(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 27

CHULIN 27 - Sponsored through the generous contribution of Reb Uri Wolfson and family. May he continue to see his children grow in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim, following in the footsteps of their illustrious parents and grandparents, Shlit'a.


***** Perek ha'Shochet *****


(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Shi'ur Shechitah of animals and birds. The former require the cutting of two Simanim, the latter, one.

(b) For the Shechitah to be Kasher - one needs to Shecht the majority of the Si'man (half is Pasul).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah requires Shechting the jugular veins too - when Shechting birds ...

(d) ... in order to drain the blood.

(a) The problem with the Lashon 'ha'Shochet' with which the Perek begins - is that it implies Bedi'eved, and if Shechting the two Simanim of an animal is Kasher only Bedi'eved, then what is one supposed to do Lechatchilah?

(b) One of the two answers that we give is that 'ha'Shochet' (Bedi'eved) refers to the one Si'man of a bird. The other - that it refers to the majority of one Si'man. In other words, Lechatchilah, the Shochet is supposed to Shecht both Simanim completely, even when Shechting birds.

(c) Rav Kahana tries to learn from ...

1. ... the Lashon "Ve'shachat" - that the Shechitah must be performed on the neck (because "Ve'shachat" is the acronym of 'be'Makom she'Shach, Chat'eihu' [prepare it for eating, or cleanse it of its blood, in the place where it bends]).
2. ... the Pasuk "Ve'chitei es ha'Bayis", or from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Techat'eini be'Eizov ve'Et'har" - that 'Chatei' is a Lashon of cleansing (or preparing).
(d) And we know that Shechitah is performed on the neck, and not on other parts of its body which also bend, such as ...
1. ... the tail - because the Lashon 'bends' implies that it can be bent at will, but is generally straight, whereas a tail is bent naturally.
2. ... the ear (or the knee) - because Shechitah requires Dam ha'Nefesh, blood that is life-giving (and which causes the animal to die when it is drained), which is not the case regarding blood from the ear. And we learn this from the Shechitah of Kodshim, where the Torah writes, in Acharei-Mos, "Damo be'Nafsho ... ".
(a) The problem with the previous D'rashah is that it would be possible to Shecht from the ear and still obtain Dam ha'Nefesh - by tearing the animal from the ear up to a point where there is Dam ha'Nefesh.

(b) Rav Yeimar tries to learn Shechitah from the Pasuk "Vezavachta mi'Bekarcha u'mi'Tzoncha". The acronym of "Ve'zavachta" is - 'mi'Makom she'Zav, Chat'eihu' (break it in a place where it flows.

(c) He learns from the Pasuk "Al Tiyra ve'Al *Teichas*" - that 'Chat'eihu' means 'broken'.

(d) We know that Shechitah is not then performed on the nose - because the mucus (to which 'flows' refers), flows on its own accord, and not on account of the breaking, as implied by "Ve'shachat".

(e) "Ve'shachat" might nevertheless be referring - to the heart, from which blood will flow when it is pierced.

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael tries to learn Shechitah from "Ve'shachat", which can also be read 'Ve'sachat' - which in turn, is the acronym of 'Ve'sachat' 'be'Makom she'Sach, Chat'eihu' (in the location where it speaks [the throat], break it]).

(b) We refute that however - by suggesting that maybe the Torah is referring to tearing the animal open from the nose (as we explained above).

(c) We remain with one Kashya on each of the above opinions (from the ear, from the heart and from the tongue, respectively). We add to that the Kashya - that even after their respective Pesukim, from where do we know the five Pesulim ('Shehiyah, D'rasah, Chaladah ... ').

(a) We therefore conclude - that the real source of Shechitah (including the five Pesulim) is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai').

(b) And we conclude that "Ve'shachat" comes to teach us not to make the animal a Gist'ra. Besides the Isur of D'rasah, this might mean - not to cut through the entire neck.

(c) And the word "Ve'shachat" then implies 'to extract the blood' (or 'to prepare the animal for eating) and no more.

(d) We might also learn the P'sul of D'rasah from "Ve'shachat" (despite the 'Halachah ... '), in which case, we will interpret "Ve'shachat" as drawing (the knife, which one can control [as opposed to chopping off the head, which one cannot]).

(a) The problem Rebbi Chiya in a Beraisa, has with the Pasuk "Ve'archu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohanim es ha'Nesachim (the pieces), *es ha'Rosh ve'es ha'Pader* (the fat)" is - why the Torah finds it necessary to single out the head and the Pader (the fat), which seem to be included in "Nesachim".

(b) Based on the Pasuk "Ve'hifshit es ha'Olah Ve'nitach Osah li'Nesachim", we learn from "es Rosho ve'es Pidro, Ve'Arach" - that although the head, which was already severed (Halachically, and to all intents and purposes) before the skinning (and which was not skinned together with the rest of the animal), it must nevertheless be arranged on the Mizbe'ach together with all the other pieces (that were).

(a) They brought the head on the Mizbe'ach - intact; wool, beard, bones, nerves, horns, hooves and all.

(b) We deal with the fact that the previous D'rashah began with "es ha'Rosh ve'es ha'Pader", and concluded with "es Rosho ve'es Pidro ve'Arach" - by amending the quote to the original Pasuk ...

(c) ... and we learn from the latter quote - that the head and the fat are the first of all the limbs to be placed on the Mizbe'ach.

(d) Whilst from "ve'es ha'Pader" we learn - that upon bringing the head on the Mizbe'ach, one covers the Beis-ha'Shechitah with it, because it is full of blood, and it is not Kavod ha'Makom to bring it open in such a state.




(a) There are two distinctions between Beheimah and Of regarding Tum'ah.
1. An animal is Metamei be'Maga u've'Masa (through either touching or carrying, but a bird is not.
2. A bird on the other hand, is Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah (the person who eats it together with the clothes that he is wearing) but an animal is not.
(b) And the Tana of another Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of", learns the Din of a bird from that of an animal - in that it requires Shechitah (as the Torah writes in Vayikra, by the latter "Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar").

(c) We know that both Simanim of an animal need to be cut - from the previous Amud, where we required a Pasuk to include the head in "Ve'arach", even though it has already been severed).

(d) And he subsequently learns from "Zos" - that although a bird requires Shechitah like an animal, only an animal requires both Simanim to be cut, but not a bird.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa learns the same Hekesh, only he learns Beheimah from Of - that Beheimah, like Of (by which it is written "u'Malak es Rosho mi'Mul Orpo") must be killed at the neck

(b) He then learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "u'Malak es Rosho mi'Mul *Orpo*" - that only a bird requires Shechitah at the back of the neck; whereas an animal, must be Shechted at the front.
2. ... "*Zos* Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" (in Shemini, quoted in the previous Beraisa) - that only a bird requires the Shechitah of only one Si'man, but an animal requires two.
(c) We know that a bird only requires the Shechitah of one Si'man - because the Torah writes by the Melikah of a Chatas ha'Of "ve'Lo Yavdil" (and the reason that an Olas ha'Of requires the cutting of two Simanim is due to the Mitzvah of Havdalah (as we learned in the first Perek).
(a) The Pasuk concludes "ve'Chol Nefesh ha'Chayah ha'Romeses ba'Mayim". Tani bar Kapara extrapolates from the fact that the Torah places the Din of birds in between that of animals and fish - that on the one hand, the Torah's comparison of birds to fish dictates that they cannot require the Shechitah of two Simanim (like animals); one the other hand, the comparison to animals dictates that they cannot just be torn open (like fish). The outcome is that they require one Si'man to be Shechted.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ha'Tzon u'Vakar Yishachet Lahem, im es Kol Degei ha'Yam Ye'asef Lahem" - that fish are permitted when they are gathered, and do not require Shechitah.

(c) We query this Limud however, from the Pasuk there "Va'ya'sfu es ha'Selav" - which cannot come to exempt birds from Shechitah (as that would clash with the Torah's comparison of birds to animals, as we just explained).

(d) We nevertheless justify the different translations - since "Ye'asef" written by fish occurs in the same Pasuk as Shechitah (which it therefore comes to preclude), whereas "Va'ya'asfu" written by birds is not.

(a) Ubar Gelila'ah explains that animals require the Shechitah of both Simanim, because they were created from earth, and fish require none, because they were created from water - since the tougher the element from which a creature is created, the more vitality it possesses, and the more difficult it is to kill it.

(b) A bird, he explains - requires the Shechitah of only one Si'man, because Hashem created it out of mud, which is a combination of the two.

(c) Shmuel Keputka'ah proves the connection between birds and fish - from the fact that the former have scales on their legs.

(d) When Kontrikun the Mayor pointed out an apparent discrepancy between the Pasuk in Bereishis, where Hashem ordered the water to produce the birds, and the Pasuk there which records how Hashem created them from earth, Raban Gamliel (see Tosfos DH 've'Od Sha'alo') answered - that they were made from mud (as we just explained).

(a) Raban Gamliel's Talmidim reacted to the above explanation - by looking at each other (a sign that they did not like their Rebbe's answer).

(b) He replied that this is what he told his enemy (to get him off his back), but that in reality - they were created from water.

(c) Nevertheless, he explained, the Torah adds "ve'es Kol Of ha'Shamayim", after the Pasuk "Va'yitzer Hashem Elokim min ha'Adamah Kol Chayas ha'Sadeh" - because it pertains to the following phrase, which describes how Hashem brought all the animals to Adam, to give them names (and not to the previous one, which teaches us from what the animals were created).

(d) Others invert the two answers of Raban Gamliel, telling Kontrikun the Mayor that Hashem created the birds out of water, and his Talmidim that they were made out of mud - because when all's said and done, the birds are inserted in the Pasuk of "Va'yitzer" (or because even the Pasuk which describes the birds' creation from water, adds the words "al ha'Aretz").

(a) Rav Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Kisuy ha'Dam) "Ve'shafach es Damo ... " - that one only needs to spill the blood of a bird, but not to Shecht it.

(b) And he learns from the Hekesh "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" - that Shechitas ha'Of is performed on the neck (like the Melikah of a Kodshim bird [like Rebbi Eliezer learned above]).

(c) He defines a Nivlas Of - as one that either died naturally or that was killed on a part of the body other than the Simanim.

(d) In spite that the Pasuk is talking about Chayos as well as Ofos, Rav Yehudah learns that "Ve'shafach es Damo" is coming to exempt birds from Shechitah, and not Chayos - because it is written immediately after "O Of Asher Ye'achel".

(a) We ask on Rav Yehudah from the Beraisa 'ha'Shochet ve'Nisnablah be'Yado, ha'Nocher v'ha'Me'aker, Patur mi'Lechasos' - why, seeing as Shechitah is not necessary, Nocher does not obligate Kisuy ha'Dam?

(b) To answer this - we establish the Beraisa by a Chayah (which Rav Yehudah agrees, requires Shechitah).

(c) We ask on him further from another Beraisa, where the Tana - obligates someone who Shechts, because he needs the blood to cover it (even though he does not intend to eat the bird or the Chayah [as we shall now see]).

(d) To avoid having to cover the blood, the Tana advises 'O Nochro O Okro'. We think that the Tana is talking about a bird (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah) - because the blood is a known antidote against moths.

(e) We answer - by establishing this Beraisa too, by a Chayah, whose blood is also useful to dye leather red (even though this may be less common than the previous use).

Next daf


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