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 39
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) IMPROPER INTENTIONS IN "KORBANOS"
(a) An animal was slaughtered with intent Lizrok (to throw
its blood) or Lehaktir (burn its Chelev) for idolatry:
(b) Opinion #1 (R. Yochanan): The animal is forbidden;
1. Such improper intent in a Korban (slaughter with
intent Lizrok or Lehaktir after the allowed time)
disqualifies the Korban; we learn Chulin from
(c) Opinion #2 (Reish Lakish): The animal is permitted;
1. Such improper intent in a Korban does not disqualify
the Korban; we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim.
(d) R. Yochanan: A Chatas was slaughtered Lishmah (to be a
Chatas), but with intent to throw its blood Lo Lishmah
(for the sake of a different Korban) - the Korban is
2. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with
what they said elsewhere.
(e) (Reish Lakish): The Korban is valid.
1. R. Yochanan is Posel - the corresponding case of
Pigul (slaughter with intent Lizrok or Lehaktir
after the allowed time) disqualifies the Korban; we
learn Lo Lishmah from Pigul;
(f) It was necessary to teach that R. Yochanan and Reish
Lakish argue in both cases.
2. Reish Lakish says it is valid - the corresponding
case of Pigul does not Posel the Korban; we do not
learn Lo Lishmah from Pigul.
1. If we only learned about slaughter for idolatry, one
might have thought, only there Reish Lakish argues,
because we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, but he
agrees with R. Yochanan that we learn Lo Lishmah
from Pigul, since both are Kodshim;
(g) Question (against both of them - Rav Sheshes - Mishnah):
R. Yosi says, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that the slaughter
2. If we only learned about Lo Lishmah, one might have
thought, only there R. Yochanan argues, but he
agrees with Reish Lakish about idolatry, we do not
learn Chulin from Kodshim.
1. In Kodshim, (improper) intention disqualifies a
Korban, we are only concerned about the intention of
the Oved - in Chulin, where intention does not Posel
slaughter, all the more so we are concerned only for
the intention of the slaughterer!
(h) (Summation of question): The Beraisa says that in
Kodshim, one Avodah done with intention to do another
Avodah with improper intention disqualifies a Korban -
this opposes Reish Lakish;
2. Question: What does it mean 'in Chulin, intention
does not Posel slaughter'?
i. Suggestion: They are not forbidden by any
intent at all.
3. Answer: Rather, it means, they are not disqualified
if one Avodah (e.g. slaughter) was done with intent
to do another Avodah for idolatry.
ii. Rejection: If so, how does an animal offered to
idolatry become forbidden?!
i. In Kodshim, one Avodah done with intention to
do another Avodah with improper intention
disqualifies a Korban - still, we are only
concerned about the intention of the Oved;
ii. In Chulin, such intention does not Posel the
Korban, all the more so we should only be
concerned for the intention of the slaughterer!
1. The Beraisa says that in Chulin, such intention does
not Posel the Korban - this opposes R. Yochanan!
(i) Answer - part 1 (for Reish Lakish): Reish Lakish gave his
opinion before R. Yochanan taught him (the Mishnah, or R.
Yochanan's own opinion).
(j) Answer - part 2 (for R. Yochanan - Rav Sheshes): R.
Yochanan explains the Mishnah as follows:
1. In Kodshim, (improper) intention in any of the four
Avodos involving the blood disqualifies the Korban,
yet we are only concerned about the intention of the
2) LATER ACTIONS THAT REVEAL ONE'S INTENT
2. In Chulin, in only two Avodos (if offered for
idolatry) the animal becomes forbidden - all the
more so we should only be concerned for the
intention of the slaughterer!
(a) A Beraisa supports R. Yochanan.
1. (Beraisa): If one slaughters an animal intending
Lizrok or Lehaktir to idolatry, this is Takroves (an
animal offered to idolatry), it is forbidden;
(b) Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): They did not rule that it was
forbidden out of respect for Chachamim's opinion; they
did not rule that it was permitted out of respect for R.
2. A case occurred, someone slaughtered and *then*
intended Lizrok or Lehaktir to idolatry - Chachamim
did not rule to permit or forbid it.
(c) Objection: We need not say that Chachamim would permit
this, nor that R. Eliezer would forbid it!
1. Chachamim only permit (in the Mishnah) because we
did not hear that he intends for idolatry - here, we
know that he now intends for idolatry, this proves
that the slaughter was also for idolatry!
(d) Opinion #2 (Rav Shizbi): Rather, they did not rule that
it was permitted out of respect for R. Shimon ben
2. R. Eliezer only forbids regarding an idolater, for
(presumably) all his deeds are for idolatry -he
would not say this about a Yisrael!
(e) Question: To which teaching of R. Shimon ben Gamliel does
(f) Answer #1: He refers to his teaching about a Get.
1. (Mishnah): A healthy man said 'Write a Get to my
wife' - he is only teasing her (since he did not say
to give it).
(g) Rejection: That case is different, since he initially
told them to write a Get; here, when he slaughtered,
there was no indication that this was for idolatry.
2. A case occurred - A healthy man said 'Write a Get to
my wife', went up to the roof and fell to his death;
3. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he intentionally
jumped off, the Get is valid; if the wind blew him
off, it is invalid.
4. Question: The case brought contradicts the law just
5. Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated, it should say
'If his later actions prove that he really wanted to
give the Get, it is valid;
6. A case occurred, a healthy man said 'Write a Get to
my wife', went up to the roof and fell to his death.
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he intentionally
jumped, the Get is valid; if the wind blew him, it
(h) Answer #2 (Ravina): He refers to his teaching about a
1. (Beraisa): Reuven wrote a document giving all his
property (which included slaves) to Shimon. Shimon
said 'I do not want the property' - if Shimon is a
Kohen, the slaves may eat Terumah (since they are
(i) (Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Yosi
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, once he says 'I do not
want the property', Reuven's heirs acquire it.
3. Question: Does the first Tana hold that Shimon
acquires the property in spite of his protests?!
4. Answer (Rabah): If Shimon protested from the
beginning, all agree that he does not acquire; if he
was quiet, and later protested, all agree that he
i. They argue when Levi received the document on
behalf of Shimon, and Shimon was initially
silent and then protested.
ii. The first Tana holds, his initially silence
shows that he consented to acquire; he later
reconsidered and protested - this has no
iii. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds, his later protest
reveals that from the beginning, he did not
want to acquire; at first, he felt no need to
protest, since he did not take the document.
(j) Some Nochrim gave rams to Yisrael slaughterers; they said
- you can keep the meat and skin, just give us the blood
(k) Question (Rav Tuvi bar Rav Masnah): Are the animals
(l) Answer (Rav Yosef): No, because the Halachah follows R.
(m) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): According to R.
Eliezer - if a Nochri gave money to a Yisrael slaughterer
for some meat from an animal - what is the law?
(n) Answer (Rav Ashi): If the Nochri is powerful (and the
Yisrael cannot avoid giving him the meat), the animal is
forbidden; if he is not, the meat is permitted (the
Yisrael need not give him the meat, this shows that he
slaughters for himself).