(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 29

CHULIN 28-30 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) We already quoted the Beraisa 'Shachat Chatzi Gargeres Ve'shahah Bah Kedei Shechitah Acheres Ve'gamrah, Shechitaso Kesheirah'.
What Kashya does this Beraisa pose on Rav?

(b) We refute the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by a bird.
What do we gain by doing that? How does that answer the Kashya?

(c) And we also quoted the Beraisa 'Harei she'Hayah Chatzi Kanah Pagum, Ve'hosif Alav Kol she'Hu ve'Gamro, Shechitaso Kesheirah'.
Rava refutes the Kashya from here on Rav (according to whom, the animal ought to be a Tereifah, like we just asked on the previous Beraisa) by differentiating between Shechitah and Tereifus.
In what way is Tereifus different than Shechitah?

(a) What objection does Abaye raise to Rava's distinction? Why, if anything, is there more reason to require a discernible Rov by Shechitah?

(b) What do we therefore conclude with regard to Mechtzah al Mechtzah by Shechitah?

(c) In fact, Rav and Rav Kahana are arguing over Mechtzah al Mechtzah by the Korban Pesach. In which area of Korban Pesach is Rov required?

(a) What are then the ramifications of the Machlokes.
What does 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ...
  1. ... ke'Rov'?
  2. ... Eino ke'Rov'?
(b) How does Rav learn 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov' from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "*Ish Ish* ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh"?
(a) How does Rav Hoshaya explain the Tana's need to repeat 'Rov Echad be'Of ve'Rov Shenayim bi'Veheimah', in spite of having already taught 'Rubo shel Echad Kamohu'?

(b) Having taught the Din of Rov by ...

  1. ... Chulin, why did the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by Kodshim?
  2. ... Kodshim, why did the Tana need to repeat it by Chulin?
(c) How does Rav Kahana infer from the Lashon 'ha'Shochet, Echad be'Of ... ' that the Reisha must be speaking by Chulin (and the Seifa by Kodshim, and not vice-versa)?

(d) How do we refute the counter proof from the Lashon in the Seifa 'Rov Echad be'Of u'Shenayim bi'Beheimah, Shechitaso Kesheirah'? Why is there no proof from there that the Seifa is speaking about Chulin?

(a) How does Rav Shimi bar Ashi prove from 'Rov Echad be'Of' in the Reisha, that it must be talking about Chulin?

(b) And how do we then interpret 'Rov Echad be'Of' in the Seifa, to refute the counter proof from there that, by the same token, it must be talking about Chulin, because otherwise there is Olas ha'Of that requires two Simanim?

(c) Then why did the Tana not say 'Rov Shenayim'?

(d) And how does Rav Papa prove from the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan regarding the Varidin, that the Reisha must be speaking about Chulin?

(a) And Rav Ashi proves from the following Mishnah ('ha'Shochet Sh'nei Roshin ke'Echad Shechitaso Kesheirah') that the Seifa must be talking about Kodshim.
How does he prove it from there?

(b) The basis for this is a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef.
What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "li'Retzonchem ...

  1. ... Tizbach(uhu)"?
  2. ... Tizbachuhu"?
(c) How does Rav Kahana present the basis of the Tana's first ruling?
(a) Resh Lakish too, deals with the repetition of 'Rov Si'man' in our Mishnah, to which end he cites the Mishnah in Yoma. With reference to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, what does the Tana mean when he writes 'Hevi'o Lo es ha'Tamid, Kartzo, u'Meirak Acher Shechitaso al Yado'?

(b) How does Resh Lakish connect this with our Mishnah 'Rov Echad be'Of, Rov Shenayim bi'Veheimah'?

(c) What does this prove?

(a) The Beraisa we just cited, initially suggests that if nobody else completed the Shechitah, then it is Pasul.
If that was the case, what would be the problem with somebody else completing it? What did we learn in a Beraisa about the Avodos on Yom Kipur?

(b) We answer that 'Yachol Yehei Pasul', in this instance, means Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan.
What Kashya does that pose on the Beraisa 'u'Meirak Acher Shechitaso al Yado'?

(c) What do we answer?

(d) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that the Mitzvah is that of 'be'Rov Am Hadras Melech (the more people involved in the Avodah, the more the King is honored)?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Resh Lakish in the name of Levi Saba, it is not called Shechitah until the end.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(b) On what grounds does Rava explain that even Resh Lakish will concede that if ...

  1. ... a Nochri Shechts one Si'man and a Yisrael, the other, the Shechitah is Pasul?
  2. ... a Kohen performed Melikah on one Si'man of an Olas ha'Of below the Chut ha'Sikra and the other, above, it is Pasul?
(c) According to Rava, what are the ramifications of the Machlokes?
(a) According to Rabah bar Shimi quoting Rav Yosef, Resh Lakish will agree that in this latter case too, the Shochet is Chayav.
Why is that?

(b) He agrees however, that the Machlokes concerns Shechutei Chutz. Over which case are they then arguing?

(a) The Beraisa issues two rulings with regard to all those who deal with the burning and sprinkling of the Parah Adumah from beginning to end. One, that they render the clothes that they are wearing Tamei.
What is the other?

(b) Whom, besides the one who Shechts it, burns it, and throws the cedar wood, the hyssop and the crimson thread into the burning cow, does this incorporate?

(c) If a P'sul occurred in the Shechitah, says the Tana, the clothes of those preparing it do not become Tamei, even those that dealt with it before the P'sul occurred.
What does he say about where a P'sul occurred during the seven Haza'os towards the Ohel Mo'ed?

(d) What does Rava say to explain why, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana does not make the same distinction by the Shechitah as he makes by the Haza'ah?

(a) Rava has a problem with the current Beraisa, which discusses a Parah that became Pasul in the course of its preparation.
What does he ask, according to Resh Lakish ('Einah li'Shechitah Ela be'Sof'), from a case where two people Shechted it consecutively?

(b) What advantage does this case have over the case that the Tana actually presents?

(c) How does Rav Yosef try to answer Rava's Kashya, based on the Beraisa that we cited on the previous Amud.
What did the Tana there learn from the word "Tizbach(uhu)"?

(a) Abaye counters that this Beraisa is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon S'timta'ah, but the Chachamim disagree.
What does 'S'timta'ah' mean?

(b) Rava's Kashya therefore remains unanswered, according to the Chachamim. How will the problem with Rebbi Yochanan remain even according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?
What distinction might the Tana have made (regarding Tum'as Begadim) even where only one Kohen Shechted the Parah Adumah?

(c) We conclude that the Tana is only concerned with the P'sul of the Parah, and not with its Hechsher.
What do we mean by that?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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