ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 10
CHULIN 9-10 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs.
Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the
merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his
Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
(a) The Mishnah in Terumos lists three liquids that are forbidden because of
Giluy - water, wine and milk.
(b) The Tana gives the time period in which they become forbidden as the
time it takes for a poisonous snake to come from close by and drink. Rebbi
Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah defines 'from close by' as - from the ground
directly beneath the handle of the jar containing the liquid.
(c) We amend the Beraisa by adding 'Ve'yachzor le'Choro' - because
otherwise, he would have seen the snake returning to its pit underneath the
jar, and that, if he didn't, there cannot have been one (see also Tosfos DH
(a) If, after Shechting and breaking bones all day with the same knife, it
is found to be defected, Rav Huna invalidates the Shechitah - because he
suspects that it became defected right at the start, on the skin of the
animal's neck as he performed the Shechitah.
(b) Rav Chisda - declares the animal to he Kasher, because it is more likely
to have become defected when breaking bones than when cutting skin.
(c) When we say that Rav Huna follows his own reasoning, we are referring
to - the principle that he cited earlier, that an animal has a Chezkas Isur,
until we know that it has been properly Shechted.
(d) Rav Chisda counters this with the argument - that bones will definitely
cause the knife to be come defected, whilst skin is only a Safek, and we
have a principle 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' (which overrides the
(a) Rava cites a Beraisa in support of Rav Huna. The Beraisa rules that if
someone Tovels and, at the end of the day, discovers a Chatzitzah consisting
of a species with which he was working all day - his Tevilah is not counted.
(b) We reject out of hand, the counter-argument that the case of Tevilah and
that of Shechitah are not comparable, because ...
1. ... the Tamei person has a Chazakah that he has not Toveled - because,
then by the same token, we should place the animal on its Chazakah and say
that it has not been Shechted.
(c) Rav Chisda nevertheless counters Rav Huna using this last argument -
because, he claims, the Re'usa is in the knife, whereas the Chazakah is in
2. ... 'Harei Shechutah Lefanecha', because then we should also say - 'Harei
3. ... that a 'Re'usa' occurred (in connection with the Tevilah) - because
so too, did a 'Re'usa occur with the Shechitah.
(a) The Shechitah of a bird entails - cutting one of the two pipes (which we
will now explain).
(b) The Beraisa rules that after Shechting the Veshet (the esophagus [i.e.
the food pipe]), the Gargeres (the trachea [i.e. the wind-pipe]) slips from
its place - the Shechitah is Kasher.
(c) The Tana give this example, and not vice-versa (where he Shechted the
Gargeres first, before the Veshet slipped from its place), not because there
is any difference between the two cases, but - because it is common for the
esophagus to slip.
(d) In a case where the Gargeres slipped ...
1. ... before he Shechted the Veshet - the Tana declares the Shechitah
2. ... but they do not know whether it slipped before or after the Shechitah
of the Veshet - the Tana rules 'Kol Safek bi'Shechitah Pasul'.
(a) This Lashon however, is a 'Ribuy' - which we initially comes to include
a case of a Safek that occurs in the knife (a Kashya on Rav Chisda).
(b) We refute the Kashya however - by establishing the 'Ribuy' by 'Safek
Shahah, Safek Daras' ...
(c) ... which the Tana prefers to include rather than the, according to Rav
Chisda - because it constitutes a Re'usa in the animal itself (as we
(a) We rule ...
1. ... like Rav Huna - when the Shochet did not break bones after the
(b) Rav Chisda renders the Shechitah Kasher even if the Shochet did not cut
bones after the Shechitah - because he considers the neck-bone (which one
cuts after the Shechitah) to be more likely to have caused the defect than
the skin (which one cuts before it).
2. ... like Rav Chisda - when he did.
(a) There was a case where, after a Shochet had Shechted thirteen animals,
Rav Yosef declared them Tereifah - because after the thirteenth animal, the
Shochet discovered that his knife, which he had failed to inspect after each
Shechitah, was defective.
(b) When we ...
1. ... suggest that Rav Yosef follows the opinion of Rav Huna, we mean -
that Rav Yosef declared even the first animal Tereifah.
2. ... counter that he might even hold like Rav Chisda, we mean - that it
was only the last twelve that he declared Tereifah, but not the first one.
3. ... conclude that he must hold like Rav Huna after all, because Rav
Chisda would have permitted all the animals, right down to the last one -
because (bearing in mind that in his opinion, the neckbone will not cause
the knife to become defected by contact with the neckbone any moe than the
skin of the neck), his reason must be 'Talinan' (we rely on the latter). In
that case, he will go even further and always rely on the last possibility,
namely, that the knife became defected on the neck-bone of the last animal.
(a) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava told Rav Ashi that Rav Kahana required the knife
to be inspected after each Shechitah. When we ...
1. ... suggest that he follows the opinion of Rav Huna, we mean - that if he
does not, then should he subsequently find the knife to be defectice, all
the animals that he Shechted will be declared Tereifah, including the first
(b) Even though we just concluded that according to Rav Chisda, we ascribe
the defect to the neck-bone of the last animal - we do not accept that
opinion (as it is carrying things a bit too far).
2. ... counter that he might even hold like Rav Chisda, we mean - that they
will all be Tereifah, except for the first one.
(c) In spite of what we have just said, Rav Kahana really holds - that as
long as the Shochet has not used the knife to break bones, even the first
animal is Tereifah, like Rav Huna (as we ruled above).
(a) This prompts to ask why the Shochet is not obligated to give his knife
to a Chacham for inspection, following the Shechitah of each animal. We
only ask it (at this point), on Rav Chisda - according to whom the purpose
of inspecting the knife is to permit the hochet to Shecht the next animal,
but not on Rav Huna, who requires the inspection to permit the animal that
has already been Shechted (and which is permitted due a Chazakah).
(b) We answer - with the principle 'Eid Echad Ne'eman be'Isurin' (that a
person is believed on his own in matters of Isur, and does not require
witnesses to substantiate that he did the right thing) ...
(c) and the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim Yakum Davar" - applies to matters
pertaining to Mamon, Nashim and and punishments at the hand of Beis-Din.
(d) The Shochet's obligation to show the Chacham his knife before he begins
to Shecht is - basically a matter of Kavod Chacham (and not to verify its
(a) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the Pasuk (in
connection with Tzara'as Batim) "Ve'yatza ha'Kohen min ha'Bayis el Pesach
ha'Bayis, Ve'hisgir es ha'Bayis Shiv'as Yamim" - the principle of Chazakah
(that we assume something to be as it was, until a change can be proved).
(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov refutes the proof on the grounds that the Pasuk
might expect the Kohen - to exit the house walking backwards (to ensure that
he sees the mark on the wall right up to the time that he pronounces it
(c) Abaye disagrees with Rav Acha bar Ya'akov on two scores. One of them is
the fact that walking out backwards will not fulfill the requirement of
"Ve'yatza min ha'Bayis". The other is - that even if it were, it would not
enable him to see a mark behind the door, should it be located there.
(d) He also objects to the suggestion that one could open a window through
which the Kohen could ensure that the Tzara'as is still intact and has not
diminished to less than the minimum Shi'ur - on the basis of the Mishnah in
Nega'im, which declares a house Tahor if the Kohen requires a window to
examine the stricken wall.
(a) Rava proves from the 'Yetzi'ah' of the Kohen Gadol from the Kodesh
Kodshim on Yom Kipur - that exiting backwards is considered 'Yetzi'ah',
since that is the way the Mishnah in Yoma describes the way the Kohen Gadol
exited the Kodesh Kodshim then (a refutation of Abaye's first objection).
(b) And he counters Abaye's second objection (regarding opening a window in
the door) - by restriction the Torah's prohibition to before the Kohen has
actually seen the mark, but once he has, it doesn't matter how he goes on to
establish the sighting.
(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ve'yatza ha'Kohen el Pesach ha'Bayis"? - that the Kohen cannot go
home and declare the house that he just saw, Tamei, but that he must do so
from the entrance of the stricken house.
(d) Rav Acha reconciles his opinion with this Beraisa - by establishing this
last D'rashah when one man is standing on the threshold of the stricken
house who ascertains that the mark has not diminished, and a row of people
leading from it to the Kohen's house (see Tosfos DH 'de'Kaymi', pass on the
information to the Kohen.
2. ... "min ha'Bayis" - that he must leave the house completely before
declaring it Tamei (and not do so whilst still standing under the lintel.
3. ... "Ve'hisgir es ha'Bayis" - that Bedi'eved, the house will be Tamei,
even if he declares it Tamei after arriving at his own house.