(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 13



(a) The Mishnah in Machshirin rules that if someone moves 'fruit' (beans or lentils) on to the roof to prevent them from becoming infested with lice, and dew falls on them - the fruit does not become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah (subject to Tum'ah).

(b) They would become subject to Tum'ah however - if he specifically had in mind that the dew should fall on it ...

(c) ... even if the owner has this intention only after he has placed them on the roof ...

(d) ... as long as the dew has not yet dried.

(a) The Mishnah rules that if a Chashu carries the 'fruit' up on to the roof - even if he did have the dew in mind, it does become subject to Tum'ah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan qualifies this latter ruling - by confining it to where the Chashu did not turn over the 'fruit', but if he had, it would become subject to Tum'ah.

(c) We know that Rebbi Yochanan is speaking in a case where the child did not say anything - because if he had, Rebbi Yochanan would not need to tell us what we already know from the Mishnah in Machshirin.

(d) We reconcile this ruling with Rebbi Yochanan's previous She'eilah - by establishing his Safek as to whether the 'fruit' is subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah or mi'de'Rabbanan. Consequently, even having taught us that a Ma'aseh which indicates is considered a Ma'aseh (Lechumra, with regard to carrying fruit on to the roof), he still asks a She'eilah regarding transporting a Korban from the south of the Azarah to the north which is a Kula (validating a Safek Korban), and which we will not hold of, if it only applicable mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan asks whether a Katan 'has a Ma'aseh' or not.
What will he hold with regard to Machshavah?

(b) His ruling with regard to Machshavah indicates that he knew the Mishnah in Machshirin, and when he asked whether a Katan has a Ma'aseh, he meant - whther the Ma'aseh of a Katan is d'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan (as we explained in the first Lashon).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan conclude that a Katan 'has ...

1. ... a Ma'aseh' - mi'd'Oraysa.
2. ... no Machshavah' at all (even mi'de'Rabbanan).
3. ... a Machshavah' that is evident from his act mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) Shmuel asked Rav Huna for the source which invalidates Mis'asek by Kodshim. 'Mis'asek' means for exanple - someone who picks up a knife of Kodshim for whatever reason, such as to throw it, and in the process, he inadvertently Shechts a Kodshim animal (which would have been a Kasher Shechitah had the animal been Chulin, according to Rebbi Nasan [see Tosfos DH 'Minayin' an Rashi at the end of Menachos]).

(b) In reply, Rav Huna learn from the Pasuk "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar" - that Mis'asek by Kodshim is Pasul.

(c) And when Shmuel replied that he already knew that - and that what he wanted was the source that it is Pasul even Bedi'eved, he cited the Pasuk "li'Retzonchem Tizbachuhu".

(a) Our Mishnah considers the Shechitah of a Nochri, Neveilah. The Tana adds to that - 'u'Metam'ah be'Masa' ...

(b) ... irrespective of whether a Yisrael supervises his Shechitah or not.

(c) We extrapolate from the fact that the Tana stops at 'Metamei be'Masa' - that the animal is not Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d) Consequently, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Eliezer, who would have indeed declared the animal Asur be'Hana'ah - because he holds 'S'tam Machsheves Oved-Kochavim la'Avodah-Zarah'.

(a) Rebbi Ami extrapolates from the Mishnah that the Shechitah of a Miyn (an apostate) is for Avodah-Zarah - with reference to a Jewish Miyn (who cleaves to Avodah-Zarah more than a Nochri does).

(b) He agrees with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba however - that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Eliezer, only he considers Rebbi Chiya bar Aba's inference superfluous (because it is inherent in the Tana's statement).

(c) A Beraisa corroborates the inference from the Mishnah. The Tana Kama there considers the bread of a Miyn Pas Kuti (Akum), his wine Yayin Nesach - the Sefarim that he writes (i.e. T'nachim that he writes on parchment)'Sifrei Kusmin' (i.e. they must be burned) and his fruit, Tevel (which must be Ma'asered).

(d) Some say (Rebbi Nasan) that his children are Mamzerim too. The Tana Kama disagrees with him - on the grounds that Miynim do not permit their wives to go with other men.




(a) We ask why our Mishnah does not declare an animal Shechted by a Nochri, Asur be'Hana'ah. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains - that there are no Miynim among the Nochrim.

(b) Based on the fact that his statement is simply not true) we amend his initial answer to - 'most Nochrim are not Miynim' (and we do not contend with the minority).

(c) This in turn, is based on a statement by Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who said that the Nochrim in Chutz la'Aretz (see Tosfos DH 'Nochrim') do not worship idols with their full heart, only because their ancestors did.

(d) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman states - that the Din of Miynim does not apply to a Nochri Miyn.

(a) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi cannot be referring to ...
1. ... the Shechitah of a Nochri - because if the Shechitah of a Miyn Yisrael is Pasul, how can that of a Miyn Nochri be Kasher.
2. ... the Din of Moridin (meaning that one is permitted to push him into a deep pit) - because how can the Din of a Nochri Miyn be more lenient than that of a Miyn Yisrael (by whom we rule 'Moridin')?
(b) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi is in fact referring to - the Din of Korban (as we learned earlier).

(c) This conforms with a D'rashah of Rav Ukva bar Chama, who learns from the Pasuk "Adam Ki Yakriv *Mikem* Olah" (besides precluding a Mumar Yisrael from bringing a Korban) - that we must accept Korbanos even from Nochri Miynim.

(d) He knows that the Pasuk is not coming to preclude a Nochri from bringing a Korban altogether ("Mikem", 've'Lo Nochri' [even a Tzadik]) - because of the Pasuk in Emor "Ish *Ish* ... Asher Yakriv Korban" (which includes Nochrim in the realm of Korbanos).

(a) The problem with our Mishnah adding 'u'Metam'ah be'Masa' is - that having declared the animal Neveilah, is it not obvious that it is Metamei be'Masa?

(b) Rava extrapolates from here that there is something else that is Metam'ah even more than be'Masa, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - with reference to Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim, which is Metamei be'Ohel, too.

(c) In the second Lashon, Rava establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - by extrapolating that there is something else that is just like Shechitas Oved-Kochavim (which is Metamei be'Masa), and that is Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk "Va'yitzamdu le'Ba'al Pe'or Va'yochlu Zivchei Meisim" - that Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim is Metamei be'Ohel, like a Meis.

(a) Our Mishnah - validates a Shechitah that is performed at night-time or by a blind person.

(b) This Mishnah clashes with the Beraisa 'Le'olam Shochtin, bein ba'Yom u'vein ba'Laylah' - in that, as opposed to the latter, which permits it Lechatchilah, the Tana validates it only Bedi'eved.

(c) To resolve the discrepancy - Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa where the Shochet Shechts by the light of a torch (whereas the Mishnah speaks when he Shechts in the dark).

(d) We support this answer from 'bein ba'Yom' (in the Beraisa) - implying that the Tana is speaking where there is light, and 've'Chein ha'Suma' (in our Mishnah) - which implies that there is not.

(a) The same Beraisa - permits Shechting on a roof or in a boat.

(b) The Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet' forbids Shechting into ...

1. ... the sea or into a river - because people will accuse the Shochet of Shechting in honor of the Angel of the sea (Neptune).
2. ... a K'li - they will accuse him of subsequently using the blood to sprinkle to Avodah-Zarah.
(c) Shechting in a boat clearly appears to clash with the Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet' (which forbids Shechting into the sea). The problem with Shechting on the roof into a K'li is - that by the same token, we ought to be afraid that people will accuse him of receiving the blood, in order to sprinkle it in honor of the stars.

(d) We resolve both problems however, by pointing out - that everyone knows that in the one case, the Shochet is using a K'li in order to keep his roof clean, and in the other, he Shechts into the sea, in order not to dirty his boat.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,