ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 3
(a) Abaye answers the original Kashya (regarding 'ha'Kol Shochtin
u'Shechitasan Kesheirah') differently. He establishes 'ha'Kol Shochtin' by a
Kuti, who may Shecht Lechatchilah - as long as a Yisrael watches him
Shechting from beginning to end.
(b) If a Yisrael walked in and out during the Shechitah ('Yotzei
ve'Nichnas') - Abaye validates the Kuti's Shechitah, but only if the Kuti
accepts a piece of meat from the animal that he Shechted and eats it.
(c) The problem with a Kuti's Shechitah is - that even though he is
meticulous in the performance of Mitzvos vis-a-vis himself, he cannot be
trusted vis-a-vis others, even with a Yisrael Yotzei ve'Nichnas during the
Shechitah - because the Kutim do not hold of the La'av of 'Lifnei Iver Lo
Siten Michshol' (the prohibition of causing others to sin).
(a) They interpret the Pasuk in Kedoshim - literally, as a prohibition of
placing a stumbling-block in front of a blind man.
(b) 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' according to Abaye - speaks after one handed
them a piece of meat from the animal that they Shechted, and they ate it.
(c) The problem with the Seifa 've'Chulan she'Shachtu, va'Acherim Ro'in
Osan, Shechitasan Kesheirah' is - what it can possibly refer to. If it
refers to the Shechitah of a Chashu, which it follows in the Mishnah, then
the Tana ought have said 've'Im Shachtu' (and not 've'Chulan she'Shachtu'),
whereas it cannot refer to that of a Kuti, whose Shechitah is Kasher even
Lechatchilah, as long as the Kuti eats the piece of meat that he has been
offered, as we just established.
(d) This Kashya remains unanswered.
(a) Rava queries Abaye from a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah. The Tana there rules
that if someone leaves a Nochri in his wine-store, and arranges with a
Yisrael to go in from time to time - the wine is Kasher, ostensibly even
(b) And what prevents us from learning from there that a Kuti too, may
Shecht Lechatchilah under the same circumstances is - the fact that the Tana
is talking (not about Lechatchilah, but) Bedi'eved, as 'ha'Meni'ach implies.
(c) Rava does prove his opinion however, from the Seifa of that Mishnah,
where the Tana specifically absolves a Shomer (a supervisor) from having to
remain on the spot continuously, but is permitted to be a 'Yotzei
(d) The Seifa does not contradict the Reisha, which only permits such a case
Bedieved - inasmuch as it is a case of 'Lo Zu Af Zu' (meaning that it
permitted not only Bedi'eved, but even Lechatchilah).
(a) So Rava too, establishes our Mishnah by a Kuti, and 'ha'Kol Shochtin'
Lechatchilah speaks - by 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas'.
(b) 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' Bedi'eved - speaks where the Yisrael arrived
after the Kuti Shechted, and the Shechitah is only Kasher if he accepts the
piece of meat that he is offered and eats it.
(c) The problem with the Seifa 've'Chulan she'Shachtu va'Acherin Ro'in Osan
... ' is - once again how it speaks, since it can neither refer to a Chashu,
as we have already explained, nor can it refer to a Kuti when a Yisrael is
Yotzei ve'Nichnas, since then his Shechitah is Kasher even Lechatchilah.
(a) Rav Asi solves the problem in the Mishnah by establishing the case by a
Yisrael Mumar - which means either an apostate, or a Yisrael who has thrown
off the yoke of one Mitzvah (one who eats Neveilos, in this case).
The problem with the Seifa 've'Chulan she'Shachtu v'Acherim Ro'in Osan ... '
is yet again - to whom it refers. It cannot refer to a Mumar who Shechted
with a knife that was ...
(b) Based on a statement of Rava, 'ha'Kol Shochtin' speaks - by a Mumar
le'Te'avon (who Shechts with a knife that one inspected and handed to him).
(c) A Mumar le'Te'avon' - is one who will only eats Neveilos when it
benefits him (but not for example, where Kasher meat is avilable at the same
price). We therefore trust his Shechitah here (even Lechatchilah) - because
he has nothing to lose by Shechting properly with the pre-inspected knife.
(d) Whereas 'u'Shechitaso Kesheirah' speaks - where he Shechted with his own
knife, but which we inspect after the Shechitah.
1. ... previously inspected - because his Shechitah would then be Kasher
Lechatchilah (as we just explained).
2. ... not previously inspected, assuming that the knife is available -
because then there would be no reason not to inspect it now.
3. ... not previously inspected, assuming that it is not - because then, as
long as the knife has not been inspected, why would others supervising the
Shechitah render it Kasher? Perhaps the knife was defected?
(a) Ravina learns 'ha'Kol Shochtin', 'ha'Kol Mumchin Shochtin' - with
reference to someone who is fluent in Hilchos Shechitah.
(b) This speaks even though he does not have experience, by which we mean -
that he has not Shechted at least three times in front of us.
(c) We might otherwise have thought that in spite of his fluency - without
experience, perhaps he is a finicky person who faints at the sight of blood,
and whose Shechitah can therefore not be trusted.
(d) And ...
1. ... 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' refers to - where we did not know at the
time that he Shechted, whether he was conversant with Hilchos Shechitah or
not, in which case we examine him afterwards. If he passes the examination,
then his Shechitah is Kasher.
2. ... 've'Chulan she'Shachtu' refers to where, at the time that he
Shechted, we did not know whether he was conversant with Hilchos Shechitah
or not, and he subsequently became unavailable for testing.
(a) Alternatively, Ravina learns 'ha'Kol Muchzakin Shochtin', with reference
to an experienced Shochet - irrespective of whether we know him to be
conversant in Hilchos Shechitah or not.
(b) And ...
1. ... 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' then refers to - where he Shechted without
our having seen him Shecht before, and his Shechitah is Kasher if he assures
us that he did not faint in the process of Shechting.
2. ... 've'Chulan she'Shachtu' refers to - the same circumstances as the
previous case, only where he is simply not available to ask.
(a) Ravina ('ha'Kol Shochtin Mumchin/Muchzakin') and Rabah bar Ula ('ha'Kol
Shochtin Afilu Tamei be'Chulin') decline to learn like Abaye ('ha'Kol
Shochtin Afilu Kuti ... be'Yisrael Omdin al Gabav'), Rava ('ha'Kol Shochtin
Afilu Kuti ... be'Yotzei ve'Nichnas') and Rav Ashi ('ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu
Yisrael Mumar') - because none of the latter are able to explain 've'Chulan
she'Shachtu ... ' (as we explained earlier).
(b) The other Amora'im decline to learn like ...
1. ... Rabah bar Ulah in the first Lashon, which considers the Mishnah in
Chulin to be the Ikar - because they consider our Mishnah the Ikar.
(c) Rava declines to learn like Abaye, because of his Kashya from the
Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah ('Ein ha'Shomer Tzarich Lih'yos Yoshev u'Meshamer
... '). And Abaye declines to learn like Rava - because whereas the Nochri
in the store did not touch the wine, whereas the Kuti who Shechted,
definitely touched the animal (with the knife). Consequently, whereas by the
former (from which Rava cites his proof), Yotze ve'Nishnas is sufficient, by
the latter, it is not, since it takes but a split second to render the
animal a Neveilah, the moment the Shomer leaves the store.
2. ... Rabah bar Ulah in the second Lashon, which considers the Mishnah in
Zevachim to be the Ikar - because they hold 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas
ha'Kodesh, La'av ke'Kodesh Damu', in which case, a Tamei may even Shecht it
Lechatchilah, and it is not necessary to learn Mukdashin on account of it.
3. ... Ravina in the first Lashon ('ha'Kol Mumchin Shochtin') - because they
hold of the principle 'Rov Metzuyin Eitzel Shechitah Mumchin Hein (the
majority of people who Shecht are experts.
4. ... Ravina in the second Lashon ('ha'Kol Muchzakin Shochtin') - because
they are not afraid that the Shochet might faint during the Shechitah.
(a) Rav Ashi declines to learn like Abaye and Rava - because he holds -
already at the time of the Mishnah Kutim were Geirei Arayos (not genuine
Geirim, as will be explained later).
(b) Abaye declines to learn like Rav Ashi, because he disagrees with Rava
('Yisrael Ochel Neveilos le'Te'avon ... '), on whom Rav Ashi's opinion is
based. Rava, on the other hand, obviously concurs with Rav Ashi - and the
only reason that he cites 'ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu Kuti ... be'Yotzei
ve'Nichnas' is - to counter Abaye (to say that even if one were to establish
the Mishnah by a Kuti, it would be by a case of 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' (and not
by 'Omed al Gabav').