ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 27
CHULIN 27 - Sponsored through the generous contribution of Reb Uri Wolfson
and family. May he continue to see his children grow in Torah and Yir'as
Shamayim, following in the footsteps of their illustrious parents and
***** Perek ha'Shochet *****
(a) Our Mishnah discusses the Shi'ur Shechitah of animals and birds. The
former require the cutting of two Simanim, the latter, one.
(b) For the Shechitah to be Kasher - one needs to Shecht the majority of the
Si'man (half is Pasul).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah requires Shechting the jugular veins too - when Shechting
(d) ... in order to drain the blood.
(a) The problem with the Lashon 'ha'Shochet' with which the Perek begins -
is that it implies Bedi'eved, and if Shechting the two Simanim of an animal
is Kasher only Bedi'eved, then what is one supposed to do Lechatchilah?
(b) One of the two answers that we give is that 'ha'Shochet' (Bedi'eved)
refers to the one Si'man of a bird. The other - that it refers to the
majority of one Si'man. In other words, Lechatchilah, the Shochet is
supposed to Shecht both Simanim completely, even when Shechting birds.
(c) Rav Kahana tries to learn from ...
1. ... the Lashon "Ve'shachat" - that the Shechitah must be performed on the
neck (because "Ve'shachat" is the acronym of 'be'Makom she'Shach, Chat'eihu'
[prepare it for eating, or cleanse it of its blood, in the place where it
(d) And we know that Shechitah is performed on the neck, and not on other
parts of its body which also bend, such as ...
2. ... the Pasuk "Ve'chitei es ha'Bayis", or from the Pasuk in Tehilim
"Techat'eini be'Eizov ve'Et'har" - that 'Chatei' is a Lashon of cleansing
1. ... the tail - because the Lashon 'bends' implies that it can be bent at
will, but is generally straight, whereas a tail is bent naturally.
2. ... the ear (or the knee) - because Shechitah requires Dam ha'Nefesh,
blood that is life-giving (and which causes the animal to die when it is
drained), which is not the case regarding blood from the ear. And we learn
this from the Shechitah of Kodshim, where the Torah writes, in Acharei-Mos,
"Damo be'Nafsho ... ".
(a) The problem with the previous D'rashah is that it would be possible to
Shecht from the ear and still obtain Dam ha'Nefesh - by tearing the animal
from the ear up to a point where there is Dam ha'Nefesh.
(b) Rav Yeimar tries to learn Shechitah from the Pasuk "Vezavachta
mi'Bekarcha u'mi'Tzoncha". The acronym of "Ve'zavachta" is - 'mi'Makom
she'Zav, Chat'eihu' (break it in a place where it flows.
(c) He learns from the Pasuk "Al Tiyra ve'Al *Teichas*" - that 'Chat'eihu'
(d) We know that Shechitah is not then performed on the nose - because the
mucus (to which 'flows' refers), flows on its own accord, and not on account
of the breaking, as implied by "Ve'shachat".
(e) "Ve'shachat" might nevertheless be referring - to the heart, from which
blood will flow when it is pierced.
(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael tries to learn Shechitah from "Ve'shachat",
which can also be read 'Ve'sachat' - which in turn, is the acronym of
'Ve'sachat' 'be'Makom she'Sach, Chat'eihu' (in the location where it speaks
[the throat], break it]).
(b) We refute that however - by suggesting that maybe the Torah is referring
to tearing the animal open from the nose (as we explained above).
(c) We remain with one Kashya on each of the above opinions (from the ear,
from the heart and from the tongue, respectively). We add to that the
Kashya - that even after their respective Pesukim, from where do we know the
five Pesulim ('Shehiyah, D'rasah, Chaladah ... ').
(a) We therefore conclude - that the real source of Shechitah (including the
five Pesulim) is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai').
(b) And we conclude that "Ve'shachat" comes to teach us not to make the
animal a Gist'ra. Besides the Isur of D'rasah, this might mean - not to cut
through the entire neck.
(c) And the word "Ve'shachat" then implies 'to extract the blood' (or 'to
prepare the animal for eating) and no more.
(d) We might also learn the P'sul of D'rasah from "Ve'shachat" (despite the
'Halachah ... '), in which case, we will interpret "Ve'shachat" as drawing
(the knife, which one can control [as opposed to chopping off the head,
which one cannot]).
(a) The problem Rebbi Chiya in a Beraisa, has with the Pasuk "Ve'archu B'nei
Aharon ha'Kohanim es ha'Nesachim (the pieces), *es ha'Rosh ve'es ha'Pader*
(the fat)" is - why the Torah finds it necessary to single out the head and
the Pader (the fat), which seem to be included in "Nesachim".
(b) Based on the Pasuk "Ve'hifshit es ha'Olah Ve'nitach Osah li'Nesachim",
we learn from "es Rosho ve'es Pidro, Ve'Arach" - that although the head,
which was already severed (Halachically, and to all intents and purposes)
before the skinning (and which was not skinned together with the rest of the
animal), it must nevertheless be arranged on the Mizbe'ach together with all
the other pieces (that were).
(a) They brought the head on the Mizbe'ach - intact; wool, beard, bones,
nerves, horns, hooves and all.
(b) We deal with the fact that the previous D'rashah began with "es ha'Rosh
ve'es ha'Pader", and concluded with "es Rosho ve'es Pidro ve'Arach" - by
amending the quote to the original Pasuk ...
(c) ... and we learn from the latter quote - that the head and the fat are
the first of all the limbs to be placed on the Mizbe'ach.
(d) Whilst from "ve'es ha'Pader" we learn - that upon bringing the head on
the Mizbe'ach, one covers the Beis-ha'Shechitah with it, because it is full
of blood, and it is not Kavod ha'Makom to bring it open in such a state.
(a) There are two distinctions between Beheimah and Of regarding Tum'ah.
1. An animal is Metamei be'Maga u've'Masa (through either touching or
carrying, but a bird is not.
(b) And the Tana of another Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Zos Toras
ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of", learns the Din of a bird from that of an animal - in
that it requires Shechitah (as the Torah writes in Vayikra, by the latter
"Ve'shachat es ben ha'Bakar").
2. A bird on the other hand, is Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah (the
person who eats it together with the clothes that he is wearing) but an
animal is not.
(c) We know that both Simanim of an animal need to be cut - from the
previous Amud, where we required a Pasuk to include the head in "Ve'arach",
even though it has already been severed).
(d) And he subsequently learns from "Zos" - that although a bird requires
Shechitah like an animal, only an animal requires both Simanim to be cut,
but not a bird.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa learns the same Hekesh, only he learns
Beheimah from Of - that Beheimah, like Of (by which it is written "u'Malak
es Rosho mi'Mul Orpo") must be killed at the neck
(b) He then learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Malak es Rosho mi'Mul *Orpo*" - that only a bird requires
Shechitah at the back of the neck; whereas an animal, must be Shechted at
(c) We know that a bird only requires the Shechitah of one Si'man - because
the Torah writes by the Melikah of a Chatas ha'Of "ve'Lo Yavdil" (and the
reason that an Olas ha'Of requires the cutting of two Simanim is due to the
Mitzvah of Havdalah (as we learned in the first Perek).
2. ... "*Zos* Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" (in Shemini, quoted in the
previous Beraisa) - that only a bird requires the Shechitah of only one
Si'man, but an animal requires two.
(a) The Pasuk concludes "ve'Chol Nefesh ha'Chayah ha'Romeses ba'Mayim".
Tani bar Kapara extrapolates from the fact that the Torah places the Din of
birds in between that of animals and fish - that on the one hand, the
Torah's comparison of birds to fish dictates that they cannot require the
Shechitah of two Simanim (like animals); one the other hand, the comparison
to animals dictates that they cannot just be torn open (like fish). The
outcome is that they require one Si'man to be Shechted.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ha'Tzon u'Vakar Yishachet Lahem, im es Kol
Degei ha'Yam Ye'asef Lahem" - that fish are permitted when they are
gathered, and do not require Shechitah.
(c) We query this Limud however, from the Pasuk there "Va'ya'sfu es
ha'Selav" - which cannot come to exempt birds from Shechitah (as that would
clash with the Torah's comparison of birds to animals, as we just
(d) We nevertheless justify the different translations - since "Ye'asef"
written by fish occurs in the same Pasuk as Shechitah (which it therefore
comes to preclude), whereas "Va'ya'asfu" written by birds is not.
(a) Ubar Gelila'ah explains that animals require the Shechitah of both
Simanim, because they were created from earth, and fish require none,
because they were created from water - since the tougher the element from
which a creature is created, the more vitality it possesses, and the more
difficult it is to kill it.
(b) A bird, he explains - requires the Shechitah of only one Si'man, because
Hashem created it out of mud, which is a combination of the two.
(c) Shmuel Keputka'ah proves the connection between birds and fish - from
the fact that the former have scales on their legs.
(d) When Kontrikun the Mayor pointed out an apparent discrepancy between the
Pasuk in Bereishis, where Hashem ordered the water to produce the birds, and
the Pasuk there which records how Hashem created them from earth, Raban
Gamliel (see Tosfos DH 've'Od Sha'alo') answered - that they were made from
mud (as we just explained).
(a) Raban Gamliel's Talmidim reacted to the above explanation - by looking
at each other (a sign that they did not like their Rebbe's answer).
(b) He replied that this is what he told his enemy (to get him off his
back), but that in reality - they were created from water.
(c) Nevertheless, he explained, the Torah adds "ve'es Kol Of ha'Shamayim",
after the Pasuk "Va'yitzer Hashem Elokim min ha'Adamah Kol Chayas
ha'Sadeh" - because it pertains to the following phrase, which describes how
Hashem brought all the animals to Adam, to give them names (and not to the
previous one, which teaches us from what the animals were created).
(d) Others invert the two answers of Raban Gamliel, telling Kontrikun the
Mayor that Hashem created the birds out of water, and his Talmidim that they
were made out of mud - because when all's said and done, the birds are
inserted in the Pasuk of "Va'yitzer" (or because even the Pasuk which
describes the birds' creation from water, adds the words "al ha'Aretz").
(a) Rav Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas learns from the
Pasuk (in connection with Kisuy ha'Dam) "Ve'shafach es Damo ... " - that one
only needs to spill the blood of a bird, but not to Shecht it.
(b) And he learns from the Hekesh "Zos Toras ha'Beheimah ve'ha'Of" - that
Shechitas ha'Of is performed on the neck (like the Melikah of a Kodshim bird
[like Rebbi Eliezer learned above]).
(c) He defines a Nivlas Of - as one that either died naturally or that was
killed on a part of the body other than the Simanim.
(d) In spite that the Pasuk is talking about Chayos as well as Ofos, Rav
Yehudah learns that "Ve'shafach es Damo" is coming to exempt birds from
Shechitah, and not Chayos - because it is written immediately after "O Of
(a) We ask on Rav Yehudah from the Beraisa 'ha'Shochet ve'Nisnablah be'Yado,
ha'Nocher v'ha'Me'aker, Patur mi'Lechasos' - why, seeing as Shechitah is not
necessary, Nocher does not obligate Kisuy ha'Dam?
(b) To answer this - we establish the Beraisa by a Chayah (which Rav Yehudah
agrees, requires Shechitah).
(c) We ask on him further from another Beraisa, where the Tana - obligates
someone who Shechts, because he needs the blood to cover it (even though he
does not intend to eat the bird or the Chayah [as we shall now see]).
(d) To avoid having to cover the blood, the Tana advises 'O Nochro O Okro'.
We think that the Tana is talking about a bird (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah) -
because the blood is a known antidote against moths.
(e) We answer - by establishing this Beraisa too, by a Chayah, whose blood
is also useful to dye leather red (even though this may be less common than
the previous use).