Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 30

1) THE "MUM" CAUSED BY SHECHITAH

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a person slaughters a Korban Pesach during Chol ha'Mo'ed Pesach, while he has Chametz in his possession. His Korban Pesach had become lost before Pesach, and he found it after Pesach arrived. Slaughtering a valid Korban (either the Korban Pesach on the afternoon of Erev Pesach, or any valid Korban during Pesach) while one has Chametz in his possession is prohibited because of the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" (Shemos 34:25). Slaughtering a Korban Pesach during the festival itself invalidates the Korban, since a Korban Pesach slaughtered, at the wrong time, with intention that it is a Korban Pesach is Pasul. Consequently, one who slaughters it with Chametz in his possession is not Chayav, because he has slaughtered a Korban that is Pasul. If, however, there is "Akirah" -- the owner slaughters it with intention that it no longer be a Korban Pesach but rather a Korban Shelamim, then the Korban is valid. Consequently, if he has Chametz in his possession, then he transgresses the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz."

The Gemara says that according to Reish Lakish, who holds that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof" -- "the act of Shechitah is not considered to be Shechitah until the end," the beginning of the Shechitah of the Korban Pesach renders it unfit to be offered as a Korban Pesach, and this qualifies as an "Akirah" to transform the Korban into a Korban Shelamim. Consequently, when the Shechitah is completed, the person has slaughtered a valid Korban Shelamim on Pesach while having Chametz in his possession, and he is Chayav for transgressing the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz."

The Gemara rejects this and says that even according to Reish Lakish, the one who slaughters the Korban Pesach in this situation is not Chayav. This is because as soon as the Shechitah begins, the animal becomes a Ba'al Mum and is fit to be redeemed for money that will be used to buy another Korban Pesach. Therefore it does not become a Shelamim.

We see from the Gemara that even the beginning of a Shechitah can be considered a Mum to allow us to redeem the animal. This is problematic, though, in light of the Gemara elsewhere. The Gemara in Bava Kama (76a) says that the Shechitah of a Korban that is slaughtered outside of the Azarah ("Shechutei Chutz") is considered a "Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah" -- a Shechitah that was performed properly but that does not permit the animal to be eaten. TOSFOS there (end of DH Shechitah) asks why the Shechitah of "Shechutei Chutz" is considered to be a Shechitah that does not permit the animal to be eaten -- we can redeem the animal after Shechitah and, once it becomes Chulin, we can eat it! Its Shechitah, therefore, does permit it to be eaten!

Tosfos answers that an animal of Kodshim can be redeemed only when it has be come disqualified from being offered as a Korban by receiving a Mum (or some other disqualifying factor) while it is alive. In the case of "Shechutei Chutz," the animal became disqualified only after its death, after the Shechitah was performed. Therefore, the animal in the case of "Shechutei Chutz" cannot be redeemed.

However, we see from the Gemara here that as soon as the Shechitah begins, before the animal dies, the Shechitah constitutes a Mum that makes the animal redeemable. Since an animal that is slaughtered acquires a Mum before its death, "Shechutei Chutz" should be redeemable, like any animal that acquired a Mum while it was alive! How, then, can Tosfos say that "Shechutei Chutz" did not acquire a Mum before its death?

ANSWERS:

(a) RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV shlit'a (quoted in HE'OROS L'MASECHES CHULIN) answers this question as follows. According to the opinion that maintains "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof," as soon as the Shechitah begins, the animal becomes a Ba'al Mum and is not fit to be offered as a Korban. When the animal is slaughtered outside of the Azarah, how can the person be Chayav for "Shechutei Chutz" at the end of the Shechitah? He ended up slaughtering an animal that was unfit to be a Korban, and the Chiyuv of "Shechutei Chutz" applies only to one who slaughters an animal that is fit to be a Korban!

It must be that in the case of "Shechutei Chutz," the beginning of the Shechitah does *not* cause the animal to become a Ba'al Mum. It remains fit to be a Korban. For the same reason, the animal does not become redeemable.

This answers the question of Tosfos that "Shechutei Chutz" should be considered a "Shechitah Re'uyah" since the animal can be redeemed and eaten. The animal remains fit and does *not* become redeemable as a result of the Shechitah; the Mum that comes about through Shechitah is not considered a Mum.

(b) The SEFER YERE'IM (#281) asks why one is Chayav for "Shechutei Chutz" when the Shechitah takes effect only at the end of the Shechitah, after the animal has already become unfit to be a Korban (as a result of the beginning of the Shechitah). The Yere'im answers that the types of Mum that disqualify a Korban are those that come about in ways other than the process of preparing the Korban. Since the Mum that is caused by the beginning of the Shechitah comes about through a stage that is necessary in the preparation of the Korban (i.e. Shechitah), it is not the type of Mum that disqualifies the Korban. (Even though the animal that is slaughtered outside the Azarah will not be brought as a Korban, the animal itself is fit to have a proper Shechitah done to it.)

In contrast, in the case of our Gemara, the Korban Pesach cannot be offered as a Korban Pesach during Chol ha'Mo'ed. It is inherently unfit to be a Korban Pesach, and thus the beginning of the Shechitah *does* cause it to become a Ba'al Mum. Since it is not fit to be prepared to be offered, its Shechitah is not a necessary stage in its preparation, and thus it constitutes a Mum. (See also MISHNAS REBBI AHARON, Kodshim #16.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OPINIONS: Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that "one who cuts in two or three places, the Shechitah is valid." In what way is this Shechitah performed?

(a) RASHI explains that this means that the Shochet started to cut the neck at one point, stopped cutting, and immediately continued the Shechitah at another point, either above or below the first cut.

TOSFOS elaborates and says that it is obvious that when one cuts a small part of the Simanim at one point and another small part at another point, the two cuts cannot be combined to attain the necessary size of the cut. A majority of each Siman must be cut at the same place. However, if the two cuts were made at the same place, thereby cutting a Rov of the Simanim, then this is an ordinary, valid Shechitah, and Rav Yehudah is not teaching anything new!

Tosfos explains that, according to Rashi's explanation, we might have thought that the Shechitah is not valid, because the Shechitah is valid only when the cut widens as the knife passes through it. When only a cut is made through the majority of the Siman, the cut widens. When one small cut is made at one point on the neck, and then another cut is made above it or below it, only the second cut widens, but not the first cut.

(b) Tosfos quotes the SHE'ILTOS who suggests that the "two or three places" refer to making separate cuts in the circumference of the Siman (either on the same level of the Siman or at different levels), in such a way that the three cuts combine to make a majority of the width of the Siman.

(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU CHANANEL who explains that "two places" refers to two different Simanim; that is, the cuts through the two Simanim were done at different levels, one higher up on the neck, and one lower down on the neck. (As Tosfos points out, since there are only two Simanim, there can never be "three" cuts in different places according to Rabeinu Chananel's explanation. Why, then, does Rav Yehudah mention "two or *three* places"? Perhaps "three" is Lav Davka, and, as the RITVA explains earlier (see Insights to Chulin 3:5), the phrase "two or three" is a colloquial terminology.)

30b

OPINIONS: Rav Papa asks what the Halachah is in a case in which the Shochet was "Hichlid b'Mi'ut Simanim," and the Gemara leaves his question unanswered ("Teiku").

How exactly was this act of Chaladah done?

(a) RASHI explains that the after the Shochet cut the majority of the Simanim properly, he did Chaladah to the remaining minority. Rashi writes that we learn from here that in all cases in which the majority of the Simanim were cut properly but the remaining minority was cut incorrectly, the Shechitah is invalid.

(b) TOSFOS quotes RABEINU TAM who explains that the Gemara is discussing a case in which the first, and not the last, minority was cut with Chaladah. According to Rabeinu Tam, if the Chaladah took place during the final minority, the Shechitah is valid.

(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU OSHIYA who explains that after cutting a majority of the first Siman properly, the Shochet inserted the knife underneath (or behind) the remaining minority of the first Siman and cut the second Siman.

HALACHAH: The RIVAM (cited by Tosfos) agrees with Rashi that the case of "Hichlid b'Mi'ut Simanim" refers to cutting the remaining minority with Chaladah. However, he disagrees with Rashi's comparison of Chaladah to the other types of Pesulim that invalidate Shechitah, such as Hagramah and Ikur. He rules that even though Chaladah done to the final minority invalidates the Shechitah, Hagramah and Ikur do not invalidate the Shechitah when done to the final minority.

The difference between Chaladah and the other Pesulim is as follows. When one cuts the majority of a Siman, the rule of "Rubo k'Chulo" applies, and we consider the entire Siman to have been cut. However, when the entire Siman actually was cut, with a majority cut properly and a minority cut improperly, we cannot apply the rule of "Rubo k'Chulo" to consider the entire Siman to have been cut properly. ("Rov" is not "k'Chulo" when there is an actual "Kulo.") Accordingly, the Shechitah is invalidated when the final minority is cut improperly, even though a majority was cut properly. However, the minority of the cut invalidates the rest of the Shechitah only when it was cut with an act of Shechitah (albeit an invalidating act). Hagramah and Ikur are not considered acts of Shechitah at all. Hagramah involves cutting above the part of the neck that is eligible for Shechitah, and thus it is not different than cutting the animal's foot. It is not part of the Shechitah. Ikur involves ripping the Simanim without a cutting motion, and it is similar to ripping open an animal's neck, and thus it, too, is not an act of Shechitah. Accordingly, if the Shochet cuts with Hagramah or with Ikur at the final minority of the Siman, that part of the cut is not considered part of the Shechitah to invalidate it, and we are left with a Rov that was cut properly, and the Shechitah is valid.

However, the ROSH rules that we should be stringent and follow the opinion of Rashi in a case in which Hagramah or Ikur was done at the end of the Shechitah, and invalidate the Shechitah. This is also the ruling of the REMA (YD 24:6, 24:10). (Z. Wainstein)

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a case in which one was in the process of slaughtering an animal and he cut off the head (the entire head according to the RAMBAN, or the entirety of the Simanim according to the RAN and RASHBA) in a single motion, moving the knife in just one direction, without having a chance to move the knife in the opposite direction as required. The Mishnah says that if the length of the knife is twice as long as the width of the neck (as the Gemara explains), then the Shechitah is valid even through a cutting motion in one direction. When the knife is shorter than that, we are afraid that head was cut off through Derasah -- pressing the knife down and not using a sliding, cutting motion, since it is not possible to cut the entire width of the neck in one, smooth, cutting motion with a short knife without pressing down.

The Mishnah continues and says that when the Shechitah was done properly with two cutting motions in opposite directions ("Holachah" and "Hava'ah"), then the knife can be as thin as a razor. Since the Shochet intends to cut with Holachah and Hava'ah, he will be careful not to press down, since the pressing is not necessary. (Moreover, the BEIS YOSEF (YD 24) writes that even if one ended up cutting the Simanim with a single motion of Holachah or Hava'ah, as long as he was planning to cut with both Holachah and Hava'ah, the Shechitah is valid, because we are not afraid that he did Derasah since his intention was to cut properly.)

How, though, is this possible? If the knife's length is shorter than the width of the neck, how can the Shochet cut the neck without pressing down? Merely cutting with a single Holachah motion and a single Hava'ah motion will not suffice to cut the neck with such a small knife!

ANSWER: The BECHOR SHOR explains that the Mishnah means that the Shochet had intention to cut with multiple motions of Holachah and Hava'ah, cutting back and forth many times. Since this was his intention, we assume that he cut properly and did not press down. Moreover, we are not required to count the number of motions of Holachah and Hava'ah that the Shochet did and calculate whether or not that number of cuts, with that size of a knife, suffices to cut through the width of the neck of the animal without Derasah. Since the Shochet ended to cut with Holachah and Hava'ah, he did not restrict himself to a specific number of cuts, and he intended to use as many cutting motions as necessary to cut through the neck without pressing down. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)