ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 81
CHULIN 81-84 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Rav Hamnuna states that, according to Rebbi Shimon, Oso v'Es Beno does
not apply to Kodshim - because Shechitas Kodshim is always a Shechitah
she'Einah Re'uyah, since the Korban cannot be eaten until Zerikas Dam has
taken place (like Rav Oshaya learned on the previous Amud).
(b) Rava queries Rav Hamnuna from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon says
'Kodshim ba'Chutz, Sheini be'Lo Sa'aseh', since initially, it was fit to be
brought later (even though he is Patur from the Kareis of Shechutei Chutz).
The Lo Sa'aseh he is referring to is - that of "Lo Sa'aseh ke'Chol Asher
Anachnu Osim Poh ... " (Re'ei).
(c) According to the Rabbanan - any Shechutei Chutz which is not subject to
Kareis, is not subject to a La'av either.
(d) Rava (or K'di) amends Rebbi Shimon's ruling to 'Sheneihem Anushim
Kareis' - because since the first animal is Shechutei Chutz, it is a
Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, in which case the second animal is fit to go on
the Mizbe'ach, rendering it subject to Kareis for Shechutei Chutz.
(a) 'Echad ba'Chutz, ve'Echad bi'Fenim, le'Rabbanan Rishon Anush Kareis, She
ini Pasul u'Patur' (from Kareis because of Shechutei Chutz). The Tana does
not mention that he is Chayav because of Oso v'Es Beno - because he is only
concerned with Shechutei Chutz (just like the Tana of our Mishnah is only
concerned with Oso v'Es Beno).
(b) Rebbi Shimon - declares the second one Kasher (because the first one
was a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, because of Shechutei Chutz).
(c) 'Echad bi'Fenim, ve'Echad ba'Chutz Rebbi Shimon Omer Sheini be'Lo
Sa'aseh' - with reference to the Lo Sa'aseh of Oso v'Es Beno ...
(d) ... a Kashya on Rav Hamnuna - in whose opinion Rebbi Shimon does not
hold of Oso v'Es Beno by Kodshim, in which case not only should he not be
subject to a mere La'av, but he even ought to be Chayav Kareis.
(a) Rava therefore amends Rav Hamnuna's statement to 'Ein Malkos Oso v'Es
Beno Noheg be'Kodshim' - because, since the first Shechitah (followed by
Zerikas ha'Dam) was a Shechitah Kesheirah, the second animal is Pasul
because of Oso v'Es Beno, in which case the Shechitah, which cannot lead to
Zerikas ha'Dam, is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah (which is not subject to
(b) According to our initial text, the reason that he is Patur is because it
is Hasra'as Safek, meaning - that even after the Shechitah, we are not sure
that he will have transgressed, because he might not perform the Zerikas Dam
(in which case, the Shechitah will turn out to be Pasul retroactively).
(c) We reject - that text however, on the grounds that, since (based on the
fact that it is Pasul because of Oso v'Es Beno and), its blood does not
stand to be sprinkled, the Korban is invalid, and the Hasra'ah is not a
Hasra'ah at all.
(d) In fact - we reject Rav Hoshaya (whom we quoted on the previous Amud,
and), who considers even the first Shechitah a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah,
according to Rebbi Shimon.
(a) In a case where the mother is Chulin and the child a Shelamim, Rava
rules, assuming that one Shechted, on the same day, first ...
1. ... the mother and then the child - that he is Patur, because it is not a
Hasra'ah, as we just explained (or according to the initial version, because
it is Hasra'as Safek).
(b) Rava is speaking - according to Rebbi Shimon.
2. ... the child (bi'Fenim) and then the mother (ba'Chutz) - that he is
Chayav (seeing as, since the Zerikah took place, the first Shechitah was a
(c) In the equivalent case, but where the child is an Olah, rather than a
Shelamim, Rava rules that either way (even there where one Shechts the
mother after the child) one is Patur from Oso v'Es Beno - because according
to Rebbi Shimon, seeing as an Olah is not eaten, it is not considered a
(d) Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk in
Tzav "ve'Im He'achol Ye'achel mi'Besar Zevach Shelamav" - that Achilas
Mizbe'ach is also considered Achilah in the realm of Korbanos (both as
regards Pigul and Oso v'Es Beno).
(a) Rebbi Shimon, in our Mishnah, rules - that Oso v'Es Beno, there where
the first animal ...
1. ... turns out to be a Tereifah, or is Shechted to Avodah-Zarah - does not
apply. Neither does it apply to a case where it ...
(b) In all of these cases, the Rabbanan - consider the second animal subject
to Oso v'Es Beno.
2. ... is a Parah Adumah, a Shor ha'Niskal or an Eglah Arufah (which are all
Asur be'Hana'ah even whilst they are still alive).
(c) The Rabbanan concede however, that the second animal is no longer
subject to Oso v'Es Beno - if the first animal turns out to be a Neveilah,
if it is simply cut open, or if one tears out the Simanim.
(a) Resh Lakish confines the Rabbanan's ruling 'ha'Shochet
la'Avodas-Kochavim, Chayav', to where the Shochet Shechted the first animal
to Avodas-Kochavim, and the second one, for his own personal needs. In the
reverse case, he maintains - they will concede to Rebbi Shimon that the
second Shochet will be Patur, because of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih'
(since he is Chayav Misah for Shechting to Avodah-Zarah, he cannot receive
Malkos for Oso v'Es Beno for the same action).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish statement - because he considers it
obvious (since every child knows about 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih').
(c) According to him, what Resh Lakish have said is - that even in a case
where the Shochet Shechted the first one for his own needs and the second
one to Avodah-Zarah - he will be Chayav there where witnesses warned him
about Oso v'Es Beno, but not about Avodah-Zarah (seeing as 'Kam Leih
bi'de'Rabah Mineih' no longer applies).
(d) Resh Lakish however, declined to say that - because he holds that
Chayvei Misos Shogegin are Patur (even though they are not actually
sentenced to death).
(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said - that Chayvei Misos
Shogegin or Chayvei Malkos Shogegin ve'Davar Acher are Patur.
(b) Besides Malkos (in the case of Chayvei Misos Shogegin), 'Davar Acher'
might be referring to - a Chiyuv Mamon (e.g. if one damaged someone else's
property with the same stroke).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish found it necessary to repeat their
Machlokes twice, because, had they argued ...
1. ... in our case (by Shechitah) - we would have confined Resh Lakish's
ruling to a case of Malkos and Misah, since both being punishments that
affect the body, the former is included in the latter, but in the case of
Rav Dimi (i.e. that of Misah and Mamon), where one affects the body, and the
other, one's property, he will concede to Rebbi Yochanan, that the sinner is
subject to both punishments (inasmuch as where he does not receive the
former, he will receive the latter).
2. ... in Rav Dimi's case, we would have thought that Rebbi Yochanan would
concede to Resh Lakish in our case - where Malkos affects the body just like
Misah, that the former is included in the latter, and he will be Patur in