CHULIN 29 (18 Teves) - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1) HALACHAH: "ROV HA'NIR'EH LA'EINAYIM"
OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that just as an animal that has a tear in its trachea is considered a Tereifah only when the tear covers a "Rov ha'Nir'eh la'Einayim" of the trachea, when one slaughters an animal he must cut through a "Rov ha'Nir'eh la'Einayim" of the Simanim.
What constitutes a "Rov ha'Nir'eh la'Einayim"?
(a) RASHI (DH Rov ha'Nir'eh) explains that the Rov must be a genuine majority which is clearly visible. The TAZ (YD 21:2) and PRI CHADASH (YD 21:3) understand that Rashi means that one must cut more than a mathematical majority of the Simanim. The majority that one cuts must be clearly visible to the eye; a slight majority that can be discerned only by measuring is insufficient. (A similar distinction between a mathematical Rov and a clear Rov is mentioned in the Gemara in Berachos (48a), where the Gemara differentiates between these two types of Rov with regard to a Minyan for reciting Birkas ha'Mazon. Rebbi Zeira maintains that if only six people ate bread, and the other four ate vegetables, the six who ate bread do not constitute a Rov for the Zimun, because they are not a "Rov d'Minkar," a visibly recognizable Rov.)
(b) The RASHBA does not accept this definition of a "Rov ha'Nir'eh la'Einayim." Until this point in the Gemara, the Gemara was discussing whether cutting half of the Siman is considered like cutting Rov of the Siman. When the Gemara rejects the view that half is like Rov, it considers Rov to be just one step above half -- even a hair's breadth more than half is considered Rov. It is not necessary to have a significant Rov that is clearly visible to the eye. (See ROSH YOSEF who discusses this question and the view of Rashi at length.)
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 21:1) rules that even if one cuts only a hair's breadth more than half of the Siman, the Shechitah is valid. The TAZ, however, cites the opinion of a number of authorities who maintain that the Shechitah is valid only when a significant Rov was cut. He concludes that under normal circumstances one should follow this stringent opinion. (Z. Wainstein)
2) A LENIENCY IN THE SHECHITAH OF "KODSHIM"
QUESTION: The Gemara mentions the logic that the main purpose of the Shechitah of Kodshim is to obtain the blood for the Avodah of Zerikas ha'Dam ("l'Dam Hu Tzarich"). The Gemara applies this logic here to explain why it is necessary to cut the Veridin of a Korban. Cutting the Veridin significantly increases the amount of blood that comes out at Shechitah. Since the purpose of the Shechitah of Kodshim is to receive the blood, the Veridin must be cut.
The Gemara uses this logic in two other places in Chulin. The Gemara earlier uses this logic to explain why Kodshim should require Shechitah of the entire Siman, while Chulin requires that only a Rov of the Siman be cut (or, similarly, to explain why Kodshim should require Shechitah of Rov of the Siman, while Chulin requires that only half of the Siman be cut).
Also, the Gemara later (33a) uses this logic to explain why a Shechitah without blood is Pasul for Kodshim. Since the purpose of Shechitah is to obtain the blood that comes out, a Shechitah that draws no blood is invalid.
In all three of these cases, the logic of "l'Dam Hu Tzarich" creates stringencies for the Shechitah of Kodshim -- the requirement to cut more of the Siman, the requirement to cut the Veridin, and the necessity for the Shechitah to draw blood from the animal.
Are there leniencies for the Shechitah of Kodshim that do not exist for the Shechitah of Chulin?
ANSWER: The BEIS YOSEF (OC 621) cites the AVUDRAHAM's description of the Yom Kippur Avodah. The Avudraham describes the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid on Yom Kippur as follows: "The Kohen Gadol immediately received the lamb for the Korban Tamid, and he did to it according to its law for the rest of the year." The Beis Yosef writes that "this is a mistake," because the Avodah of the Korban Tamid was done differently on Yom Kippur. Since, on Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol was required to perform Kabalas ha'Dam himself, he does not have a chance to cut through the entirety of the Simanim. He must begin to receive the blood that gushes out of the animal immediately after he cuts a Rov of the Simanim. In contrast, during the rest of the year, the entirety of the Simanim was cut during the Shechitah (just as it is cut for Chulin, l'Chatchilah), since a different Kohen performed the Kabalas ha'Dam.
The PRI MEGADIM (in ESHEL AVRAHAM 621:4) justifies the assertion of the Avudraham. He cites the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 4:8) who writes that the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid entails cutting a Rov of the Simanim. He makes no mention of the requirement l'Chatchilah to cut the entirety of the Simanim, as he writes with regard to the Shechitah of Chulin (in Hilchos Shechitah). The Rambam apparently maintains that Kodshim does not require Shechitah of the entirety of the Simanim, even l'Chatchilah. (The Rambam's source for this might be the Gemara later (29b) that asks why it is necessary to perform Miruk (cutting the remaining minority of the Simanim) at the end of the Shechitah of a Korban that the Kohen Gadol began. TOSFOS there asks that it is obvious why Miruk must be done -- the entirety of the Simanim must be cut l'Chatchilah! The Rambam understands from the Gemara there that Kodshim does not require the entirety of the Simanim to be cut, even l'Chatchilah.)
According to the Rambam, there is no difference between the Shechitah of the Korban Tamid on Yom Kippur and its Shechitah on any other day, as the Avudraham writes.
According to the Rambam, why is there a difference between the way a Korban is slaughtered and the way Chulin is slaughtered?
1. The Pri Megadim offers an explanation for the Rambam's ruling that the Shechitah of Kodshim does not require cutting the entirety of the Simanim. The reason why Shechitah generally requires the cutting of the whole Siman is a Gezeirah lest one slaughter only half of the Siman. Kodshim are more lenient in this respect, because of the rule that "Kohanim Zerizim Hem" (Kohanim are careful to perform the Mitzvah properly), and it is usually a Kohen who slaughters the Korban.
2. The RASHASH (to TOSFOS DH Lamah) explains that the Rambam maintains that the necessity to cut the entire Siman for Chulin is in order to make sure that all of the blood comes out (as a precaution to prevent the person who eats the meat from eating blood). Kodshim are burned on the Mizbe'ach, and thus there is no need for this stringency. (The Rashash does not explain why it is not necessary to cut the entire Siman when slaughtering a type of Korban that is eaten. Perhaps again the reason is that "Kohanim Zerizim Hem" and they will ensure that all of the blood comes out even when only a Rov of the Simanim are cut.)
3. Another way of understanding the Rambam is based on his wording in Hilchos Shechitah, where he refers to Shechitah done by cutting two full Simanim as "ha'Shechitah ha'Me'ulah." These words imply that cutting the entirety of the Simanim is a Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar, the best way to perform the Mitzvah, and it is not merely a Gezeirah or a precaution. Since the intent of the Torah's Mitzvah of Shechitah is to cut the Simanim, the Mitzvah is done in a more preferable way when more is cut. In contrast, with regard to Kodshim, the intent of the Torah's Mitzvah of Shechitah is to remove the blood by cutting the Simanim. Since the blood will not exit better by cutting the entire width of the Simanim, doing so involves no Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar.
The reason why, on Yom Kippur, there is a Mitzvah for another Kohen to finish the Shechitah which the Kohen Gadol started (Yoma 31b), and for other Korbanos there is no such Mitzvah, may be understood as follows. On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol must rush to do the Kabalas ha'Dam, and he may not wait for all of the blood to come out. Therefore, there is a Mitzvah for someone else to finish the Shechitah. In the case of an ordinary Korban, the Kohen may cut only a majority of the Simanim and then make sure that all of the blood comes out (as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos). Therefore, it is not necessary to appoint someone else to finish the Shechitah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

29b----------------------------------------29b

3) IS "MIRUK" CONSIDERED AN OBLIGATORY ACT FOR A KORBAN?
QUESTION: The Gemara proves that the act of Miruk, cutting the remaining minority of the Simanim, of the Korban Tamid on Yom Kippur is not obligatory from the fact that an ordinary Kohen, who is not a Kohen Gadol, may perform Miruk on Yom Kippur. Since only the Kohen Gadol may perform Avodah on Yom Kippur, it must be that Miruk is not obligatory and thus it does not need to performed by the Kohen Gadol.
TOSFOS (DH Im Ken) has difficulty with the Gemara's proof. Even if Miruk is obligatory, there should be no requirement for the Kohen Gadol to do Miruk just as there is no requirement for the Kohen Gadol to perform the Shechitah. Shechitah obviously is an obligatory part of offering the Korban, and yet the Torah permits even a non-Kohen to slaughter the Korban Tamid on Yom Kippur (see Yoma 42a), since Shechitah is not considered an Avodah. Why should Miruk, the act that completes the Shechitah, need to be performed by the Kohen Gadol if it is obligatory, when Shechitah, which certainly is obligatory, does not need to be performed by the Kohen Gadol?
(a) TOSFOS explains that the Rabanan decreed that the Kohen Gadol must slaughter the Korban Tamid on Yom Kippur, and the Korban is Pasul mid'Rabanan if slaughtered by a non-Kohen.
(b) TOSFOS in Yoma (32b, DH Im Ken) answers that even though Shechitah may be performed by a non-Kohen, Miruk may not be performed by a non-Kohen. Miruk is done exclusively for the sake of the Kabalas ha'Dam. Kabalas ha'Dam is an Avodah that may be done only by a Kohen, and thus Miruk also must be done only by a Kohen. Shechitah, however, is not directly related to the Kabalas ha'Dam; it is an independent part of offering a Korban.
(c) Tosfos in Yoma answers further that the reason why Shechitah is not considered an Avodah that must be done by the Kohen Gadol, even though it is obligatory, is that it is an act that is done for Chulin as well as for Kodshim. Since, mid'Oraisa, Miruk does not need to be done to an animal of Chulin, it is considered an Avodah and thus it requires a Kohen. (Z. Wainstein)
4) THE POINT AT WHICH THE SHECHITAH TAKES EFFECT
OPINIONS: Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue about the point during the act of Shechitah at which the animal is considered slaughtered. Reish Lakish maintains "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof" -- "the act of Shechitah is not [considered Shechitah] until the end." Rebbi Yochanan maintains "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" -- "the entire act of slaughtering, from beginning to end (and not just the final part of the act), constitutes Shechitah."
The Gemara applies this dispute to two different cases. The first case involves a person who cut part of the Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and he finished cutting the rest inside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the person is liable for "Shechitas Kodshim ba'Chutz," while according to Reish Lakish, he is exempt, since the main part of Shechitah occurred when the bird was inside the Beis ha'Mikdash.
The second case involves a person who slaughtered his Korban Pesach during Pesach, while he had 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 by the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" (Shemos 34:25). Slaughtering a Korban Pesach during the festival itself invalidates the Korban, unless it was slaughtered with intention that it be a Korban Shelamim.
According to Reish Lakish, one who slaughters the Korban Pesach during Pesach while he has Chametz in his possession transgresses the Isur. The beginning of the Shechitah rendered the Korban unfit to be brought on Pesach Sheni as a Korban Pesach, and thus it automatically becomes a Korban Shelamim. Consequently, when the Shechitah is completed, the person has slaughtered a valid Korban Shelamim on Pesach with Chametz in his possession, and he has transgressed the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz."
According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Shechitah was effective at its beginning, and thus the person slaughtered a Korban Pesach in the wrong time, rendering it invalid. When he completes the Shechitah, he has slaughtered an invalid Korban, and thus he does not transgress the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz."
In both of these cases, Rebbi Yochanan's opinion that "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" creates a stringency. In the first case, the person has transgressed the Isur of Shechutei Chutz, and in the second case, the person has invalidated the Korban by slaughtering it at the wrong time.
Does the principle of "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" ever result in a leniency? Is the Shechitah ever considered valid as soon as it begins? Obviously, the Shechitah must be completed in order for the animal to be permitted. If the Shechitah is not completed, then the Shechitah never was a Shechitah in the first place, as the Gemara later says. The question applies only where the Shechitah was finished. Is there any situation in which the principle of "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" results in a leniency?
(a) The BEHAG rules like Reish Lakish, that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof." He proves that this is the Halachah from the Gemara later (38a). The Gemara says that when one slaughters an animal that is a Mesukenes (an animal with physiological symptoms of impending death, as discussed in the Mishnah on 37b), the Shechitah is valid only if, towards the end of the Shechitah, it exhibited "Pirchus" -- spasmodic, jerking motions. If the animal did not move towards the end of the Shechitah, then it is assumed to have died at the beginning of the Shechitah, and the end of the Shechitah is no longer effective.
It is clear that the Gemara there follows the view that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof." If the Shechitah would be effective at the beginning of the Shechitah, then it should suffice to have "Pirchus" only at that moment, and there should be no need for "Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah. Since the beginning of the Shechitah suffices to make the animal permitted according to the opinion that "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof," "Pirchus" is necessary only at that point. (Obviously, the animal is not considered entirely dead if it has no "Pirchus," because if it is considered entirely dead, then it would be a case of "Nisnavlah," becoming a Neveilah, after the beginning of the Shechitah, in which case everyone agrees that the Shechitah is invalid. Rather, for the Shechitah to serve to permit the animal, the animal must be exhibiting a higher degree of life (i.e. "Pirchus") at the moment that the Shechitah takes effect.) Since the Gemara requires "Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah, it must be because the Gemara rules that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof." (See also MISHNAS CHAIM #39.)
According to the Behag, there is a leniency according to the opinion that "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof." When the animal had "Pirchus" at the beginning of the Shechitah but not at the end, the Shechitah nevertheless was valid, since the animal had "Pirchus" at the most important part of the Shechitah, at the point when the Shechitah takes effect.
(b) The RAMBAN disagrees with the Behag and maintains that there is no proof from the Gemara later (38a) for whom the Halachah follows. It appears that the Ramban understands that when there is no "Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah, the Shechitah is considered to have been finished on an entirely dead animal. Without the signs of life of "Pirchus," the animal is considered dead, and thus the beginning of the Shechitah was not a Shechitah at all. Therefore, according to the Ramban, there is no leniency according to the opinion that "Yeshnah l'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof." (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)