POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 23
CHULIN 23-24 - have been sponsored through the generous contribution of
Reb Uri Wolfson and family. May he continue to watch his children grow in
Torah and Yir'as Shamayim, following in the footsteps of their illustrious
parents and grandparents, shlit'a.
1) BIRDS NOT VALID FOR "KORBANOS"
(a) Answer (Rava - Beraisa): These exclude the beginning of
yellowness, which is Pasul among both.
2) OTHER INTERMEDIATE CASES
1. This is like the latter understanding;
(b) Rejection: Really, we are in doubt which is valid; the
verse is needed to disqualify a Nirva (a bird with which
a man had relations) and a Ne'evad (worshipped);
2. But if they are Pesulim only because of doubt, we
would not need a verse to disqualify this!
1. One might have thought to learn that they are
acceptable, because it says "Mashchasam Bahem Mum
Bam" (this will be explained);
2. (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): 'Hashchasah' always refers
to incest and idolatry.
i. Incest - like it says "All flesh Hishchis
(corrupted) its way on the land".
3. Seemingy, the verse equates blemishes with incest
and idolatry, to teach that incest and idolatry only
disqualify Korbanos that are disqualified by a
ii. Idolatry - like it says "Lest Tashchisun and
you will make an idol..."
i. One might have thought, since blemishes do not
disqualify birds, neither does incest or
idolatry - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.
(a) Question (R. Zeira): If Reuven vowed to bring an Olah of
a ram or lamb and he brought a Palgas (a sheep in its
13th month) - did he fulfill his vow?
1. According to R. Yochanan, clearly he did not.
i. (Mishnah): If one (was obligated to bring a ram
or lamb, and he) offered a Palgas, he brings
the Nesachim (accompanying flour and wine
offerings) of a ram; he did not fulfill his
2. The question is according to Bar Pada, who says that
he brings the Nesachim of a ram and stipulates (that
if a Palgas is truly a lamb, the extra Nesachim are
ii. (R. Yochanan): "Or for a ram" - this teaches
that the Nesachim of a ram are also brought
with a Palgas. (This shows that he holds that a
Palgas is neither a ram nor lamb.)
3) "PARAH ADUMAH" AND "EGLAH ARUFAH"
(b) R. Zeira's question is unresolved.
i. Is it enough to stipulate 'If a Palgas is
really a lamb...'?
ii. Or, must he also stipulate 'If a Palgas is not
a lamb nor ram, but rather a new classification
(for which no Nesachim are needed), all the
Nesachim are Nedavos'?
(c) Question (R. Zeira): Reuven vowed to bring breads of a
Todah (thanksgiving offering) from Chametz or Matzah; he
brought Sei'or (bread which began fermenting) - did he
fulfill his vow?
1. Question: According to which Tana does he ask, and
which definition of (what level of fermentation is
considered) Sei'or does he use?
(d) R. Zeira's question is unresolved.
i. Suggestion: If he asks according to R. Yehudah,
using R. Meir's definition - R. Yehudah
considers it to be Matzah (clearly, he
fulfilled his vow)!
2. Answer: He asks according to R. Yehudah, using R.
ii. Suggestion: If he asks according to R. Meir,
using R. Yehudah's definition - R. Meir
considers it to be Chametz (clearly, he
fulfilled his vow)!
iii. Suggestion: If he asks according to R. Meir,
using R. Meir's definition of Sei'or - R. Meir
says one is lashed for eating it on Pesach,
this shows that he considers it to be Chametz
(clearly, he fulfilled his vow)!
i. Is R. Yehudah in doubt if it is Chametz or
Matzah (but either way, he fulfilled his vow)?
3. Question: How could Reuven fulfill his vow if he
does not know if it is Chametz or Matzah?
ii. Or, does R. Yehudah consider Sei'or to be
neither, and he did not fulfill his vow?
i. (Rav Huna): If one accepted to bring the breads
of a Todah, he must bring a Todah and (all) the
4. Answer #1: The case is, Reuven accepted to exempt
Shimon from the need to bring Chametz or Matzah.
ii. Summation of question: Reuven cannot rely on
the Sei'or to exempt himself from bringing the
Chametz that accompanies a Todah (perhaps it is
not Chametz); similarly, he must bring all the
Matzah of a Todah - the Sei'or did not exempt
him from anything!
5. Objection: But the above reasoning shows that Shimon
must still bring all the breads, Reuven did not
exempt him from anything!
6. Answer #2: Rather, Reuven accepted to bring Chametz
or Matzah that Shimon must bring, but he did not
accept to exempt Shimon of his obligation.
(a) (Mishnah): The proper way to kill Parah Adumah is invalid
for Eglah Arufah (the calf brought for a found corpse);
the proper way to kill Eglah Arufah is invalid for Parah
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): The Parah Adumah is slaughtered; if
it is Arufah (its neck is cleaved from the back), it is
invalid; the calf is Arufah, if it is slaughtered; it is
1. What is valid for Parah Adumah is invalid for Eglah
Arufah; what is valid for Eglah Arufah is invalid
for Parah Adumah.
(c) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Arifah is
valid for Parah Adumah.
1. Eglah Arufah may not be killed by slaughtering, only
by Arifah -Parah Adumah may be slaughtered, all the
more so, Arifah is Kosher!