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 5
CHULIN 4-5 - 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.
5) THE SLAUGHTER OF A "MUMAR" (cont.)
(a) Question: Perhaps Achav and his men ate what they
slaughtered, and Yehoshafat and his men ate what they
1) THE SLAUGHTER OF A "MUMAR" IDOLATER
(b) Answer #1: Yehoshafat did not separate himself from
1. Question: How do we know this?
(c) Answer #2: Rather, from the verse "(Achav) and Yehoshafat
... sat ... in the Goren of the entrance to the gate of
i. Suggestion: It says, "I am as you, my nation is
as your nation".
ii. Rejection: But it also says "My horses are as
your horses" - clearly, he only spoke regarding
1. Question: What does Goren mean?
(d) Suggestion: From Eliyahu we can support Rav Anan's law.
i. Suggestion: If it simply means the threshing
floor - the gate of Shomron is not a threshing
2. Answer: Rather, they sat as a Goren.
i. (Mishnah): The Sanhedrin sat as a semi-circle,
so they could see each other.
1. (Rav Yehudah): "The Orvim (ravens) brought (Eliyahu)
bread and meat" - the meat was from Achav's
(e) Rejection: No - perhaps the slaughter of a Mumar is
forbidden; Hash-m gave special permission to Eliyahu.
1. Question: What were the Orvim?
2. Answer (Ravina): Ravens.
3. Suggestion (Rav Ada Bar Minyomi): Perhaps they were
2 men named Orev.
i. We see that this is a name -"They killed Orev
at the rock of Orev"!
4. Rejection (Ravina): It is unreasonable to say that
both men had this name.
5. Suggestion: Perhaps they are called Orvim because
they come from Orev (as we find elsewhere)!
i. Question: "They captured from Yisrael a
Na'arah, a minor" - if she is a Na'arah, she is
not a minor!
6. Rejection: If so, they would be called 'Orvi'im'.
ii. Answer (R. Pedas): She was a minor from
(a) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Anan.
2) "KORBANOS" OF A "MUMAR"
1. (Beraisa): Anyone may slaughter - even a Kusi, Arel
(uncircumcised man), even a Mumar.
(b) Rejection: No - really, a Mumar to idolatry may not
2. Question: What is the case of the Arel?
i. Suggestion: If (2 or 3) of his brothers died
through circumcision - he is a fully Kosher
Yisrael (he should not circumcise himself)!
3. Answer: Rather, he rejects the Mitzvah of
4. Question: The end of the Beraisa, says, 'even a
Yisrael Mumar' - what is the case?
i. Suggestion: If he is a Mumar to 1 (regular)
Mitzvah - this is the same as Mumar to
circumcision, which was already taught!
5. Answer: Rather, he is a Mumar to idolatry, and we
learn that he may slaughter, as Rav Anan!
1. Anyone that admits to idolatry is as one that denies
the whole Torah; anyone that denies idolatry is as
one that admits to the whole Torah.
2. Rather, the end of the Beraisa speaks of a Mumar to
Neveilah, as Rava.
(a) Question (Beraisa): "(One that will offer an Olah) from
you" - only certain of you - this excludes a Mumar;
1. "From you" - this distinction is only made among
you, not among other nations (any non-Jew may
volunteer an Olah).
(b) Question: The Beraisa teaches "From you" - to exclude a
Mumar; but later it says that sinners of Yisrael may
2. "From an animal" - to include people that resemble
i. This is the source that sinners of Yisrael may
bring Korbanos, in order that they should
3. We do not accept Korbanos from a Mumar, one who is
Menasech (offers wine libations to idolatry), or one
who publicly desecrates Shabbos.
(c) Answer: A Mumar to the whole Torah may not bring
sacrifices, a Mumar to 1 Mitzvah may bring.
(d) (End of the Beraisa): A Mumar, a Menasech, or one who
publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring Korbanos).
(e) Question: What kind of Mumar is this?
1. If he is a Mumar to the whole Torah - the beginning
of the Beraisa taught this!
(f) Answer: Rather, the end of the Beraisa says, a Mumar who
is Menasech or publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring
2. If he is a Mumar to 1 Mitzvah - this opposes the
middle law of the Beraisa!
1. This shows that a Mumar to idolatry is like a Mumar
to the whole Torah - this refutes Rav Anan.
(g) Question: A different source teaches that a Mumar may not
3) SLAUGHTER OF A "KUSI"
(h) Answer: The verses quoted in this Beraisa exempt a Mumar
from a Chatas; "From you" disqualifies a Mumar from an
Olah brought voluntarily.
1. (Beraisa): "From commoners" - this excludes a Mumar;
2. R. Shimon Ben Yosi says, "(Or became known to him
his sin)" - one who sinned b'Shogeg (by mistake),
and would not have sinned knowingly, he brings a
Korban; one who would have sinned anyway does not
bring a Korban.
3. Question: On what do they argue?
4. Answer (Rav Hamnuna): One who wantonly eats Chelev
(forbidden fats), and mistakenly consumed blood.
(The first Tana exempts him from a Korban; R. Shimon
1. Both sources are needed.
(i) Question: Sometimes people are referred to as animals in
a positive way!
2. If we only learned that a Mumar is exempt from a
Chatas, we would say, this is because he is not
fitting for atonement, but he may bring an Olah!
3. If we only learned that a Mumar may not bring Olos,
we would say, this is because it is voluntary, but
he may bring a Chatas, which is obligatory!
1. (Rav Yehudah): "Hash-m will save man and animals" -
this refers to men that make themselves (humble) as
(j) Answer: There, it says "man and animals", the connotation
is favorable; when it only says 'animal', it is
(k) Question: Sometimes it says "man and animals", the
connotation is derogatory!
1. "I will seed Beis Yisrael, the seed of man and the
seed of animals".
(l) Answer: There, the words are separated - 'the seed of
man' and 'the seed of animals'.
(a) (R. Yakov bar Idi): R. Gamliel and his Beis Din voted,
and prohibited the slaughter of Kusim.
(b) Question (R. Zeira): Perhaps that is only when a Yisrael
did not supervise?
(c) R. Yakov bar Idi: Such a question befits someone that has
1. It is not necessary to teach that if he slaughtered
unsupervised, it is forbidden!
(d) Question: Did R. Zeira accept R. Yakov's answer?
(e) Answer (we learn from the following episode): R. Yochanan
and R. Asi ate from the slaughter of a Kusi.
1. R. Zeira was astonished - did they not hear of R.
Gamliel's decree, or did they not accept it?
(f) (Conclusion): If R. Zeira did not accept the answer - he
would say, the decree was on unsupervised slaughter, and
they ate from supervised slaughter!
2. He concluded: It cannot be that they did not hear
it, for if so, they accidentally sinned by eating.
i. Hash-m does not allow a pitfall to come even
through animals of Tzadikim, all the more so
through Tzadikim themselves!
3. Rather, they heard the decree and opposed it.
1. Rather, R. Zeira accepted the answer.