POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 4
CHULIN 4-5 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs.
Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the
merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his
Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
1) THE SLAUGHTER OF A "KUSI"
(a) (Beraisa): If a Kusi slaughters, it is Kosher;
2) FOR WHICH MITZVOS ARE "KUSIM" BELIEVED?
1. This is only if a Yisrael supervises, but if a Kusi
slaughtered on his own, one gives him a k'Zayis of
the meat. If he eats it, the animal is permitted; if
(b) Similarly: If one finds a string of birds slaughtered by
a Kusi, he cuts the head of one and gives the Kusi a
k'Zayis of the meat. If he eats it, the birds are
permitted; if not, not.
1. Abaye leaned from the first clause of the Beraisa;
Rava learned from the second.
(c) (Beraisa): Similarly: If one finds a string of birds
slaughtered by a Kusi, he cuts the head of one and gives
the Kusi a k'Zayis of the meat. If he eats it, the birds
are permitted; if not, not.
i. Abaye derived: the first clause only permits
him to slaughter if a Yisrael stands over him -
not if the Yisrael goes in and out.
2. Question: The second clause opposes Abaye!
ii. Rava derived: the second clause only forbids
the animal (if the Kusi will not eat from it)
because the Kusi slaughtered on his own - but
if the Yisrael goes in and out, he would be
allowed to slaughter.
3. Answer: He holds that if a Yisrael goes in and out,
this is like an unsupervised slaughter.
4. Question: The first clause opposes Rava!
5. Answer: He holds that if a Yisrael goes in and out,
this is like a supervised slaughter.
(d) Question: We should be concerned that only the bird he
ate from was slaughtered properly!
(e) Answer (Rav Menasheh): The Yisrael put all the birds
under his cloak and took out one, so the Kusi does not
know which bird he took.
(f) Question: Perhaps the Kusi had a sign, which bird was
(g) Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): The Yisrael mashed and diced
it, so the sign would not be noticed.
(h) Question: Perhaps the Kusi believes that the Torah does
not require birds to be slaughtered (only slaughter of
animals is explicit in the Torah), therefore he eats it!
1. Counter-question: Slaughter is also disqualified by
pausing, pressing, Chaladah, Hagramah (if the
slaughter traverses different rings of the Kaneh
(windpipe)) or Ikor (uprooting the Kaneh or Veshet
(foodpipe)) - these are not explicit in the Torah
(yet Kusim are trusted to slaughter animals
(i) Answer: Similarly, since Kusim are Muchzakim to slaughter
birds properly, we may rely on them.
2. Answer: You must say, since they are Muchzakim
(established) to be careful about these things, we
may rely on them.
(a) Tana'im argue whether or not we may rely on Kusim
regarding a Mitzvah they are Muchzakim in, if the Mitzvah
is not written in the Torah.
(b) (Beraisa): Matzah of Kusim is permitted; one who eats it
on the first night of Pesach fulfills the Mitzvah;
3) WANTON SINNERS
1. R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not careful
about the details of Mitzvos;
2. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the Kusim
are Muchzakim in, they keep it more meticulously
(c) Question: Obviously, if their Matzah is permitted, one
fulfills the Mitzvah by eating it!
(d) Answer: One might have thought, they are not careful to
guard the Matzah Lishmah (with intent for the Mitzvah) -
the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.
(e) (Beraisa): R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not
careful about the details of Mitzvos.
1. He holds that they are not careful to guard Matzah
(from becoming Chametz).
(f) (Beraisa): R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the
Kusim are Muchzakim in, they keep it more meticulously
(g) Question: The first Tana also says that one may rely on
(h) Answer #1: They argue regarding Mitzvos written in the
Torah which they are not Muchzakim in.
1. The first Tana holds, one may rely on them regarding
any Mitzvah written in the Torah, even if they are
not Muchzakim in it; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds, if
they are Muchzakim, one may rely on them; if not,
(i) Objection: If so, why does R. Shimon say '*every* Mitzvah
they are Muchzakim in' (implying that he includes more
than the first Tana) - he should say, '*if* they are
Muchzakim in it'!
(j) Answer #2: Rather, they argue about Mitzvos not written
in the Torah which they are Muchzakim in.
1. The first Tana holds, one may not rely on them since
they are not written in the Torah, even though they
are Muchzakim; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds, since
they are Muchzakim, one may rely on them.
(a) (Rava): \here\ If a Yisrael Mumar eats Neveilos for
1. If one checks a knife, one may let the Mumar
slaughter with it; the animal may be eaten.
(b) Question: Why is he trusted to slaughter properly?
(c) Answer: Since he can eat permitted food (by slaughtering
properly), he will not eat forbidden food (by
(d) Question: If so, why can't we rely on him to check the
(e) Answer: He will not exert himself (to get a proper knife,
if the one he has is invalid).
(f) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rava.
1. (Beraisa): If Reuven (transgresses and) keeps
Chametz during Pesach, immediately after Pesach,
others may benefit from his Chametz, because he
trades (his Chametz with that of gentiles).
4) THE SLAUGHTER OF A "MUMAR" IDOLATER
2. Assumption: The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, who
holds that if a Yisrael keeps Chametz during Pesach,
it is forbidden mid'Oraisa after Pesach.
(g) Rejection: No - the Beraisa is as R. Shimon, who says
that it is only forbidden mid'Rabanan after Pesach.
1. We are lenient to assume that a Mumar minimizes his
sins only regarding (what could be for us) a
Rabbinic transgression, not for a Torah
transgression (such as slaughter).
(h) Rejection of rejection: Even if the Beraisa is as R.
Shimon, it supports Rava!
1. It does not say 'we assume that he trades', rather
'he trades' - definitely!
(i) Suggestion: The following also supports Rava.
2. If a Mumar avoids even Rabbinic prohibitions, all
the more so, he avoids Torah prohibitions!
1. (Beraisa): Anyone may slaughter - even a Kusi, Arel
(uncircumcised man), even a Mumar.
(j) Rejection: No - really, a Mumar to eat Neveilah cannot be
trusted, for he considers it to be permitted!
2. Question: What is the case of an Arel?
i. If (2 or 3) of his brothers died through
circumcision (Tosfos - when they were adults,
or after their blood was properly absorbed in
the flesh), he is a fully Kosher Yisrael (he
should never circumcise himself)!
3. Answer: Rather, he rejects the Mitzvah of
i. The Tana holds that one who rejects 1 Mitzvah
is not like one who rejects the entire Torah.
4. Question: The end of the Beraisa, says, 'even a
Yisrael Mumar' - what is the case?
i. Suggestion: If he is a Mumar to a Mitzvah other
than Neveilah - this is the same as Mumar to
circumcision, which was already taught!
5. Answer: Rather, he is a Mumar to eat Neveilah, and
it says that he may slaughter!
1. Rather, the end of the Beraisa speaks of a Mumar to
idolatry, it supports Rav Anan.
i. (Rav Anan): If a Mumar to idolatry slaughters,
the animal is Kosher.
(a) Rav Anan learns from Yehoshafat (who was a Tzadik), he
ate from the slaughter of Achav's men, who were Mumrim to
idolatry - "Achav slaughtered flock and cattle in
abundance, for Yehoshafat and the people with him, and he
enticed him to ascend to Ramos Gilad".
(b) Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat did not eat!
(c) Answer: It says "He enticed him".
1. Question: Perhaps he enticed him with words!
(d) Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat drank, but did not eat!
2. Answer: Enticement is not through words.
3. Question: But it says, "If your brother will entice
4. Answer: That means, through food and drink.
5. Question: But it says, "(Hash-m) was enticed"!
6. Answer: That is different - Hash-m does not eat, so
it must mean with words.
1. Question: If he drank Achav's wine, he must hold
that a Mumar to idolatry is not like a Mumar to the
entire Torah - for the same reason, he may eat!
(e) Answer #1: It is not the way of kings to drink without
2. Answer: No - really, a Mumar to idolatry is as a
Mumar to the entire Torah (he is considered like a
Nochri); Chachamim had not yet decreed against wine
i. However, the slaughter of a Nochri is forbidden
(f) Answer #2: It says, "He slaughtered and enticed him" - he
enticed him through slaughtering.
(g) \here Question: Perhaps Ovadyah (a Tzadik) slaughtered
(h) Answer: He would not be able to slaughter all of them.
(i) Question: Perhaps the 7000 righteous men slaughtered
1. "I left in Yisrael 7000 men, the knees that did not
bow to the (idol) Ba'al".
(j) Answer: They were hiding from Izevel.
(k) Question: Perhaps Achav's men were righteous!
(l) Answer: This cannot be - "A ruler that heeds falsity, all
his servants are wicked"
(m) Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat's men were not Tzadikim, and
they ate from the slaughter of Achav's men, and
Yehoshafat only ate from what Ovadyah slaughtered!
(n) Rejection: Since "A ruler that heeds falsity, all his
servants are wicked", we infer, a ruler that heeds truth,
all his servants are Tzadikim.