(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 32

CHULIN 32-33 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) (Rava): If Reuven slaughtered a Parah Adumah and another animal, all agree that the Parah is invalid;
(b) If another animal was slaughtered (unintentionally) with the Parah Adumah:
1. According to R. Noson, the Parah is invalid, the other animal is valid;
2. According to Chachamim, the Parah is valid, the other animal is invalid.
(c) Question: This is obvious!
(d) Answer: The case of another animal slaughtered unintentionally, according to R. Noson, is a Chidush.
1. One might have thought, "He will slaughter *it*" - not it and another - this only disqualifies slaughtering two Paros Adumos at once, but not one Parah and a Chulin animal;
2. Rava teaches, this is not so.
(e) If he cut a gourd while slaughtering a Parah Adumah, it is invalid; if a gourd was cut while slaughtering the Parah, it is valid.
(a) (Mishnah): If a man paused during slaughter to pick up the knife or his clothes which fell, or to sharpen the knife; or, he grew weary and another man completed the slaughter - if the delay was the time needed for slaughter, the slaughter is invalid;
(b) R. Shimon says, if it was the time to check, it is invalid.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the time for slaughter?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav): The time to slaughter another animal (i.e. from the start).
(e) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): Is the permissible pause (when slaughtering a bird) the time to slaughter an animal, or the time to slaughter a bird?
(f) Response (Rav): When I learned this law from R. Chiya, the mood did not allow me to ask.
(g) (Rav): For an animal, we use the time to slaughter an animal; for a bird, we use the time to slaughter a bird.
(h) (Shmuel and Ravin): Also for a bird, we use the time to slaughter an animal.
(i) (R. Chanina): We use the time to bring an animal and slaughter it.
(j) Objection: If we must bring an animal - the time will vary, depending how far we must go to find one!
(k) Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, R. Chanina teaches that we must include the time to cast the animal to the ground, (which the other Amora'im do not include - Rashi, based on our text; the text of many Rishonim omits these words, for all agree to this).
(l) (Sages of Eretz Yisrael, citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): We use the time to pick up an animal, make it crouch down, and slaughter;
1. For a large animal, we use the times for a large animal; for a small animal, the times for a small animal.
(m) (Rava): If one slaughters with a blunt knife, even if he spends the whole day slaughtering one animal, it is valid.
(n) Question (Rava): Do small pauses join up (that if the total delay is the time for slaughter, the slaughter is invalid)?
1. Question: Rava should resolve his question from the law he just taught (that they do not join up)!
2. Answer: In that case, he was constantly cutting, he did not pause.
(o) Question (Rav Huna brei d'R. Noson): What is the law if he paused while cutting the minority of the Simanim (Rashi - after having cut the majority; R. Tam - before cutting the majority; R. Ushiya - he paused while cutting the remainder of the first Siman after having cut its majority)?
(p) These questions are unresolved.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yeshevav): In the following cases, the animal is a Neveilah:
1. He slaughtered the Veshet and uprooted the Kaneh, or uprooted the Kaneh and (then - some delete this) slaughtered the Veshet;
2. He slaughtered one Siman and paused until the animal died, or inserted the knife under the second Siman and slaughtered it by Chaladah (when the knife was covered up);
3. R. Akiva says, it is a Treifah.
(b) (R. Yeshevav, citing R. Yehoshua): Any case in which the slaughter was invalidated, the animal is a Neveilah; if it was slaughtered properly but something else forbids the animal, it is a Treifah;
1. R. Akiva retracted and agreed to R. Yeshevav.
(c) (Gemara) Contradiction: In our Mishnah, R. Akiva retracted and agreed to R. Yeshevav; elsewhere, we see that they still disagree!
1. (Mishnah #2): The following are Treifos:
i. The Veshet was punctured, or the Kaneh was uprooted...

(d) Answer #1 (Rava): In our Mishnah, the Kaneh was uprooted after the Veshet was slaughtered - a disqualification occurred in the slaughter itself;
1. There, the Kaneh was uprooted before anything was slaughtered - the disqualification was not related to the slaughter.
2. Question (Rav Acha bar Huna - our Mishnah): If he slaughtered the Veshet and uprooted the Kaneh, or uprooted the Kaneh and slaughtered the Veshet, it is a Neveilah.
3. Answer (Rava): The latter clause really means, the Kaneh was uprooted after the Veshet was already slaughtered.
4. Objection #1 (Rav Acha bar Huna): But that is precisely the first clause!
5. Objection #2 (Rav Acha bar Huna - Beraisa): If he uprooted the Kaneh and *then* slaughtered the Veshet, it is a Neveilah;
i. If in our Mishnah he slaughtered the Veshet *afterwards*, it also would have specified!
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): Mishnah #2, really means, the following *forbid* an animal; some of them make it a Treifah, others, a Neveilah.
1. Question: If so, the Mishnah should also list the cases of Chizkiyah and R. Elazar!
i. (Chizkiyah): An animal cut in half is a Neveilah.
ii. (R. Elazar): If the thigh and its socket were removed, the animal is a Neveilah.
2. Answer: The Mishnah only lists animals that become Tamei (Neveilah) when they are fully dead; these two cases are Tamei even when the animal is still quivering.
(f) Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): In our Mishnah, he cut the Kaneh where its majority was already cut, this is a disqualification in the slaughter itself (only one Siman was slaughtered);
1. In Mishnah #2, he cut it where it was not already cut - the slaughter was proper, just the animal itself was a Treifah.
2. Question: But Reish Lakish himself taught, if he slaughtered the Kaneh and then punctured the lungs, it is Kosher - apparently, once a Siman is cut, it (or any organ dependent on it) no longer affects the animal's status;
i. Here also, if the Veshet was already cut, cutting it in a different place should not be considered slaughter, the animal should be Neveilah!
(g) Answer #4 (R. Chiya bar Aba): Mishnah #2 was taught by R. Akiva before he retracted; since Chachamim were used to the text of that Mishnah, it was not changed after he retracted.
(a) (Reish Lakish): If he slaughtered the Kaneh and then punctured the lungs, it is Kosher.
(b) (Rava): This only applies if the lungs were punctured, since their whole function depends on the Kaneh - but if the intestines were punctured (after cutting the Kaneh), it would not be Kosher.
(c) Objection (R. Zeira): If you permit it even though a wound which makes it a Treifah occurred after cutting one Siman, it makes no difference if the wound was in the lungs or intestines!
(d) Version #1 - Rashi: We may infer that R. Zeira retracted from his opinion (that any wound does not disqualify the slaughter, and agreed to Rava) from the following question he subsequently asked.
(e) Version #2 - Tosfos: From R. Zeira's objection, we may infer that he retracted from his *prior* opinion (that a wound anywhere makes the animal Treifah - we known he held this way from the following question he used to ask).(End of Version #2)
1. Question (R. Zeira): What is the law if the intestines were punctured after cutting one Siman - does the cutting of the first Siman join to the cutting of the second?
i. It is clear to R. Zeira that the animal is forbidden; his question is whether we consider the animal to be slaughtered (and only Treifah), or a Neveilah, similar to Ilfa's question.
ii. Question (Ilfa): After one Siman of a pregnant animal was slaughtered, the fetus inside stuck its foot outside; the second Siman was cut. Do we join the Simanim to say that it was included in the slaughter, and is not a Neveilah?
iii. There is no question that the foot is Treifah and forbidden to eat.
Next daf


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