REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
CHULIN 2 - The first Daf of Chulin has been sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Shalom
Kelman of Baltimore, Maryland, USA. May Hashem bless them with years filled
with Torah and Nachas!
Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of
Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any
bearing on the practical Halachah.
(a) Our Mishnah validates almost anybody's Shechitah.
What are the three
exceptions? Why is their Shechitah Pasul?
(b) What does the Tana say about anyone who Shechts, if his Shechitah is
overseen by others?
(c) We query the Lashon of the Mishnah, in that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' implies
Lechatchilah, whereas 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' implies Bedieved.
they both not be part of one statement, permitting their Shechitah
(d) The problem is based on the assumption that 'ha'Kol' implies
How does Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava query this from the Mishnah
in Temurah 'ha'Kol Memirin, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim'?
(a) If, on the other hand, 'ha'Kol' in this case means Bedi'eved, how will
we explain the double Lashon in our Mishnah?
(b) How did Rav Ashi explain the Mishnah in Temurah, to answer Rav Acha
b'rei de'Rava's Kashya?
(c) Why does the Tana there not then simply say 'ha'Kol she'Heimiru,
Temurasan Kesheirah' (instead of using a Lashon Lechatchilah, and then
having to amend it)?
(a) We then query the above assumption from the Mishnah in Erchin, 'ha'Kol
Ma'arichin, ve'Ne'erachin, Nodrin ('Dami Alai' or 'D'mei P'loni Alai')
If 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin' comes to include a 'Mufla ha'Samuch
le'Ish' (a precocious twelve-year old boy), what does 've'Ne'erachin' come
(b) 'ha'Kol Nidrin' (if someone declares about him 'D'mei P'loni Alai')
comes to include a baby of less than one month old.
Why does the Tana need
to teach us that? Why might we have thought otherwise?
(c) What does 'ha'Kol Nodrin come to include?
(d) What is the problem with interpreting the Mishnah 'ha'Kol ... Nodrin
ve'Nidrin' to mean Lechatchilah?
(a) Based on the previous Pasuk 'Eis Asher Tidor Shaleim", Rebbi Meir in a
Beraisa, comments 'Tov mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh she'Eino Noder Kol Ikar'.
Answers to questions
Rebbi Meir interpret the Pasuk?
(b) How does Rebbi Yehudah interpret it?
(c) How do we qualify Rebbi Yehudah's statement, to establish the
prohibition of declaring a Neder even according to him?
(d) What makes a Nedavah better than a Neder in this regard?
(a) What is now the Kashya on 'ha'Kol Shochtin' from the Mishnah in Erchin?
(b) We counter this however, from another Mishnah there.
What does 'ha'Kol
Chayavin be'Sukah' and 'ha'Kol Chayavin be Tzitzis' imply?
(c) On what grounds do we reject this proof?
(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Menachos 'ha'Kol Somchin, Echad Anashim
What does 'ha'Kol Somchin come to include?
(b) How do we know that the Tana must mean Lechatchilah?
(c) What conclusion does this Mishnah force us to draw?
(a) On what grounds did Rav Ashi assume that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' means
Lechatchilah, prompting him to ask the opening contradiction between it and
(b) What could the Tana have written instead (besides just 'ha'Kol
(c) If the problem is why the Tana would need to write 'u'Shechitasan
Kesheirah' to teach us that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' is Bedi'eved, why can we not
ask the same Kashya on the Mishnah in Temurah 'ha'Kol Mamirin ... Lo
she'ha'Adam Rashai Lehamir'?
(d) To answer the initial Kashya, we establish 'ha'Kol Shochtin' by Tamei
What is wrong with that as it stands?
(a) We establish 'Tamei be'Chulin' by 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas
ha'Kodesh' (which has a connection with Isur).
What is 'Chulin she'Na'asu
al Taharas ha'Kodesh'?
(b) How must he Shecht it?
(c) Then what does 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' refer to?
(a) The Chachamim forbade a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim, even using a long
What was the purpose of the long knife?
(b) Why did the Chachamim then forbid it?
(c) And how does 'Chutz mi'Chashu' speak?
(d) Why is their Shechitah Pasul?
(a) What is the problem with the final statement in the Mishnah 've'Chulan
she'Shachtu ... Kesheirah'? Why can it not pertain to ...
(b) Nevertheless, we establish it by Tamei be'Mukdashin.
- ... 'Chashu' (with reference to the previous statement)?
- ... 'Tamei be'Chulin'?
- ... 'Tamei be'Mukdashin'?
Why can we not
rely on his assurance that he did not touch the Shechted animal?
(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim validates Kodshim that have been Shechted by
Zarim, Nashim and Avadim (who in fact, may even Shecht Lechatchilah).
does the Tana say about Kodshei Kodshim that were Shechted by Temei'im?
(b) What problem does that Mishnah create?
(c) Perhaps, we reply, our Mishnah is really the main source for the
Halachah, and the Tana only repeats it in Zevachim on account of the other
cases that it discusses.
How else might we answer the Kashya?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with Tamei
Meis) "be'Chalal Cherev"?
(b) Why does that pose a Kashya on the Mishnah, which permits a Tamei to
Shecht Kodshim using a long knife?
(c) Why in fact, would this Kashya apply even without the D'rashah of
(d) Then why do we cite it?
(a) How do we answer the basic Kashya? What sort of Tamei must the Tana be
Answers to questions
(b) So what? Why will he not render the knife Tamei?
(c) How can we establish the Mishnah even with regard to a Tamei Meis, and
yet avoid the problem?
(d) How do we know that such a knife is Kasher to Shecht with?