Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 20

1) THE MEANING OF "ROVIN"

OPINIONS: The sons of Rebbi Chiya said (19b) that the Mitzvah of Melikah is done by pulling the Simanim to the back of the neck (where Melikah must take place) and cutting the Simanim there with the fingernail. Rebbi Yanai challenged their statement from the words of the Mishnah (19b), and he said, "The 'Rovin' should accept the refutation from the Mishnah...." What is the meaning of the word, "Rovin," which Rebbi Yanai used to describe the sons of Rebbi Chiya)?

(a) RASHI explains that "Rovin" means "youths" (see Tamid 1:1, Sukah 5b, Chagigah 13b).

(b) The PNEI MOSHE (quoted by RAV REUVEN MARGOLIOS in L'CHEKER SHEMOS V'KINUYIM, p. 55) suggests another explanation for the word based on the Yerushalmi (Chalah 4:4, quoted by TOSFOS on Chulin 7a, DH v'Hitir). The Yerushalmi teaches that the "Rovin" annulled the practice of separating Terumah from produce that was grown outside of Eretz Yisrael (see Insights to Chulin 6:5). The Yerushalmi continues and says, "Who are the 'Rovin'? They are people from Turgema (Turkey)."

The Pnei Moshe explains that these sages were Yehudah and Chizkiyah, the sons of Rebbi Chiya, whom Rebbi Yanai calls "Rovin" in our Gemara, as well as in the Yerushalmi Chagigah (3:4). Apparently, "Rov" was the name of the district in Turkey from which these outstanding scholars came. (We find that Torah scholars came from this district even in the days of the Ge'onim, as Rav Reuven Margolios points out.) This thesis is reinforced by the fact that Chizkiyah, the son of Rebbi Chiya, is occasionally referred to as "Chizkiyah the Turk" (Bereishis Rabah 48:11).

This sheds light on another ambiguous title that is used by the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi often refers to Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshiya as "Rebbi Chiya Rava" and "Rebbi Oshiya Rava." Rav Reuven Margolios suggests that "Rava" (or "Rova") may be the singular form of "Rovin," meaning "from the district of Rov." (Rebbi Oshiya indeed is called "Rebbi Oshiya of Turkey" in Bereishis Rabah 51:9.)

Rav Reuven Margolios adds that this also explains the cryptic words of the Tikunei Zohar Chadash (98a) that states, "Anyone known as 'Rebbi' comes from Eretz Yisrael, anyone known as 'Rav' comes from Bavel, anyone known as 'Rava' comes from other lands." Where do we find the name "Rava" used as a title of respect, and from which lands do its bearers originate? Perhaps "Rava" is a title given to the scholars of Turkey, referring both to their stature as scholars and to the name of their district of origin, "Rov"!

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah (19b) that says that whatever is valid for Shechitah is invalid for Melikah, and whatever is valid for Melikah is invalid for Shechitah." The Gemara suggests that this statement refers to using a tooth or a nail for Shechitah.

RASHI explains that this refers to a tooth or nail that is attached. They are invalid for the *Shechitah* of an animal because they are "Mechubar," and the Mishnah earlier (15b) teaches that something that is "Mechubar" is invalid for Shechitah. For *Melikah*, however, a nail is not only valid, but it *must* be used.

What, though, does the Gemara mean when it mentions that a "tooth" may not be used for Shechitah, but may be used for Melikah? Melikah cannot be done with a tooth; it must be done with the nail on the right hand! How can a tooth be used for Melikah?

AMSWERS:

(a) RASHI and TOSFOS answer that the Gemara mentions a tooth only because a tooth is mentioned in the Mishnah (15b) together with a nail with regard to the laws of Shechitah. In truth, though, a tooth cannot be used for Melikah, just as it cannot be used for Shechitah.

(b) In his second answer, TOSFOS suggests that perhaps the requirement to use the right hand for Melikah does not exclude using a tooth, but rather it excludes only using the left hand. Using one's tooth to do Melikah, though, *is* acceptable. He proves this from the laws of Chalitzah. The act of Chalitzah (untying the shoe) may not be done with the left hand, and yet it may be done with the teeth.

The TZAFNAS PANE'ACH (Hilchos Kil'ayim, p. 3a) explains that the two opinions in Tosfos depending upon whether the law regarding Melikah requires that it must be done specifically with the right hand, or whether the law requires that it *not* be done with the left hand. The difference between the two approaches is whether or not Melikah may be done with a tooth. If the right hand *must* be used, then a tooth will be invalid (as RASHI and TOSFOS understand in the first answer). If, however, the Halachah does not require use of the right hand as long as the left hand is not used, then a tooth may be used for Melikah, since it is not the left hand. This is consistent with the second answer of Tosfos. (Z. Wainstein)

OPINIONS: Rebbi Yirmeyah in the name of Shmuel says that one may perform Melikah to a bird at the areas of the back of its neck that correspond to the areas at which one may perform Shechitah to an animal (in the front of its neck). The Gemara infers from this statement that the converse is true as well -- any area that is invalid for Shechitah is also invalid for Melikah. The Gemara asks what this inference teaches us. It cannot be teaching that "Ikur Simanim" (tearing out the Simanim) disqualifies Melikah, because Rami bar Yechezkel teaches that "Ikur Simanim" does not apply to birds.

What is the "Ikur Simanim" that the Gemara here mentions? Is it the same as the Pesul of "Ikur" that is one of the five main laws of Shechitah (9a, 28a, and elsewhere)?

(a) RASHI earlier (9a, DH Shehiyah Derasah) explains that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of "Ikur" teaches that tearing apart the Kaneh or Veshet invalidates the Shechitah and makes the animal become a Neveilah. It does not seem to be logical, though, that the Gemara here would think that Shmuel is teaching us a Halachah about tearing out an animal's Simanim by stating what areas are *valid* for Shechitah and Melikah. Rather, it seems clear that the "Ikur Simanim" mentioned here refers to cutting the Simanim in the improper place, in a way that causes the animal to become a Tereifah (but not a Neveilah). Shmuel is teaching us that just as an animal is not Kosher if the Simanim are slaughtered out of the proper place, a bird, too, is not Kosher if Melikah is performed out of the proper place. TOSFOS (9a, DH Kulhu Taninhu) understands that according to Rashi, this type of "Ikur Simanim" makes the animal a Tereifah.

TOSFOS here (DH Ileima) asks a number questions on Rashi's explanation. According to Rashi, the Pesul of "Ikur Simanim" mentioned in the Gemara here causes the animal to become a Tereifah. It is difficult, however, to learn the Gemara this way. Why does Shmuel need to teach us that "Ikur Simanim" invalidates the Melikah of a bird as well as the Shechitah of an animal? We already know that any blemish that constitutes a Tereifah in the case of a bird should similarly constitute a Tereifah in the case of an animal, and we have no reason to assume otherwise. We know that the laws of Tereifos apply to birds just as they apply to animals!

In addition, why does the Gemara say that the opinion that "Ikur Simanim" does not apply to birds follows only the opinion that a bird does not have to undergo Shechitah according to Torah law (but rather it suffices to do Nechirah, tearing the Simanim lengthwise)? What does one opinion have to do with the other? The problem of "Ikur Simanim" is that the animal becomes a *Tereifah*, while the opinion that a bird does not need Shechitah means that it is not a *Neveilah* if Nechirah is done to it. The opinion that holds that a bird does need Shechitah (and becomes a Neveilah if Nechirah is done to it) can also hold that "Ikur Simanim" does not make it a Tereifah!

(b) Tosfos quotes the BEHAG who explains that "Ikur Simanim" means that the animal becomes a *Neveilah* if the Kaneh or Veshet was cut after being ripped out of its natural place in a manner that does not make the animal a Tereifah. This is a special Halachah that teaches that the animal becomes a Neveilah if it was slaughtered with its Siman out of place. The Behag understands that before the animal is slaughtered it is *not* called a *Tereifah* even though its Simanim are out of place. According to the Behag, the Gemara is suggesting that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of "Ikur" applies to birds as well. The Gemara then says that this is not true, as we know that Rami bar Yechezkel learns that "Ikur Simanim" does not apply to birds.

The RITVA explains that Rashi also understands that our Gemara is discussing the case of the Behag. Although Rashi earlier (9a) explains "Ikur" differently (as we mentioned above), Rashi holds that both cases are cases of "Ikur Simanim." This obviously answers Tosfos' questions on Rashi.

If Rashi agrees to the Behag, then why does he describe "Ikur" as tearing apart one of the Simanim, and not the same way as the Behag (cutting a Siman that was out of place)? The SHITAH MEKUBETZES explains that the other four laws of Shechitah involve actions done by the Shochet that make the animal not Kosher. This type of act better describes the case of tearing apart the Siman, as opposed to a "slipped Siman" that is cut out of place. (See also Tosfos on 9a, who asks this as a question on the Behag's view.)

There is an obvious Halachic difference between Tosfos' understanding of Rashi and the Ritva's understanding of Rashi. According to Tosfos, Rashi maintains that an animal with a slipped Siman is a Tereifah even before it is slaughtered. According to the Ritva, Rashi agrees with the Behag that this type of "Ikur Simanim" is a problem only during Shechitah, and therefore the animal is not a Tereifah at all.

This sheds light on a comment of the REMA (YD 24:15). The Rema says that "Ikur Simanim" does not make the animal a Tereifah while it is alive. Rather, it merely makes it impossible to perform Shechitah to the animal. Since the animal, while it is alive, is a Kosher animal, its milk (from a cow) or eggs (from a bird) may be used while it is alive, even though we know that its Simanim have moved out of place in such a way that makes it impossible to perform Shechitah.

It appears that the Rema is ruling like the Behag (see TAZ and BEIS MEIR there). However, it is also possible that the Rema learned like the opinion of the Ritva (which answers Tosfos' questions on Rashi), who explains that even Rashi agrees that the animal is not a Tereifah while it is alive. This would mean that everyone agrees that this animal is not a Tereifah. It is interesting to note that the TEVU'OS SHOR (24:26) comments that the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 24:15) does not say that the milk and eggs are permitted, because he holds that one should be stringent and follow the opinion of Tosfos in understanding Rashi, who maintains that such an animal is a Tereifah while it is alive. (Y. Montrose)

20b

OPINIONS: The Gemara rules that if Melikah was done with a knife, the bird is a Neveilah. According to one Amora, the bird is a Neveilah because cutting the bird's neck with a knife constitutes "Chaladah," inserting the knife into the middle of the thickness of the neck and cutting outwards from there.

Why, though, is Melikah with a knife considered "Chaladah," when one does not actually perform the act of "Chaladah"?

(a) RASHI explains that "Chaladah" means that the knife is not visible at the time that it cuts the Simanim. When the knife is cutting from the back of the neck to the front (in the manner in which Melikah is done), it is hidden between the vertebrae at the time that it cuts the Simanim. TOSFOS points out that according to this reasoning, if the knife was wider than the neck, then there would be no problem of Chaladah and the Melikah would not be disqualified (since the knife can be seen from the back).

(b) TOSFOS and the RITVA explain that cutting the neck from the back to the front, as opposed to cutting it from the front to the back, constitutes "Chaladah." (Z. Wainstein)

OPINIONS: Ze'iri states that when the neckbone (Mafrekes) of an animal is cut together with most of the flesh above it, the animal is considered a Neveilah (and is Metamei), even if the Simanim are then slaughtered properly. Since the animal has already been rendered a Neveilah, it does not help to cut the Simanim. Rava questions Ze'iri's statement. We know that Melikah is done to a bird at the area in the back of the neck. This means that the cut of Melikah first penetrates the neckbone and most of the flesh before the neckbone, and only afterwards does it cut the Simanim. According to Ze'iri, the cutting of the Simanim is being done on a bird which has already been killed, and thus Melikah should be invalid!

Abaye asks why Rava is bothered only with Ze'iri's statement. The Gemara itself (21a) says that when one performs Melikah to an Olas ha'Of, one must cut both Simanim. If cutting one Siman already kills the bird (and suffices for Shechitah, or Melikah of a bird), then there should be no need to cut the second Siman, as the second Siman is being cut on a dead bird!

Why is the bird considered dead after the first Siman is cut?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Chi Mesah) explains that the bird is considered dead, because it will definitely die after one Siman is cut.

The RAN and the RASHBA have difficulty with Rashi's explanation. The Gemara later (30a and 121b) teaches that when one cuts two Simanim (not in the proper manner of Shechitah) the animal is not yet Metamei as a Neveilah, but rather it is considered to be alive until it actually dies (or until its head is entirely severed). How can Rashi say that a bird is considered dead (and Melikah completed) after one Siman is cut, if, with regard to an animal, even when both Simanim are cut the animal is not considered dead yet?

(b) The Ran and the Rashba therefore explain Abaye's question differently. Rava's difficulty with Ze'iri's statement is what exactly the Melikah of the Simanim accomplishes once most of the flesh on top of the neckbone, and the neckbone itself, are cut. Abaye challenges Rava from the concept of Melikas Olas ha'Of. Even if we say that Ze'iri's ruling is incorrect, we will still have difficulty with the concept of Olas ha'Of. In the case of Melikah of an Olas ha'Of, most of the flesh on top of the neckbone, the neckbone itself, *and* a Siman is cut before the second Siman is cut. Surely the cutting and breaking of all of these things *together* should make the bird a Neveilah! When the Gemara later discusses the cutting of an animal's neck, it is discussing cutting from the *front* of the animal, and thus it does not include the cutting of the flesh on top of the neckbone and the neckbone itself before cutting the Simanim. This is why the animal is not yet a Neveilah. In contrast, when Melikah is done to a bird, all of these factors -- the cutting of the flesh, the neckbone, and one Siman -- combine, and thus the bird certainly should be considered a Neveilah before the second Siman is cut. Abaye tells Rava that he should have asked his question regardless of the statement of Ze'iri.

The MAHARSHA explains that this is actually the intention of Rashi as well. He proves this from the Gemara later (21a) which discusses the Chatas ha'Of. The Gemara says that after the cutting of the Siman of the Chatas ha'Of, one must also cut "Rov Basar," a majority of the flesh of the neck. If we understand that Rashi maintains that the cutting of one Siman gives the bird the status of a Neveilah, then why does Abaye here not ask from the case of Chatas ha'Of as well? He should have asked that there is no point in cutting more than one Siman, since the animal dies when one Siman is cut!

The Maharsha explains that Abaye does not ask this question because, in the case of a Chatas ha'Of, when one Siman has been cut, most of the flesh has not yet been cut. Since only one Siman has been cut, the animal is not yet considered dead. Rashi agrees that in order for a bird to be considered a Neveilah (in the question of Abaye and Rava), it would have to have the criteria of Ze'iri -- the neckbone and flesh being cut -- and have one Siman cut. (See also HE'OROS B'MASECHES CHULIN.) (Y. Montrose)

QUESTION: Ze'iri states that when the neckbone (Mafrekes) of an animal is cut together with most of the flesh above it, the animal is considered a Neveilah (and is Metamei), even if the Simanim are then slaughtered properly. Since the animal has already been rendered a Neveilah, it does not help to cut the Simanim. Rava questions Ze'iri's statement. We know that Melikah is done to a bird at the area in the back of the neck. This means that the cut of Melikah first penetrates the neckbone and most of the flesh before the neckbone, and only afterwards does it cut the Simanim. According to Ze'iri, the cutting of the Simanim is being done on a bird which has already been killed, and thus Melikah should be invalid!

Abaye asks why Rava is bothered only with Ze'iri's statement. The Gemara itself (21a) says that when one performs Melikah to an Olas ha'Of, one must cut both Simanim. If cutting one Siman already kills the bird (and suffices for Shechitah, or Melikah of a bird), then there should be no need to cut the second Siman, as the second Siman is being cut on a dead bird!

Why, though, is the animal considered to be killed already after one Siman is cut? The Gemara later (21a) teaches that only when the head is totally severed is an animal considered to be dead. This implies that even after one Siman is cut, the animal is not considered Neveilah (to be Metamei); an animal that is "Mefarcheses" (twitching spasmodically) is considered to be alive. Why, then, does the Gemara here assume that once *one* Siman is cut during Melikah, the bird is considered to be a Neveilah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA explains that Abaye argues with the Gemara's assertion that an animal is considered to be alive after one Siman is cut. According to Abaye, even when only one Siman of an animal is cut (along with the Mafrekes and flesh), the animal is considered to be dead.

(b) The KEREISI U'PLEISI (110:3) offers another answer. He points out that there are two Halachos that result from an animal having the status of a Neveilah. First, a Neveilah is Metamei. Second, a Neveilah may not be eaten.

These two Halachos are not necessarily related to each other. Even if a Mefarcheses is considered alive with regard to the Tum'ah of Neveilah (and is not Metamei), perhaps the prohibition of *eating* a Neveilah applies even to an animal that is *nearly* dead. Abaye is asking that if the neckbone is broken with most of the flesh around it, the bird is considered to be a Neveilah with regard to eating it. Accordingly, his question is clear -- why must Melikah (the cutting of the second Siman) be done to a bird that is already dead?

(c) Perhaps we may suggest a simple answer as follows. The Gemara (21a) cites a Mishnah in Ohalos (1:6) to prove that when the head of animal is severed, it is considered to be dead. That Mishnah, however, mentions only "wild animals or domesticated animals." Perhaps *birds* expire more easily; when one of their Simanim is cut, they are considered to be dead! (See Rashi to Chulin 28a, DH Veshet, and DH Dilma. It is interesting to note that when TOSFOS (21a, DH Hutezu Rosheihen) quotes the Mishnah in Ohalos, he adds the word "Of" (bird), which does not appear in our text of the Mishnah.) (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Gemara suggests that whatever *must* be cut in order for an act of Shechitah to be valid must also be severed during the Melikah of a Olas ha'Of. RASHI (DH Kol ha'Me'akev) explains that this is why the skin of the bird's neck does not need to be cut during Melikah, but only the Simanim need to be cut. Rashi adds that "l'Chatchilah, all [of the Simanim] are required [to be cut]."

How can Rashi say that the two Simanim in their entirety must be cut l'Chatchilah? There is no requirement that the final minority of the Simanim must be cut!

In fact, the Gemara continues and says that it is not necessary to cut the remaining minority of the neck after the majority has been cut, and therefore it should not be necessary to cut it during Melikah!

ANSWERS:

(a) REBBI AKIVA EIGER suggests that Rashi is not referring to what must be *cut* during the Shechitah. Rather, Rashi means that the Simanim must all *be in place* during the Shechitah and not dislodged (see Rashi earlier, DH ha'Hu). This is what makes the Simanim integral to the Shechitah, and what requires the Simanim in their entirety to be in place (even though only a majority needs to be cut).

When the Gemara says that the remaining minority of the Simanim is not integral to the Shechitah, it means that the minority of the *Kaneh* (trachea) need not be in place at the time of the Shechitah (see 19b, "Chatzi Kaneh Pagum"). Even if the minority of the Kaneh is missing, the Shechitah of the rest of the Kaneh is valid.

(b) The RASHASH offers a simpler solution. The words of Rashi here are out of place. When Rashi says, "l'Chatchilah, all [of the Simanim] are required [to be cut]...," he is explaining the *conclusion* of the Gemara, when the Gemara says, "Whatever must be included (Yeshno) in the Shechitah must be cut during the Melikah." At *this* point in the Gemara, the Gemara is suggesting that the minority of the Simanim must be cut during Melikah even though they do *not* need to be cut during Shechitah. As long as they should be cut *l'Chatchilah* during the Shechitah, they must also be cut during Melikas Olas ha'Of. (Z. Wainstein)