(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 85

CHULIN 85 (26 Nissan) - dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger (of Queens, N.Y.) in memory of his mother, Leah bas Michel Mordechai, on the day of her Yahrzeit.



(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, rules that the blood of a bird that one Shechts and that turns out to be Tereifah, or that one Shechts to Avodah-Zarah, Chulin bi'Fenim or Kodshim ba'Chutz - is subject to Kisuy ha'Dam.

(b) Likewise, he obligates the Kisuy ha'Dam of a Chayah or an Of - that were raped and that, following the ruling of Beis-Din, they ought to have been stoned, but someone Shechted them first.

(c) The Chachamim (alias Rebbi Shimon) rule in the above cases - that the blood is not subject to Kisuy ha'Dam (because they hold 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, Lo Sh'mah Shechitah').

(d) Finally, the Mishnah rules in a case where the Shechitah turns out to be Pasul, or where one killed the Chayah or the bird through Nichur or by tearing out the Siman - that the blood is Patur from Kisuy ha'Dam, even according to Rebbi Meir.

(a) Rebbi presents Rebbi Shimon as 'the Chachamim'. In the equilavalent set of cases in 'Oso ve'es B'no' - he presented Rebbi Meir as the Chachamim.

(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan comments on this - that Rebbi did this because he preferred Rebbi Shimon's opinion by Kisuy ha'Dam, and Rebbi Meir's by Oso ve'es B'no.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains that Rebbi Meir learned his opinion by 'Oso ve'es B'no' with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Shechitah" "Shechitah" - from Shechutei Chutz.

(d) Rebbi Shimon on the other hand, says Rebbi Mani bar Patish, learned his opinion from the Pasuk "u'Tevo'ach Tevach ve'Hachen" - which refers to when Yosef instructed Menasheh to Shecht an animal for his 'guests' to eat.

(a) Rebbi Meir declines to learn Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah by Oso ve'es B'no from "u'Tevo'ach Tevach ve'Hachen" - because he prefers to learn 'Shechitah' from 'Shechitah', rather than from 'Tevichah'.

(b) Normally, it would not matter whether the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is learned from 'Shechitah' or from 'Zevichah' (like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learned a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' involving "ve'Shav ha'Kohen" and "u'Va ha'Kohen" (with regard to Tzara'as Batim), based on the fact that the two words ("ve'Shav" and "u'Va") are similar in meaning - only here where there is a choice, it is preferable to learn from 'Shechitah' than from 'Zevichah'.

(c) And Rebbi Shimon declines to learn Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah by Oso ve'es B'no from Shechutei Chutz (where the Shechitah is Kasher) - because he prefers to learn Chulin from Chulin, rather than from Kodshim.

(d) Rebbi however, prefers Rebbi Meir's counter argument - that since Oso ve'es B'no pertains to Kodshim as well, it is perfectly justifiable to learn it from Kodshim, like Rebbi Chiya bar Aba explains.

(a) Resh Lakish explains that, with regard to Kisuy ha'Dam, Rebbi Meir learns 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah Sh'mah Shechitah' with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Shefichah" "Shefichah" - from Shechutei Chutz.

(b) Based on the Pasuk "Asher Ye'achel" (written in connection with Kisuy ha'Dam), Rebbi Shimon counters - that whatever cannot be eaten is not subject to Kisuy ha'Dam.

(c) Rebbi Meir contends that we need "Asher Ye'achel" by Kisuy ha'Dam, to preclude Tamei birds. Rebbi prefers Rebbi Shimon's opinion because of his answer - that just as the Torah precludes Tamei birds because they cannot be eaten, so too, does it preclude a Tereifah (and all birds and Chayos) for precisely the same reason.




(a) Rebbi Aba points out that on the one hand, not in all regards does Rebbi Meir hold 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah Sh'mah Shechitah', whereas on the other, it is not in all regards that Rebbi Shimon holds ' ... Lo Sh'mah Shechitah', either. Rebbi ...
1. ... Meir concedes that ' ... Lo Sh'mah Shechitah' - as far as eating the animal is concerned, whereas Rebbi ...
2. ... Shimon concedes that ' ... Sh'mah Shechitah' - inasmuch as it renders the animal no longer subject to Tum'as Neveilos.
(b) It is obvious that Shechitah cannot permit a Tereifah to be eaten. Consequently, when Rebbi Aba informs us that Rebbi Meir concedes 'she'Ein Matirasah ba'Achilah' - he must be referring (not to the Tereifah itself, but) to the ninth-month ben Peku'ah that was found inside it, and which, he is now teaching us, requires its own Shechitah, and cannot become permitted with that of its mother.

(c) We have indeed learned that, according to Rebbi Meir, a ben Peku'ah requires its own Shechitah anyway. Rebbi Aba however - is referring to Rebbi, who holds like Rebbi Meir regarding 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, but like the Rabbanan in that 'a ben Peku'ah has four Simanim ... ' (as we learned in Beheimah Hamaksheh).

(d) And he is coming to teach us - that though the Shechitah is effective as regards removing the Tum'ah, it is not effective as regards a Heter Achilah, even with regard to the ben Peku'ah (which is not a Tereifah).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (or the Tana in a Beraisa) learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yamus *min* ha'Beheimah" - that some animals (that may not be eaten) are Metamei Neveilah, whereas others are not

(b) A Tereifah that has been Shechted - is not Metamei.

(c) The problem this creates with Rebbi Aba's second statement is - that Rebbi Shimon does not then seem to be teaching us anything?

(d) We answer by citing the Beraisa 'ha'Shochet es ha'Tereifah ve'Chein ha'Shochet ve'Nimtza'as Tereifah, Zeh ve'Zeh Chulin ba'Azarah ... '. The former case refers to an animal with its legs severed (which everyone can see is a Tereifah), the latter, to an internal Tereifus (such as a hole in the intestines, which nobody knows about until it is Shechted).

(a) In the current case, the Beraisa continues 'Rebbi Shimon Matir be'Hana'ah' - because the Torah requires Shechitah with regard to Chulin ba'Azarah ("ki Yirchak ... *Ve'azvachta*" [Re'ei]), and Rebbi Shimon holds 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, Lo Sh'mah Shechitah'.

(b) The Chachamim Rebbi Meir) rule - that it is Asur be'Hana'ah (because they hold ' ... Sh'mah Shechitah').

(c) This Beraisa help us understand Rebbi Aba's latter statement, because we would otherwise have extrapolated from Rebbi Shimon's ruling there - that if the Shechitah of Chulin ba'Azarah does not even become forbidden, because the animal was a Tereifah, it must be because it is not considered a Shechitah at all. Comes Rebbi Aba, and teaches us that it is.

(a) Rav Papa asked Abaye whether Rebbi Shimon really holds that Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah is d'Oraysa - and not de'Rabbanan, in case one comes to eat Kodshim ba'Chutz.

(b) Rav Papa extrapolates from Rebbi Shimon that it is d'Oraysa, because if it was de'Rabbanan, they ought to have forbidden it even by Chulin that are not fit to eat, in case one comes to permit Kodshim that are not fit (and which are really Asur be'Hana'ah).

(c) If it is d'Oraysa, the source for the Isur is - the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ki Yirchak ... ha'Makom ... Ve'zavachta" (as we explained earlier).

(d) Abaye replied in the affirmative - deriving his answer from the Mishnah in Temurah, which quotes Rebbi Shimon 'Chulin She'Nishchatu ba'Azarah Yisarfu ba'Eish; ve'Chein Chayah she'Nishchatah ba'Azarah', implying that it is d'Oraysa, because if it was only mi'de'Rabbanan, they would not have extended the decree to a Chayah (since that would be a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah').

(a) When moths attacked Rebbi Chiya's linen clothes, Rebbi advised him to Shecht a bird into the pool in which they were soaking, since the smell of birds' blood, repugnant to moths, would cause them to fly away.

(b) Based on a Beraisa, which rules that someone who Shechts a bird and needs the blood, is nevertheless obligated to cover it, we have a problem with Rebbi's ruling.

(c) The Tana circumvents the problem - by permitting him either to perform Nechirah on the bird, or to tear out one of the Simanim (rendering the bird a Neveilah).

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi as having instructed Rebbi Chiya to go and render the bird a Tereifah. When Ravina arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi as having instructed Rebbi Chiya - to go and perform Nechirah on it.

(b) We ask why Rav Dimi did not cite the episode like Ravin. We reject the suggestion that Rebbi does not require Shechitah min ha'Torah, and that the animal's Nechirah would have therefore been considered as its Shechitah, on the basis of a Beraisa, where, based on the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta ... Ka'asher Tzivisicha", Rebbi ruled - that Moshe was commanded the Halachos of Shechitah at Sinai.

(c) Besides the Shechitah of the Veshet and of the Kaneh, Rebbi there incorporates in "Ka'asher Tzivisicha" - the majority of one Siman by a bird, and of two Simanim by an animal.

(d) And Rav Dimi cited Rebbi as having said 'Tzei Terof', and not 'Tzei Nechor' to teach us - that not only would Nocher have exempted Rebbi Chiya from Kisuy ha'Dam, but that making it a Tereifah would too.

Next daf


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