ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 21
CHULIN 21 - This Daf has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom Kelman of
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with long years filled
with Torah, Chidushei Torah, and Nachas!
(a) When Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Ami that if, as Ze'iri maintains, a bird
whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar are broken is considered a Neveilah, how can
one subsequently perform Melikah on it, the latter was initially taken
aback, and could offer no explanation.
(b) His ultimate reply - that when performing Melikah, one breaks the
Mafrekes, but without Rov Basar, conformed with that of a Beraisa (as well
as that of Rava).
(c) The Beraisa continues 'Higi'a le'Veshet O le'Kanah, Chotech Si'man Echad
O Rubo ve'Rov Basar Imo'. And if it is an Olas ha'Of' - 'Shenayim O Rov
(a) The problem with the Lashon of the Beraisa 'u'be'Olah Shenayim O Rov
Shenayim' is - that this encroaches on a Machlokes Tana'im; the Rabbanan
hold specifically 'Shenayim', and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, specifically
(b) We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - 'Shenayim le'Rabbanan, Rov
Shenayim, le'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon'.
(c) Alternatively, the Beraisa goes according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon, and the Tana mentions 'Shenayim' - to teach us that 'Rov Shenayim'
must be a clear Rov that looks like it is divided into two (i.e. that is
clearly discernible, and not just fifty-one per-cent).
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that a person whose Mafrekes and Rov Basar
are broken - is Metamei be'Ohel (even if he is still convulsing, as is the
case with all the rulings that we are now about to discuss).
(b) The Pasuk in Shmuel writes 'Va'tishaver Mafrakto Va'yamos" - about Eli
(c) ... when he received the news that the P'lishtim had captured the Aron,
causing him to fall backwards from his chair.
(d) Despite Shmuel's ruling, this Pasuk refers to Eli as dead, even though
Rov Basar was not broken together with the Mafrekes - on account of Eli
ha'Kohen's advanced age ...
(e) ... proven by the fact that the Pasuk adds " ... "Va'yamos ki Zakein
ha'Ish ... ".
(a) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if Reuven tore
Shimon apart like a fish - the latter is Metamei be'Ohel.
(b) Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak adds - that this speaks specifically if he
tore apart from the back.
(c) Shmuel rules that 'As'ah Gist'ra' (meaning - that Reuven cut Shimon in
half down to the hollow of the body, either by the neck or by the backbone),
the latter is Metamei be'Ohel.
(a) Under what condition does Rebbi Elazar consider 'Nital ha'Yerech' (if
the thigh has been removed) a Neveilah - provided it is missing all the way
up to the hollow of the body.
(b) Rava defines 'va'Chalal she'Lah' to mean - that when the animal
crouches, one can actually see a gap in the body where the thigh had
(c) The Mishnah in Ohalos rules that if an animal's head has been severed,
even though it is still convulsing - it is Metamei Meis ...
(d) ... like the tail of a lizard, which continues to wriggle, even though
it is obviously not alive.
(a) According to Resh Lakish, 'severed' is meant literally. Rebbi Asi Amar
Rebbi Mani says - like the Havdalah of an Olas ha'Of.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Asi what he meant - like the Havdalas Olas
ha'Of of the Rabbanan (which tallies with Rebbi Lakish), or like the
Havdalas Olas ha'Of of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (which argues with him,
considering the animal dead already then).
(c) Rebbi Asi replied - that the second possibility was correct.
(d) In the second Lashon - Rebbi Asi initially said 'ke'Havdalas Olas ha'Of
le'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (dispensing with Resh Lakish's She'eilah).
(a) In the Pasuk "ve'es ha'Sheini Ta'aseh ka'Mihpat" (written in connection
with the Olas ha'Of of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored), "ka'Mishpat" refers either
to - Chatas Beheimah or to Olas ha'Of.
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa initially opts to learn it from Chatas
Beheimah - because it not only precedes it, but it also replaces it (if the
sinner is a poor man).
(c) The Tana would learn from Olas ha'Of - that when performing Melikah, one
should not sever the Simanim (as the Torah writes by Chatas ha'Of "ve'Lo
(d) And he learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Olas Of Nedavah)
"Ve'hikri*vo*" - that Olas ha'Of is unique and that one cannot learn it from
Chatas ha'Of in this regard (forcing us to learn the previous Limud from
(a) The Tana learns three things from the comparison of Olas ha'Of to
Chatas Beheimah: That it can only be brought from Chulin, that it can only
be brought in the day - and that it must be performed with the right hand.
(b) We could not learn the same three things from Chatas ha'Of, and still
use "Vehikrivo" to preclude Olas ha'Of from "ve'Lo Yavdil" of Chatas ha'Of,
from "Vehikrivo" - because we only know these three things with regard to a
Chatas ha'Of from a Hekesh (since the Torah calls it 'a Chatas'), and we
have a principle 'Ein Lemeidin Hekesh min ha'Hekesh be'Kodshim'.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Olas Nedavah) "u'Malak
Ve'hiktir" - that just as the head is burned independently from the body, so
too, should Melikah separate the head from the body?
(b) We would otherwise have thought - that it will suffice to cut the
majority of the Siman, like Chatas Beheimah, from which we learn it (as we
(c) We are forced to make this D'rashah - because the Pasuk continues
"Ve'nimtza Damo", and it is difficult to understand how one can squeeze the
blood of a bird that has already been burned. So the Pasuk must be coming to
compare the Melikah to the Haktarah, as we explained.
(d) Even though the head and the body are still joined by the skin, the
Torah refers to this as 'severed' - because the Simanim (which require
'Shechitah') are severed, as we learned earlier.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael agrees with the Chachamim Halachah-wise, but not with
their source. He learns from ...
1. ... "ka'Mishpat" ('ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of') - that Olas ha'Of, like
Chatas ha'Of, must be cut 'mi'Mul Oref' (like we learned earlier).
(b) We learn this from there - because "Ve'hikriv*o*" implies that Olas
ha'Of is different than Chatas ha'Of, at least in one respect.
2. ... "Ve'hikriv*o*" - that, unlike Chatas ha'Of, the head of the Olas
ha'Of, must be severed.
(c) If not for "Ve'hikrivo", we would otherwise have thought - that once one
has cut the first Si'man (or the majority of it), there is no point in
cutting the second (which ultimately, one only cuts to fulfill the Mitzvah
(d) We know that Rebbi Yishmael learns like the Rabbanan (that "Ve'hikrivo"
requires cutting the entire second Si'man, and not that one must cut the
second Si'man as well, but that Rov will suffice, like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon) - because the Torah says nothing about a second Si'man, only
"Ve'hikrivo" (precluding from "ve'Lo Yavil"), which obligates cutting
whatever is included in Shechitah (incorporating the second Si'man, and
precluding the skin, as we explained earlier).
(a) Rebbi Yishmael learns 'Mul Oref' from 'ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of' and the
Din of Havdalah from "Ve'hikrivo", and not the other way round - because he
also relies on the D'rashah of the Tana Kama ("u'Malak Ve'hiktir" which
teaches Havdalah. We shall see later, why he still requires "Ve'hikrivo").
(b) And he learns from the Pasuk "Zos ha'Torah, la'Olah ve'la'Minchah" -
that a Korban Of, like a Chatas Beheimah - must be purchased from Chulin,
during the daytime and with the right hand.
(c) The Rabbanan disagree with him - because they confine the Hekesh (of
"Zos ha'Torah ... ") to animal Korbanos, but not to birds.
(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees both with the Tana Kama and with
Rebbi Yishmael, though, like the latter, he compares Olas ha'Of to Chatas
ha'Of. When he said 'Mah Lehalan Ochez be'Rosh u've'Guf u'Mazeh', he
cannot mean literally what he says - because we have no source to obligate
the Kohen to hold the head and the body within the palm of his hand.
(b) He must therefore mean that just as when sprinkling the blood of the
Chatas ha'Of, the head and the body are joined, so too, must the Melikah
leave the head and the body joined.
(c) And from "Ve'hikrivo", he learns - that it is necessary to cut part of
the second Si'man too (to make Rov Shenayim).
(d) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon cannot learn from "Vehikrivo" that the
second Si'man must be completely severed (like Rebbi Yishmael) - because it
would clash with his D'rashah from 'ke'Mishpat Chatas ha'Of' (which forbids