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 81
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.
1) LASHES FOR "OSO V'ES BENO" (cont.)
(a) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): One is not lashed for slaughtering
Kodshim prematurely, because the Lav was uprooted, it is
only an Isur Ase:
1) "OSO V'ES BENO" OF "KODSHIM"
1. "From the eighth day and onwards it will be
acceptable" - but not before this.
(b) Question: But this verse is needed for R. Aftoriki's law!
2. A Lav derived from a Mitzvas Ase is considered an
1. (R. Aftoriki): "Seven days it will be by its mother"
- this implies, the following night it may be
(c) Answer: "So you will do to your cattle and flock", is
extra, allowing us to learn both laws.
2. Contradiction: "From the eighth day and onwards it
will be acceptable" - but not the night before!
3. Answer (R. Aftoriki): One may Mekadesh it on the
night of the eighth (or later), it may be offered on
the eighth day.
(a) (Rav Hamnuna): R. Shimon holds that Oso v'Es Beno does
not apply to Kodshim.
1. This is because he holds that slaughter that does
not permit is not considered slaughter; slaughter of
Kodshim does not (alone or immediately) permit the
(b) Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Shimon): If Oso v'Es Beno
of Kodshim were slaughtered outside, the second
slaughterer transgresses a Lav;
1. R. Shimon holds, if one slaughters any Korban that
is now unacceptable but will become acceptable he
transgresses a Lav, he is not Chayav Kares;
(c) Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated; it means as
2. Chachamim say, if he is not Chayav Kares (because it
is unacceptable now), he does not transgress a Lav.
3. (Summation of question): Why does R. Shimon exempt
the second slaughterer from Kares?
i. Since the first slaughter was invalid, it is as
if the animal was killed (not slaughtered) -
the second animal is Kosher for a Korban that
1. If Kodshim were slaughtered outside, Chachamim
Mechayev the first slaughterer Kares, the second
Korban is Pasul, the second slaughterer is exempt
(for Shechutei Chutz);
(d) Correction (Rava): Rav Hamnuna meant that R. Shimon holds
that one is not lashed for Oso v'Es Beno of Kodshim.
i. R. Shimon says, both are Chayav Kares;
2. If they were slaughtered outside and inside (in this
order), Chachamim Mechayev the first slaughterer
Kares, the second Korban is Pasul, the second
slaughterer is exempt;
i. R. Shimon is Machshir the second Korban;
3. If they were slaughtered inside and outside,
Chachamim Machshir the first Korban, Posel the
second Korban, both slaughterers are exempt;
i. R. Shimon says, the second slaughterer
transgresses a Lav.
4. Objection: If R. Shimon holds that Oso v'Es Beno
does not apply to Kodshim, the second slaughterer
should be Chayav Kares!
1. A Korban may not be eaten until Zerikah; at the time
of slaughter, it is not known if Zerikah will be
done, retroactively making the slaughter valid.
(e) (Rava): If one slaughters Chulin and (then) Shelamim (Oso
v'Es Beno), he is exempt; if he slaughtered the Shelamim
first, he is liable;
2. Any Hasra'ah (warning) given to the slaughterer is
doubtful (he transgresses only if Zerikah will be
done); such Hasra'ah is invalid.
(f) (Rava): If the mother is Chulin, and the child is an
1. He is exempt not only if he slaughters the Chulin
first, but even if he slaughters the Olah first;
2) IMPROPER SLAUGHTERS
2. This is because slaughter of an Olah does not permit
the meat to be eaten (so it is not considered
(g) (R. Yakov): What is burned on the Mizbe'ach is considered
like being eaten (so slaughter of an Olah is considered
1. "V'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Bsar Zevach Shelamav" -
the Torah discusses two eatings, of people and of
(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): One is not liable (for Oso v'Es
Beno) in the following cases (since they are not
3) DOUBLE LIABILTY
1. The animal was found to be Treifah;
(b) Chachamim say, all of these are considered slaughter.
2. Slaughter for idolatry;
3. Slaughter of the Parah Adumah, an animal sentenced
to be stoned, or Eglah Arufah (a calf that is
beheaded to atone for a murder);
(c) One is not liable if it was slaughtered improperly (i.e.
and became a Nevelah), whether the Pesul was intentional
(d) (Gemara - Reish Lakish): Regarding idolatry, Chachamim
Mechayev (for Oso v'Es Beno) only if the second animal
was slaughtered with proper intention;
1. But if the second animal was slaughtered for
idolatry, even if the first was slaughtered
properly, since he is liable to death (for the
second slaughter), he is exempt for Oso v'Es Beno.
(e) R. Yochanan: Even children know that!
(f) (R. Yochanan): Sometimes, even if the second animal was
slaughtered for idolatry, he is liable for Oso v'Es Beno;
1. The case is, he was warned not to slaughter Oso v'Es
Beno, but was not warned about idolatry.
2. Reish Lakish holds, since he would be exempt for Oso
v'Es Beno had he been warned about idolatry, he is
exempt even if he was not warned.
(a) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with their
opinions in a related case.
(b) (Rav Dimi): If a person transgressed (b'Shogeg) an Isur
punishable by death or lashes (if done b'Mezid), and
simultaneously did something for which one must pay, R.
Yochanan obligates him to pay, Reish Lakish exempts.
1. R. Yochanan obligates, since he will not be killed
(c) The argument must be taught in both cases:
2. Reish Lakish exempts - since he would be exempt had
he sinned (b'Mezid) with Hasra'ah, he is exempt even
if he was not warned.
1. Version #1 (Rashi): If we only heard that Reish
Lakish exempts regarding Oso v'Es Beno, one might
have thought this is because we do not administer
two bodily punishments, but he would not exempt from
2. If we only heard that R. Yochanan obligates money,
one might have thought that since we do not
administer two bodily punishments, even when one is
not killed for idolatry, he is exempt for Oso v'Es
3. Version #2 (Tosfos): If we only heard that Reish
Lakish exempts from paying, one might have thought
this is learned from a verse, but lashes are given;
4. If we only heard that R. Yochanan obligates lashes,
one might have thought that he agrees that one is
exempt from paying (like Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah learns
from a verse.)