The gemara praises humility, esp. in leaders. Why is it permitted to cover blood with dust of a city that all worshipped idols (ir hanidachat)? Two answers are given. What are reasons for the mitzva of covering the blood? Details are brought in the mishna regarding the sciatic nerve that is forbidden to be eaten. The gemara questions the line in the mishna regarding that it is relevant for sacrifices – what is the meaning of that phrase?
Chullin 89
02.24.2019 | י״ט באדר א׳ תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 89
״אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל״, זָכוּ בָּנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת: לְחוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, וּרְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין.
“That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין, כְּתִיב: ״וְרָאוּ כׇּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם ה׳ נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ״, וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ תְּפִילִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, אֶלָּא חוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת מַאי הִיא?
The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries imparts benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool?
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה תְּכֵלֶת מִכׇּל הַצִּבְעוֹנִין? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתְּכֵלֶת דּוֹמֶה לַיָּם, וְיָם דּוֹמֶה לָרָקִיעַ, וְרָקִיעַ דּוֹמֶה לְאֶבֶן סַפִּיר, וְאֶבֶן סַפִּיר דּוֹמֶה לְכִסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן סַפִּיר דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא״.
The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the sapphire stone, and the sapphire stone is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: קָשֶׁה גָּזֵל הַנֶּאֱכָל, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַחְזִירוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים״.
The Gemara above mentioned that Abraham refused to accept property that did not belong to him. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba says: Difficult is the return of theft that has been consumed, as even the perfectly righteous are unable to return it, as it is stated: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours…except only that which the young men have eaten with me” (Genesis 14:23–24). Even the righteous Abraham was unable to return that which the young men had already consumed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בַּהַגָּדָה – עֲשֵׂה אׇזְנֶיךָ כַּאֲפַרְכֶּסֶת. ״לֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם מִכׇּל הָעַמִּים חָשַׁק ה׳ בָּכֶם וְגוֹ׳״ – אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: חוֹשְׁקַנִי בָּכֶם, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֲנִי מַשְׁפִּיעַ לָכֶם גְּדוּלָּה – אַתֶּם מְמַעֲטִין עַצְמְכֶם לְפָנַי.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Any place where you find the statements of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in reference to aggada, make your ears like a funnel [ka’afarkeset], i.e., be receptive to his words. As Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the verse: “Not because you are more in number than any people did the Lord desire you and choose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7), as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: I desire you, since even at a time that I bestow greatness upon you, you diminish, i.e., humble, yourselves before Me.
נָתַתִּי גְּדוּלָּה לְאַבְרָהָם – אָמַר לְפָנַי: ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, לְמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן – אָמַר: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״, לְדָוִד – אָמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי תוֹלַעַת וְלֹא אִישׁ״.
I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said: “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7).
אֲבָל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֵינָן כֵּן, נָתַתִּי גְּדוּלָּה לְנִמְרוֹד – אָמַר: ״הָבָה נִבְנֶה לָּנוּ עִיר״, לְפַרְעֹה – אָמַר: ״מִי ה׳״, לְסַנְחֵרִיב – אָמַר: ״מִי בְּכׇל אֱלֹהֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, לִנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר – אָמַר: ״אֶעֱלֶה עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב״, לְחִירָם מֶלֶךְ צוֹר – אָמַר: ״מוֹשַׁב אֱלֹהִים יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּלֵב יַמִּים״.
But the gentile nations of the world are not so. I granted greatness to Nimrod, yet he said: “Come, let us build a city and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4). I granted greatness to Pharaoh, yet he said: “Who is the Lord” (Exodus 5:2). I granted greatness to Sennacherib, yet he said: “Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand” (II Kings 18:35). I granted greatness to Nebuchadnezzar, yet he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:14). I granted greatness to Ḥiram, king of Tyre, yet he said: “I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28:2).
אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּדוֹל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאַבְרָהָם, דְּאִילּוּ בְּאַבְרָהָם כְּתִיב: ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, וְאִילּוּ בְּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כְּתִיב: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״. וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״תּוֹלֶה אָרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה״.
The Gemara relates: Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Greater is that which is stated with regard to Moses and Aaron than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “And I am but dust and ashes,” while with regard to Moses and Aaron it is written: “And what are we,” i.e., we are not even dust and ashes. And Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The world endures only in the merit of Moses and Aaron. It is written here: “And what are we,” and it written elsewhere: “He hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). That is, the earth endures in the merit of those who said of themselves that they are nothing, i.e., Moses and Aaron.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מִי שֶׁבּוֹלֵם אֶת עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מְרִיבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹלֶה אֶרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה״. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: מִי שֶׁמֵּשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִתַּחַת זְרוֹעוֹת עוֹלָם״.
With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself during a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing [belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״הַאֻמְנָם אֵלֶם צֶדֶק תְּדַבֵּרוּן מֵישָׁרִים תִּשְׁפְּטוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם״? מָה אוּמָּנוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה – יָשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלֵּם. יָכוֹל אַף לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צֶדֶק תְּדַבֵּרוּן״. יָכוֹל יָגִיס דַּעְתּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵישָׁרִים תִּשְׁפְּטוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם״.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do you indeed [ha’umnam] speak as a righteous company [elem]? Do you judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men” (Psalms 58:2)? The verse is interpreted as follows: What should be a person’s occupation [umanut] in this world? He should render himself silent as a mute [ilem]. If so, one might have thought that he should render himself as a mute even with regard to words of Torah. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak as a righteous company,” indicating that one should speak the righteous words of Torah. If so, he might have thought that one who speaks words of Torah has the right to become arrogant. Therefore, the verse states: “Judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men.” Even a learned judge must take extra care to judge with equity, and not assume that he will immediately arrive at the correct understanding.
אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה: מְכַסִּין בַּעֲפַר עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וְאַמַּאי? אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה הוּא!
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mitzva of covering the blood: Rabbi Zeira says, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya says: One may cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird with the dust of an idolatrous city. The Torah states that the city and anything contained therein must be burned (see Deuteronomy 13:17). The Gemara, assuming the statement of Rabbi Zeira refers to the ashes of a burned idolatrous city, asks: But why may one use these ashes to cover the blood? These ashes are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, as the verse states: “And there shall cleave none of the banned property to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַעֲפַר עֲפָרָהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ״, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר תְּלִישָׁה, קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה.
Ze’eiri said: Rabbi Zeira is not referring to the ashes of the burned city, which may not be used. Rather, his statement is necessary only concerning the dust of its dust, i.e., the dust of the ground of the idolatrous city, from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, as it is written: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city” (Deuteronomy 13:17). Accordingly, items lacking only the acts of gathering and burning must be burned. This serves to exclude this dust of the ground, which lacks the acts of removal from the ground, gathering, and burning. The dust must also be removed from the ground before it can be gathered and burned.
וְרָבָא אָמַר: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ.
And Rava says: One can even use the ashes from the idolatrous city to cover the blood, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. This is because mitzvot were not given for benefit, that is, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered deriving benefit, but the fulfillment of a divine decree.
יָתֵיב רָבִינָא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב רְחוּמִי לְרָבִינָא: שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יִתְקַע בּוֹ. מַאי לָאו, אִם תָּקַע לֹא יָצָא? לָא, אִם תָּקַע יָצָא.
The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha, that one may use the ashes of an idolatrous city to cover the blood. Rav Reḥumi raised an objection to Ravina from a baraita: With regard to a shofar of idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, one may not blow with it. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a shofar ab initio, but if one blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation.
לוּלָב שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל. מַאי לָאו, אִם נָטַל לֹא יָצָא? לָא, אִם נָטַל יָצָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: תָּקַע לֹא יָצָא, נָטַל לֹא יָצָא!
Rav Reḥumi persists: It is taught in another baraita that with regard to a lulav of idol worship, one may not take it to perform the mitzva. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one took such a lulav he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a lulav ab initio, but if one took it he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one blew a shofar of idolatry he has not fulfilled his obligation? And isn’t it taught in another baraita that if one took a lulav of idolatry to perform the mitzva he has not fulfilled his obligation?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם
Rav Ashi said in response: How can these cases be compared to the case of covering the blood? There, with regard to a shofar and lulav of idol worship, although the use of such items for a mitzva does not constitute benefit, one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, because
שִׁיעוּרָא בָּעֵינַן, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כַּתּוֹתֵי מְכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרַאּ. הָכָא, כֹּל מָה דִּמְכַתַּת מְעַלֵּי לְכִסּוּי.
we require a minimum measure in order to fulfill these mitzvot. A shofar must be large enough that, when grasped, part of it protrudes from both sides of one’s hand, and a lulav must be at least four handbreadths long. And since an object of idol worship and its effects must be burned, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha as crushed into powder. Since a shofar or lulav of idol worship is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burned, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva. By contrast, here, with regard to the ashes used to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, no minimum measure is required to fulfill the mitzva; in fact, the more the ash is crushed, the better it is for the mitzva of covering the blood.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כִּסּוּי הַדָּם.
מַתְנִי׳ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְנוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹף – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף.
MISHNA: The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard to sacrificial animals. And it applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. But it does not apply to a bird, due to the fact that the verse makes reference to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh.
וְנוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר.
And the prohibition applies to a late-term animal fetus [shalil] in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted.
וְאֵין הַטַּבָּחִין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו וְעַל הַחֵלֶב.
And butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.
גְּמָ׳ מוּקְדָּשִׁין – פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד מִינֵּיהּ?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to both non-sacred animals and sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: Is it not obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals? Would it be reasonable to suggest that because one consecrated it, he has abrogated the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve from it?
וְכִי תֵּימָא יֵשׁ בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְאָתֵי אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין וְחָיֵיל אַאִיסּוּר גִּיד, הַאי ״מוּקְדָּשִׁין נוֹהֵג בְּגִיד״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא קָסָבַר אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁין אִיסּוּר גִּיד אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין לֵיכָּא.
And if you would say that sciatic nerves have the ability to impart flavor, i.e., they possess flavor, and the mishna is teaching that the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals comes and takes effect upon the sciatic nerve despite the fact that it is already subject to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the mishna should have stated: The prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals applies to the sciatic nerve. The Gemara suggests: Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor, and the mishna is teaching that with regard to sacrificial animals there is a prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve but there is no additional prohibition of eating the meat of a sacrificial animal.
וְסָבַר תַּנָּא דִּידַן אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם? וְהָתְנַן: יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה!
The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does the tanna of our mishna hold that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (96b): In the case of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve in it, if there is enough of the sciatic nerve in the thigh to impart its flavor to the meat, the entire thigh is forbidden? Consequently, it is clear that the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does possess flavor.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים עָסְקִינַן, וְקָסָבַר נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְקָסָבַר וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, דְּאִיסּוּר גִּיד וְאִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
Rather, in the mishna here we are dealing with offspring of sacrificial animals. And the tanna holds that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to a fetus, and he also holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are consecrated even while they are in the womb of their mother. Consequently, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals come into effect at the same time, and therefore both prohibitions apply and one does not say that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ בִּשְׁלִיל, וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בִּשְׁלִיל עָסְקִינַן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara challenges this explanation: Can you interpret this clause of the mishna as referring to a fetus? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: It applies to a late-term fetus, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that it does not apply to a late-term fetus, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a fetus. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: This matter that was taught in the first clause is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ? וְהָתְנַן: עַל אֵלּוּ טוּמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל הַמֵּת וְעַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת.
The Gemara again challenges the explanation that the first clause of the mishna is referring to a fetus: And how can you say that both prohibitions come into effect at the same time? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these sources of ritual impurity: For impurity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.
וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: עַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא (נקשרו) [נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ] אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין.
And the clause: For impurity imparted by a corpse, is difficult for us, as it seems unnecessary; if a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not all the more so true that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is necessary only for a miscarried human fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Since the spine is complete the fetus is considered a full corpse, but as the limbs have not yet joined to the sinews it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
Chullin 89
״אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל״, זָכוּ בָּנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת: לְחוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, וּרְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין.
“That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין, כְּתִיב: ״וְרָאוּ כׇּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם ה׳ נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ״, וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ תְּפִילִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, אֶלָּא חוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת מַאי הִיא?
The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries imparts benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool?
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה תְּכֵלֶת מִכׇּל הַצִּבְעוֹנִין? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתְּכֵלֶת דּוֹמֶה לַיָּם, וְיָם דּוֹמֶה לָרָקִיעַ, וְרָקִיעַ דּוֹמֶה לְאֶבֶן סַפִּיר, וְאֶבֶן סַפִּיר דּוֹמֶה לְכִסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן סַפִּיר דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא״.
The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the sapphire stone, and the sapphire stone is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: קָשֶׁה גָּזֵל הַנֶּאֱכָל, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַחְזִירוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים״.
The Gemara above mentioned that Abraham refused to accept property that did not belong to him. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba says: Difficult is the return of theft that has been consumed, as even the perfectly righteous are unable to return it, as it is stated: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours…except only that which the young men have eaten with me” (Genesis 14:23–24). Even the righteous Abraham was unable to return that which the young men had already consumed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בַּהַגָּדָה – עֲשֵׂה אׇזְנֶיךָ כַּאֲפַרְכֶּסֶת. ״לֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם מִכׇּל הָעַמִּים חָשַׁק ה׳ בָּכֶם וְגוֹ׳״ – אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: חוֹשְׁקַנִי בָּכֶם, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֲנִי מַשְׁפִּיעַ לָכֶם גְּדוּלָּה – אַתֶּם מְמַעֲטִין עַצְמְכֶם לְפָנַי.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Any place where you find the statements of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in reference to aggada, make your ears like a funnel [ka’afarkeset], i.e., be receptive to his words. As Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the verse: “Not because you are more in number than any people did the Lord desire you and choose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7), as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: I desire you, since even at a time that I bestow greatness upon you, you diminish, i.e., humble, yourselves before Me.
נָתַתִּי גְּדוּלָּה לְאַבְרָהָם – אָמַר לְפָנַי: ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, לְמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן – אָמַר: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״, לְדָוִד – אָמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי תוֹלַעַת וְלֹא אִישׁ״.
I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said: “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7).
אֲבָל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֵינָן כֵּן, נָתַתִּי גְּדוּלָּה לְנִמְרוֹד – אָמַר: ״הָבָה נִבְנֶה לָּנוּ עִיר״, לְפַרְעֹה – אָמַר: ״מִי ה׳״, לְסַנְחֵרִיב – אָמַר: ״מִי בְּכׇל אֱלֹהֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, לִנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר – אָמַר: ״אֶעֱלֶה עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב״, לְחִירָם מֶלֶךְ צוֹר – אָמַר: ״מוֹשַׁב אֱלֹהִים יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּלֵב יַמִּים״.
But the gentile nations of the world are not so. I granted greatness to Nimrod, yet he said: “Come, let us build a city and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4). I granted greatness to Pharaoh, yet he said: “Who is the Lord” (Exodus 5:2). I granted greatness to Sennacherib, yet he said: “Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand” (II Kings 18:35). I granted greatness to Nebuchadnezzar, yet he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:14). I granted greatness to Ḥiram, king of Tyre, yet he said: “I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28:2).
אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּדוֹל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאַבְרָהָם, דְּאִילּוּ בְּאַבְרָהָם כְּתִיב: ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, וְאִילּוּ בְּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כְּתִיב: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״. וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״תּוֹלֶה אָרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה״.
The Gemara relates: Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Greater is that which is stated with regard to Moses and Aaron than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “And I am but dust and ashes,” while with regard to Moses and Aaron it is written: “And what are we,” i.e., we are not even dust and ashes. And Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The world endures only in the merit of Moses and Aaron. It is written here: “And what are we,” and it written elsewhere: “He hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). That is, the earth endures in the merit of those who said of themselves that they are nothing, i.e., Moses and Aaron.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מִי שֶׁבּוֹלֵם אֶת עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מְרִיבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹלֶה אֶרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה״. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: מִי שֶׁמֵּשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִתַּחַת זְרוֹעוֹת עוֹלָם״.
With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself during a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing [belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״הַאֻמְנָם אֵלֶם צֶדֶק תְּדַבֵּרוּן מֵישָׁרִים תִּשְׁפְּטוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם״? מָה אוּמָּנוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה – יָשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלֵּם. יָכוֹל אַף לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צֶדֶק תְּדַבֵּרוּן״. יָכוֹל יָגִיס דַּעְתּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵישָׁרִים תִּשְׁפְּטוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם״.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do you indeed [ha’umnam] speak as a righteous company [elem]? Do you judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men” (Psalms 58:2)? The verse is interpreted as follows: What should be a person’s occupation [umanut] in this world? He should render himself silent as a mute [ilem]. If so, one might have thought that he should render himself as a mute even with regard to words of Torah. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak as a righteous company,” indicating that one should speak the righteous words of Torah. If so, he might have thought that one who speaks words of Torah has the right to become arrogant. Therefore, the verse states: “Judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men.” Even a learned judge must take extra care to judge with equity, and not assume that he will immediately arrive at the correct understanding.
אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה: מְכַסִּין בַּעֲפַר עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וְאַמַּאי? אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה הוּא!
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mitzva of covering the blood: Rabbi Zeira says, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya says: One may cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird with the dust of an idolatrous city. The Torah states that the city and anything contained therein must be burned (see Deuteronomy 13:17). The Gemara, assuming the statement of Rabbi Zeira refers to the ashes of a burned idolatrous city, asks: But why may one use these ashes to cover the blood? These ashes are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, as the verse states: “And there shall cleave none of the banned property to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַעֲפַר עֲפָרָהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ״, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר תְּלִישָׁה, קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה.
Ze’eiri said: Rabbi Zeira is not referring to the ashes of the burned city, which may not be used. Rather, his statement is necessary only concerning the dust of its dust, i.e., the dust of the ground of the idolatrous city, from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, as it is written: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city” (Deuteronomy 13:17). Accordingly, items lacking only the acts of gathering and burning must be burned. This serves to exclude this dust of the ground, which lacks the acts of removal from the ground, gathering, and burning. The dust must also be removed from the ground before it can be gathered and burned.
וְרָבָא אָמַר: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ.
And Rava says: One can even use the ashes from the idolatrous city to cover the blood, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. This is because mitzvot were not given for benefit, that is, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered deriving benefit, but the fulfillment of a divine decree.
יָתֵיב רָבִינָא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב רְחוּמִי לְרָבִינָא: שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יִתְקַע בּוֹ. מַאי לָאו, אִם תָּקַע לֹא יָצָא? לָא, אִם תָּקַע יָצָא.
The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha, that one may use the ashes of an idolatrous city to cover the blood. Rav Reḥumi raised an objection to Ravina from a baraita: With regard to a shofar of idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, one may not blow with it. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a shofar ab initio, but if one blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation.
לוּלָב שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל. מַאי לָאו, אִם נָטַל לֹא יָצָא? לָא, אִם נָטַל יָצָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: תָּקַע לֹא יָצָא, נָטַל לֹא יָצָא!
Rav Reḥumi persists: It is taught in another baraita that with regard to a lulav of idol worship, one may not take it to perform the mitzva. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one took such a lulav he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a lulav ab initio, but if one took it he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one blew a shofar of idolatry he has not fulfilled his obligation? And isn’t it taught in another baraita that if one took a lulav of idolatry to perform the mitzva he has not fulfilled his obligation?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם
Rav Ashi said in response: How can these cases be compared to the case of covering the blood? There, with regard to a shofar and lulav of idol worship, although the use of such items for a mitzva does not constitute benefit, one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, because
שִׁיעוּרָא בָּעֵינַן, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כַּתּוֹתֵי מְכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרַאּ. הָכָא, כֹּל מָה דִּמְכַתַּת מְעַלֵּי לְכִסּוּי.
we require a minimum measure in order to fulfill these mitzvot. A shofar must be large enough that, when grasped, part of it protrudes from both sides of one’s hand, and a lulav must be at least four handbreadths long. And since an object of idol worship and its effects must be burned, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha as crushed into powder. Since a shofar or lulav of idol worship is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burned, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva. By contrast, here, with regard to the ashes used to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, no minimum measure is required to fulfill the mitzva; in fact, the more the ash is crushed, the better it is for the mitzva of covering the blood.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כִּסּוּי הַדָּם.
מַתְנִי׳ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְנוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹף – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף.
MISHNA: The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard to sacrificial animals. And it applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. But it does not apply to a bird, due to the fact that the verse makes reference to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh.
וְנוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר.
And the prohibition applies to a late-term animal fetus [shalil] in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted.
וְאֵין הַטַּבָּחִין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו וְעַל הַחֵלֶב.
And butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.
גְּמָ׳ מוּקְדָּשִׁין – פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד מִינֵּיהּ?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to both non-sacred animals and sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: Is it not obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals? Would it be reasonable to suggest that because one consecrated it, he has abrogated the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve from it?
וְכִי תֵּימָא יֵשׁ בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְאָתֵי אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין וְחָיֵיל אַאִיסּוּר גִּיד, הַאי ״מוּקְדָּשִׁין נוֹהֵג בְּגִיד״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא קָסָבַר אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁין אִיסּוּר גִּיד אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין לֵיכָּא.
And if you would say that sciatic nerves have the ability to impart flavor, i.e., they possess flavor, and the mishna is teaching that the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals comes and takes effect upon the sciatic nerve despite the fact that it is already subject to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the mishna should have stated: The prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals applies to the sciatic nerve. The Gemara suggests: Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor, and the mishna is teaching that with regard to sacrificial animals there is a prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve but there is no additional prohibition of eating the meat of a sacrificial animal.
וְסָבַר תַּנָּא דִּידַן אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם? וְהָתְנַן: יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה!
The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does the tanna of our mishna hold that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (96b): In the case of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve in it, if there is enough of the sciatic nerve in the thigh to impart its flavor to the meat, the entire thigh is forbidden? Consequently, it is clear that the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does possess flavor.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים עָסְקִינַן, וְקָסָבַר נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְקָסָבַר וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, דְּאִיסּוּר גִּיד וְאִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
Rather, in the mishna here we are dealing with offspring of sacrificial animals. And the tanna holds that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to a fetus, and he also holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are consecrated even while they are in the womb of their mother. Consequently, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals come into effect at the same time, and therefore both prohibitions apply and one does not say that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ בִּשְׁלִיל, וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בִּשְׁלִיל עָסְקִינַן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara challenges this explanation: Can you interpret this clause of the mishna as referring to a fetus? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: It applies to a late-term fetus, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that it does not apply to a late-term fetus, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a fetus. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: This matter that was taught in the first clause is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ? וְהָתְנַן: עַל אֵלּוּ טוּמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל הַמֵּת וְעַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת.
The Gemara again challenges the explanation that the first clause of the mishna is referring to a fetus: And how can you say that both prohibitions come into effect at the same time? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these sources of ritual impurity: For impurity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.
וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: עַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא (נקשרו) [נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ] אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין.
And the clause: For impurity imparted by a corpse, is difficult for us, as it seems unnecessary; if a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not all the more so true that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is necessary only for a miscarried human fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Since the spine is complete the fetus is considered a full corpse, but as the limbs have not yet joined to the sinews it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.
Follow
