ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 80
CHULIN 80 - dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father in memory of his aunt,
Malka Gitel bas Reb Yakov Mordechai (Malvina Marmorstein), who took him into
her home and raised him like her own child after the Holocaust. Her Yahrzeit
is 20 Nisan.
(a) Rav Yehudah considers a Coy a unique species of animal. He does not
consider it the child of a deer and a goat (like Rebbi Eliezer and the
Rabbanan) - because he maintains that a Beheimah and a Chayah cannot
(b) According to Rav Yehudah - the Chachamim could not decide whether a Coy
is a Beheimah or a Chayah.
(c) Rav Nachman (who agrees with Rav Yehudah's basic reasoning) defines a
Coy as 'Ayil ha'Bar' (a ram that lives in the forest.
(d) We cite a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama supports Rav Nachman, and Rebbi
Yossi, Rav Yehudah, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel defines it as a
Beheimah, adding - that Beis Dushai (or Rashai) used to raise herds of them.
(a) Rebbi Zeira Amar ... Rav Hamnuna ruled - that 'Izi de'Bali' (i.e. forest
goats) may be brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) He does not consider them Chayos on the basis of a statement by Rebbi
Yitzchak - who said that the Torah lists ten animals in Re'ei, three
Beheimos and seven Chayos (and no more).
(c) And since the Torah does not include Izi de'Ba'ali among the Chayos,
says Rebbi Zeira - it must be a Beheimah.
(a) We ask why "Ayal u'Tzvi ... ve'Ako ... U'se'o va'Zamer" should not be a
'P'rat' and "Kol Beheimah" a 'K'lal' - in which case we would include many
other species (among them, perhaps, the Izi de'Ba'ali).
(b) We refute this
Kashya however, on the grounds that - if it was, then why would the Torah
need to insert so many animals in the P'rat.
(c) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika asked that perhaps the Izi de'Ba'ali are a
species of Ako, and Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava (or b'rei de'Rav Ivya) asked Rav
Ashi - that perhaps it belongs to the species of Se'o va'Zamer.
(d) Judging by what Rav Chanan told Rav Ashi, citing a ruling of Ameimar,
the latter seems to consider Izi de'Ba'ali a Chayah. Ameimar - permitted
(a) In response to a She'eilah from Aba b'rei de'Rav Menimin bar Chiya, Rav
Huna bar Chiya cited a Beraisa, in connection with the Shor ha'Bar. The
Rabbanan there prove from the fact that Unklus translates "Se'o" as
'Turbala' (the acronym of 'Tor Bala' [a forest ox]) - that it must be a
(b) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Tana Kama. He maintains - that it must be
a Chayah, since the Pasuk mentions it together with the Chayos ('Davar
(c) Rav Huna bar Chiya now extrapolates from there - that since the Tana
Kama and Rebbi Yossi only argue over a Shor ha'Bar, and not over Izi
de'Bala, they evidently agree that the latter is a species of goat.
(d) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika, Ravina and Ameimar respectively, ask that -
perhaps it is a species of Ako, Se'o va'Zamer, or that it is definitely a
species of Chayah, whose Cheilev is permitted.
(a) Rebbi Oshaya points out that our entire Mishnah does not go like Rebbi
Shimon, who rules in a Mishnah later in the Perek - 'Shechitah she'Einah
Re'uyah Lo Sh'mah Shechitah' (meaning that if a Shechitah does not permit
the animal to be eaten, it is not considered a Shechitah).
(b) Consequently, if the Shechitah of the first animal is Pasul, then one is
permitted to Shecht the second one on the same day.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Kodshim ba'Chutz, ha'Rishon Chayav
Kareis, u'Sheneihem Pesulim, u'Sheneihem Sofgim es ha'Arba'im'. According to
Rebbi Shimon - the first animal is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, therefore
he ought to be Chayav Kareis (and not just Malkos) for the second one.
(b) We learn that Shechutei Chutz is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah - from
the Pasuk in Mikeitz (in connection with Yosef and his brothers) "u'Tevo'ach
Tevach ve'Hachein" (which teaches us that a Shechitah must prepare the
animal for eating).
(c) Nevertheless, one is Chayav for Shechutei Chutz - because the Torah says
so (i.e. it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv').
(a) 'Chulin bi'Fenim, Sheneihem Pesulim, ve'ha'Sheini Sofeg es ha'Arba'im'.
Rebbi Shimon will object to that - because seeing as the first Shechitah was
a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, the second one is no longer subject to 'Oso
ve'es B'no', and he ought to be Patur for Shechting it (even though it is
Pasul because of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah).
(b) 'Kodshim bi'Fenim, ha'Rishon Kasher u'Patur, ve'ha'Sheini Sofeg es
ha'Arba'im u'Pasul'. The problem Rebbi Shimon has with this is - that,
according to him, every Shechitas Kodshim is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah',
since it is the Zerikas Dam that permits the Basar to be eaten, not the
Shechitah; in which case, not only should the second Shochet not receive
Malkos, but the Korban ought to be Kasher.
(c) What Rebbi Oshaya is coming to teach us is - that Rebbi Shimon will even
argue with the ruling in the third case. We might otherwise have thought
that, seeing as the Shechitah is vital for the Hechsher of the Korban
(because if the Kohen were to sprinkle the blood of the Korban after the
animal was killed by Nechirah, it would be Pasul), he will consider it a
(a) In the case of Kodshim bi'Fenim, the Tana sentences the second Shochet
to Malkos because of 'Oso ve'es B'no'. When, quoting a Beraisa, we ask that
he ought to be Chayav a second set of Malkos, we are referring to the La'av
of "ve'Shor va'Seh Saru'a ve'Kalut ... u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh" (which
presents an extra La'av for all Pesulin of Shor va'Seh).
(b) We query the answer that the Tana is only concerned with the La'av of
'Oso ve'es B'no' - on the grounds that he does mention Malkos for Shechutei
Chutz (regarding the first Shochet in the case of Kodshim ba'Chutz).
(c) We answer that the Tana mentions the Malkos of Shechutei Chutz regarding
the first Shochet in the case of Kodshim ba'Chutz - only because he is not
Chayav for Oso ve'es B'no; whereas regarding the second Shochet in the case
of Kodshim bi'Fenim, who is, he declines to mention the Malkos of
"u'le'Neder Lo Yeratzeh"?
(a) Rebbi Zeira answers that the La'av of "Lo Yeratzeh" is different -
because, based on the Pasuk "mi'Yom ha'Shemini va'Hal'ah Yeratzeh ... ", it
is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (for which there is no Malkos [see also Tosfos
DH 'Hanach li'Mechusar Z'man']).
(b) This is a case of 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei', and not of a 'La'av
she'Kadmo Asei' (like that of "Lo Sikach ha'Eim al ha'Banim" ... "Shale'ach
Teshalach es ha'Eim ... ") - because the La'av clearly applies to the first
seven days, whereas the Asei can only apply to the eighth (unlike the Asei
of "Shale'ach Teshalach", which can apply equally to before "Lo Sikach" as
to after it).
(a) Rebbi Apturiki extrapolates from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ve'hayah *Shiv'as Yamim* Tachas Imo" that - the La'av of Mechusar
Z'man becomes permitted already on the eighth night.
(b) We reconcile the apparent contradiction - by applying the Heter of the
first Pasuk to the Hekdesh (the declaration), and the Isur of the second, to
the actual bringing of the Korban.
2. ... "*ba'Yom ha'Shemini* Titno Li" - that it is only permitted on the day
of the eighth, and not in the night.
(c) The Kashya this poses on the previous D'rashah is - how we can learn two
different D'rashos from the same Pasuk?
(d) And we answer - by citing a second Pasuk (in Mishpatim) "Kein Ta'aseh
le'Shorcha le'Tzonecha ... ba'Yom ha'Shemini Titno Li" (leaving us with an
independent Pasuk for each Asei).