ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 41
CHULIN 41-43 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if two people hold a knife at either end
and Shecht together, and either one of them has the intention of Shechting
to a mountain ... , the Shechitah is Pasul. Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav
Yitzchak (according to whom one person cannot render somebody else's animal)
establish the Mishnah - when the Shochet with the Machsheves P'sul was a
partner in the animal.
(b) The Beraisa from which we are also about to query them discusses
'ha'Metamei, ha'Meda'me ve'ha'Menasech.' 'Meda'me' means - that he mixed his
Terumah with his friend's Chulin (giving it all a Din of Safek Terumah).
(a) The Tana there rules 'be'Shogeg Patur, be'Meizid Chayav'. He really
ought to be Chayav even be'Shogeg - due to the principle 'Adam Mu'ad
Le'olam' (a person is always liable for damages that he causes, even if did
(b) The reason that he is ...
1. ... Patur is - because it is a Hezek she'Eino Nikar (a damage that is not
discernible), for which the Torah does obligate him to pay (at the hand of
(c) Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak establish the Beraisa too - when
the Mazik was a partner in the wine (like they did, our Mishnah). Note, that
we only asked from Menasech, not from Matamei and Meda'me, which are
factually Asur, and do not depend on the Machshavah of the Oser (according
to all opinions).
2. ... Chayav be'Meizid - because Chazal penalized him obligating him to pay
(d) The Mazik not Patur in the case of Menasech, seeing as he is Chayav
Misah, and we have a principle 'Kam Leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' (someone who is
subject to the death-penalty, is Patur from paying) - because the Chiyuv to
pay took place the moment he picked up the wine to render it forbidden,
whereas he is not Chayav Misah until he actually pours out the wine to
(a) The Tana Kama of another Beraisa declares Asur, wine belonging to a
Yisrael, which a Nochri was Menasech, but not in front of the idol. In this
case, 'Menasech' means - placing his hands inside the barrel and shaking it
in honor of the idol.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava - permit the wine,
because in their opinion a. wine can only become Yayin Nesech in the
presence of the idol and b. one person cannot render forbidden the property
(c) Rav Huna (who holds that through a Ma'aseh, Reuven can render Shimon's
things forbidden), cannot hold like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and Rebbi
Yehudah ben Bava. Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak however, reconcile
their opinion with the Tana Kama - by confining the Machlokes Tana'im to the
act of a Nochri. The Tana Kama will concede however, that, in their case,
the wine will be permitted, since he cannot be serious about serving idols,
and is obviously pulling the owner's leg.
(a) Based on what we just said, Rav Nachman ... will establish our Mishnah
'Shenayim Ochzin be'Sakin', and the Beraisa 'ha'Metamei, ve'ha'Meda'me,
ve'ha'Menasech' (even assuming that the Mazik is not a partner) - by a
(b) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi whether, if (who is not a Mumar)
after being warned by two witnesses not to pour out Shimon's wine to
Avodah-Zarah, Reuven goes ahead and does so, the wine is forbidden or not -
to which Rav Ashi replied, that there is no greater Mumar than someone who
sins, declaring that he is willing to accept the death penalty.
(a) Our Mishnah forbids a Shochet to Shecht into ...
1. ... the sea or a river - because he might be accused of Shechting to the
angel of the sea (known as Neptune).
(b) Our Mishnah does however, permit Shechting into a pit of water or into
vessels on a boat (from which the blood pours into the sea) - since it is
obvious that he is only doing this to keep his boat clean.
2. ... into a vessel - because he might be accused of receiving the blood on
behalf of his god.
(c) The Tana forbids Shechting into a pit - because the Tzedokim used to do
this as part of a ritual to Avodah-Zarah. (We will discuss the discrepancy
(d) After prohibitting Shechitah into a pit at all, the Tana rules - that
Shechting into a pit ...
1. ... in one's house in order to collect the blood, is permitted
2. ... in the main street is forbidden even for that purpose.
(a) In spite of having forbidden to Shecht into the sea, because people will
accuse the Shochet of Shechting to the angel of the sea, the Tana permits
Shechting into a pit of water - because he is speaking in a case where the
water is murky. Otherwise, he forbids it for fear that people will accuse
him of Shechting to his own reflection.
(b) Abaye attempts to reconcile the Metzi'asa of our Mishnah, which permits
Shechting into a pit in one's house, with the Reisha, which forbids
Shechting into a pit at all - by establishing the latter where the Shochet
Shechts in the main street.
(c) Rava refutes Abaye's answer - based on the Seifa, which specifically
forbids Shechting into a pit in the main street, implying that the Metzi'asa
is not speaking in such a case.
(a) Rava therefore explains the Metzi'asa and the Seifa - by establishing
them when one Shechts into an incline leading to the pit, which is permitted
in one's back-yard (in order to keep it clean), but forbidden in the main
street (since private individuals are not generally concerned with keeping
the streets clean.
(b) We prove Rava right - from a Beraisa, which supports his explanation.
(c) The Tana there states that someone who has no place on a boat to Shecht
(presumably he is talking about Shechting a bird) - should stretch his hand
over the side, and Shecht it on to the side of the boat, from where the
blood will drip into the water.
(d) The Tana cites the source for this prohibition as the Pasuk in
Acharei-Mos "u've'Chukoseihem Lo Seilechu" (the prohibition of following
Nochri customs). And he rules that if a person transgresses and Shechts in
this way in the main street - one needs to check whether he is not a
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah invalidates the Shechitah of someone who
Shechts Chulin ba'Chutz, but as an Olah, a Shelamim, an Asham Taluy, a
Pesach or a Todah - because the Chachamim are afraid that people will think
that he just declared the animal Hekdesh, and they will learn from him that
Shechitas Chutz is permitted.
(b) Rebbi Shimon - validates the Shechitah (because he does not suspect
people of jumping to such a conclusion).
(c) The Tana rules that if two people are holding the knife and Shechting,
one S'tam, the other, as one of the above - the Shechitah is Pasul (like the
Tana earlier in the Perek).
(d) As opposed to the Reisha, the Tana validates the Shechitah of someone
who Shechts Chulin ba'Chutz as a Chatas, an Asham Vaday, a Bechor, Ma'aser
Beheimah or a Temurah - because these Korbanos are not Nidar ve'Nidav (can
only be brought to fulfill one's obligation), in which case there is nothing
to suspect (as we shall see).
(a) Asham Taluy and Pesach, neither of which can be Nidar ve'Nidav, appear
out of place in the first list.
(b) To answer the Kashya on Asham Taluy, Rebbi Yochanan establishes the
author of the Mishnah as Rebbi Eliezer - who permits one to donate an Asham
every day (in case one inadvertently committed a sin that requires a
(c) Rebbi Oshaya answers the Kashya on Pesach - by pointing out that
although one cannot bring a Korban Pesach at any time, one can designate it
any time during the year (rendering it Nidar ve'Nidav for our purpose).
(a) Rebbi Yanai confines the Reisha of our Mishnah to animals without a
blemish - because if they had a blemish, he maintains, nobody would suspect
the Shochet of Shechting a Ba'al-Mum as a Korban.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with him however - on the grounds that
sometimes, the blemish is covered with the animal's wool or with dirt, so
that people are not aware of it.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan confines the Seifa to where the Shochet is not Chayav a
Chatas, because if he was - people might suspect him of Shechting this
animal as his Chatas (ba'Chutz ... ).
(b) They will not however, suspect him of bringing it as his Chatas, even if
they are not aware that he is Chayav to bring one - because if he was Chayav
a Chatas, he would publicize the fact, so that the embarrassment will add to
(c) Indeed, this ruling will not apply if he is silent - and Rebbi Yochanan
speaks when he specifically declared that he is Shechting it as his Chatas,
as Rebbi Avahu explains.
(d) If we do not know that he is Chayav a Chatas, but he nevertheless says
that he is Shechting it as his Chatas - people will simply not believe him.
(a) Rebbi Elazar - invalidates the Shechitah of someone who actually has a
Korban at home, and who Shechts Chulin ba'Chutz as a Temurah, because
people will suspect him of Shechting that animal as a Temurah for his
(b) Rebbi Avahu adds - that he must also declare that he is bringing it as a
Temurah for his Korban, before it will become forbidden (as he explained by
Chatas according to Rebbi Yochanan).
(c) This Halachah is not so obvious. We might have thought that it should be
permitted - because the Temurah is not beside the Korban.
(d) We can extrapolate from our Mishnah that in a case where we do not know
that he has a Korban at home - then the Shechitah is Kasher even if he
declares that he is Shechting the animal as a Temurah for his Korban (and we
do not suspect that people will think that he has a Korban at home, since we
would have known about it if he had).
(a) 'Zeh ha'Kelal' always comes to include something. 'Kol Davar She'Nidar
ve'Nidav ha'Shochet li'Shemo, Asur' comes to include 'Olas Nazir', for which
we need a special Ribuy to include Olas Nazir (even though it is Nidar
ve'Nidav) - because despite the fact that we are not aware that he made a
Neder Nazir, people might well suspect that he did so discreetly.
(b) 've'she'Eino Nidar ve'Nidav, ha'Shochet li'Shemo, Kasher' comes to
include Olas Yoledes. Rebbi Elazar confines the case to where he has no
wife, but if he had, the Shechitah would be Pasul. Rebbi Avahu establishes
this case - when he specifically declared that he was Shechting the animal
as his wife's Olas Yoledes (as he already explained twice).
(c) Rebbi Elazar's qualification is not so obvious however - because we
might otherwise have thought that even if he had a wife, we would have known
had she given birth. So we cannot believe him.
(d) Nevertheless, we suspect that people will believe the husband - because
they will assume that she gave birth to a still-born baby (that one tends to
(a) An alternative text omits the statements of Rebbi Elazar and of Rebbi
Avahu, and the case of the Yoledes whose Olah the Tana comes to include is -
that of a married woman (and the final Kashya and answer pertain directly to
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Shochet' *****
(b) This Lashon is preferable to the first one, because ...
1. ... the Sugya that preceded it - queried the Mishnah itself (like this
Lashon does) and not the qualifying statements of the Amora'im (like the
2. ... from the case itself, according to the first Lashon - because if the
Mishnah came to include a woman who was not married, it would be obvious
that the animal is not an Olas Yoledes, and the Shechitah is Kasher.