(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 82

CHULIN 81-84 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


(a) Our Mishnah includes the Parah Adumah amongst the things Rebbi Shimon considers an unfit Shechitah. We query this from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon declares that a Parah is Mitamei Tum'as Ochlin.
What is the problem with that? Why ought it not to do so?

(b) The reason that it nevertheless is, is because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher.
How does Resh Lakish explain this? At which point is the Parah Adumah fit to be become food?

(c) Upon which principle of Rebbi Shimon is this ruling dependent?

(d) Why does the Parah Adumah need to adopt Tum'as Ochlin, seeing as it is an Av ha'Tum'ah in its own right?

(a) What does Rav Sh'man bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan conclude, based on the fact that the Shechitah of a Parah Adumah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah even according to Rebbi Shimon (as we just explained)?

(b) What does the Mishnah in Sotah say about an Eglah Arufah, in a case where the murderer is found before its neck is broken?

(c) What does Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai conclude, based on the fact that the Shechitah of an Eglah Arufah is potentially a Kasher Shechitah no less than that of a Parah Adumah?

(a) In another statement, Rebbi Yanai said that he had forgotten which stage renders the Eglah Arufah forbidden. His colleagues however, reminded him.
What did they say?

(b) What problem does this create with our previous answer?

(c) How does Rebbi Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Ami attempt to resolve the problem?
In whose name does he quote the previous answer?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the birds used for the purification of the Metzora too, are Asur be'Hana'ah from the time of Shechitah.
How about the bird that is sent away into the fields (and is not Shechted)?

(b) Resh Lakish forbids both birds already from the time that they are designated.
What happens to the bird that is sent away? How will one know that it is Asur ba'Hana'ah?

(c) What is Resh Lakish's source for the prohibition from such an early stage? What does this prove?

(d) So like whom does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba finally establish 'Eglah Arufah Einah Mishnah'?

(e) How do we reconcile Resh Lakish with the Mishnah in Sotah (which we quoted earlier) 'Nimtza ha'Horeg ad she'Lo Te'aref ha'Eglah, Teitzei ve'Tir'eh be'Eider'?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about two people who purchased a cow and its child? Who has the first right to Shecht?

(b) What happens if the second purchaser Shechts his animal first?

(c) What does Rav Yosef mean when he says that our Mishnah is written 'le'Inyan Dina'?

(d) And what does the Beraisa mean when it says ...

  1. ... 'Zariz'?
  2. ... 've'Niskar'?
(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where someone first Shechts ...
  1. ... a cow and then its two children?
  2. ... the two children and then the cow?
(b) And what does the Tana Kama say in a case where one first Shechts a cow, then its ...
  1. ... daughter, and then its grandchild?
  2. ... grandchild, and then its daughter?
(c) What does Sumchus rule in the latter case?

(d) What does the Beraisa learn from the fact that the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Oso v'Es Beno ["Lo Sishchatu be'Yom Echad"]) uses the plural form?

(a) What is the case? Why must the Pasuk be speaking about three animals?

(b) How do we know that it is speaking about three generations and not about a mother and its two children, where each person Shechted one of the children?

(c) On what grounds do we query this Limud? What might we have thought had the Torah written "Lo Sishchat"?

(d) What do we answer? What could the Torah have written to avoid making that mistake?

Answers to questions



(a) Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether Sumchus reason (for obligating two sets of Malkos in our Mishnah, for Shechting the daughter after the mother and the grandchild) is perhaps because he holds that someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam must bring two Chata'os.
What does 'in one He'elam' mean?

(b) What does a Chiyuv Chatas have to do with a Chiyuv Malkos?

(c) If that is indeed Sumchus' reason, then why does the Tana present his Machlokes with the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, where the Chiyuv comes from two different bodies?

(d) And what will Sumchus say in the Reisha, where one Shechted the cow after its two children?

(a) What is the alternative interpretation in Sumchus? How will he then hold with regard to someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one go?

(b) What does Rav Yosef reply?

(c) And to prove it, he cites a Beraisa 'ha'Zore'a Kil'ayim Kil'ayim, Lokeh'. Apart from the fact that if the Beraisa came to be Mechayev one set of Malkos, it would be obvious, why must the Tana mean that he is Chayav two sets of Malkos?

(d) And why can the Tana not be referring to a case where he transgressed on two occasions after two separate warnings? What does the Mishnah say in Nazir about a Nazir under similar circumstances?

(a) How does Rav Yosef then try to prove that the author of the Beraisa must be Sumchus? Why can it not be the Rabbanan?

(b) We refute Rav Yosef's proof however, by establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan, and in a case where there were two warnings.
What is then the Chidush, specifically pertaining to the case of Kil'ayim?

(c) And the Beraisa actually comes to preclude from a ruling by Rebbi Yashiyah.
What does Rebbi Yashiyah say about someone who plants wheat or barley with grape seeds?

(a) So Rav Yosef tries to prove his point from a Mishnah in Gid ha'Nasheh, where the Tana Kama declares someone who eats a k'Zayis from both the right Gid ha'Nasheh and the left one, Chayav two sets of Malkos.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) Why can the Mishnah not be speaking where someone ate them one after the other with a separate warning for each one? What would then be the problem with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling?

(c) We learn Rebbi Yehudah's opinion regarding Hasra'as Safek from his ruling in a case where someone strikes or curses two men who are both Safek Aviv.
How does such a case come about?

(a) What does the Tana Kama rule there?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah say? What distinction does he draw that the Tana Kama does not?

(c) We therefore conclude that the Mishnah in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' must be speaking when he eats the two Gidin in one go and with one warning. What makes Rav Yosef think that the author must therefore be Sumchus?

(d) We refute this proof too, however, by establishing the Mishnah where he ate one Gid after the other, in which case the author can be the Rabbanan of Sumchus.
How will we then reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's opinion with his opinion in Nazir ('Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah')?

(a) The source for that opinion is another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah exempts from Malkos, someone who leaves over from the Korban Pesach until the morning from Malkos, because it is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'.
What does Rebbi Ya'akov say?

(b) What can we extrapolate from both Tana'im as regards 'Has'ra'as Safek'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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