ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 18
(a) Rav Huna bar Ketina quoting Resh Lakish lists three defects. When he
refers to ...
1. ... 'Pegimas Etzem ba'Pesach', he means that someone who breaks a bone of
the Korban Pesach as little as the Shi'ur that he will specify in a moment,
has transgressed the La'av of "ve'Etzem lo Sishberu Bo" (in Parshas Bo).
(b) The Tana lists both 'Pegimas Ozen bi'Bechor' and 'Pegimas Mum
be'Kodshim'. He does not include ...
2. ... 'Pegimas Ozen bi'Bechor' - he means a blemish on a Bechor in Chutz
la'Aretz, that permits the owner to redeem it. Resh Lakish mentions
specifically the ear? (not to preclude other Mumin, but) - because it is the
first of the Mumin listed in Bechoros.
3. ... 'Pegimas Mum be'Kodshim' - he is referring to what is considered a
blemish on Kodshim that disqualifies it from being brought as a Korban.
1. ... the latter in the former - because there are a number of Mumin that
are considered Mumin by a Chatas and a female Shelamim, that we would not
have known from Bechor (which is confined to males).
(c) Rav Chisda includes Pegimas Sakin in the defects. Resh Lakish omits it -
on the grounds that he refers specifically to Kodshim, but not to Chulin.
2. ... the former in the latter - because had the Torah only written the
latter, we would have confined the P'sul to disqualify bringing it on the
Mizbe'ach, but would not have extended it to permit a Bechor to be redeemed
on account of it (seeing as there are Mumin that pertain to the one but not
to the other).
(d) Resh Lakish gives the Shi'ur of all these as 'K'dei Pegimas Mizbe'ach',
which is equivalent, in practical terms - to a P'gam that is sufficiently
large and sharp for the finger-nail to get caught in (i.e. it is delayed,
however slightly, as it passes over it).
(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa gives the Shi'ur of P'gam on the Mizbe'ach as
a Tefach, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - as a k'Zayis.
(b) We reconcile Resh Lakish's Shi'ur of 'K'dei she'Tachgor bah Tziporen'
with those mentioned in the Beraisa - by establishing the former by the
actual stones of the Mizbe'ach, and the latter by the cement.
(a) According to Rav Huna, a Shochet who declines to show his knife to the
Rav, is placed in Cherem. Rava adds - that one revokes his license, and
announces that his meat is Tereifah.
(b) When we say that the two opinions do not argue, we mean - that Rav Huna
is talking about a Shochet whose knife is subsequently examined and found to
be Kasher, whereas Rava is referring to someone whose knife is found to be
(c) Ravina is more stringent than Rava. According to him, in a case where
the Shochets knife is found to be Pasul - besides revoking his license, and
announcing that his meat is Tereifah, one rubs the animal with manure, until
not even a Nochri will purchase it from him.
(a) Rava bar Chin'na asked Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi to check out his ruling,
after he had revoked the Hechsher of a certain butcher who had failed to
show him his knife, and declared the animal Tereifah - because the man had
small children whom he needed to sustain.
(b) Rav Ashi discovered - that his knife was Kasher, in which case Rav bar
Chin'na's ruling was unjustified.
(c) Rava bar Chin'na erred - in that he thought that Rava's ruling pertained
even to a butcher whose knife was found to be Kasher.
(d) Rav Ashi justified revoking the ruling of Rava bar Chin'na (who was a
highly respected Zakein) and putting him to shame - on the basis of Rava
bar'Chin'na's request, in which case he was merely carrying out his
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna rules - that one is permitted Lechatchilah to Shecht
with a detached tooth or finger-nail.
(b) By a 'detached tooth' he means - that the tooth together with the jaw in
which it grew, became detached from the animal or the person to whom it
(c) We query Rabah bar Rav Huna however, from our Mishnah, which invalides
both of these, as well as a sickle and a saw, because they strangle (i.e.
tear out) the Si'manim, instead of cutting them. We reconcile with our
Mishnah, Rabah bar Rav Huna's ruling concerning ...
1. ... a tooth - by establishing the latter by a jaw containing two teeth
(or more) as the Lashon 'Shinayim' (mentioned in our Mishnah) indicates.
(d) Shechitah performed with a tooth or a nail can be Kasher, despite the
fact that it is less wide than the neck - because, as we will learn in the
next Perek, as long as one continues to move the 'knife backwards and
forwards until the two Si'manim have been cut, the Shechitah is Kasher.
2. ... a finger-nail - by establishing it by one that is still attached to
the owner (in compliance with the opinion of Rebbi, who invalidates
Shechitah by Mechubar, even Bedi'eved).
(a) Beis-Shamai in our Mishnah, invalidates Shechitah with a sickle that was
performed by Holachah only - 'Beis-Hillel Machshirin'.
(b) Even Beis Shamai will concede however, that one will be permitted to
Shecht with a sickle, even Lechatchilah - if its teeth have been filed
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Beis-Hillel's ruling -
explaining 'Beis-Hillel Machshirin' to mean from Tum'as Neveilah, but
nevertheless prohibitting its eating.
(d) The reason for this Chumra is - a decree that if we permit Holachah
only, one might come to make Hova'ah as well.
(a) Rav Ashi tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's statement from the Lashon of
the Mishnah 'Beis Shamai Osrin, Beis-Hillel Machshirin' - when the Mishnah
ought to have said 'Beis-Shamai Osrin, Beis Hillel Matirin'.
(b) We counter Rav Ashi's proof however - on the grounds that if they are
only arguing over Tum'as Neveilah (and not over the Heter to eat it), then
the Mishnah to have said - 'Beis-Shamai Metam'in, Beis-Hillel Metaharin'.
(c) So we conclude - that 'Poslin' and 'Machshirin' - are in fact synonymous
with 'Osrin' and 'Matirin'.
(d) The Halachah is nevertheless like Rebbi Yochanan - since he had a
Kabalah from his Rebbes that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are arguing about
Tum'ah (despite the Lashon of our Mishnah).
(a) Our Mishnah now discusses Hagramah. The Tana rules that if someone
Shechts within the Taba'as ha'Gedolah (the large laryngeal cartilege) - his
Shechitah is Kasher, provided the entire Shechitah takes place within the
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah is more lenient than the Tana Kama -
validating the Shechitah even if only the majority of the Shechitah is
inside the Taba'as, because he holds 'Ruba ke'Kulah' (whereas the Tana Kama
(c) If the Shochet Shechts between two Taba'os - the Shechitah is
nevertheless Kasher (because all the space between the first Taba'as and the
last one, is eligible for Shechitah [because it is considered part of the
(d) According to some commentaries, Rebbi Yossi bar Yehudah and the Rabbanan
argue over completing the Shechitah outside any of the Taba'os. We refute
that explanation however - on the basis of a Beraisa, which specifically
validates Shechitah anywhere between the first Taba'as and the last one.
(a) Rav and Shmuel both rule - like Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah.
(b) Initially, Rav and Shmuel hold - that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah agree that one may not Shecht within any of the other
Taba'os (only between one Taba'as and the next) ...
(c) ... because they do not entirely encircle the Kanah, and are therefore
not considered part of it (nor does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah hold 'Rubo
ke'Kulo' to turn a location into a part of the Kaneh, if it is not.
(d) We query Rav and Shmuel in this last point - from a Beraisa, which
validates Shechitah in the other Taba'os, because the fact that they
encircle the majority of the Kaneh is sufficient.
(e) The Beraisa continues 'u'Mugremes Pesulah' - with reference to where the
majority of the Shechitah was performed inside the Ta'ba'as ha'Gedolah, and
a minority outside it, according to the Rabbanan (of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi
(a) The Tana concludes 'He'id Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos al Mugremes she'Hi
Kesheirah' - by which he means that even if the entire Shechitah takes place
beyond the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, it is Kasher (as we shall see later).
(b) To answer the Kashya on Rav and Shmuel, Rav Yosef explains 'Rebbi Yossi
bar Yehudah Tarti Ka'amar ... ' - meaning that he made two statements
regarding 'Rubo ke'Kulo'; one, regarding the Shechitah, the other, regarding
the location. And Rav and Shmuel rule like him as regards the first
statement, but not as regards the second.
(c) The problem with this from the actual words of Rav and Shmuel is - that
they quoted Rebbi Yossi bar Yehudah as having made only one statement, and
(d) And we resolve it - by explaining that they really meant that the
Halachah is like him regarding the first statement (concerning Taba'as
ha'Gedolah), but not regarding the second (concerning the other Taba'os).
(a) According to others, even Rav and Shmuel agree that Rebbi Yehudah
b'Rebbi Yossi is Machshir the other Taba'os no less than the Taba'as
ha'Gadol, and when they confine his statement to the Taba'as ha'Gadol, they
mean - that he only validates Shechitas Rov Kanah with regard to the Taba'as
ha'Gadol, but concedes that Shechitas Rov Kanah of the other Taba'os is
Pasul (unless he Shechts the entire Taba'as) ...
(b) ... because he is afraid that the Shochet might think that Shechting Rov
Taba'as is sufficient (which it is not, because seeing as the Taba'as does
not encircle the entire Kanah, Rov Taba'as is less than Rov Kanah).
(c) We refute this explanation ...
1. ... per se however - because if Rav and Shmuel are referring to Hagramah,
why did they not say so? Why give the impression that they are talking about
the eligibility of the Taba'os, when they are not?
2. ... from the Kashya that we asked on Rav and Shmuel from the Reisha of
the Beraisa - which does not mention Hagramah either. And if that is what
the Tana means, then why does he need to add the fact that the other Taba'os
surround the majority of the Kanah, seeing as it is the cutting of the
majority of the Kanah that we are concerned with, and not with how much of
the Kanah they encircle.
(a) Rebbi Zeira ate from a Mugremes of Rav and Shmuel - meaning an animal
where the Shochet Shechted the last part of the Shechitah outside the
Taba'as ha'Gedolah (towards the head).
(b) They queried Rebbi Zeira - in that he came from the area under the
jurisdiction of Rav and Shmuel, who considered such an animal Neveilah.
(c) He replied that the quote in the name of Rav and Shmuel was said by Rav
Yosef bar Chiya (alias Rav Yosef throughout Shas) - who would quote anyone,
even if his source was not authentic.
(d) In reply, Rav Yosef, who was not
too pleased when he heard what Rebbi Zeira had said about him, countered
that he had heard it from none other than Rav Yehudah - who was so careful
when quoting, that he tended to quote all the possible names, when unsure of
(a) To illustrate this, we cite how Rav Yehudah quoting Rebbi Yirmiyah bar
Aba regarding the Halachah of three that are required to permit a Bechor,
when he forgot who Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba had quoted - added both Rav and
Shmuel as the possible authors.
(b) Rav Yehudah was quoting the Halachah - requiring three ordinary people
(if no expert was available) to permit the owner to Shecht a Bechor in Chutz
(c) We nevertheless query what Rebbi Zeira did from a Mishnah in Pesachim -
which obligates a person to follow both the Minhag of the town from which he
came, and that of his current town of residence.
(a) Abaye answers that the Mishnah refers to someone who traveled from Bavel
to Bavel, from Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael or from Eretz Yisrael to
Bavel, but not to someone who traveled from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, who was
no longer bound by the Minhagim of Bavel - because Bavel was subservient to
Eretz Yisrael ...
(b) ... regarding Kidush ha'Chodesh and Ibur Shanah (which could only be
fixed in Eretz Yisrael) - and Diynei K'nasos (which could only be ruled by
Dayanim who had received Semichah in Eretz Yisrael).
(c) Rav Ashi justifies Rebbi Zeira even he would have moved from Eretz
Yisrael to Bavel - because he moved with the intention of not returning
(whereas the Mishnah in Pesachim is talking about someone who intends to
return to his home town.
(d) We reconcile the Rabbanan from Mechuza (in Bavel), who quoted Rav
Nachman, who in turn, declared the Mugremes of Rav and Shmuel, Kasher, with
Rav and Shmuel - by citing the principle 'Nahara Nahara u'Pashteih', meaning
each river takes its own course (different towns in Bavel had different
(a) When Resh Lakish declared Kasher an animal whose Kova (thyroid
cartilage, which is beyond the Taba'as ha'Gadol) had been cut in the course
of the Shechitah, Rebbi Yochanan raised the objection - 'Giysa Giysa'!
meaning that he had gone too far.
(b) Rav Papi in the name of Rava rules that if one Shechted as far as the
Chiti ('Paga be'Chiti') - the vocal cords, animal is Tereifah.
(c) We attempt to prove from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Va'yifga bo Va'yamos" - that 'Paga be'Chiti' means that the Shochet
*actually touched them*.
(d) Rav Papa in the name of Rava declared 'Shiyer be'Chiti', Kasher, and
that is also the opinion of Rav Chiya b'rei de'Rav Ivya and Mar Zutra.
'Shiyer be'Chiti' means - that even if one touched the vocal cords, the
Shechitah is Kasher, as long as he left some of them towards the head,
intact, as we shall see shortly.
2. ... "Va'yifge'u bo Mal'achei Elokim'' - that 'Paga be'Chiti' is Pasul,
even if he did *not*.
(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi disagrees. According to him - 'Paga be'Chiti is
Kasher', but 'Shiyer be'Chiti' is not.
(b) The final ruling in the matter is - that 'Shiyer be'Chiti' is Kasher, as
long as he does not Shecht past the 'Shipuy Kova' ...
(c) ... which is situated some third of the way along cartilage), at the point where the top begins to dip).