(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 41

CHULIN 41-43 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.


(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if two people hold a knife at either end and Shecht together, and either one of them has the intention of Shechting to a mountain ... , the Shechitah is Pasul.
How will Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak (according to whom one person cannot render somebody else's animal, Pasul) establish the Mishnah?

(b) The Beraisa from which we are also about to query them discusses 'ha'Metamei, ha'Meda'me ve'ha'Menasech.'
What is Meda'me?

(a) The Tana there rules 'be'Shogeg Patur, be'Meizid Chayav'.
Why ought he to be Chayav even be'Shogeg?

(b) Then why is ...

  1. ... Patur?
  2. ... Chayav be'Meizid?
(c) How do Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak establish the Beraisa?

(d) Why is the Mazik not Patur in the case of Menasech, seeing as he is Chayav Misah, and we have a principle 'Kam Leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' (someone who is subject to the death-penalty, is Patur from paying)?

(a) The Tana Kama of another Beraisa declares Asur, wine belonging to a Yisrael, which a Nochri was Menasech, not in front of the Avodas-Kochavim. What does 'Menasech' mean in this case?

(b) What do Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava say?

(c) Rav Huna (who holds that through a Ma'aseh, Reuven can render Shimon's things forbidden), cannot hold like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava.
How do Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak reconcile their opinion with the Tana Kama? Why might he concede that, in their case, the wine will be permitted?

(a) Based on what we just said, how will Rav Nachman ... establish our Mishnah 'Shenayim Ochzin be'Sakin', and the Beraisa 'ha'Metamei, ve'ha'Meda'me, ve'ha'Menasech' (even assuming that the Mazik is not a partner)?

(b) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi whether, if (who is not a Mumar) after being warned by two witnesses not to pour out Shimon's wine to Avodah-Zarah, Reuven goes ahead and does so, the wine is forbidden or not.
What did Rav Ashi reply?

(a) Why does our Mishnah forbid a Shochet to Shecht into ...
  1. ... the sea or a river?
  2. ... into a vessel?
(b) What does our Mishnah say about Shechting into a pit of water or into vessels on a boat (from which the blood pours into the sea)?

(c) Why does the Tana forbid Shechting into a pit?

(d) After prohibitting Shechitah into a pit at all, what does the Tana say about Shechting into a pit ...

  1. ... in one's house?
  2. ... in the main street?
Answers to questions



(a) Having forbidden to Shecht into the sea, because people will accuse the Shochet of Shechting to the angel of the sea, why does the Tana permit Shechting into a pit of water? Why are we not afraid that they will accuse him of Shechting to his own reflection?

(b) How does Abaye attempt to reconcile the Metzi'asa of our Mishnah, which permits Shechting into a pit in one's house, with the Reisha, which forbids Shechting into a pit at all?

(c) On what grounds does Rava refute Abaye's answer?

(a) How does Rava therefore explain the Metzi'asa and the Seifa, respectively? Why the difference?

(b) How do we prove Rava right?

(c) What does the Tana there say about someone who has no place on a boat to Shecht (presumably he is talking about Shechting a bird)? What should he do?

(d) The Tana cites the source for this prohibition as the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "u've'Chukoseihem Lo Seilechu" (the prohibition of following Nochri customs).
What does he say with regard to a person who transgresses and Shechts in this way in the main street?

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah invalidates the Shechitah of someone who Shechts Chulin ba'Chutz, but as an Olah, a Shelamim, an Asham Taluy, a Pesach or a Todah.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) What does the Tana say about two people who are holding the knife and Shechting, one S'tam, the other, as one of the above?

(d) As opposed to the Reisha, the Tana then validates the Shechitah of someone who Shechts Chulin ba'Chutz as a Chatas, an Asham Vaday, a Bechor, Ma'aser Beheimah or a Temurah.
Why the difference?

(a) Which two Korbanos appear out of place in the first list?

(b) To answer the Kashya on Asham Taluy, Rebbi Yochanan establishes the author of the Mishnah as Rebbi Eliezer.
What does Rebbi Eliezer say about an Asham Taluy?

(c) How does Rebbi Oshaya answer the Kashya on Pesach? Why *does* it appear in the first list?

(a) Rebbi Yanai confines the Reisha of our Mishnah to animals without a blemish.
Why is that?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan disagree with him?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan confines the Seifa to where the Shochet is not Chayav a Chatas.
What will be the Din if he was?

(b) Why will people not suspect him of bringing the animal as his Chatas, even if they are not aware that he is Chayav to bring one? Maybe he is Chayav a Chatas, but is too embarrassed to say so?

(c) Why should we think that he is bringing it as a Chatas if he did not say so?

(d) What will be the Din if we do not know that he is Chayav a Chatas, but he nevertheless says that he is Shechting it as his Chatas?

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say about a case where someone Shechts Chulin ba'Chutz as a Temurah, and he actually has a Korban at home?

(b) What condition does Rebbi Avahu add to that?

(c) Why is this Halachah not so obvious? Why might we have thought that it should be permitted?

(d) What can we extrapolate from our Mishnah regarding a case where we do not know that he has a Korban at home? What might we otherwise have thought?

(a) 'Zeh ha'Kelal' always comes to include something. 'Kol Davar She'Nidar ve'Nidav ha'Shochet li'Shemo, Asur' comes to include 'Olas Nazir'.
Why do we need a special Ribuy to include Olas Nazir, seeing as it is Nidar ve'Nidav?

(b) 've'she'Eino Nidar ve'Nidav, ha'Shochet li'Shemo, Kasher' comes to include Olas Yoledes. Rebbi Elazar confines the case to where he has no wife, but if he had, the Shechitah would be Pasul.
How does Rebbi Avahu establish this case?

(c) Why is Rebbi Elazar's qualification not then obvious?

(d) Then why *do* we suspect that people will believe the husband?

(a) An alternative text omits the statements of Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Avahu.
What is then the case of the Yoledes whose Olah the Tana comes to include?

(b) Why is this Lashon preferable to the first one, based on ...

  1. ... the Sugya that preceded it?
  2. ... from the case itself, according to the first Lashon? What is the problem with that?
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Shochet' *****

Answers to questions

Next daf


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