ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 5
CHULIN 4-5 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne
Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben
Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of
supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his Yahrzeit serve
as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
(a) We try to learn from the Pasuk "Kamoni Kamocha, ke'Ami ke'Amcha" - that
Yehoshafat did not segregate from Achav, but that he trusted him and his
Shechitah (even though the latter was a Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim).
(b) We refute this proof however - on the basis of the Pasuk "ke'Susi
ke'Susecha", which can only be referring to the impending battle, and not to
spiritual matters (and that is how we will learn "Kamoni ke'Kamocha ... ",
(c) We ultimately learn it from the Pasuk there "u'Melech Yisrael
vi'Yehoshafat Melech Yehudah Yoshvim ... *ba'Goren*, Pesach Sha'ar
Shomron" - which means to compare the relationship of the two kings as
cordial (like the Sanhedrin, which is called 'Goren', because they sat in a
semi-circle, so that all the Dayanim could see each other).
(d) "Goren" cannot be taken literally - because the gates of Shomron would
hardly have been a granary?
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comments on the Pasuk there "ve'ha'Orvim Mevi'im Lo
Lechem u'Basar ba'Boker ve'Lechem u'Basar ba'Erev" - that they brought the
meat from the slaughter-house of Achav.
(b) There is no proof from there for Rava however, that 'Mumar le'Oso Davar
Lo Havi Mumar' (as long as it is easily available [though it is unclear who
examined the knives for Achav's Shochtim] see also Tosfos DH 'al-Pi
ha'Dibur') - because Eliyahu ate the meat by Divine Command.
(a) Rav Ada bar Minyumi tries to disprove Ravina, who translates "Orvim" as
'ravens', from the Pasuk "Va'yahargu es Orev be'Tzur Orev ... " - where we
see that Orev is the name of a person. In that case, perhaps here too,
've'ha'Orvim' refers to two men by the name of Orev.
(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the basis of the unlikelihood
that both men would have been called by the same (unusual) name.
(c) Rebbi P'das explains the Pasuk that refers to the young Jewish girl
captured by the Syrians as a "Na'arah Ketanah" (who cannot, at one and the
same time, have been both a Na'arah and a Ketanah) as - a Ketanah from a
town called 'Ne'uran'.
(d) We cannot, by the same token, translate "ha'Orvim" as 'the men from
Orev' - because the Pasuk would then have written "ha'Orviyim" (with two
(a) We already cited the Beraisa 'ha'Kol Shochtin va'Afilu Kuti, va'Afilu
Areil, va'Afilu Mumar' earlier in the Sugya. We now try to prove Rav Anan
Amar Shmuel ('Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim Lo Havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah
Kulah') from 'va'Afilu Mumar' - since we already know 'Mumar le'Davar Echad'
from 'va'Afilu Areil' (as we proved there), in which case 'va'Afilu Mumar'
must refer to a Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim.
(b) We reject this proof however - because the Tana might be referring to a
Mumar le'Oso Davar (who has been given a knife that has been examined, like
(c) A Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim might be worse than a Mumar le'Oso Davar' -
because, as Mar said, Avodas Kochavim is particularly severe, since whoever
denies it is considered as if he had accepted the entire Torah (and
conversely, whoever accepts it, is considered as if he had denied the entire
(a) The Torah writes "Adam ki Yakriv *Mikem* Korban", from which the Beraisa
learns - "Mikem", 've'Lo Kulchem, Lehotzi es ha'Mumar'.
(b) When the Tana adds "Mikem", 'Bachem Chilakti, ve'Lo ba'Umos', he means -
that the above distinction only exists by a Yisrael, but not by a Nochri
(who, we already know can bring Korbanos from "Ish", as we will learn
(c) The Tana interprets "min ha'Beheimah" allegorically as - people who are
like animals (i.e. who sin without restraint).
(d) And he learns from here that one may accept Korbanos from sinners
('Posh'ei Yisrael') - with reference to a Mumar le'Davar Echad (to encourage
them to do Teshuvah).
(a) In view of what we just explained, we interpret ...
1. ... the Reisha "Mikem" ... 'Lehotzi es ha'Mumar' - with regard to a Mumar
le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah.
(b) The Beraisa - serves as a final proof against Rav Anan Amar Shmuel, that
'Mumar la'Avodas Kochavim Havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah'.
2. ... the Seifa *'Chutz min ha'Mumar*, u'Menasech es ha'Yayin u'Mechalel
Shabbasos be'Farhesya' - to read 'Chutz min ha'Mumar Lenasech es ha'Yayin
(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in
connection with a Korban Chatas) "me'Am ha'Aretz", 'P'rat le'Mumar". Rebbi
Shimon ben Yossi Amar Rebbi Yossi learns from the Pasuk there "Asher Lo
Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Ashem" - that anyone may bring a Chatas, provided
he would have retracted had he known that what he was doing is forbidden
(e.g. had he known that what he was eating was Cheilev, he would not have
(b) Rav Hamnuna explains the ramifications of their Machlokes - with regard
to a case where a Mumar Le'echol Cheilev ate Dam be'Shogeg. He is obligated
to bring a Korban, according to Amar Rebbi Yossi, but forbidden to bring
it, according to the Tana Kama.
(c) In spite of the fact that we already know from there that a Mumar cannot
bring a Chatas, we nevertheless need the Pasuk "Mikem", 've'Lo Kulchem', to
teach us that he cannot bring an Olah either. We would not know ...
1. ... Olah - (which comes as a mere gift), from Chatas - from which he is
perhaps disqualified, because it comes as a Kaparah (of which he is not
(d) The S'vara ...
2. ... Chatas - which is obligatory, from Olah - which is voluntary.
1. ... on the one hand, to disqualify a Mumar from bringing an Olah is -
that it is a disgracev for Hashem to receive a gift from such a person (as
the Pasuk writes in Mishlei "Zevach Resha'im To'eivah".
2. ... on the other hand, to obligate him to bring a Chatas (if not for the
Pasuk that disqualifies him too) - to deprive the sinner of any financial
benefit from his sin.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav interprets the Pasuk "Adam u'Veheimah Toshi'a
Hashem" to mean - that Hashem will save those people who are wise like Adam
ha'Rishon, but who make themselves small like an animal.
(b) To reconcile this with the Beraisa on Amud Alef, which Darshens "min
ha'Beheimah" derogatively - we differentiate between here, where the Pasuk
mentions 'Adam' together with "Beheimah", and there, where it does not.
(c) Regarding the Pasuk "Ve'zara'ti es Beis Yisrael Zera Adam ve'Zera
1. ... "Zera Adam" refers to - Talmidei-Chachamim, and ...
(d) And we reconcile this with the current Beraisa, which Darshens "Adam
u'Veheimah Toshi'a Hashem" positively - by pointing to the double "Zera",
which divides between "Adam" and "Beheimah".
2. ... "Zera Beheimah" - to Amei-ha'Aretz, who have learned neither Chumash,
nor Mishnah, not Gemara.
(a) Rav Chanan ... states in the name of bar Kapara - that Rabban Gamliel
and his Beis-Din issued a decree forbiding the Shechitah of a Kuti.
(b) The Raban Gamliel to whom he is referring to is - Raban Gamliel the son
(c) This does not mean that Raban Gamliel disagrees with our Mishnah (which
validates the Shechitah of a Kuti, according to Abaye and Rava) - since the
decree was issued after the ruling in the Mishnah.
(a) When Rebbi Zeira suggested that perhaps bar Kapara statement is confined
to where there was no Yisrael watching him when he Shechted, Rav Ya'akov bar
Idi - exclaimed in surprise that such a suggestion created the impression
that Rebbi Zeira did not how to learn ...
(b) ... because if their Shechitah is not supervised, then, knowing their
aversion to the La'av of 'Lifnei Iver', it is obvious that their Shechitah
is Pasul, and does not require a special decree to forbid it.
(c) Whether or not, Rebbi Zeira accepted his objection - is the subject of
the She'eilah that we are about to discuss.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak cites Rebbi Asi, who saw Rebbi Yochanan eat
from the Shechitah of a Nochri, and he goes on to say - that Rebbi Asi did
the same thing.
(b) They did that - either with a Yisrael watching them (incorporating
'Yotzei ve'Nichnas') or after handing him a piece of meat from his Shechitah
and watching him eat it.
(c) Rebbi Zeira asks on this - whether they had perhaps not heard of Raban
Gamliel and his Beis-Din's ruling, or whether they had, but disagreed with
(a) Rebbi Zeira concludes that they must have heard of the ruling, but
disagreed with it is, because if they had not (but would have agreed if they
had) - then it transpires that they sinned, and we have a principle that
Hashem does not bring a Takalah on Tzadikim (even an inadvertent one) ...
(b) ... 'Kal va'Chomer' from their animals, as we shall see later (in
connection with the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir).
(c) This proves - that Rebbi Zeira must have accepted Rebbi Ya'akov's
refutation of his suggestion, because if he hadn't, then he could have
easily reconciled Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Asi with Raban Gamliel's ruling
by establishing the former when a Jewish supervisor was present, and the
latter, when he was not.