Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bechoros, 10

1) NON-KOSHER ANIMALS THAT ARE CONSIDERED FOOD WITH REGARD TO "TUM'AS OCHLIN"

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?

ANSWERS:

(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 permitted.

(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)

10b

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 Tum'as Ochlin?

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 Chishuvo"?

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."