(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 15

CHULIN 14-15 - 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) Finally, Rav Ashi connects Rav's statement (forbidding the Shechted animal for the duration of Shabbos), with the Beraisa concerning someone who cooks on Shabbos. If he did so be'Shogeg, Rebbi Meir permits even the sinner himself to eat the cooked animal on Shabbos, be'Meizid - neither he nor anybody else, is permitted to eat from the meat, until the time of 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh' (the time it would take to cook the animal) after the termination of Shabbos.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds ...

1. ... in the case of Shogeg - that neither the sinner nor anybody else may partake of the meat until Motza'ei Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh' (like Rebbi Meir holds by Meizid).
2. ... in the case of Meizid - that the sinner is forbidden to eat the meat forever, and others, on Motza'ei Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh'.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar holds by Shogeg like Rebbi Yehudah just learned by Meizid. In the case of Meizid, he holds - that neither the sinner nor anybody else may ever eat it.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar's reason in the case of ...

1. ... Shogeg is - because 'Kanis Shogeg Atu Meizid' (he decrees on the sinner by Shogeg because of Meizid)
2. ... Meizid - because he learns from a Pasuk that Ma'aseh Shabbos is Asur min ha'Torah).
(a) Rav Ashi now proved from this Beraisa - that, according to Rav, the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, and that the Tana is speaking be'Shogeg.

(b) Rav establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah be'Shogeg, and not like Rebbi Meir be'Meizid - because the Tana's comparison to Yom Kipur indicates that the animal may not be eaten be'Shogeg either.

(a) Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking be'Shogeg, the Mishnah writes 'Af-al-Pi she'Nischayav be'Nafsho', by which it means - that even though it is such a severe sin, for which one would be Chayav Miysah if one performed it be'Meizid, now that one performed it be'Shogeg, the Shechitah is Kasher (even for the sinner).

(b) Rav did not establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, who forbids the animal to be eaten both be'Shogeg and be'Meizid - because 'Shechitaso Kesheirah' implies for the sinner as well as for others (as we just explained), whereas Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandler forbids the sinner to partake of it.

(c) And we know that when Rav said 'Asur ba'Achilah le'Yoma', he was not referring exclusively to the sinner, but others (according to Rebbi Meir, be'Meizid, and according to Rebbi Yehudah, be'Shogeg) will be permitted to eat it - because the Tana's comparison to Yom Kipur, as well as Rav's Lashon 'Asurah le'Yoma' both indicate that the animal is forbidden to others as well as to the sinner.

(a) The author of the Beraisa cited by a Beraisa expert 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos be'Shogeg, Yochal; be'Meizid, Lo Yochal' - is Rebbi Meir.

(b) Rav's reaction to this Beraisa was - to ask the Beraisa expert to desist from quoting it.

(c) We decline to attribute Rav's reaction to the fact that he holds like Rebbi Yehudah - because that is no reason to discount a Beraisa that goes like Rebbi Meir.

(a) In any case, Rav does not hold like Rebbi Yehudah, as we learned from a statement of Rav Chanan bar Ami, according to Rav Chanan bar Ami, Rav (with regard to 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos') ...
1. ... taught his Talmidim (in private) - like Rebbi Meir.
2. ... Darshen (in public) - like Rebbi Yehudah (because he did not want to issue such leniences in public).
(b) We cannot ascribe Rav's objection to the fact that the Beraisa expert cited the Beraisa in public, at the time of his (Rav's) D'rashah - because it was Rav's D'rashah that people came to hear, not the opinion of the Beraisa man (in which case, there was no reason to take the latter's words so seriously).

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore amended the Beraisa in question from 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos' to 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos' (in which case Rebbi Meir concedes that the animal is forbidden).

(a) Rebbi Meir will differentiate between 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos' - which can be eaten raw even before it is cooked, and 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos' - which cannot, and which is therefore Muktzah (hence Rav's objection to the Beraisa).

(b) The problem with the B'nei Yeshivah establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah is - that having just ascertained that Rebbi Meir concedes that, in a case of ha'Shochet be'Shabbos, the animal is Muktzah, then why can the author not be Rebbi Meir.

(c) And we answer - by establishing the Mishnah in a case where there was a seriously ill man in the house already from before Shabbos (in which case the animal is fit to be Shechted [see Tosfos DH 'Ki Shari Rebbi Meir']).

(d) Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah forbids it - because the Tana is speaking when the sick man recovered (after Shabbos came in, but before the animal was Shechted [be'Shogeg]). And Rebbi Meir permits it because on the one hand, the animal is not Muktzah, and on the other, it may be eaten because of his ruling regarding the Din of 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos'.




(a) We base the distinction that we made between 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos' and 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos' on a statement cited in the name of Rav, who stated that ...
1. ... meat that was cooked on Shabbos for a sick person - is permitted.
2. ... an animal that was Shechted on Shabbos for him - is forbidden. The Tana is speaking in both cases, when he fell ill only on Shabbos.
(b) The reason that he gave for this distinction is - because the former is
fit to eat raw (and is therefore not Muktzah), whereas the latter is not.

(c) Rav Papa points out that sometimes, the two rulings are reversed. A healthy person will be ...

1. ... permitted to eat from an animal that was Shechted for a Choleh on Shabbos - if he was ill already before Shabbos (as we explained earlier).
2. ... forbidden to eat a pumpkin that was cooked for him on Shabbos - if it was plucked from the ground on Shabbos.
(d) We reject the suggestion that the pumpkin was detached, and that it was Muktzah because pumpkins are too hard to eat raw, on two scores - firstly, because pumpkins are in fact, soft, and secondly, the word 'Katzatz' (as opposed to 'Chatach') means 'cut from its source of growth'.
(a) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a permits a healthy person to eat an animal that is Shechted on behalf of a Choleh who was sick already before Shabbos. But he forbids him to eat from the food that was cooked for the same Choleh ...

(b) ... because in the former case, Shechitah for one is Shechitah for another; whereas in the latter case, we are afraid that if the healthy person is allowed to eat what one cooked for the Choleh, one may come, when cooking for the Choleh, to add a little extra on his behalf.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone Shechts using ...
1. ... the smooth blade of a Magal-Yad (a double-bladed cutting instrument, one of which is smooth, the other, which contain notches), a sharp rock, or a cane - the Shechitah is Kasher.
2. ... a sickle or a saw (both of which are full of notches) - it is Pasul.
(b) The other two objects that the Tana includes in the latter list are - a tooth and a finger-nail

(c) The reason the Tana gives for this latter ruling is - because they tear the pipes (rather than cutting them), strangling the animal instead of slitting its throat.

(a) The Lashon 'ha'Shochet' implies - Bedi'eved.

(b) The Tana does not permit Shechting Lechatchilah with a Magal-Yad - because he is afraid that one will subsequently Shecht with the side that contains notches.

(c) We can extrapolate from here - that Lechatchilah, one may not use a very long knife which has notches along a the minor part of its length (even if one uses the part of the knife which is smooth).

(a) The Beraisa - permits Lechatchilah, Shechting with a piece of rock, a piece of glass or the sharp edge of a cane.

(b) In order to reconcile this with our Mishnah, which permits Shechting with a rock and a reed only Bedieved - we establish the latter by Mechubar, and the former, by Talush.

(c) The Mishnah conforms with the opinion of Rebbi Chiya in a Beraisa. Rebbi there - renders Pasul even Bedi'eved, a Shechitah that is performed with Mechubar?

(a) Another Beraisa - permits Lechatchilah Shechting with a knife, irrespective of whether the knife is Talush or whether it is Mechubar, whether it is on top and the animal underneath, or vice-versa.

(b) The problem this Beraisa creates with what we just said is - that the author now appears to be neither Rebbi Chiya (who declares Kasher Shechitah by Mechubar only Bedieved, nor Rebbi Chiya (who declares it Pasul even Bedi'eved).

(c) We answer by establishing the author of the latter Beraisa as Rebbi Chiya (who actually permits Shechitah by Mechubar even Lechatchilah), and the reason that he argues with Rebbi in the previous Beraisa with regard to Bedi'eved - is to teach us the extent of Rebbi's opinion.

(d) That leaves us with a Kashya on our Mishnah however - which validates Shechitah on Mechubar Bedi'eved, whilst Rebbi Chiya permits it Lechatchilah, and Rebbi invalidates it even Bedi'eved?

(a) We therefore establish our Mishnah like Rebbi, who permits Mechubar Bedi'eved. The problem with this is - that in the Beraisa (where he argues with Rebbi Chiya), he invalidates it even Bedi'eved.

(b) To answer this Kashya, we establish Rebbi in the Beraisa by a regular kind of Mechubar - whereas in our Mishnah, he is referring to Talush ve'li'Besof Mechubar (a 'knife' that was originally detached, but which somebody then firmly attached to Mechubar).

(c) And we substantiate this distinction with a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that if someone Shechts with a knife that is attached to a wheel or to the ground, or with a knife that one stuck to a wall - his Shechitah is Kasher.

(a) In the previous cases, where the knife is immobile - one Shechts the animal by sliding the its neck backwards and forwards along the knife.

(b) The Tana mentions the last case to teach us - the prohibition of Shechting Lechatchilah, even though the owner had the intention of removing the knife from the wall, and was not Mevateil it there .

(c) On the other hand, the Tana rules that if one Shechts with a rock that juts out from a wall or with a cane that grew out of the wall by itself - the Shechitah is Pasul.

(d) We reconcile this latter ruling with the Reisha, which validates a Shechitah that is Mechubar le'Karka - by establishing the Reisha by Talush ve'li'Be'sof Mechubar, and the Seifa, by Mechubar Me'ikara (what was initially attached), both like Rebbi.

Next daf


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