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 44
CHULIN 44 (Purim d'Perazim) - l'Iluy Nishmas Harav Ze'ev Wolf Rosengarten
of Zurich, Switzerland, who passed away on 14 Adar 5760, a person of
"Sheleimus" in every way. Dedicated in honor of his Yahrzeit by his nephew
and Talmid, Eli Rosengarten of Zurich.
1) INCONSISTENT RULINGS
(a) Rav Ukva's children had an ox; the slaughter started in
the Turbatz Veshet, and finished in the Veshet proper.
2) "TURBATZ VESHET"
1. Rava: I will apply the stringencies of Rav and
Shmuel to rule that it is Tereifah.
(b) R. Aba: Both Rav and Shmuel agree that the slaughter was
valid - Rava ruled incorrectly, he must pay the owners
for the loss he caused them.
i. The stringency of Rav - that a cut of any size
in the Turbatz Veshet makes it a Tereifah.
ii. Question: But Rav holds that Turbatz Veshet is
also a valid place for slaughter!
iii. Answer: Regarding this, Rava rules like Shmuel,
that it is not.
iv. Question: But Shmuel holds that only cutting
the majority of Turbatz Veshet makes it a
v. Answer: Regarding this, Rava rules like Rav.
(c) Mar brei d'Ravina: A Beraisa refutes Rava!
1. (Beraisa): The Halachah always follows Beis Hillel.
One may choose to hold like Beis Shamai, or like
(d) Question: The Beraisa contradicts itself!
2. If one holds like the leniencies of both, he is
3. If one holds like the stringencies of both (when
they are inconsistent) - he is a fool walking in
i. Rather, one must consistently hold like Beis
Shamai, or like Beis Hillel.
1. First it says that the Halachah always follows Beis
Hillel; then it says that one may choose to hold
like Beis Shamai!
(e) Answer #1: Before the Bas Kol (voice from Heaven)
announced that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel, one
could choose to hold like Beis Shamai; after the Bas Kol,
the Halachah follows Beis Hillel.
(f) Answer #2: The entire Mishnah is after the Bas Kol.
1. The first Tana says that we heed the Bas Kol; the
second Tana is R. Yehoshua, who says that we do not
heed a Bas Kol.
(g) Question: Why did Rava rule according to stringencies
that are inconsistent with each other?
(h) Answer (Rav Tavos): Rava ruled entirely like Rav.
1. (Rami bar Yechezkel): What was taught in the name of
Rav (43B) is according to Rav Yehudah, but Rav did
not really say that!
i. Really, Rav holds that Chachamim specified
which parts of the Veshet are valid for
slaughter (implying that the ends, including
Turbatz Veshet, are invalid);
ii. Nevertheless, Rav holds that if Turbatz Veshet
is cut at all, it is Tereifah.
(a) Question: How much of the top end of the Veshet is
invalid for slaughter?
3) A CUT "KANEH"
(b) Answer (Rav Nachman): The amount that can be held in
one's hand (Rashi - the width of three or four fingers;
Tosfos - two fingers).
(c) Question: How much of the bottom end of the Veshet is
invalid for slaughter?
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): Until the part which has hair on it
(e) Question: But Rav taught, the last Tefach of the Veshet
closest to the Keres is the inner Keres; (the entire
Veshet has no hair, so it is fitting for slaughter) - how
can slaughter be done on the inner Keres?!
(f) Answer #1: Rather, the Tefach of the Keres closest to the
Veshet is the inner Keres.
(g) Answer #2: Rav referred to an ox, which has hair on the
end of the Veshet.
(h) (Shmuel): If the entire Turbatz Veshet was removed from
the jaw, the animal is Kosher.
1. Support (Mishnah): If the lower jaw was removed, it
(i) Question (against Shmuel - Rav Papa): But Ikur (if the
Simanim are uprooted) disqualifies slaughter!
1. Counter-question: How does Rav Papa understand the
(j) Answer: Shmuel only meant that *most* of the Turbatz
Veshet was removed
2. Answer: If the Siman is uprooted from the jaw and
from the flesh, this disqualifies slaughter; the
Mishnah discusses when the jaw was uprooted, but the
Simanim are in their place in the flesh.
(k) Question: But Shmuel taught, if most of the Simanim are
dangling, it is Tereifah!
(l) Answer: That is when they were yanked forcefully; if they
were gently pulled and are still partially attached, it
(a) (Mishnah): If the Kaneh was cut (it is Tereifah).
(b) (Beraisa): The majority must be cut.
1. Question: The majority of what (must be cut)?
2. Version #1 - Answer (Rav): The majority of the width
of the (entire) Kaneh (the walls of the Kaneh are
part of the calculation).
4) CONDUCT EXPECTED OF CHACHAMIM
3. Version #2 - Answer (Rav): The majority of the
interior of the Kaneh.
(c) A case of a cut Kaneh was brought before Rav; he was
checking if the majority of the width of the Kaneh was
(d) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): But you taught, only
if the majority of the interior was cut!
1. They sent it to Rabah bar bar Chanah to check; he
checked for the majority of the interior, and ruled
that it was Kosher; he himself bought some of the
(e) Question: How could he permit what Rav forbade?
1. (Beraisa): A Chacham may not Metaher or permit the
same article that another Chacham was Metamei or
forbade (Tosfos - based on his own reasoning, but he
may do so if his Rebbi taught him otherwise).
(f) Answer: Rav never ruled that it was Tereifah.
(a) Question: Since a Chacham had to permit it, how could
Rabah bar bar Chanah eat from it?
1. Yechezkel said about himself - "I did not make my
soul Tamei, I never ate Neveilah or Tereifah, Pigul
(abominable) meat did not enter my mouth."
(b) Answer: A Chacham need refrain only from an animal
permitted through reasoning; Rabah bar bar Chanah had a
tradition that the majority of the interior must be cut
to make it Tereifah. (Tosfos - this is a second answer to
2. "I did not make my soul Tamei" - I did not have
emissions at night because of thinking about women
3. "I never ate Neveilah or Tereifah" - I did not eat
from an animal which was hurriedly slaughtered
before it dies;
4. "Abominable meat did not enter my mouth" - I did not
eat from an animal which needed a Chacham to rule
that it was Kosher;
5. R. Noson says, I did not eat from an animal before
the gifts to the Kohen were separated.
(c) Question: He should not have eaten, because of suspicion!
1. (Beraisa): If a judge ruled or witnesses testified
about something, they are not forbidden to buy it
(d) Answer: That only applies to things sold by estimation;
Rabah bar bar Chanah bought meat by weight (and all saw
that he paid the usual price).
2. Still, Chachamim say, one should distance oneself
from anything that may lead to suspicion (that they
are receiving a discount to reward them for the
ruling or testimony).
1. Rava permitted an animal and bought some of the
(e) (Rav Chisda): A Chacham (to whom we return a lost object
if he says he recognizes it, without giving a sign) is
one who rules that his own animal is Tereifah (when he
cannot resolve a doubt);
2. His wife: My father (Rav Chisda) would never buy a
Bechor (firstborn animal) which he permitted (to be
slaughtered on account of a blemish)!
3. Rava: A blemished Bechor must be sold by estimation,
without weighing - had he bought, people could
suspect that he got a discount;
i. I bought meat by weight, all saw that I paid
the full price.
ii. Suggestion: Perhaps people will think that I
got a nicer piece on account of my ruling!
iii. Rejection: They always give me a nice piece!
1. He fulfills "One who hates gifts will live."
(f) (Mar Zutra): If one learns written Torah, Mishnah, the
reasons and resolutions of the Mishnayos, and rules that
his own animal is Tereifah, he epitomizes "You will eat
the work of your hands; happy are you, it will be good
1. (Rav Zvid): He inherits both worlds - "Happy are
you" - in this world; "It will be good for you" - in
the world to come.
(g) R. Elazar would not accept gifts from the Nasi's house,
and he would decline invitations to eat there - "One who
hates gifts will live".
(h) R. Zeira would not accept gifts from the Nasi's house,
but he would eat there when invited - he reasoned, they
are honored by his coming.