(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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.


(a) Question: Perhaps Achav and his men ate what they slaughtered, and Yehoshafat and his men ate what they slaughtered!
(b) Answer #1: Yehoshafat did not separate himself from Achav.
1. Question: How do we know this?
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 war!
(c) Answer #2: Rather, from the verse "(Achav) and Yehoshafat ... sat ... in the Goren of the entrance to the gate of Shomron."
1. Question: What does Goren mean?
i. Suggestion: If it simply means the threshing floor - the gate of Shomron is not a threshing floor!
2. Answer: Rather, they sat as a Goren.
i. (Mishnah): The Sanhedrin sat as a semi-circle, so they could see each other.
(d) Suggestion: From Eliyahu we can support Rav Anan's law.
1. (Rav Yehudah): "The Orvim (ravens) brought (Eliyahu) bread and meat" - the meat was from Achav's slaughterers.
(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!
ii. Answer (R. Pedas): She was a minor from Ne'uran.
6. Rejection: If so, they would be called 'Orvi'im'.
(a) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Anan.
1. (Beraisa): Anyone may slaughter - even a Kusi, Arel (uncircumcised man), even a Mumar.
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 circumcision.
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!
(b) Rejection: No - really, a Mumar to idolatry may not slaughter.
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).
2. "From an animal" - to include people that resemble animals.
i. This is the source that sinners of Yisrael may bring Korbanos, in order that they should repent.
3. We do not accept Korbanos from a Mumar, one who is Menasech (offers wine libations to idolatry), or one who publicly desecrates Shabbos.
(b) Question: The Beraisa teaches "From you" - to exclude a Mumar; but later it says that sinners of Yisrael may bring Korbanos!
(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!
2. If he is a Mumar to 1 Mitzvah - this opposes the middle law of the Beraisa!
(f) Answer: Rather, the end of the Beraisa says, a Mumar who is Menasech or publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring Korbanos).
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 bring Korbanos!

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 obligates him.)
(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. Both sources are needed.
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!
(i) Question: Sometimes people are referred to as animals in a positive way!
1. (Rav Yehudah): "Hash-m will save man and animals" - this refers to men that make themselves (humble) as animals.
(j) Answer: There, it says "man and animals", the connotation is favorable; when it only says 'animal', it is derogatory.
(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 not learned!
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?
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.
(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!
1. Rather, R. Zeira accepted the answer.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,