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 32
CHULIN 32-33 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) SLAUGHTERING A "PARAH ADUMAH" WITH ANOTHER ANIMAL
(a) (Rava): If Reuven slaughtered a Parah Adumah and another
animal, all agree that the Parah is invalid;
2) PAUSING DURING SLAUGHTER
(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;
(c) Question: This is obvious!
2. According to Chachamim, the Parah is valid, the
other animal is invalid.
(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;
(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.
2. Rava teaches, this is not so.
(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;
3) A SLAUGHTER WHICH BECAME INVALID
(b) R. Shimon says, if it was the time to check, it is
(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
(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
(m) (Rava): If one slaughters with a blunt knife, even if he
spends the whole day slaughtering one animal, it is
(n) Question (Rava): Do small pauses join up (that if the
total delay is the time for slaughter, the slaughter is
1. Question: Rava should resolve his question from the
law he just taught (that they do not join up)!
(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
2. Answer: In that case, he was constantly cutting, he
did not pause.
(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;
(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;
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
3. R. Akiva says, 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
(d) Answer #1 (Rava): In our Mishnah, the Kaneh was uprooted
after the Veshet was slaughtered - a disqualification
occurred in the slaughter itself;
4) PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE OF SLAUGHTER
1. There, the Kaneh was uprooted before anything was
slaughtered - the disqualification was not related
to the slaughter.
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): Mishnah #2, really means, the following
*forbid* an animal; some of them make it a Treifah,
others, a Neveilah.
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
3. Answer (Rava): The latter clause really means, the
Kaneh was uprooted after the Veshet was already
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!
1. Question: If so, the Mishnah should also list the
cases of Chizkiyah and R. Elazar!
(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
i. (Chizkiyah): An animal cut in half is a
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
ii. (R. Elazar): If the thigh and its socket were
removed, the animal is a Neveilah.
1. In Mishnah #2, he cut it where it was not already
cut - the slaughter was proper, just the animal
itself was a Treifah.
(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
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
i. Here also, if the Veshet was already cut,
cutting it in a different place should not be
considered slaughter, the animal should be
(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
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.