(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 80

CHULIN 80 - dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father in memory of his aunt, Malka Gitel bas Reb Yakov Mordechai (Malvina Marmorstein), who took him into her home and raised him like her own child after the Holocaust. Her Yahrzeit is 20 Nisan.



(a) Rav Yehudah considers a Coy a unique species of animal. He does not consider it the child of a deer and a goat (like Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan) - because he maintains that a Beheimah and a Chayah cannot interbreed.

(b) According to Rav Yehudah - the Chachamim could not decide whether a Coy is a Beheimah or a Chayah.

(c) Rav Nachman (who agrees with Rav Yehudah's basic reasoning) defines a Coy as 'Ayil ha'Bar' (a ram that lives in the forest.

(d) We cite a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama supports Rav Nachman, and Rebbi Yossi, Rav Yehudah, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel defines it as a Beheimah, adding - that Beis Dushai (or Rashai) used to raise herds of them.

(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar ... Rav Hamnuna ruled - that 'Izi de'Bali' (i.e. forest goats) may be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) He does not consider them Chayos on the basis of a statement by Rebbi Yitzchak - who said that the Torah lists ten animals in Re'ei, three Beheimos and seven Chayos (and no more).

(c) And since the Torah does not include Izi de'Ba'ali among the Chayos, says Rebbi Zeira - it must be a Beheimah.

(a) We ask why "Ayal u'Tzvi ... ve'Ako ... U'se'o va'Zamer" should not be a 'P'rat' and "Kol Beheimah" a 'K'lal' - in which case we would include many other species (among them, perhaps, the Izi de'Ba'ali).

(b) We refute this Kashya however, on the grounds that - if it was, then why would the Torah need to insert so many animals in the P'rat.

(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika asked that perhaps the Izi de'Ba'ali are a species of Ako, and Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava (or b'rei de'Rav Ivya) asked Rav Ashi - that perhaps it belongs to the species of Se'o va'Zamer.

(d) Judging by what Rav Chanan told Rav Ashi, citing a ruling of Ameimar, the latter seems to consider Izi de'Ba'ali a Chayah. Ameimar - permitted their Cheilev.

(a) In response to a She'eilah from Aba b'rei de'Rav Menimin bar Chiya, Rav Huna bar Chiya cited a Beraisa, in connection with the Shor ha'Bar. The Rabbanan there prove from the fact that Unklus translates "Se'o" as 'Turbala' (the acronym of 'Tor Bala' [a forest ox]) - that it must be a Beheimah.

(b) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama. He maintains - that it must be a Chayah, since the Pasuk mentions it together with the Chayos ('Davar ha'Lamed me'Inyano').

(c) Rav Huna bar Chiya now extrapolates from there - that since the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi only argue over a Shor ha'Bar, and not over Izi de'Bala, they evidently agree that the latter is a species of goat.

(d) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika, Ravina and Ameimar respectively, ask that - perhaps it is a species of Ako, Se'o va'Zamer, or that it is definitely a species of Chayah, whose Cheilev is permitted.




(a) Rebbi Oshaya points out that our entire Mishnah does not go like Rebbi Shimon, who rules in a Mishnah later in the Perek - 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah Lo Sh'mah Shechitah' (meaning that if a Shechitah does not permit the animal to be eaten, it is not considered a Shechitah).

(b) Consequently, if the Shechitah of the first animal is Pasul, then one is permitted to Shecht the second one on the same day.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Kodshim ba'Chutz, ha'Rishon Chayav Kareis, u'Sheneihem Pesulim, u'Sheneihem Sofgim es ha'Arba'im'. According to Rebbi Shimon - the first animal is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, therefore he ought to be Chayav Kareis (and not just Malkos) for the second one.

(b) We learn that Shechutei Chutz is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah - from the Pasuk in Mikeitz (in connection with Yosef and his brothers) "u'Tevo'ach Tevach ve'Hachein" (which teaches us that a Shechitah must prepare the animal for eating).

(c) Nevertheless, one is Chayav for Shechutei Chutz - because the Torah says so (i.e. it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').

(a) 'Chulin bi'Fenim, Sheneihem Pesulim, ve'ha'Sheini Sofeg es ha'Arba'im'. Rebbi Shimon will object to that - because seeing as the first Shechitah was a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, the second one is no longer subject to 'Oso ve'es B'no', and he ought to be Patur for Shechting it (even though it is Pasul because of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah).

(b) 'Kodshim bi'Fenim, ha'Rishon Kasher u'Patur, ve'ha'Sheini Sofeg es ha'Arba'im u'Pasul'. The problem Rebbi Shimon has with this is - that, according to him, every Shechitas Kodshim is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah', since it is the Zerikas Dam that permits the Basar to be eaten, not the Shechitah; in which case, not only should the second Shochet not receive Malkos, but the Korban ought to be Kasher.

(c) What Rebbi Oshaya is coming to teach us is - that Rebbi Shimon will even argue with the ruling in the third case. We might otherwise have thought that, seeing as the Shechitah is vital for the Hechsher of the Korban (because if the Kohen were to sprinkle the blood of the Korban after the animal was killed by Nechirah, it would be Pasul), he will consider it a Shechitah Re'uyah.

(a) In the case of Kodshim bi'Fenim, the Tana sentences the second Shochet to Malkos because of 'Oso ve'es B'no'. When, quoting a Beraisa, we ask that he ought to be Chayav a second set of Malkos, we are referring to the La'av of "ve'Shor va'Seh Saru'a ve'Kalut ... u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" (which presents an extra La'av for all Pesulin of Shor va'Seh).

(b) We query the answer that the Tana is only concerned with the La'av of 'Oso ve'es B'no' - on the grounds that he does mention Malkos for Shechutei Chutz (regarding the first Shochet in the case of Kodshim ba'Chutz).

(c) We answer that the Tana mentions the Malkos of Shechutei Chutz regarding the first Shochet in the case of Kodshim ba'Chutz - only because he is not Chayav for Oso ve'es B'no; whereas regarding the second Shochet in the case of Kodshim bi'Fenim, who is, he declines to mention the Malkos of "u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh"?

(a) Rebbi Zeira answers that the La'av of "Lo Yeratzeh" is different - because, based on the Pasuk "mi'Yom ha'Shemini va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh ... ", it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (for which there is no Malkos [see also Tosfos DH 'Hanach li'Mechusar Z'man']).

(b) This is a case of 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei', and not of a 'La'av she'Kadmo Asei' (like that of "Lo Sikach ha'Eim al ha'Banim" ... "Shale'ach Teshalach es ha'Eim ... ") - because the La'av clearly applies to the first seven days, whereas the Asei can only apply to the eighth (unlike the Asei of "Shale'ach Teshalach", which can apply equally to before "Lo Sikach" as to after it).

(a) Rebbi Apturiki extrapolates from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ve'hayah *Shiv'as Yamim* Tachas Imo" that - the La'av of Mechusar Z'man becomes permitted already on the eighth night.
2. ... "*ba'Yom ha'Shemini* Titno Li" - that it is only permitted on the day of the eighth, and not in the night.
(b) We reconcile the apparent contradiction - by applying the Heter of the first Pasuk to the Hekdesh (the declaration), and the Isur of the second, to the actual bringing of the Korban.

(c) The Kashya this poses on the previous D'rashah is - how we can learn two different D'rashos from the same Pasuk?

(d) And we answer - by citing a second Pasuk (in Mishpatim) "Kein Ta'aseh le'Shorcha le'Tzonecha ... ba'Yom ha'Shemini Titno Li" (leaving us with an independent Pasuk for each Asei).

Next daf


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