THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHULIN 28-30 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) HALACHAH: "ROV HANIR'EH LA'EINAYIM"
OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that just as an animal that has a tear in its
trachea is considered a Tereifah only when the tear covers a "Rov ha'Nir'eh
la'Einayim" of the trachea, so, too, when one slaughters an animal, he must
cut through a "Rov ha'Nir'eh la'Einayim" of the Simanim.
2) A LENIENCY IN THE SHECHITAH OF "KODSHIM"
What constitutes a "Rov ha'Nir'eh la'Einayim"?
(a) RASHI (DH Rov ha'Nir'eh) explains that the Rov must be a genuine
majority which is clearly visible. The TAZ (YD 21:2) and PRI CHADASH (YD
21:3) understand that Rashi means that one must cut more than a mathematical
majority of the Simanim. The majority that one cuts must be clearly visible
to the eye; a slight majority that can be discerned only by measuring is
insufficient. (We find a similar distinction between a mathematical Rov and
a clear Rov in the Gemara in Berachos (48a), where the Gemara differentiates
between these two types of Rov with regard to a Minyan when reciting Birkas
ha'Mazon. Rebbi Zeira maintains that if only six people ate bread, and the
other four ate vegetables, the six who ate bread do not constitute a Rov for
the Zimun, because they are not a "Rov d'Minkar.")
(b) The RASHBA does not accept this definition of a "Rov ha'Nir'eh
la'Einayim." Until this point in the Gemara, the Gemara was discussing
whether or not cutting half of the Siman is considered like cutting Rov of
the Siman. When the Gemara rejects the view that half is like Rov, it
considers Rov to be just one step above half -- even a hair's breadth more
than half is considered Rov. It is not necessary to have a significant Rov
that is clearly visible to the eye. (See ROSH YOSEF who discusses this
question and the view of Rashi at length.)
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 21:1) rules that even if one cuts only a hair's
breadth more than half of the Siman, the Shechitah is valid. The TAZ,
however, cites the opinion of a number of authorities who maintain that the
Shechitah is valid only when a significant Rov was cut. He concludes that
under normal circumstances we should follow this stringent opinion. (Z.
QUESTION: The Gemara mentions the logic that the main purpose of the
Shechitah of Kodshim is to obtain the blood for the Avodah of Zerikas ha'Dam
("l'Dam Hu Tzarich"). The Gemara uses this logic here to explain why it is
necessary to cut the Veridin of a Korban. Cutting the Veridin will
significantly add to the amount of blood that comes out at Shechitah. Since
the purpose of the Shechitah of Kodshim is to receive the blood, the Veridin
must be cut.
The Gemara uses this logic in two other places in Chulin. First, the Gemara
earlier uses this logic to explain why Kodshim should require Shechitah of
the entire Siman, while Chulin requires that only a Rov of the Siman be cut
(or, similarly, to explain why Kodshim should require Shechitah of Rov of
the Siman, while Chulin requires that only half of the Siman be cut).
Second, the Gemara later (33a) uses this logic to explain why a Shechitah
without blood is Pasul for Kodshim. Since the purpose of Shechitah is to
obtain the blood that comes out, a Shechitah that draws no blood is invalid.
In all three of these cases, the logic of "l'Dam Hu Tzarich" creates
stringencies for the Shechitah of Kodshim -- the requirement to cut more of
the Siman, the requirement to cut the Veridin, and the necessity that the
Shechitah draws out blood from the animal.
Are there leniencies for the Shechitah of Kodshim that do not exist for the
Shechitah of Chulin?
ANSWER: The BEIS YOSEF (OC 621) cites the AVUDRAHAM's description of the Yom
Kipur Avodah. The Avudraham describes the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid on
Yom Kipur as follows: "The Kohen Gadol immediately received the lamb for the
Korban Tamid, and he did to it according to its law for the rest of the
year." The Beis Yosef writes that "this is a mistake," because the Avodah of
the Korban Tamid was done differently on Yom Kipur. Since, on Yom Kipur, the
Kohen Gadol was required to perform Kabalas ha'Dam himself, he does not have
a chance to cut through the entirety of the Simanim. He must begin to
receive the blood that gushes out of the animal immediately after cutting a
Rov of the Simanim. In contrast, during the rest of the year, the entirety
of the Simanim was cut during the Shechitah (just as it is cut for Chulin,
l'Chatchilah), since a different Kohen performed Kabalas ha'Dam.
The PRI MEGADIM (in ESHEL AVRAHAM 621:4) justifies the assertion of the
Avudraham. He cites the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 4:8) who writes
that the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid entailed cutting a Rov of the
Simanim. He makes no mention of the requirement l'Chatchilah to cut the
entirety of the Simanim, as he writes with regard to the Shechitah of Chulin
(in Hilchos Shechitah). The Rambam apparently maintains that Kodshim does
not require Shechitah of the entirety of the Simanim, even l'Chatchilah.
(The Rambam's source for this might be the Gemara later (29b) that asks why
it is necessary to perform Miruk (cutting the remaining minority of the
Simanim) at the end of the Shechitah of a Korban that the Kohen Gadol began.
TOSFOS there asks that it is obvious why Miruk must be done -- the entirety
of the Simanim must be cut l'Chatchilah! The Rambam understood from the
Gemara there that Kodshim does not require the entirety of the Simanim to be
cut, even l'Chatchilah.)
According to the Rambam, there is no difference between the Shechitah of the
Korban Tamid on Yom Kipur and its Shechitah on any other day, as the
According to the Rambam, why is there a difference between the way a Korban
is slaughtered and the way Chulin is slaughtered?
1. The Pri Megadim offers an explanation for the Rambam's ruling that the
Shechitah of Kodshim does not require cutting the entirety of the Simanim.
The reason why Shechitah generally requires the cutting of the whole Siman
is because of a Gezeirah, lest one slaughter only half of the Siman. Kodshim
are more lenient in this respect, because of the rule that "Kohanim Zerizim
Hem" (Kohanim are careful to perform the Mitzvah properly), and it is
usually a Kohen who slaughters the Korban.
2. The RASHASH (to TOSFOS DH Lamah) explains that the Rambam maintains that
the necessity to cut the entire Siman for Chulin is in order to make sure
that all of the blood comes out (as a precaution to prevent the person who
eats the meat from eating blood). Kodshim are burned on the Mizbe'ach, and
thus there is no need for this stringency. (The Rashash does not explain why
it is not necessary to cut the entire Siman when slaughtering a type of
Korban that is eaten. Perhaps again the reason is because "Kohanim Zerizim
Hem" and they will make sure that all of the blood comes out even when only
a Rov of the Simanim are cut.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
3) IS "MIRUK" CONSIDERED AN OBLIGATORY ACT FOR A KORBAN
QUESTION: The Gemara proves that the act of Miruk, cutting the remaining
minority of the Simanim, of the Korban Tamid on Yom Kipur is not obligatory
from the fact that an ordinary Kohen, who is not a Kohen Gadol, may perform
Miruk on Yom Kipur. Since only the Kohen Gadol may perform Avodah on Yom
Kipur, it must be that Miruk is not obligatory and thus it does not need to
performed by the Kohen Gadol.
4) THE POINT AT WHICH THE SHECHITAH TAKES EFFECT
TOSFOS (DH Im Ken) has difficulty with the Gemara's proof. Even if Miruk is
obligatory, there should be no requirement for the Kohen Gadol to do Miruk
just as there is no requirement for the Kohen Gadol to perform the
Shechitah. Shechitah obviously is an obligatory part of offering the Korban,
and yet the Gemara in Yoma (42a) teaches that the Torah permits even a
non-Kohen to slaughter the Korban Tamid on Yom Kipur, since Shechitah is not
considered to be an Avodah. Why would Miruk, the act that completes the
Shechitah, need to be performed by the Kohen Gadol if it was obligatory,
when Shechitah, which is certainly obligatory, does not need to be performed
by the Kohen Gadol?
(a) TOSFOS explains that the Rabanan decreed that the Kohen Gadol must
slaughter the Korban Tamid on Yom Kipur, and the Korban is Pasul mid'Rabanan
if it is slaughtered by a non-Kohen.
(b) TOSFOS in Yoma (32b, DH Im Ken) answers that even though Shechitah may
be performed by a non-Kohen, Miruk may not be performed by a non-Kohen.
Miruk is done exclusively for the sake of the Kabalas ha'Dam. Kabalas ha'Dam
is an Avodah that may be done only by a Kohen, and thus Miruk must also be
done only by a Kohen. Shechitah, however, is not directly related to the
Kabalas ha'Dam; it is an independent part of offering a Korban.
(c) Tosfos in Yoma answers further that the reason why Shechitah is not
considered an Avodah that must be done by the Kohen Gadol, even though it is
obligatory, is because it is an act that is done for Chulin as well as for
Kodshim. Since, mid'Oraisa, Miruk does not need to be done to an animal of
Chulin, it is considered an Avodah and thus it requires a Kohen. (Z.
OPINIONS: Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue about when the effective
part of Shechitah takes place -- at the start of the Shechitah, or only at
the conclusion of the Shechitah. Reish Lakish maintains "Einah li'Shechitah
Ela leva'Sof" - "the act of Shechitah is not considered to be Shechitah
until the end." Rebbi Yochanan maintains "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah
v'Ad Sof" - "the entire act of slaughtering, from beginning to end (and not
just the final bit of the Shechitah), constitutes Shechitah."
The Gemara applies this Machlokes to two different cases. The first case
involves a person who cut part of the Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of outside of
the Beis ha'Mikdash, and finished cutting the rest inside of the Beis
ha'Mikdash. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the person is Chayav for "Shechitas
Kodshim ba'Chutz," while according to Reish Lakish, one is exempt, since the
main part of Shechitah occurred when the bird was inside the Beis
The second case involves a person who slaughtered his Korban Pesach during
Pesach, while he had Chametz in his possession. His Korban Pesach had become
lost before Pesach, and he found it after Pesach arrived. Slaughtering a
valid Korban (either the Korban Pesach on the afternoon of Erev Pesach, or
any valid Korban during Pesach) while one has Chametz in his possession is
prohibited because of the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi"
(Shemos 34:25). Slaughtering a Korban Pesach during the festival itself
invalidates the Korban, unless it was slaughtered with intention that it be
a Korban Shelamim.
According to Reish Lakish, one who slaughters the Korban Pesach during
Pesach while he has Chametz in his possession transgresses the Isur. The
beginning of the Shechitah rendered the Korban unfit to be brought on Pesach
Sheni as a Korban Pesach, and thus it automatically becomes a Korban
Shelamim. Consequently, when the Shechitah is completed, the person has
slaughtered a valid Korban Shelamim on Pesach while having Chametz in his
possession, and he is Chayav for transgressing the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al
According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Shechitah was effective at its beginning,
and thus the person slaughtered a Korban Pesach in the wrong time, rendering
it invalid. When he completes the Shechitah, he has slaughtered an invalid
Korban, and thus he does not transgress the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al
In both of these cases, Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that "Yeshnah li'Shechitah
mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" creates a stringency. In the first case, the person
has transgressed the Isur of Shechutei Chutz, and in the second case, the
person has transgressed the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz."
Does the principle of "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" ever
result in a leniency? Do we ever consider the Shechitah to be valid as soon
as it begins? Obviously, the Shechitah must be completed in order for the
animal to be permitted. If the Shechitah is not completed, then it turns out
that the Shechitah was never a Shechitah in the first place, as the Gemara
later says. The question applies where the Shechitah was finished. Is there
any situation in which the principle of "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah
v'Ad Sof" would result in a leniency?
(a) The BEHAG rules according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that "Einah
li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof." He proves that this is the Halachah from the
Gemara later (38a). The Gemara says that when one slaughters an animal that
is a Mesukenes (an animal with physiological symptoms of impending death, as
discussed in the Mishnah on 37b), the Shechitah is valid only if, towards
the end of the Shechitah, we see that it has "Pirchus" -- spasmodic, jerking
motions. If we do not see the animal moving towards the end of the
Shechitah, then we must assume that it died at the beginning of the
Shechitah, and the end of the Shechitah is no longer effective.
It is clear that the Gemara there is following the view that "Einah
li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof." If the Shechitah would be effective at the
beginning of the Shechitah, then it should suffice to have "Pirchus" only at
that moment, and there should be no need for "Pirchus" at the end of the
Shechitah. Since the beginning of the Shechitah is enough to make the animal
permitted according to the opinion that "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah
v'Ad Sof," it is only necessary to have "Pirchus" at that point. (Obviously,
the animal is not considered to be entirely dead if it has no "Pirchus,"
because if it is considered to be entirely dead, then it would be a case of
"Nisnavlah," become a Neveilah, after the beginning of the Shechitah, where
everyone agrees that the Shechitah is invalid. Rather, for the Shechitah to
serve to permit the animal, the animal must be exhibiting a higher degree of
life (i.e. "Pirchus") at the moment that the Shechitah takes effect.) Since
the Gemara requires that we see "Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah, it
must be because the Gemara rules that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof."
(See also MISHNAS CHAIM #39.)
According to the Behag, there is a leniency according to the opinion that
maintains "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof." When the animal had
"Pirchus" at the beginning of the Shechitah but not at the end, we say that
the Shechitah nevertheless was valid, since it had "Pirchus" at the most
important part of the Shechitah, at the point when the Shechitah takes
(b) The RAMBAN argues with the Behag and maintains that there is no proof
from the Gemara later (38a) whether the Halachah follows Rebbi Yochanan or
Reish Lakish. It appears that the Ramban understands that when there is no
"Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah, the Shechitah is considered to have
been finished on an entirely dead animal. Without the signs of life of
"Pirchus," the animal is considered dead, and thus the beginning of the
Shechitah was not a Shechitah at all. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)