(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 19

CHULIN 19-20 - 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) When Rav Nachman validated 'Shiyer be'Chiti' up to the Shipuy Kova, Rav Chanan bar Ketina objected - on the grounds that this concurred neither with the opinion of the Chachamim, nor with that of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) Rav Nachman replied that he knew nothing about 'Chilak' or 'Bilak', which we initially interpreted to mean - 'dividing the Si'man into two' (like the Rabbanan), and 'tearing it into pieces' (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah), respectively.

(c) Based on a Sugya in Cheilek, however, we reject that explanation. There - they appear to be names of people.

(d) Rav Nachman bases his ruling on a statement in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (Rebbi Chanina or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi), who said - 'mi'Shipuy Kova u'Lematah, Kesheirah'.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that the Mugremes of ...
1. ... the Rabbanan - is Kasher according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - is Kasher according to Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's second statement is not obvious - because, when in the Beraisa, we learned 'He'id Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos al Mugremes she'Hi Kesheirah' we might have thought that he was referring to the Mugremes of the Rabbanan (where one completes the Shechitah outside the Taba'as ha'Gedolah), but not to that of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (where one Shechts most of it, or even all of it, beyond the Taba'as ha'Gedolah).

(c) We know that Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos is not indeed referring to the statement of the Rabbanan ('u'Mugremes Pesulah') that precedes it - because if he had been, the Tana would have said 'He'id ... *Alehah* she'Hi Kesheirah'.

(d) We rule like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos - because Rav Nachman holds like him.

(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav Asi confines the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan to where the Shochet Shechted two thirds inside the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, and one third outside, and they argue over - whether the entire Shechitah needs to take place inside the Taba'os (the Rabbanan), or only up to the point where the animal dies (a fraction beyond halfway [Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah]).

(b) And Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah will concede that the Shechitah is Pasul - in the reverse case (where the Shochet Shechted the first third beyond the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, and two thirds inside [since the majority of the Shechitah up to the time that the animal died, did not take place inside the Taba'os]).

(c) Rav Chisda asked Rav Huna why he did not learn the other way round - meaning that, in the previous case (where the Shochet Shechted the first third beyond the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, and two thirds inside) - Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah will declare the Shechitah Kasher, and the Rabbanan, Pasul.

(d) The Rabbanan will concede however, in the previous case (where the Shochet first Shechted two thirds inside the Taba'as, and one third, outside) - that the Shechitah is Kasher.

(a) In the current version of the Machlokes, Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah learns his ruling from 'Chatzi Kanah Pagum' - where the majority of the Kanah is not Shechted, yet the Shechitah is Kasher (because the animal's life left it at the time that the animal was being Shechted), so too here.

(b) Nevertheless, Shechting the difference between a third and the majority will not suffice (like in the case of 'Chatzi Kanah Pagum', where the broken half-Si'man combines to the Mashehu Shechitah) - because the Shechitah that took place outside the location of the Makom Shechitah cannot combine with the remainder of the Shechitah, to render it Kasher.

(c) The Rabbanan however maintain - that 'Chatzi Kanah Pagum' is different, inasmuch as the P'gam is in the location of the Shechitah (in which case the entire life of the animal was taken from it in the location of Shechitah), whereas Hagramah takes place outside the location of Shechitah (in which case the majority of the animal's life is taken from it outside the location of Shechitah).

(a) Rav Chisda proves from the Mishnah in Perek ha'Shochet 'Rubo shel Echad Kamohu' - that even the Rabbanan agree that the Shechitah is Kasher, as long as the Shochet first Shechted the majority of the Kanah.

(b) Rav Yosef refutes ...

1. ... this proof however - by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who holds 'Rubo ke'Kulo').
2. ... Abaye, who asks whether the author of every Rov in Shas is Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - by drawing a distinction between a Rov by Shechitah (where Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah specifically argues with the Rabbanan regarding Rov), and other areas of Halachah, where this is not the case, and which presumably, go according to the Rabbanan too.
(c) According to Rav Yosef, when the Rabbanan in our Mishnah say 'M'lo ha'Chut al P'nei Kulah' - they come to preclude (not where one Shechted the last third outside the Taba'as, but) where one Shechted the first third.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Huna Amar Rav Asi establishes the Machlokes when the Shochet Shechted the first third outside the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, and the remainder within it, as Rav Chisda learned in the first Lashon. And Rav Chisda now refutes Rav Huna's proof from the Mishnah 'Rubo shel Echad Kamohu' - by establishing the author as Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) In a case where the Shochet first Shechted a third outside the Makom Shechitah, a third inside, and the last third outside again, Rav Huna Amar Rav declares it Kasher - because the life of the animal was removed whilst it was being Shechted.

(c) The current dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah goes specifically according to Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos (regarding going beyond the Shipuy Kova) whereas his previous ruling, where he disqualified the Shechitah even where the Shochet Shechted one third outside the Makom Shechitah and two thirds inside (see also Tosfos DH 'Higrim Sh'lish').

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - declares it Tereifah because a majority of the Shechitah must be Kasher for the animal to be Kasher.

(e) In the reverse case (where one Shechted a third inside, a third outside and a third inside) - Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ruled that the Shechitah was Kasher (because the majority of the Shechitah was Kasher [despite the fact that the animal was not being Shechted at the time when it died]).

(a) Regarding the current case, Rav Huna made Rav Yehudah angry - by ruling against him, and declaring the animal Tereifah.

(b) Rav Huna's response was - to concede that Rav Yehudah was right. Besides the fact that the majority of the Shechitah was Kasher, he justified Rav Yehudah's anger' by - admitting that whereas Rav Yehudah had cited Rav, he ruled off his own bat.

(c) Rav Chisda however, advised Rav Huna not to retract, because if he did - he would stand to lose his previous ruling too (where the Shochet first Shechted a third beyond the Makom Shechitah, a third inside, and the last third outside again). There, he ruled Kasher due to the fact that the animal's life departed from it whilst it was being Shechted (irrespective of the fact that the majority of the Shechitah was not Kasher).

(d) By the same token, Rav Chisda concluded - in this latter case, the animal must be Tereifah, because when the animal's life departed, it was not being Shechted (irrespective of the fact that the majority of the Shechitah was Kasher).




(a) When Rav Nachman, arrived in Sura, they asked him about 'Shachat Shelish Ve'higrim Shelish Ve'shachat Shelish'.

(b) He tried to resolve it from a statement by Rebbi Elazar bar Minyumi, who ruled - that a Shechitah which resembles a comb is Kasher, which Rav Nachman assumed refers to 'Shachat Shelish Ve'higrim Shelish Ve'shachat Shelish'.

(c) If, as they replied, the Beraisa is talking about a Shechitah which takes place all inside the Makom Shechitah, the Chidush will be - that it is not necessary for the Shechitah to be 'Mefura'as' (revealed [that one can see from the side, from one end of the Shechitah to the other]).

(a) When Rebbi Kahana asked Rav Yehudah a series of She'eilos - Rebbi Aba was sitting behind him.

(b) When Rav Kahana asked Rav Yehudah what the Din will be in a case of ...

1. ... Shachat Shelish Ve'higrim Shelish Ve'shachat Shelish, he ruled - that it is Kasher.
2. ... Higrim Shelish Ve'shachat Shelish Ve'higrim Shelish, he ruled that it is Pasul.
(c) He then asked him about Shachat be'Makom Nekev and Shachat u'Paga be'Nekev. 'Shachat ...
1. ... be'Makom Nekev' means - that when he began to Shecht the Kanah, where there was already a hole or a split.
2. ... u'Paga be'Nekev' means - that he Shechted it in a spot where there was a hole or a split in what would otherwise have been the last part of the Shechitah.
(d) Rav Yehudah ruled - that the Shechitah is Kasher in the case of 'Shachat be'Makom Nekev' but Pasul in that of 'Shachat u'Paga be'Nekev'.
(a) When Rebbi Aba informed Rebbi Elazar of Rav Yehudah's rulings - he went and repeated them to Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) Rebbi Elazar explained to Rebbi Yochanan - that 'Shachat be'Makom Nekev' can be compared to a Yisrael who completed a Shechitah which a Nochri began (which is Kasher); whereas 'Shachat u'Paga be'Nekev' is similar to a Nochri who completed the Shechitah begun by a Yisrael (which is Pasul).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan disagreed with his explanation regarding 'Paga be'Nekev' however - and demonstrated this by exclaiming 'Akum Akum!'

(d) Rava later concurred with Rebbi Yochanan, drawing a distinction between an Akum finishing the Shechitah - where the animal's life departs with the Shechitah of the Akum, and 'Paga be'Nekev', where it departs with the Shechitah of the Yisrael.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that Shechting an animal from ...
1. ... the side of the neck is - Kasher
2. ... the back of the neck ('Mul Oref') is - Pasul, because it entails first cutting through the Mafrekes (the back of the neck), rendering the animal a Tereifah.
(b) Even though Shechting an animal from the side of the neck is permitted Lechatchilah, the Tana uses the Lashon 'ha'Shochet' (implying Bedieved) - to balance the Din of Melikah from the side, which is Pasul even Bedi'eved.

(c) With regard to performing Melikah on a bird of Kodshim in the same two locations, the Tana rules - that from the side it is Pasul, whereas from the back it is Kasher (Lechatchilah)

(d) The Melikah is ...

1. ... Pasul in the first case - because the Torah specifically writes "mi'Mul Orpo".
2. ... not Pasul in the second (just as it is Pasul regarding an animal) - because seeing as the Torah requires piercing it from the back of the neck, cutting through the Mafrekes is considered part of the Melikah.
(a) The Tana rules - that Shechitah from the Tzavar is Kasher, but Melikah is Pasul.

(b) The problem with the Mishnah 'ha'Shochet min ha'Oref, Shechitaso Pesulah' (if taken literally) is - that Melikah ought to be Pasul there too (since the Torah writes "mi'Mul Oref", as we already explained.

(c) So we interpret 'min ha'Oref' to mean - 'mi'Mul Oref', as is evident in the Seifa 'Kol ha'Oref Kasher li'Melikah' (which can only mean 'Mul Oref').

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ki Panu Eilai Oref ve'Lo Panim" - that "Oref" is the part of the skull that lies at the back of the face (and not the part that lies at the back of the throat [i.e. the back of the neck]).
2. ... "ve'Hu Yoshev mi'Muli" - that "Mul Oref" means 'facing', and refers to the lower part of the neck, which faces the 'Oref'.
(b) The B'nei Rebbi Chiya describe the Mitzvah of Melikah as - 'Machzir Si'manim la'Achorei ha'Oref'.

(c) Their statement might mean - 'Af Machzir ... ' (that when performing Melikah, the Kohen has the alternative of moving the Si'manim to behind the Mafrekes before piercing them, should he so wish) or it might mean Davka Machzir (that this is what he has to do).

(d) We prefer to say 'Af Machzir', because we learned in our Mishnah ha'Shochet min ha'Oref, Shechitaso Pesulah, ha'Molek min ha'Oref, Melikaso Kesheirah'. Now if Machzir was Davka, then there would be no reason for the Shechitah to be Pasul (seeing as he does not cut the Mafrekes first). Consequently, the Tana must be speaking when the was not Machzir the Si'manim (a proof that this is Kasher, but leaving the She'eilah unresolved).

Next daf


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