(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 38

CHULIN 37-40 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.



(a) Rav's Talmidim told Shmuel that they had learned from Rav three new definitions of Pirchus in the case of a Mesukenes: that the animal lows or defecates - or twitches its ear during the Shechitah.

(b) Shmuel reacted to this information - with surprise, because he considered the third case obvious.

(c) According to him, anything that an animal does not normally do in its death-throes is considered Pirchus. To explain this, Rav Anan draws a distinction between a Mesukenes that withdraws its stretched-out leg during the Shechitah - which is a natural reaction, and one that initially stretches out its leg - which is not (and is therefore considered Pirchus).

(a) We can extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Beheimah Dakar she'Pashtah Yadah ve'Lo Hichzirah, Pesulah' - 'Ha Hichzirah, Kesheirah'.

(b) Shmuel is coming to teach us - that even if the animal withdraws its leg, it is considered Pirchus (whereas the Mishnah is speaking about an animal that first stretches it out and then withdraws it).

1. Rebbi Yossi in the name of Rebbi Meir, rules in a Beraisa that if a Mesukenes lows whilst it is being Shechted, it is not considered Pirchus.
2. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi adds in his name - that the same will apply even if it defecates or swishes its tail.
(b) To reconcile Rav with ...
1. ... Rebbi Yossi - we establish the latter when the animal lows in a thin voice, whereas he is speaking when it lows full blast.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi - we establish the latter when the dung falls next to its body, whereas he is speaking when the animal ejects it with force and it falls rests distance away from its body.
(a) According to Rav Chisda, the Pirchus must take place at the end of the Shechitah, by which he means - (not the beginning, but) the middle.

(b) And he tries to prove it from our Mishnah 'Beheimah Dakar she'Pashtah Yadah ... ' - because if it was at the end, it is unlikely that at that late stage, stretching out its leg would not suffice to prove that it was not dead, until it withdrew it too.

(c) Rava refutes Rav Chisda's proof however - on the grounds that if the animal is unable to stretch out its leg and withdraw it at the end of the Shechitah, it is a sign that it died already in the middle (as we explained in our Mishnah).

(a) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, a Mesukenes requires Pirchus only at the beginning of the Shechitah. Otherwise, assuming it was required in the middle, when Rebbi Shimon says in our Mishnah 'ha'Shochet ba'Laylah u'le'Machar Matza Koslim Me'le'im Dam, Kesheirah, she'Zinkah ... ' - how can one know that the blood did not spurt out at the beginning of the Shechitah.

(b) This proof is only valid according to Shmuel however, who interprets 'Koslim' as the neck of the animal? Had 'Koslim' meant the walls of the abattoir - then the Kashya would have been non-existent, since if the Zinuk took place at the beginning of the Shechitah, then the blood would have reached the top of the wall from the force; whereas if it reached only the lower part of the wall, then it must have taken place in the middle of the Shechitah.

(c) We refute the suggestion that Zinuk is a stronger kind of Pirchus (and that other forms of Pirchus must indeed take place in the middle of the Shechitah), from Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah 'Dayah im Zinkah' - which implies that if anything, Zinuk is weaker than other forms of Pirchus, and not stronger.

(d) When we suggest that maybe it is weaker than the Pirchus of Raban Gamliel, but stronger than that of the Rabbanan - we mean that whereas Zinuk is indeed weaker than Raban Gamliel's Pirchus (of moving both the fore and the hind legs), but Rebbi Eliezer is referring to the Pirchus of the Rabbanan (who require either the one or the other). Consequently, he requires Pirchus only at the beginning of the Shechitah, but the Chachamim may well require it in the middle.

(a) Ravina, citing Sama bar Chilka'i, knocks out this last suggestion too, from the Lashon of the Chachamim in our Mishnah 'ad she'Tefarches be'Yad O be'Regel' - which implies that their Pirchus is stronger than that of Rebbi Eliezer.

(b) The Chachamim cannot be referring to Raban Gamliel - because if they were, they should have said (not '*ad she'Tefarches* be'Yad O be'Regel', but) '*Keivan she'Pirchesah* be'Yad O be'Regel'.

(c) We have now proved - that Pirchus will suffice at the beginning of the Shechitah, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, and certainly, according to Raban Gamliel and the Rabbanan.

(d) Sama bar Chilka'i in turn, was actually citing either the brother, or the father of bar Abubras - alias Abubras ...

(e) ... whom did he not quote by his own name, because he was known by his more famous son or brother.




(a) Rava, the most stringent of all, requires the Pirchus to take place - at the end of the Shechitah.

(b) And he bases his opinion on a Beraisa. From the Pasuk "Shor *O* Kesev", the Tana precludes an animal of Kil'ayim - a baby born from a ewe and a he-goat.

(c) *O* Eiz" comes to preclude a 'Nidmeh' (a baby born to a she-goat from a he-goat that resembles a lamb), and the Tana learns from "ki Yivaled" -that is born by means of a cesarean section is precluded too.

(d) "Shiv'as Yamim" precludes an animal under eight days old from being brought on the Mizbe'ach. And the Tana learns from "Tachas Imo" - that it must not be an orphan.

(a) 'P'rat le'Yasom' cannot come to preclude an animal whose mother died any time ...
1. ... after its birth - because it is illogical to expect the mother to live until after its child has been Shechted.
2. ... before it is born - because that would then be synonymous with the earlier D'rashah from "Ki Yivaled" (since it would also entail extracting it by cesarean section).
(b) What it therefore means is - that the mother died just as the baby was born.

(c) Neither can the Pasuk be coming to teach us that the mother needs to be alive on the eighth day, to enable the baby to be brought as a Korban - because Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in the Toras Kohanim learns that, despite the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Shiv'as Yamim Yihy'eh Im Imo ... ", "Tachas Imo" teaches us that the mother does not need to be alive for the entire seven days, and from " ... Im Imo ... ", that it must not die before the baby is born (he Din of 'Yasom').

(d) And Rava extrapolates from this Beraisa that the Pirchus of a Mesukenes needs to take place at the end of the Shechitah - from this last D'rashah (from "Tachas Imo"), because if it took place earlier, we would be able to ask once again that we know that already from "Ki Yivaled", since it would mean that the animal died before the baby was born.

(a) The Beraisa requires a small animal to stretch out its foreleg and to withdraw it, but if it performs just one of these acts, it is considered a Mefarcheses. The Tana rules however, that if ...
1. ... it merely stretches out its hind leg - it is a Mefarcheses, as is ...
2. ... a large animal that perform either of the two acts.
3. ... a bird - either twitches its ear or shakes its tail, it is a Mefarcheses.
(b) We query why Rava finds it necessary to rule like this Beraisa - when all its rulings concerning a small and large animal are already contained in our Mishnah.

(c) And we answer - that its rulings concerning a bird are not.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah validates a Shechitah that one performs on behalf of a Nochri. Rebbi Eliezer declares it Pasul - even if the Nochri will only receive the diaphragm.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer's reason is - because he takes for granted that a Nochri has the intention that his animal (or whatever he owns in it) is being Shechted for his Avodah-Zarah ('S'tam Machsheves Nochri la'Avodas-Kochavim').

(c) Rebbi Yossi learns a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mukdashin, where a Machshavah renders Pasul, yet we do not contend with the Machshavah of the owner (only the Shochet), how much more so will that be the case by Chulin, where a Machshavah does not render Pasul.

(a) Assuming that both the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer concur with the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi, who holds in a Beraisa that the Machsheves Pigul of the owner of a Korban renders it Pigul, the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'S'tam Machsheves Nochri la'Avodas-Kochavim' (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Chachamim).

(b) The Chachamim will concede however, that the Shechitah is Pasul - if the Nochri actually declares that his animal is being Shechted to his Avodah-Zarah.

(c) Rebbi Yossi disagrees even with that - because he does not hold of the concept 'Zeh Mechashev, ve'Zeh Oved' (that a Korban can become Pigul through the Machshavah of someone other than the Shochet, even the owner).

(a) Assuming that the Tana Kama argues with Rebbi Eliezer even in a case where they actually heard the Nochri specifically mention 'Le'shem Avodah-Zarah', the basis of their Machlokes will be - whether we learn Chutz (Chulin) from P'nim (Kodshim [Rebbi Eliezer]) or not (the Chachamim).

(b) Whereas Rebbi Yossi holds - that even by Kodshim we do not say 'Zeh Mechashev, ve'Zeh Oved'.

(c) We learn that the Shechitah of a Shochet is considered 'Zivchei Meisim' from the words "*Zivchei* Meisim" (since the word 'Zevach' means Shechitah).

(d) And Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yossi learns 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid' by Kodshim - from the Pasuk in Korach "Vehikriv ha'Makriv" (which refers to the owner).

Next daf


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