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 38
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.
1) WHAT QUIVERING IS REQUIRED?
(a) Shmuel: What did Rav teach about a dangerously sick
2) WHEN MUST THE QUIVERING BE?
(b) Talmidim of Rav: If it cries out, excretes, or wiggles
its ear, this is considered quivering (which permits the
(c) Shmuel: Does he really require such a sign of strength
like wiggling an ear?! I say, anything a dead animal does
not do suffices!
1. Question: What do dead animals do?
(d) Question (Beraisa): R. Yosi says, crying out at the time
of slaughter is not considered quivering;
2. Answer (Rav Amram, citing Shmuel): A dead animal can
stick out a foreleg that was bent, but if it was
stuck out, it cannot bend it back.
i. Question: This is obvious! The Mishnah says,
sticking out the leg is not a sufficient Siman
- it follows, bending it back is!
ii. Answer: One might have thought, bending it back
is not a sufficient sign - rather, it must be
able to stick it out and bend it back - we
hear, this is not so.
1. R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi says, even if it excretes or
wagging its tail, this is not considered quivering.
(e) Answer - part 1: Regarding crying out, a strong voice is
sufficient, a weak voice is not;
(f) Answer - part 2: Regarding excreting, casting the
excrement far away is sufficient; dropping it in its
place is not.
(a) Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): I heard that the quivering must
be at the end of slaughter - I explain, this really means
in the middle - It just comes to exclude the beginning.
1. Rav Chisda: I learned to explain thusly from our
Mishnah: If a small (sick) animal stuck out its
foreleg and did not bend it back, the animal is
(b) Rejection (Rava): We can say, this is at the end of
slaughter - any animal that cannot return the leg surely
died during the slaughter!
i. This cannot mean at the end of slaughter - how
much can we expect an animal (even if it did
not die during the slaughter) to do?!
(c) Opinion #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The quivering can
be at the beginning of slaughter.
1. I learn this from our Mishnah: R. Shimon says, one
who slaughters a dangerously sick animal at night,
and finds walls covered with blood the next morning,
it is permitted - this is like R. Eliezer;
(d) Rejection: Perhaps this only applies to spurting of
blood, which is a greater sign of life than the other
types of quivering.
2. (Shmuel): 'The walls' means the place of slaughter
(the sides of the cleaved neck).
3. The next morning, we do not know when the blood
spurted there - it must be, quivering permits the
animal even if it was at the beginning of slaughter!
(e) Question: You cannot say that spurting is greater than
the other signs of quivering!
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): It suffices if it spurted.
(f) Answer: Spurting is not as great as the quivering R.
Gamliel requires, but it is greater than the quivering
(g) Question (Ravina): Spurting is not greater than the
quivering Chachamim require!
1. (Mishnah): Chachamim say, it is not enough unless it
quivers with the fore or hind leg.
(h) Opinion #3 (Rava): Quivering must come at the end of
2. Question: In response to whom do Chachamim speak?
i. Suggestion: If they respond to R. Gamliel -
they should say, 'it is enough once it
3. Answer: Rather, they respond to R. Eliezer opinion;
since they say 'unless', we see that they require a
greater quivering than spurting.
1. Rava: The following Beraisa teaches this.
3) SLAUGHTER FOR THE SAKE OF IDOLATRY
2. (Beraisa): "A cow *or* sheep" - this excludes a
crossbreed (it is invalid as a Korban); "*or* goat"
- this excludes a Nidmeh (an animal that looks like
a different species than its parents);
(i) (Rava): The Halachah is like the following Beraisa.
3. "That will be born" - this excludes an animal born
by Caesarian section; "Seven days" - that excludes
an animal that is too young (before its eighth day);
"*Tachas* (under, or in place of) its mother" - this
excludes an orphaned animal.
4. Question: What is the case of an orphaned animal?
i. Suggestion: If the mother gave birth and later
died (and this is unacceptable) - this is
unreasonable (that an animal cannot be brought
after its mother dies)!
5. Answer #1: Rather, the mother died, then the child
6. Rejection: We already excluded this from "That will
7. Answer #2: Rather, the animal was born just as the
i. If the mother must live until after the birth,
we cannot exclude this case from "That will be
born", another verse is needed to exclude an
8. (Conclusion of Rava's reasoning: The mother must
live through birth, she must live through the end of
birth - likewise, an animal must show that it is
alive during slaughter (by quivering), it must do so
during the end of slaughter.)
ii. But if the child is acceptable as long as the
mother lives until the end of birth, and we
only exclude when the mother dies during birth
- we already know this from "That will be
1. (Beraisa): If a small (dangerously sick) animal
stuck out its foreleg and did not withdraw it, it is
(j) Question: Why must Rava teach this - it can be derived
from our Mishnah!
2. If it extends or withdraws the hind leg, the animal
3. If a large animal extends or withdraws any leg, it
4. If a bird even ruffles its wing or wags its tail, it
1. The Mishnah forbids a small animal that stuck out
its foreleg - we deduce, had it stuck out the hind
leg, or had it been a large animal, it would be
(k) Answer: We need the Beraisa for the law of birds, this is
not learned from the Mishnah.
(a) (Mishnah): One who slaughters for an idolater - the
slaughter is valid;
1. R. Eliezer says, it is invalid, even if he only
intended to give the idolater from the Chelev on the
(b) R. Yosi says, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that the slaughter
2. This is because we assume that the idolater intended
that the slaughter is for idolatry.
1. In Kodshim, (improper) intention is Posel a Korban,
we are only concerned about the intention of the
Oved (the one offering the Korban) - in Chulin,
where intention does not disqualify slaughter, all
the more so we should only be concerned for the
intention of the slaughterer!
(c) (Gemara): The first two Tana'im hold like R. Eliezer
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi): An animal
becomes Pigul (disqualified) through improper
intention of its owner.
2. Version #1: The first Tana holds that we do not
assume that an idolater intends that the slaughter
is for idolatry - unless we hear that he did, the
slaughter is permitted;
3. R. Eliezer holds that we assume that the idolater
intended for idolatry.
4. R. Yosi holds, even if we know that he intended for
idolatry, it is permitted, we only care about the
intention of the slaughterer.
5. Version #2: The first Tana and R. Eliezer argue when
we know that he intended for idolatry.
i. The first Tana permits it - we only care about
the intention of the slaughterer in Kodshim,
not in Chulin - we do not learn Chulin from
ii. R. Eliezer holds that we learn Chulin from
iii. R. Yosi holds, even in Kodshim, we only care
about the intention of the slaughterer.