ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 40
CHULIN 37-40 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(a) When our Mishnah invalidates a Shechitah in the name of mountains,
hills, seas and rivers, it means - that one made these a god and Shechted to
(b) The item that the Tana adds to this list is - deserts.
(c) The Tana rules that if two people are holding opposite ends of the
knife, and one of them Shechts in the name of one of the above, and the
other, S'tam - the Shechitah is Pasul.
(a) We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Tana 'ha'Shochet le'Shem Harim ...
Pesulah' - that the Shechitah is Pasul, but not Zivchei Meisim.
(b) The reason that it is ...
1. ... not Zivchei Meisim is - because they are all considered joined to the
ground, and what is joined to the ground cannot become an Avodah-Zarah min
(c) After presenting a list equivalent to our Mishnah, the Beraisa adds the
sun, the moon, the stars, the Mazalos, Micha'el the great angel and a little
worm''. The last two - simply represent the largest creatures and the
2. ... nevertheless Pasul - because seeing as it resembles Shechting to
Avodah-Zarah, the Chachamim declared it Pasul.
(d) And the Tana - 'Harei Eilu Zivchei Meisim' (clashing with our Mishnah).
(a) Abaye resolves the discrepancy between the Mishnah and the Beraisa - by
establishing our Mishnah when one Shechts to the actual objects themselves;
whereas the Beraisa speaks - when he Shechts to their angel.
(b) And he proves it - by the fact that the latter inserts Micha'el, the
great angel, which the former did not.
(a) We know that one is permitted to bring as a Korban, an animal before
which someone prostrated himself - from the fact that the Torah forbids it
to be brought as a Korban.
(b) Rav Huna nevertheless rules that in a case where someone Shechted one
Si'man of an animal to Avodah-Zarah - he renders it Asur (even to a Hedyot).
(c) One Si'man - is La'av Davka. The same will apply even if one Shechts
less only half a Si'man.
(d) Rav Huna refers to his friend's animal and not to his own - because that
we know already from the Sugya in Avodah-Zarah, which rules that if someone
digs pits in his field and prostrates himself to them - they are Asur
(a) Rav Huna holds like Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who refers to the Halachah
'ha'Mishtachaveh le'Behemas Chaveiro, Lo Asrah' - even as regards bringing
it on the Mizbe'ach?
(b) Based on this Halachah, Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan commented - that if one
performed an act on the animal, it becomes forbidden (even to a Hedyot).
(c) Rav Huna adds that the animal was already crouching - because if it had
been standing, then he would have acquired it when lifting it off the ground
to throw it down for the Shechitah.
(a) Rav Nachman queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa - which obligates someone
who Shechts be'Shogeg, a Chatas on Shabbos outside the Azarah, to bring
three Chata'os, one for Shabbos, one for Shechting Kodshim ba'Chutz and one
(b) The Shechitah on Shabbos is not considered 'Mekalkel' (damaging the
animal, by depriving it of its plowing potential) - because on the other
hand, it permits the animal (which until now was Eiver min ha'Chai) to
(a) Rav Nachman now asks on Rav Huna - that since, in his opinion, the
animal becomes Asur be'Hana'ah (because of Avodah-Zarah), the Shochet should
not be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz (seeing as the Shechitah is Pasul).
(b) The Halachah that we cited earlier, rendering Chayav someone who
'Shechts one Si'man ba'Chutz and one Si'man bi'Fenim, since he performed
Ma'aseh Chatas ha'Of ba'Chutz - is not applicable here, since he is only
Chayav there because he completed the Shechitah (rendering him Chayav
retroactively for the first Si'man), whereas here he did not complete the
Shechitah, in which case the Shechitah is invalid, and Rav Nachman's Kashya
(c) Rav Nachman does not however, ask the same Kashya on Shechitas Shabbos -
because the Chiyuv on Shabbos, is not for the Shechitah, but for killing or
wounding the animal, which he has done even if the Shechitah as such, is
(a) Rav Papa answers the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by Chatas ha'Of
- which answers the Kashya, inasmuch as it only requires one Si'man to be
Shechted to be considered a Shechitah. Consequently, one becomes Chayav all
three upon completing one Si'man.
(b) He mentions specifically Chatas ha'Of and not Olas ha'Of - which
requires the Shechitah of both Simanim.
(c) The problem with ...
1. ... this answer, based on the fact that Rav Huna holds like Ula is -
that, according to Ula, the Chiyuv for Avodah-Zarah does not require a
complete Si'man (as we already earlier), in which case the Kashya remains
(d) As a matter of fact - this Kashya has nothing to do with Rav Huna, and
would have posed a Kashya, even if Rav Huna not said anything.
2. ... the suggestion that the Beraisa is speaking when the Shochet
specifically states that he only wants to worship the animal at the end of
the Shechitah, based on the Tana's reference to Chatas is - that in that
case, why does the Tana say 'ha'Shochet es ha'Chatas be'Shabbos'. Seeing as
such a condition would cause all three Chiyuvim to take effect
simultaneously by any Korban, he ought to have said 'ha'Shochet es
(a) Given that the Tana is referring to a Chatas ha'Of, and that the Shochet
did not make any conditions, Rav Zutra in the name of Rav Papa therefore
establishes the Beraisa - where half the Kaneh of the bird was already
broken, and all that was required was a Mashehu Shechitah (in which case all
three Isurim take effect simultaneously).
(b) Rav Papa also comments on the fact that Rav Huna mentioned 'Si'man
Echad' - which indicates that Ula (Amar Rebbi Yochanan) requires no more
than a Ma'aseh Kol de'Hu to forbid the animal (since with regard to the
Shechitah of an animal, there is no difference between Shechting one Si'man
and Shechting half a Si'man).
(c) Had Rav Huna simply concluded ' ... Keivan she'Shachtah, Asrah', Rav
Nachman would not have queried him - since we would have then assumed that
he requires a complete Ma'aseh (i.e. a Kasher Shechitah), for the animal to
(a) Rav Papa adds that Rav Nachman would not have queried him either, had he
not mentioned 'Behemas Chaveiro', because then we would have understood that
Rav Huna holds that one cannot forbid someone else's animal. Rav Nachman's
Kashya from the Beraisa would then have fallen away - because then the
Shechitah to Avodah-Zarah would not have rendered the animal forbidden,
since it is the Kohanim who own the Chatas, and if, as we are currently
suggesting, Reuven cannot forbid Shimon's animal, even with a Ma'aseh, the
Chatas would have remained permitted, enabling all three Chata'os to take
(b) Had Rav Papa not said that - we would have assumed the Shochet to be the
owner, since he is the one who receives the atonement (in which case Rav
Nachman's Kashya would have applied).
(a) Alternatively, when we ask why (if the Tana is speaking when the owner
stipulated that he only wants to Shecht it to Avodah-Zarah at the end of the
Shechitah) the Tana says 'Chatas' and not Zevach, we are referring to
Shelamim in particular, which belongs to the owner. Now however, that the
Tana mentions 'Chatas' (which belongs to the Kohanim) - the reason that the
Shechitah to Avodah-Zarah does not render the animal Asur must be (not
because all three take effect at the same time, but) because one cannot
forbid an animal that belongs to somebody else (a Kashya on Rav Huna).
(b) According to this Lashon, the Kashya is on Rav Huna, whereas according
to the first Lashon, it is purely a Kashya on the wording of the Beraisa,
irrespective of Rav Huna (as we explained there).
(c) This Lashon is preferable to the first one - because the purpose of the
Sugya is to query Rav Huna, not the Beraisa.
(a) Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak all maintain that Reuven cannot
render Shimon's animal forbidden even with a Ma'aseh - even a complete one
(as is evident from the Kashya from 'Menasech' later in the Sugya).
(b) We already established the Beraisa of 'ha'Shochet Chatas be'Shabbos' by
a Chatas ha'Of. We know that this is the case even according to these
Amora'im, too - from the fact that the Tana mentions 'ha'Shochet es
ha'Chatas' and not ' ... es ha'Zevach'.
(c) Had the Tana referred to a Zevach, he would have rather referred to an
Olah than to a Chatas - since it is more common.
(d) According to Rav Nachman, Rav Anan and Rav Yitzchak, the Tana speaks
about a Chatas ha'Of and not ...
1. ... a Chatas Beheimah or an Asham - because these the owner acquires for
his Kaparah, in which case the Shechitah to Avodah-Zarah would render it
Asur, and he would not be Chayav for Shechutei Chechutei Chutz.
2. ... an Olas Beheimah - because an Olah too atones for an Asei, so the
owner would acquire it too.
3. ... a Shelamim or other Kodshim Kalim - because they belong to the owner
in any case, since he is the one who eats the meat.