THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
BECHOROS 7-10 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) NON-KOSHER ANIMALS THAT ARE CONSIDERED FOOD WITH REGARD TO "TUM'AS
QUESTIONS: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Uktzin (3:3) that states that the
Neveilah of a non-Kosher animal in all places, and the Neveilah of a Kosher
bird and Chelev in villages, require Machshavah in order to be able to
become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin, but do not require Hechsher.
RASHI (DH Nivlas Behemah Teme'ah) explains that in all places one can assume
that a Neveilah of a non-Kosher animal is not designated to be eaten,
because, besides being forbidden to Jews to eat, it is repulsive for Nochrim
to eat. Therefore, it is not considered a food in itself until one gives it
the status of food by having intention to eat it. Rashi writes that the
Neveilah of a non-Kosher animal possesses two reasons to disqualify it from
being considered as food. First, it was not slaughtered according to
Halachah. Second, it is a non-Kosher animal and is forbidden to be eaten.
Rashi (b'Kefarim) explains that the reason why the Neveilah of a Kosher bird
and Chelev in villages require Machshavah is because in those places the
people are poor and are not accustomed to eating poultry and fats.
Consequently, in those places poultry and Chelev are not considered to be
food without Machshavah.
The Gemara continues and cites the rest of the Mishnah in Uktzin, which
states that the Neveilah of a Kosher animal in all places, and the Neveilah
of a Kosher bird and Chelev in "the markets" (Rashi explains that this
refers to highly populated cities where people are wealthy and are
accustomed to eating poultry and fats), do not require Machshavah or
Hechsher. Rashi (DH Nivlas Behemah Tehorah) explains that the Neveilah of a
Kosher animal has only one disqualifying feature -- it was not slaughtered
according to Halachah.
In the end of the Mishnah in Uktzin, Rebbi Shimon states that even a camel,
hare, hyrax, and pig are considered to be food with regard to Tum'as Ochlin
and do not require Machshavah or Hechsher. Rebbi Shimon explains that this
is because they each have one of the Simanim of Kosher animals.
There are two basic questions we may ask on the Gemara here.
(a) Why is the Neveilah of a Kosher animal considered to be food? It can be
eaten only when sold to a Nochri, but Nochrim prefer the meat of Chazir to
the meat of a Kosher animal. Why, then, according to the Tana Kama is the
Neveilah of a Kosher animal considered to be food more than pig?
(b) Why, according to Rebbi Shimon, does it make a difference that the
camel, hare, hyrax, and pig possess one Siman of a Kosher animal? How does
this fact make it more worthy of eating and being considered food? Just
because it has one Siman does not make it more Kosher than an animal that
has no Siman! How does having one Siman make it more of a food for Nochrim
so that it does not require Machshavah to become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Nivlas Behemah Tehorah) writes that the relevant factor is
not whether Nochrim want to eat the food, but rather how close it is to
being permitted to a Jew. Accordingly, the Neveilah of a Kosher animal is
considered food, because it if would not be a Neveilah, it would be fully
(b) The MELECHES SHLOMO (Uktzin 3:3, DH Af) answers that we have no option
other than to say that the decisive difference is whether the animal has two
disqualifying factors or one. The Neveilah of a non-Kosher animal has two
disqualifying factors. In contrast, an animal that has one Siman of a Kosher
animal does not require Machshavah to become Tamei. (This is alluded to in
the words of Tosfos.) (D. Bloom)
2) "ISURO CHISHUVO"
QUESTION: The Gemara (9b) records a Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the
Rabanan (9b) regarding whether a Peter Chamor (after Arifah) is subject to
the laws of Tum'as Ochlin. The Gemara asks that since Rebbi Shimon permits
benefiting from a Peter Chamor after Arifah, it should be like any other
food. Why, then, does Rebbi Shimon say that it does not become Tamei with
Rava explains that Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan are discussing a Peter
Chamor that was slaughtered with Shechitah by a Jew as practice. Both agree
that there is no principle of "Isuro Chishuvo" -- the fact that the Torah
prohibits eating it does *not* make it significant such that it can become
Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin. Rather, they argue whether or not a non-Kosher
animal that is slaughtered for practice is considered to be a food and is
Metamei, just like a non-Kosher animal that a Jew slaughters for a Nochri.
Rava adds that the argument between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan is the same
as the argument between Nimus and Rebbi Eliezer. However, the Gemara
continues and explains that Nimus and Rebbi Eliezer are arguing about
whether or not "Isuro Chishuvo"! How can Rava say that the argument between
Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan is the same as the argument between Nimus and
Rebbi Eliezer, if he says that the former Tana'im are *not* arguing about
"Isuro Chishuvo," while the latter Tana'im *are* arguing about "Isuro
ANSWER: RABEINU GERSHOM explains that although the Gemara -- when describing
the argument between Nimus and Rebbi Eliezer -- uses the same term ("Isuro
Chishuvo") that Rava uses earlier, the term here has an entirely different
meaning. Rava uses the term to refer to an animal that was slaughtered for
practice, and the word "Isuro" means "that which has been slaughtered not
for eating, but for practice."