(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 9

CHULIN 9-10 - 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) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires a Talmid-Chacham to become proficient in three things.
One of them is K'sav. What does 'K'sav' mean?

(b) What are the other two?

(c) Rav Chananya bar Shalmaya in the name of Rav adds another three. One of them is Kesher shel Tefilin.
What special expertise is required in making a Tefilin knot?

(d) The second thing on Chananya bar Shalmaya Amar Rav's list is Birchas Chasanim.
What is the third?

(a) Why does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav not include the latter three in his list?

(b) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about a Shochet who is not conversant with Hilchos Shechitah?

(c) The five things that he incorporates in Hilchos Shechitah include Shehiyah, D'rasah and Chaladah (which we already cited earlier).
What are the other two?

(d) We ask on this that all five are specifically mentioned in the Mishnah, so what is Rav Yehudah coming to teach us.
What do we answer?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel say about examining the Si'manim?

(b) Rav Yosef queries this ruling in light of Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet', who gives the Shi'ur Shehiyah as 'k'dei Bikur'.
What is the Kashya from there?

(c) In answering the Kashya, Abaye cites Rebbi Yochanan.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say? If 'k'dei Bikur' does not refer to the Shochet's examination of the Simanim, then what does it refer to?

(d) What is the problem with Rebbi Yochanan's statement the way it stands?

(e) How do we amend the Lashon to resolve it?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos in the name of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yanai rules that if the Shochet failed to examine the Si'manim, we declare the animal to be a Tereifah.
What does the Beraisa say?

(b) What are the ramifications of the Machlokes? What difference does it make whether the animal is a Tereifah or a Neveilah?

(c) And we connect the Machlokes to a statement of Rav Huna.
What does Rav Huna say about the Chazakah of an animal ...

  1. ... in its lifetime?
  2. ... after it has been Shechted?
(d) What is the S'vara behind the principle of Chazakah?
5) How will we now explain the Machlokes? On what basis does ...
  1. ... the Beraisa consider the animal a Neveilah/Tamei?
  2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Antignos consider it a Tereifah, but not a Neveilah?
(a) What problem do we have with the second half of Rav Huna's statement 'Nishchetah, be'Chezkas Heter Omedes ... '? What ought he to have said?

(b) What do we answer? How do establish the case?

(c) On what grounds do we dismiss the initial suggestion that he is speaking when ...

  1. ... a wolf came and removed the intestines?
  2. ... he found a hole in them?
(a) To establish the case, we cite Rebbi Aba, who asked Rav Huna about a wolf that ran off with the Shechted animal's intestines, and then returned them.
What was the full case?

(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) What did Rav Huna reply?

(d) How does this now explain the second half of his previous statement?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Aba queried Rav Huna from a Beraisa.
On what grounds does the Beraisa forbid a fig in which one sees a bird pecking a hole, or a water-melon in which a mouse is eating one?

(b) How did Rav Huna reconcile his ruling with the Beraisa?

(c) On what grounds does Rava query Rav Huna's distinction?

(a) Abaye tries to defend Rav Huna with a Mishnah in Taharos.
What does the Tana there say with regard to Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) How does this appear to clash with the Din of Safek Mayim Megulin? What does this prove?

(c) Rava however, dismisses Abaye's proof. From where do we learn the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'?

(d) On what grounds does Rava then refute Abaye's proof? What makes 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim different than Safek Isur?

(a) Rav Shimi queries Rava from another Beraisa.
What does the Tana there say about a weasel that walked over Terumah loaves with a Sheretz in its mouth, which may, or may not, have touched the loaves? What status do the loaves have?

(b) How does Rava dismiss Rav Shimi's proof from the discrepancy between this ruling and that of Safek Mayim Megulin, that the Tana draws a distinction between Safek Isur and Safek Sakanta?

(c) How does he derive this case of Safek Tum'ah too, from Sotah?

(a) Rav Ashi queries Rava from a Mishnah in Parah.
Why does the Tana there rule that a flask containing spring water for the Mei Parah that one left open and later found covered, is Tamei?

(b) Why must the Mishnah be speaking about water that was not yet sanctified with the ashes of the Parah Adumah?

(c) May one still use the water as Mei Chatas?

(d) What does the Tana say about the reverse case, where one left the water covered and found it uncovered, assuming that a weasel could have possibly drunk from it (or even a snake, according to Raban Gamliel), or if dew fell on it during the night?

(e) How is it possible for a weasel to have drunk from the water but not a snake?

(a) On what grounds does the Tana declare the water Pasul because ...
  1. ... a weasel (or a snake) drank from it?
  2. ... dew fell on it?
(b) How does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explain why ...
  1. ... in the Reisha, we declare the water Tamei?
  2. ... in the Seifa, we declare it Tahor?
(c) How does Rav Ashi finally extrapolate that Sakanah is more stringent than Isur (like Rav Huna and Abaye) from ...
  1. ... the Seifa,
  2. ... an inference from the Reisha and the Seifa?
(a) A third alternative is to learn both Isura and Sakanta from the Seifa, from the Lashon 'Pesulah'.
How do we do that?

(b) How would we then be forced to change the text in the Sugya?

(c) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of the fact that the Tana Kama refers, not to a snake, but to a weasel.
Why would it be unacceptable, even according to Raban Gamliel?

(d) Finally, if the Mishnah was also concerned with Sakanah, what would have been the ideal ruling to issue (at least, according to Raban Gamliel)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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