ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 15
CHULIN 14-15 - 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) Finally, Rav Ashi connects Rav's statement (forbidding the Shechted
animal for the duration of Shabbos), with the Beraisa concerning someone who
cooks on Shabbos. If he did so be'Shogeg, Rebbi Meir permits even the sinner
himself to eat the cooked animal on Shabbos, be'Meizid - neither he nor
anybody else, is permitted to eat from the meat, until the time of
'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh' (the time it would take to cook the animal) after
the termination of Shabbos.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds ...
1. ... in the case of Shogeg - that neither the sinner nor anybody else may
partake of the meat until Motza'ei Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh' (like
Rebbi Meir holds by Meizid).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar holds by Shogeg like Rebbi Yehudah just
learned by Meizid. In the case of Meizid, he holds - that neither the sinner
nor anybody else may ever eat it.
2. ... in the case of Meizid - that the sinner is forbidden to eat the meat
forever, and others, on Motza'ei Shabbos 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh'.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar's reason in the case of ...
1. ... Shogeg is - because 'Kanis Shogeg Atu Meizid' (he decrees on the
sinner by Shogeg because of Meizid)
2. ... Meizid - because he learns from a Pasuk that Ma'aseh Shabbos is Asur
(a) Rav Ashi now proved from this Beraisa - that, according to Rav, the
author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, and that the Tana is speaking
(b) Rav establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah be'Shogeg, and not like
Rebbi Meir be'Meizid - because the Tana's comparison to Yom Kipur indicates
that the animal may not be eaten be'Shogeg either.
(a) Despite the fact that the Tana is speaking be'Shogeg, the Mishnah writes
'Af-al-Pi she'Nischayav be'Nafsho', by which it means - that even though it
is such a severe sin, for which one would be Chayav Miysah if one performed
it be'Meizid, now that one performed it be'Shogeg, the Shechitah is Kasher
(even for the sinner).
(b) Rav did not establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, who
forbids the animal to be eaten both be'Shogeg and be'Meizid - because
'Shechitaso Kesheirah' implies for the sinner as well as for others (as we
just explained), whereas Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandler forbids the sinner to
partake of it.
(c) And we know that when Rav said 'Asur ba'Achilah le'Yoma', he was not
referring exclusively to the sinner, but others (according to Rebbi Meir,
be'Meizid, and according to Rebbi Yehudah, be'Shogeg) will be permitted to
eat it - because the Tana's comparison to Yom Kipur, as well as Rav's Lashon
'Asurah le'Yoma' both indicate that the animal is forbidden to others as
well as to the sinner.
(a) The author of the Beraisa cited by a Beraisa expert 'ha'Mevashel
be'Shabbos be'Shogeg, Yochal; be'Meizid, Lo Yochal' - is Rebbi Meir.
(b) Rav's reaction to this Beraisa was - to ask the Beraisa expert to desist
from quoting it.
(c) We decline to attribute Rav's reaction to the fact that he holds like
Rebbi Yehudah - because that is no reason to discount a Beraisa that goes
like Rebbi Meir.
(a) In any case, Rav does not hold like Rebbi Yehudah, as we learned from a
statement of Rav Chanan bar Ami, according to Rav Chanan bar Ami, Rav (with
regard to 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos') ...
1. ... taught his Talmidim (in private) - like Rebbi Meir.
(b) We cannot ascribe Rav's objection to the fact that the Beraisa expert
cited the Beraisa in public, at the time of his (Rav's) D'rashah - because
it was Rav's D'rashah that people came to hear, not the opinion of the
Beraisa man (in which case, there was no reason to take the latter's words
2. ... Darshen (in public) - like Rebbi Yehudah (because he did not want to
issue such leniences in public).
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore amended the Beraisa in question from
'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos' to 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos' (in which case Rebbi
Meir concedes that the animal is forbidden).
(a) Rebbi Meir will differentiate between 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos' - which
can be eaten raw even before it is cooked, and 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos' -
which cannot, and which is therefore Muktzah (hence Rav's objection to the
(b) The problem with the B'nei Yeshivah establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi
Yehudah is - that having just ascertained that Rebbi Meir concedes that, in
a case of ha'Shochet be'Shabbos, the animal is Muktzah, then why can the
author not be Rebbi Meir.
(c) And we answer - by establishing the Mishnah in a case where there was a
seriously ill man in the house already from before Shabbos (in which case
the animal is fit to be Shechted [see Tosfos DH 'Ki Shari Rebbi Meir']).
(d) Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah forbids it - because the Tana is speaking
when the sick man recovered (after Shabbos came in, but before the animal
was Shechted [be'Shogeg]). And Rebbi Meir permits it because on the one
hand, the animal is not Muktzah, and on the other, it may be eaten because
of his ruling regarding the Din of 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos'.
(a) We base the distinction that we made between 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos'
and 'ha'Shochet be'Shabbos' on a statement cited in the name of Rav, who
stated that ...
1. ... meat that was cooked on Shabbos for a sick person - is permitted.
(b) The reason that he gave for this distinction is - because the former is
2. ... an animal that was Shechted on Shabbos for him - is forbidden. The
Tana is speaking in both cases, when he fell ill only on Shabbos.
fit to eat raw (and is therefore not Muktzah), whereas the latter is not.
(c) Rav Papa points out that sometimes, the two rulings are reversed. A
healthy person will be ...
1. ... permitted to eat from an animal that was Shechted for a Choleh on
Shabbos - if he was ill already before Shabbos (as we explained earlier).
(d) We reject the suggestion that the pumpkin was detached, and that it was
Muktzah because pumpkins are too hard to eat raw, on two scores - firstly,
because pumpkins are in fact, soft, and secondly, the word 'Katzatz' (as
opposed to 'Chatach') means 'cut from its source of growth'.
2. ... forbidden to eat a pumpkin that was cooked for him on Shabbos - if it
was plucked from the ground on Shabbos.
(a) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a permits a healthy person to eat an animal that
is Shechted on behalf of a Choleh who was sick already before Shabbos. But
he forbids him to eat from the food that was cooked for the same Choleh ...
(b) ... because in the former case, Shechitah for one is Shechitah for
another; whereas in the latter case, we are afraid that if the healthy
person is allowed to eat what one cooked for the Choleh, one may come, when
cooking for the Choleh, to add a little extra on his behalf.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone Shechts using ...
1. ... the smooth blade of a Magal-Yad (a double-bladed cutting instrument,
one of which is smooth, the other, which contain notches), a sharp rock, or
a cane - the Shechitah is Kasher.
(b) The other two objects that the Tana includes in the latter list are - a
tooth and a finger-nail
2. ... a sickle or a saw (both of which are full of notches) - it is Pasul.
(c) The reason the Tana gives for this latter ruling is - because they tear
the pipes (rather than cutting them), strangling the animal instead of
slitting its throat.
(a) The Lashon 'ha'Shochet' implies - Bedi'eved.
(b) The Tana does not permit Shechting Lechatchilah with a Magal-Yad -
because he is afraid that one will subsequently Shecht with the side that
(c) We can extrapolate from here - that Lechatchilah, one may not use a very
long knife which has notches along a the minor part of its length (even if
one uses the part of the knife which is smooth).
(a) The Beraisa - permits Lechatchilah, Shechting with a piece of rock, a
piece of glass or the sharp edge of a cane.
(b) In order to reconcile this with our Mishnah, which permits Shechting
with a rock and a reed only Bedieved - we establish the latter by Mechubar,
and the former, by Talush.
(c) The Mishnah conforms with the opinion of Rebbi Chiya in a Beraisa. Rebbi
there - renders Pasul even Bedi'eved, a Shechitah that is performed with
(a) Another Beraisa - permits Lechatchilah Shechting with a knife,
irrespective of whether the knife is Talush or whether it is Mechubar,
whether it is on top and the animal underneath, or vice-versa.
(b) The problem this Beraisa creates with what we just said is - that the
author now appears to be neither Rebbi Chiya (who declares Kasher Shechitah
by Mechubar only Bedieved, nor Rebbi Chiya (who declares it Pasul even
(c) We answer by establishing the author of the latter Beraisa as Rebbi
Chiya (who actually permits Shechitah by Mechubar even Lechatchilah), and
the reason that he argues with Rebbi in the previous Beraisa with regard to
Bedi'eved - is to teach us the extent of Rebbi's opinion.
(d) That leaves us with a Kashya on our Mishnah however - which validates
Shechitah on Mechubar Bedi'eved, whilst Rebbi Chiya permits it Lechatchilah,
and Rebbi invalidates it even Bedi'eved?
(a) We therefore establish our Mishnah like Rebbi, who permits Mechubar
Bedi'eved. The problem with this is - that in the Beraisa (where he argues
with Rebbi Chiya), he invalidates it even Bedi'eved.
(b) To answer this Kashya, we establish Rebbi in the Beraisa by a regular
kind of Mechubar - whereas in our Mishnah, he is referring to Talush
ve'li'Besof Mechubar (a 'knife' that was originally detached, but which
somebody then firmly attached to Mechubar).
(c) And we substantiate this distinction with a Beraisa, where the Tana
rules that if someone Shechts with a knife that is attached to a wheel or to
the ground, or with a knife that one stuck to a wall - his Shechitah is
(a) In the previous cases, where the knife is immobile - one Shechts the
animal by sliding the its neck backwards and forwards along the knife.
(b) The Tana mentions the last case to teach us - the prohibition of
Shechting Lechatchilah, even though the owner had the intention of removing
the knife from the wall, and was not Mevateil it there .
(c) On the other hand, the Tana rules that if one Shechts with a rock that
juts out from a wall or with a cane that grew out of the wall by itself -
the Shechitah is Pasul.
(d) We reconcile this latter ruling with the Reisha, which validates a
Shechitah that is Mechubar le'Karka - by establishing the Reisha by Talush
ve'li'Be'sof Mechubar, and the Seifa, by Mechubar Me'ikara (what was
initially attached), both like Rebbi.