé ÷àúå

1.

Implied Question: The Gemara said, "they all take effect at the same time." (If Cheilev is indeed before the others and the others merely take effect afterwards, why did the Gemara say, "they all take effect at the same time?")

ìà ð÷è àìà îùåí èøôä åàáø

2.

Answer: This was only stated due to Treifah and Aiver Min ha'Chai which indeed take effect together.

åîéäå ÷ùä ãáñåó ãí ùçéèä (ëøéúåú ãó ëâ:) àîøéðï ãá÷ãùéí àéñåø çì òì àéñåø ãëúéá ëì çìá ìä' ìøáåú àîåøé ÷ãùéí ÷ìéí ìîòéìä ãàúé àéñåø îòéìä åçééì ààéñåø çìá

(d)

Question: However, this is difficult. The Gemara in Kerisus (23b) says Issur Chal Al Issur regarding Kodshim, as the Pasuk states, "All Cheilev is for Hash-m." The Gemara derives that this includes the limbs of Kodshim Kalim in the prohibition of Meilah (usurping Hekdesh). This shows that the prohibition of Meilah takes effect on the prohibition of Cheilev.

åôøéê ìî"ã àó á÷ãùéí àéï àéñåø çì òì àéñåø ì"ì ëì çìá åîå÷é ìä áåìãåú ÷ãùéí å÷ñáø áäååééúï äï ÷ãåùéï åáäãé äããé ÷àúå åäùúà àëúé ìøáé éåçðï äà àéñåø çìá ÷ãéí ãçì áîòé àîå

1.

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks that according to the opinion that we do not say Issur Chal Al Issur regarding Kodshim, why does the Pasuk say "All Cheilev?" The Gemara answers that it is for offspring of Kodshim animals, and it teaches us that they have the holiness of their parent, and that the prohibitions (of Meilah and Cheilev) come together. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the prohibition of Cheilev should be first, as it takes effect when it is in its mother's womb!

åðøàä ìôøù ããå÷à ð÷è úìù çìá åäåöéàå îîòé àîå ìçåõ äåà ãîé÷øé çìá

(e)

Answer: The explanation seems to be that he specifically discussed tearing off a piece of Cheilev and taking it out of the mother. This is called Cheilev.

åäà ãàîø çãùéí äåà ãâøîé åìà àåéøà

1.

Implied Question: The Gemara says that the months cause it to become Cheilev, not it being in the air (of the world, i.e. outside its mother). (This is unlike what we are saying!)

àåéøà ãáäîä äåà ãìà áòé àáì àåéøà ãçìá áòéðï åäùúà ðéçà äëà ãëåìäå áäãé äããé ÷àúå

2.

Answer: The Gemara means that being outside its mother does not cause it to be Cheilev, but once it is Cheilev it does need to be outside the mother. Now it is understandable that the prohibitions arrive together.

åäà ã÷àîø ëùðèøôä òí éöéàú øåáä äåà äãéï ðèøôä áîòé àîä ãìà îéçééá îùåí èøôä òã ùéåìã ëîå çìá

3.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara says that the case is when it became a Treifah when most of it came out of the mother, it could also have said the case was when it became a Treifah inside the mother. In such a case he would not be liable due to Treifah until it is born, just like he is not liable for Cheilev until this point. (Why, then, does it say a case where most of it came out?)

àìà ìà àúé àìà ìàôå÷é ðèøôä ìàçø éöéàú øåáä

4.

Answer: Rather, it wanted to exclude a case where it became a Treifah after most of it came out.

åà"ú ìøáà ãàîø ìòéì ëâåï ùúìù îîðä àáø åèøôä áå åìàå ìàáøéí òåîãú ãäùúà áäãé äããé ÷àúå

(f)

Question: Rava said earlier that the case, for example, is if someone detached a limb from it and caused it to be a Treifah by doing so. The animal is not meant for its limbs, and therefore the prohibitions arrive at the same time.

îùîò ãàí ðèøôä ÷åãí ùðúìù äàáø ìà àúé àéñåø àáø åçééì òì àéñåø èøôä

1.

Question (cont.): This implies that if it became a Treifah before the limb was ripped off, the prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai would not take effect on the prohibition of Treifah.

à"ë äéëé îùëçú ìä ùìù äëà ìø' éåçðï ëéåï ãìàå ìàéáøéí òåîãú åàéï àéñåø àáø çì òì àéñåø èøôä

2.

Question (cont.): If so, how can we find three prohibitions here according to Rebbi Yochanan who holds that an animal is not meant for its limbs and that the prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai should not take effect on the prohibition of Treifah?

åé"ì ëâåï ùúìù îîðä àáø åèøôä áå ãîéâå ãàúé àéñåø èøôä åçééì ààéñåø çìá çééì ðîé àéñåø àáø òìéå

(g)

Answer: The case would be where he ripped off a limb and caused it to become a Treifah, as since the prohibition of Treifah is taking effect on the prohibition of Cheilev, the prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai also takes effect.

åî"ã ùúéí ìéú ìéä äàé îéâå àìà ãå÷à àéñåø èøôä ãâìé ÷øà çééì åìà àéñåø àáø

1.

Answer (cont.): The opinion that holds there are only two prohibitions does not hold that such logic applies. Rather, only the prohibition of Treifah which the Pasuk reveals takes effect indeed takes effect, not the prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai.

åà"ú ìääåà ìéùðà ãàîø ìòéì ãë"ò ìàå ìàáøéí òåîãú åìøáé éåçðï àéñåø àáø çééì ààéñåø èøôä à"ë äéëé îùëçú ìä ãìà îéçééá àìà ùúéí áàëì çìá îï äçé åîï äèøôä

(h)

Question: According to the version of the Gemara earlier that held that everyone agrees an animal is not meant for its limbs while alive and that Rebbi Yochanan holds the prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai takes effect on the prohibition against Treifah, how can it be one is only liable for two prohibitions when he eats Cheilev from a live Treifah?

åé"ì ëâåï ùòí éöéàú øåáä ðèøôä åàéñåø àáø ùáà ìáñåó ðäé ãçééì ààéñåø èøôä ã÷éì òì àéñåø çìá ãçîéø ãáëøú ìà çééì

(i)

Answer: The case is that it became a Treifah when most of it came out. While the prohibition of Aiver Min ha'Chai takes effect on the prohibition of Treifah, it does not take effect on the prohibition of Cheilev which is stringent, as one is liable to receive Kares if he transgresses it.

103b----------------------------------------103b

4)

TOSFOS DH CHALKO MI'BACHUTZ

úåñôåú ã"ä çì÷å îáçåõ

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the nature of the case discussed in our Gemara.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ ëæéú àáø îï äçé çì÷å ìùðéí ÷åãí ùéúððå ìúåê ôéå åàëì æä ìáãå åàç"ë àëì çöéå äùðé îùîò ãàí ðúï ùðé äçì÷éí áôéå åáìòï ááú àçú çééá ìë"ò

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the case is where a Kezayis of Aiver Min ha'Chai was split in half before he put it in his mouth. He ate one half, and then ate the other half. This implies that if he would put both halves in his mouth at the same time and swallowed them at once, he would liable according to everyone.

åàéï ðøàä ãàí ëï îàé ÷ùéà ìéä ìøéù ì÷éù äéëé îùëçú ìä ãîéçééá åëé àéðå éëåì ìáìåò ëæéú ááú àçú

(b)

Question #1: This does not appear to be correct. If so, why does the Gemara ask how Reish Lakish can have a case where one is liable? He can't swallow a Kezayis at one time (i.e. swallow)?!

åäà àîøéðï áôø÷ áúøà ãéåîà (ãó ô.) ãáéú äáìéòä îçæé÷ ëáéöú úøðâåìú ãâãåìä éåúø îâøåâøú ëãîåëç áôø÷ çìåï (òéøåáéï ãó ô:) ãàéëà ëîä âøåâøåú áñòåãä ùì òéøåá åâøåâøú âãåìä éåúø îëæéú ëãîåëç áôø÷ äîöðéò (ùáú ãó öà.) åàîøé' áô' àîøå ìå (ëøéúåú ãó éã.) ãàéï áéú äáìéòä îçæé÷ éåúø îùðé æéúéí îùîò ãùðé æéúéí îçæé÷

1.

Proof: We say in Yoma (80a) that the area one uses to swallow can hold a K'Beitzah which is bigger than a big fig. This is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (80b) that says that there are (the amount of) many such big figs in the meal set aside as an Eiruv. A big fig is bigger than a Kezayis, as is apparent in Shabbos (91a). We say in Kerisus (14a) that the area where one swallows does not hold more than two Kezaysim. This indicates that it does hold two Kezaysim.

åòåã ãëé äéëé ãàò"ô ùçì÷å îáçåõ åäðéçí ááú àçú ìúåê ôéå îéçééá ìø' éåçðï ãàæéì áúø àëéìú ôéå ìôé ùðäðä âøåðå ëæéú ááú àçú ä"ð àôéìå áìòï áæä àçø æä éúçééá ìøéù ì÷éù ãàæéì áúø àëéìú îòéå ëéåï ùéù ëæéú ááú àçú áîòéå ÷åãí ùéúòëì ãàéðå îîäø ìäúòëì ëãîåëç áñîåê

(c)

Question #2: Additionally, just as Rebbi Yochanan would say he is liable even though he split the Kezayis in half and put the halves in his mouth at one time, as he goes after the eating of his mouth which resulted in his throat benefiting from a Kezayis at one time, so too if he swallowed one half and then the other Reish Lakish would say he is liable. This is because he says that one looks at the eating done by the stomach. Since there is a Kezayis at one time in his stomach before it gets digested, as it does not digest that quickly, he is certainly liable as is apparent later.

åðøàä ìôøù ãçì÷å îáçåõ ôèåø åàôéìå àëìå ááú àçú ãáòéðï ùéäà îçåáø áôéå åéäéä òìéå ùí àáø îùåí ãäëà çãåù äåà ëãôéøù á÷åðè' ãáòìîà ìà îéçééá àâéãéï åòöîåú åäëà îéçééá åàéï ìê áå àìà çéãåùå

(d)

Explanation #2: It appears that dividing it in half makes one exempt even if he eats it at one time, as we require that the Kezayis should be one attached mass in his mouth when it is being eaten. It has to be considered an Aiver Min ha'Chai while he is eating it, as this is a novel law as Rashi himself explained. The novelty is that usually one is not liable for eating sinews and bones, while he is regarding Aiver Min ha'Chai. Accordingly, we can only say one is liable if he does the exact novel prohibition, which is to have an entire Kezayis of a limb in his mouth.

àáì çì÷å áôðéí çééá ããøê äåà ùðçì÷ áôéå áùòú ìòéñä åøéù ì÷éù ôèø åàôé' çì÷å áôðéí

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): However, if he chewed it in half in his mouth he is liable, as it is a normal thing to do while chewing. Reish Lakish will say he is exempt even if he chewed it in half while it was in his mouth.

åìëê ãåç÷ äù"ñ àìéáéä äéëé îùëçú ìä ùéúçééá áãøê àëéìä åîùðé áâøåîéúà æòéøúà ãàéï àãí ìåòñå àìà áåìòå

2.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is why the Gemara asks according to Reish Lakish, how will we find a case where he is liable while eating? The Gemara answers that this can be in a case of a small Grumisa bone (which also has meat etc. amounting to a Kezayis), that a person would not chew but rather would swallow.

åîéäå ìøáé àìòæø åãàé çééá çì÷å îáçåõ ãàôéìå àëì æä àçø æä îéçééá

(e)

Observation: However, according to Rebbi Elazar one would certainly be liable if he split it outside his mouth, as he would even say that if he ate the halves one after the other he would be liable.

5)

TOSFOS DH KOL HA'BASAR

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì äáùø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and the Rashbam answer why the Tosefta states an entire list of criteria that seems unnecessary regarding Basar b'Chalav.)

úéîä ãìà úðé áàøõ åáçå"ì áôðé äáéú åùìà áôðé äáéú áçåìéï åáîå÷ãùéï ëîå áäðê ôéø÷éï åáúåñôúà úðé ìäå

(a)

Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah does not follow the style of the first Mishnah in the other chapters of Chulin that say the topic applies, "In Eretz Yisrael and outside of it, when there is a Beis Hamikdash and when there is not, both to Chulin and Mukdashin?" The Tosefta indeed states this regarding our chapter as well! (The Maharsha and Tiferes Yaakov understand Tosfos is not asking why our Mishnah does not say the above, as it is obvious and there is no need to say it. The question is, if there is no need to say it, why does the Tosefta bother to say it?) (It should be noted that the Ran and Maharam have a different understanding of Tosfos.)

åùîà îàé ãùééø áîúðéúéï ôéøù ááøééúà åàùîòéðï ãçééì àéñåø áùø áçìá ààéñåø îå÷ãùéï

(b)

Answer #1: Perhaps what is left out of the Mishnah is explained in a Beraisa, and the Beraisa (i.e. Tosefta) is teaching us that the prohibition of meat and milk applies to Mukdashin.

åøùá"í ôé' ãàéöèøéê îùåí çå"ì ãñ"ã ãàéðå ðåäâ áç"ì îùåí ãàéú÷ù ìáëåøéí (ùîåú ëâ) áçã ÷øà øàùéú áëåøé àãîúê ìà úáùì âãé áçìá àîå

(c)

Answer #2: The Rashbam explains that this listing is needed in order to state that it applies outside of Eretz Yisrael. One might think it does not because it is compared to Bikurim as the Pasuk says, "The first fruits of your land...do not cook a kid in its mother's milk" (Shemos 23:19).

åìôéøåùå ðéçà äà ãàîø áô' øàùéú äâæ (ì÷îï ãó ÷ìå.) ãàøöê ãáëåøéí àúà ìîòåèé çå"ì ãàò"â ãäéà îöåä äúìåéä áàøõ àéöèøéê îùåí ãàéú÷éù ìáùø áçìá

(d)

Observation: According to his explanation the Gemara later (136a) is understandable. The Gemara says that the Pasuk, "your land" regarding Bikurim excludes bringing Bikurim from outside of Eretz Yisrael. Even though it is a Mitzvah that is dependent on the land, it must exclude outside of Eretz Yisrael because it is compared to Basar b'Chalav.

6)

TOSFOS DH V'ASSUR

úåñôåú ã"ä åàñåø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the "besides" in the second part of the Mishnah is said to match the first part of the Mishnah.)

äàé çåõ ìà àéöèøéê ãàôéìå ìáùì ùøé

(a)

Implied Question: Saying "besides" here is unnecessary, as one is even allowed to cook these things together. (Why, then, does it discuss putting them on the same table when they can even be cooked together?)

àìà àâá øéùà ð÷èéä

(b)

Answer: Rather, it is said as an aside to the first part of the Mishnah (which states that all meat cannot be cooked with milk "besides" for the meat of fish etc.).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF