ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 12
(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rav rules that in a case where Reuven sees Shimon
Shechting an animal - he may only eat from the animal if he watched him from
beginning to end.
(b) The problem with that is - that 'Mah Nafshach', if Reuven knows that
Shimon is conversant with the Dinim of Shechitah, then why should he have to
witness the entire Shechitah, whereas if knows that he is not, then Rav
Yehudah's ruling is obvious.
(c) We even have difficulty in establishing Rav Nachman in a case where
Reuven does not know whether Shimon is conversant with Hilchos Shechitah or
not - because then, we ought to apply the principle 'Rov Metzuyin Eitzel
Shechitah Mumchin Hein'.
(a) This is based on a Beraisa. The Tana there rules that if someone ...
1. ... finds a Shechted chicken in the street - he may eat from it.
(b) We conclude that Rav Nachman is speaking in a case where Shimon is not
conversant with the Dinim of Shechitah. Nevertheless, the Tana needs to
stress that if Reuven did not observe the entire Shechitah, it is Pasul, to
teach us - that even though Shimon Shechted one Si'man correctly, we do not
assume that he Shechted the other one correctly, too ...
2. ... asks a Sheli'ach to Shecht an animal for him, and he later finds that
it has been Shechted - he may eat from it, too.
(c) ... because we suspect that whilst Shechting the second Si'man, he made
Shehiyah or D'rasah.
(a) When Rav Dimi bar Yosef asked Rav Nachman what the Din will be if Reuven
asks Shimon to Shecht his animal and he later finds it Shechted, or if he
asks him to separate Terumah and later finds it separated, he replied that
the animal has a Chezkas Shechutah - but that the Terumah is not valid.
(b) The problem Rav Dimi bar Yosef had with Rav Nachman's seemingly
contradictory rulings was that 'Mah Nafshach' - if we assume that a
Sheli'ach performs his Shelichus, then the Terumah should be valid too,
whereas if we don't, then the Shechitah ought not to be Kasher either.
(c) When the latter said 'Lechi Teichal Alah Kura de'Milcha', he meant to
say (though in the form of a joke) - that when Rav Dimi would measure him a
Kur of salt, he would answer his She'eilos'.
(d) Even though, as Rav Nachman concluded, one cannot assume that a
Sheli'ach always fulfils his Shelichus, he nevertheless declared the
Shechitah Kasher - because, even if someone other than the Sheli'ach
Shechted the animal, we will apply the principle 'Rov Metzuyin Eitzel
(a) In a case where someone lost his kid-goats or chickens, and found them
Shechted, Rebbi Yehudah forbids them - Rebbi Chanina b'no shel Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili permits them.
(b) According to our initial understanding of Rebbi's statement, he prefers
the ruling of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - where the Shechted animal was found in a trash-heap.
(c) And the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Rov Metzuyin Eitzel
Shechitah Mumchin Hein' (Rebbi Chanina ... ) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).
2. ... Rebbi Chanina b'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - where it was found in
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains that both Tana'im agree that 'Rov
Metzuyin Eitzel Shechitah Mumchin Hein'. Consequently, if the Shechted
animal had been found ...
1. ... in the house - they would both declare it Kasher.
(b) And they are arguing - in a case where it was found in a trash-heap in
the owner's house, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a person
tends to throw his Neveilos on to the trash-heap in his house (Rebbi
Yehudah), or not (Rebbi Chanina ... ).
2. ... in a trash-heap in the street - they would both declare it Tereifah.
(c) According to Rebbi Chanina b'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, a person
would not throw his Neveilah on to the trash-heap in his house - because it
(a) Initially, we think that when Rebbi says that he prefers the ruling of
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, where the Shechted animal was found in a trash-heap -
he means a trash-heap in the house (since they both agree that if it is
found in a trash-heap in the street, it is Tereifah).
(b) The problem with this is - how Rebbi can hold like both conflicting
opinions at one and the same time.
2. ... Rebbi Chanina b'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, where it was found in
the house - he means in a trash-heap in the house (because they both agree
that if it is found in the house S'tam, both agree that it is Kasher).
(c) We therefore amend Rebbi's statement. What he really means when he says
that he prefers the ruling of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, where the Shechted animal was found in a trash-heap in
the street, he means - that even Rebbi Chanina ... will agree with Rebbi
Yehudah that if the animal was found in a trash-heap in the street it is
Tereifah (since he only argues with him when it was found in a trash-heap in
2. ... Rebbi Chanina b'no shel Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, where it was found in
the house, he means - that even Rebbi Yehudah will agree with Rebbi Chanina
... that if the animal was found in the house it is Kasher (because he only
argues with him when it was found in a trash-heap in the house).
(a) Rava extrapolates from the fact that our Mishnah states (with regard to
the Bedi'eved of a 'Chashu') 'Shema Yekalklu es Shechitasan' (in the
future), rather than 'Shema Kilkelu ... ' (in the past) - that it is so
common for them to spoil the Shechitah, that one should avoid allowing them
to Shecht Lechatchilah, even with someone watching them as they Shecht.
(b) Our Mishnah concludes, 've'Chulan she'Shachtu va'Acherim Ro'in Osam,
Shechitasan Kesheirah'. When Rava asks which Tana does not require Kavanah
for Shechitah - he is referring to a 'Chashu' (who do not have Da'as)
Shechting whilst under supervision.
(c) Even though 've'Chulan she'Shachtu ... Shechitasan Kesheirah' pertains
to a 'Chashu', the Kashya above (with reference to this very statement) 'I
Neima a'Chashu', Alah Ka'i' ('ve'Im Shachtu Miba'i Lei' [implying that it
does not] means - that it cannot refer to a 'Chashu' alone. It can however
(and does), refer to a 'Chashu' among others.
(d) Based on a statement of Oshaya Ze'ira from the B'nei Yeshivah, Rava
establishes the author as Rebbi Nasan. Oshaya Ze'ira stated in the name of
Rebbi Nasan - that if someone threw a knife to stick into a wall and the
knife Shechted whilst in flight, the Shechitah is Kasher.
(a) The Chachamim - render such a Shechitah invalid.
(b) Rava commented on this Machlokes - that the Halachah is like Rebbi
(c) We reconcile this ruling with the Halachah that requires Holachah and
Hova'ah (i.e. that the knife cuts in both directions (away and back) - by
establishing the case where the knife did indeed cut the animal's neck both
before striking the wall, and on the rebound.
(d) Alternatively - we establish the case by a knife that is two
neck-lengths, and which does not therefore require Holachah and Hova'ah, as
we shall see later.
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba cited Rebbi Yochanan, who asked whether a Katan 'has
a Machshavah' or not, meaning - that if a Katan Shechts an Olah li'Shemah
(without a supporting act that indicates what he is doing), is the Korban
Kasher or not.
(b) When Rebbi Ami countered by asking why Rebbi Yochanan did not ask
whether the Katan 'has a Ma'aseh' or not, he meant to ask - why Rebbi
Yochanan did not ask whether, if a Katan transports an Olah from the south
of the Azarah to the north, specifically stating that he was doing so in
order to Shecht it as an Olah (see Tosfos DH 've'Tiba'i leih Ma'aseh').
(c) His Kashya was really based on a Mishnah in Keilim, where the Tana
rules - that if children in play made a hole in an acorn, a pomegranate or a
nut in order to fill it with earth the acorn ... (see Rashash) is considered
a K'li and is subject to Tum'ah ...
(d) ... provided they explicitly stated why they made the hole.
(a) With regard to Machshavah however - where a child found a nut-shell, and
picked it up in order to measure earth with it, but without doing anything
to it, the nutshell remains Tahor.
(b) Rebbi Ami's Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan is - that if he knew the Mishnah,
then why did he need to ask whether a Katan has Machshavah, whereas if he
did not, why did he not ask from Ma'aseh?
(c) Rebbi Chiya's replied that Rebbi Yochanan's She'eilah was - whether a
Ma'aseh which indicates that the Katan knows what he is doing (such as
moving an Olah from the south of the Azarah to the north) but which he did
not verbalize, is considered a Ma'aseh or not.
(d) Such a Machshavah might ...
1. ... be considered as good as a Ma'aseh - because the Katan appears to
know that Kodshei Kodshim must be Shechted in the north.
2. ... not be considered as good as a Ma'aseh - because on the other hand,
it there is a slight possibility that he is only moving it to the north for
no particular reason at all, other than that he fancies moving it.