(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 4

CHULIN 4-5 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.


(a) The Beraisa 'Shechitas Kuti Muteres ... ke'she'Yisrael Omed al-Gabav' echoes what initially appears to be Abaye's interpretation of our Mishnah.
What does the Tana go on to say about a string of Shechted birds that a Kuti is holding? Under what circumstances may one eat from them?

(b) What does ...

  1. ... Abaye extrapolate from the Reisha of the Beraisa 'ke'she'Yisrael Omed al-Gabav'?
  2. ... Rava extrapolate from the Seifa 'Ba u'Matz'o she'Shachat, Chotech k'Zayis ve'Nosen Lo'?
(c) How will ...
  1. ... Abaye reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha?
  2. ... Rava reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa?
(a) How does Rav Menasheh establish the Seifa of the Beraisa, which permits all the birds on the string, on the basis of the fact that the Kuti ate the head of one of them, to eliminate the suspicion that it was only that bird which the Kuti Shechted properly?

(b) And what does Mesharshaya add to that, to eliminate the added suspicion that the Kuti had made a Si'man on that bird?

(a) We ask that perhaps the Kutim do not require a bird to be Shechted min ha'Torah (in which case we could not possibly trust their Shechitah).
On what basis might they exempt a bird from Shechitah?

(b) We counter this Kashya from Shechitah, D'rasah, Chaladah, Hagramah and Ikur (the five things that invalidate Shechitah.
In what way are they parallel to the Din of Shechitah min ha'Of?

(c) What does this prove?

(a) The Beraisa discusses Matzos baked by a Kuti. What does the Tana Kama mean when he states ...
  1. ... 'Matzas Kuti Muteres'?
  2. ... 've'Adam Yotzei Bah Yedei Chovaso ba'Pesach'?
(b) Rebbi Eliezer forbids even eating them.
Why is that?

(c) How do we know that Rebbi Eliezer refers even to the Tana Kama's first statement, and not just to the second? Perhaps he only argues with the Din of being Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah, but concedes that one may eat them?

(d) How does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel counter Rebbi Eliezer's argument?

(a) Having informed us that the Matzah of a Kuti is permitted, why does the Tana Kama need to add that one is Yotzei one's obligation on Pesach?

(b) What precedent do we have for this distinction?

(a) What problem do we have with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion?

(b) We try to answer that they argue over 'Kesiva ve'Lo Achziku'.
What does each one then hold?

(c) What problem do we have with this explanation, based on the Lashon of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Kol Mitzvos she'Hichziku Bahen Kutim')?

(d) So what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(e) What do we then prove from here?

Answers to questions



(a) We elaborate on Rava's previous statement.
On what grounds does Rava permit a Kuti to Shecht Lechatchilah, provided one hands him a knife that has been inspected?

(b) Why does he not allow him to Shecht without that?

(c) On what grounds does the Beraisa permit the Chametz of sinners (who retained Chametz over Pesach) after Pesach? How close to Pesach does this apply?

(a) How do we know that although *we* are permitted to eat that Chametz, the sinners themselves are not?

(b) Then why are we allowed to eat it?

(c) Seeing as in any event, the sinner is not permitted to eat the proceeds, then why does he go to the trouble of making the exchange?

(a) We assume that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say about Chametz after Pesach? What will we have proved from here if its is?

(b) We attempt to refute the proof by establishing the author as Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) So what if it is? What does that prove?

(a) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of the Lashon 'Mipnei she'Hein Machlifin'.
What is the significance of this Lashon?

(b) What would the Tana have had to say, to justify the rejection of the proof for Rava? Why will establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon now only serve to fortify the proof?

(c) We try to prove Rava's opinion from another Beraisa 'ha'Kol Shochtin, va'Afilu Kuti, va'Afilu Areil, va'Afilu Yisrael Mumar.
What does 'Areil' refer to in this context?

(d) Why can it not refer to someone whose father did not circumcise him on account of his two brothers having both died because of the Milah?

(a) What principle can we extrapolate from 'va'Afilu Areil'?

(b) How do we then attempt to explain the Seifa 'va'Afilu Mumar' (so as not to repeat 'Mumar le'Arlus' of the Reisha)? What does this prove?

(c) We refute this proof however, by establishing the Seifa like Rav Anan Amar Shmuel.
What does Rav Anan say regarding a Mumar la'Avodah-Zarah?

(d) What will the Tana then hold regarding a Mumar in the area where he is suspect?

(a) Rav Anan proves his leniency by Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "Va'yizbach Lo Achav Tzon u'Vakar la'Rov ve'la'Am Asher Imo".
On whose behalf was Achav doing this? What was his motive?

(b) How do we know that Yehoshafat actually ate from the animals that Achav Shechted?

(c) But does the Pasuk not write ...

  1. ... in Re'ei (in connection with a Meisis) "Ki Yesischa Achicha ... ", and the Pasuk there only mentions words?
  2. ... in Iyov (in connection with Hashem) "Va'tesiseni Bo le'Val'o Chinam", where eating is obviously not applicable?
(a) Perhaps, we ask, Yehoshafat only drank but did not eat.
What do we answer? Why do we initially think that drinking is no better than eating?

(b) How do we attempt to refute this proof? Why might it not be possible to prove Shechitas Mumar from here?

(a) We conclude however, that for two reasons they must have eaten, too. One is because the Pasuk writes "Va'yizbach ... Va'yesiseihu", implying that he enticed him by means of the food, rather than the drink.
What is the second proof?

(b) How do we know that it was not ...

  1. ... the Navi Ovadyah (who was also a servant of Achav) who performed the Shechitah?
  2. ... the seven thousand men who did not kneel before Ba'al who did so?
(c) And how do we know that Achav's servants ...
  1. ... who performed the Shechitah, were not righteous? Even if they had been, why would they not have been afraid of Izevel, like the men who had not knelt before Ba'al?
  2. ... did not Shecht for Yehoshafat's servants (who were wicked), and Ovadyah, for Yehoshafat?
(d) Finally, we ask, how do we know that Achav did not eat together with his servants from their Shechitah, and Yehoshafat together with his servants from theirs.
What do we answer?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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