ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
CHULIN 2 - The first Daf of Chulin has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom
Kelman of Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with years filled
with Torah and Nachas!
Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of
Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any
bearing on the practical Halachah.
(a) Our Mishnah validates almost anybody's Shechitah. The three exceptions
are - a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan (a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor),
whose Shechitah is Pasul - because of the likelihood that they rendered the
(b) The Tana rules that if anyone Shechts, and his Shechitah is overseen by
others - it is Kasher.
(c) We query the Lashon of the Mishnah, in that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' implies
Lechatchilah, whereas 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' implies Bedieved. They
cannot both be part of one statement, permitting their Shechitah
Lechatchilah - because having said 'ha'Kol Shochtin', it follows that their
Shechitah is Kasher, and it would warrant mention.
(d) The problem is based on the assumption that 'ha'Kol' implies
Lechatchilah. Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries this however, from the Mishnah
in Temurah 'ha'Kol Memirin, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim' - which cannot
mean Lechatchilah, because of the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo
Yamir Oso", which teaches us the prohibition of declaring a Temurah.
(a) If, on the other hand, 'ha'Kol' in this case means Bedi'eved, the double
Lashon in our Mishnah will mean - that the law of Shechitah applies to
everyone, and if they Shechted, their Shechitah is Kasher.
(b) In answer to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's Kashya, Rav Ashi explains - that
is precisely why the Mishnah in Temurah adds 'not that one is allowed to
declare a Temurah, but that if one did, the Temurah is effective (to clarify
that in spite of the Lashon, it is only Kasher Bedi'eved).
(c) Nevertheless, the Tana there prefers to use a Lashon of Lechatchilah and
then to amend (rather than to say 'ha'Kol she'Heimiru, Temurasan
Kesheirah') - because it is a manner of expression that is more commonly
used by the Tana'im.
(a) We then query the above assumption from the Mishnah in Erchin, 'ha'Kol
Ma'arichin, ve'Ne'erachin, Nodrin ('Dami Alai' or 'D'mei P'loni Alai')
ve'Nidrin'. 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin' comes to include a 'Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish'
(a precocious twelve-year old boy), 've'Ne'erachin' - a Mukeh Sh'chin (a
leper), who has an Erech, in spite of the fact that he has no intrinsic
value (i.e. he would be worth nothing on the slave market).
(b) 'ha'Kol Nidrin' (if someone declares about him 'D'mei P'loni Alai')
comes to include a baby of less than one month old, which we might otherwise
have thought cannot be Nidar - because he has no Erech.
(c) And the Tana only inserts 'ha'Kol Nodrin - to balance 've'Nidrin' (but
not to teach us anything).
(d) The problem with interpreting the Mishnah 'ha'Kol ... Nodrin ve'Nidrin'
to mean Lechatchilah - is the fact that making a Neder is prohibited, as we
learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Chi Sechdal Lindor Lo Yih'yeh Becha
Chet", and in Koheles "Tov Asher Lo Tidor, mi'she'Tidor ve'Lo Seshalem" (as
we will now explain).
(a) Based on the previous Pasuk 'Eis Asher Tidor Shaleim", Rebbi Meir in a
Beraisa, comments 'Tov mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh she'Eino Noder Kol Ikar'. He
interprets the Pasuk to mean - that even though it is good to make and Neder
and to keep it, it is better still not to make a Neder in the first place,
because of the likelihood that one will not.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah interprets it to mean - that although it is preferable not
to make a Neder than to make one and not keep it, it is better still to make
it and to keep it.
(c) We qualify Rebbi Yehudah's statement however - by confining it to
someone who says 'Harei Zu' (a Nedavah), but with regard to a Neder, he
agrees in principle with Rebbi Meir (that 'Nodrin' means Bedi'eved).
(d) A Nedavah is better than a Neder in this regard, because a. he is no
longer held responsible should it get lost or die, and b. because, having
immediately designated the animal, one is less likely to be lax in bringing
(a) In any event, we see from the Mishnah in Erchin that 'ha'Kol ... '
implies Bedi'eved - so back comes the Kashya, if 'ha'Kol Shochtin' is
speaking Bedi'eved, then why do we need two Leshonos of Bedi'eved?
(b) We counter this however, from another Mishnah there - 'ha'Kol Chayavin
be'Sukah' and 'ha'Kol Chayavin be Tzitzis' which imply Lechatchilah.
(c) We reject this proof - since even if 'ha'Kol Chayavin ... ' obviously
implies Lechatchilah, it doesn't follow that 'ha'Kol' on its own does?
(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Menachos 'ha'Kol Somchin, Echad Anashim
ve'Echad Nashim'. 'ha'Kol Somchin comes to include - an heir who brings the
Korbanos of his deceased father.
(b) We know that the Tana must mean Lechatchilah - since it is a Mitzvah on
the part of the heir to do so.
(c) This Mishnah forces us to draw the conclusion - that 'ha'Kol' sometimes
means Lechatchilah, and sometimes Bedi'eved.
(a) Rav Ashi assumed that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' must mean Lechatchilah
(prompting him to ask the opening contradiction between it and
'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' - because if it would mean Bedi'eved, why would
the Tana find it necessary to use a double-Lashon of Bedi'eved (as we
(b) Besides just 'ha'Kol Shochtin', the Tana could have written - 'Shechitas
ha'Kol Kesheirah, Chutz ... ', instead.
(c) The problem is indeed why the Tana would need to write 'u'Shechitasan
Kesheirah' to indicate that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' speaks Bedi'eved, yet cannot
ask the same Kashya on the Mishnah in Temurah 'ha'Kol Memirin ... Lo
she'ha'Adam Rashai Lehamir' - since there, the Tana needs to continue 'Lo
she'Adam Rashai ... Ela', to teach us that Temurah is subject to Malkos (and
not to indicate that 'ha'Kol Mamirin' speaks Bedieved).
(d) To answer the initial Kashya, we establish 'ha'Kol Shochtin' by 'Tamei
be'Chulin' - which cannot be understood literally, because there is nothing
remotely wrong with a Tamei person eating Chulin.
(a) So we establish 'Tamei be'Chulin' - by a Tamei person Shechting 'Chulin
she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh', which means where the owner undertakes to
eat his Chulin be'Taharah as if it was Hekdesh (which the Tana sconsiders
(b) And he Shechts it - with a long knife, so as to ensure that he does not
(c) 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' refers to - real Kodshim, which the Chachamim
(a) The Chachamim forbade a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim even using a long
knife - which would enable him to stand outside the Azarah and Shecht the
Hekdesh animal that is standing inside).
(b) The Chachamim nevertheless forbade it - in case he touches the animal
(after it has been Shechted).
(c) 'Chutz mi'Chashu' speaks - even by an ordinary animal of Chulin.
(d) Their Shechitah is Pasul - because of the probability that they
invalidated it through either 'Shehiyah' (pausing in the middle of the
Shechithah), 'D'risah' (pressing on the the knife) or 'Chaladah'(Shechting
the pipe from underneath in a way that it cannot be seen during the
(a) The problem with the final statement in the Mishnah 've'Chulan
she'Shachtu ... Kesheirah' is to whom it pertains. It cannot pertain to ...
1. ... 'Chashu' (with reference to the previous statement) - because then
the Tana ought to have said 've'Im Shachtu' (and not 've'Chulan ... ').
(b) Nevertheless, we establish it by Tamei be'Mukdashin - and the Tana is
now speaking in a case where he is no longer there to be asked.
2. ... 'Tamei be'Chulin' - since a Tamei is permitted to Shecht Chulin even
Lechatchilah (without someone watching him).
3. ... 'Tamei be'Mukdashin' - who is believed to say that he did not touch
(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim validates Kodshim that have been Shechted by
Zarim, Nashim, Avadim (who in fact, may even Shecht Lechatchilah) - and
Teme'im (even if they Shechted Kodshei Kodshim), provided they do not touch
the flesh of the animal (once it has been Shechted).
(b) The problem that Mishnah creates is - why we then need our Mishnah to
teach us the same thing.
(c) Perhaps, we reply, our Mishnah is really the Ikar (the main source) for
the Halachah, and the Tana only repeats it in Zevachim on account of the
other cases that it discusses there. Alternatively - the main source is the
Mishnah in Zevachim, and the Torah only inserts it here because it is
similar to the Din of Tamei be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Tamei Meis) "be'Chalal
Cherev" - that a (metal) sword that has slain someone adopts the same degree
of Tum'ah as the Meis (i.e. an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah), and renders whoever
touches it an Av.
(b) The Kashya this poses on the Mishnah is - that since metal adopts the
same degree of Tum'ah as the Meis (or as the person who touched one) what
will it help, if the Tamei Shechts Kodshim using a long knife - seeing as he
himself, who is an Av ha'Tum'ah, renders the metal knife an Av ha'Tum'ah,
which in turn, renders the flesh of the Kodshim animal a Rishon?
(c) In fact, this Kashya would apply even without the D'rashah of "be'Chalal
Cherev" - even if the Tamei rendered the knife a Rishon, which would then
render the flesh a Sheini.
(d) We nevertheless cite it - to strengthen the Kashya (since not only does
the flesh become a Sheini, but it even becomes a Rishon).
(a) We answer the basic Kashya - by establishing the Tamei as a Tamei
Sheretz (and not a Tamei Meis, as we thought until now) ...
(b) ... and a Tamei Sheretz does not have the power to be Metamei a K'li
(something which, min ha'Torah, only an Av can do).
(c) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah even with regard to a Tamei
Meis, and still avoid the problem - by establishing the knife (not as a
metal one but) as a strip of cane which falls under the category of
'P'shutei K'lei Eitz' (flat wooden vessels), which are not subject to
(d) We know that such a knife is Kasher to Shecht with - from a Beraisa,
which permits Shechting with a rock, a piece of glass and a strip of cane.