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)

TOSFOS DH ZIL HACHA IKA RUBA (This Tosfos belongs to the previous Amud)

úåñ' ã"ä æéì äëà àéëà øåáà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why we cannot say like we said earlier,

åà"ú, îàé ÷ùéà ìéä, ãëé àîø ðîé äëà äëé, àâîøéä øçîðà ìîùä 'ìà úùééø øåáà' ëãìòéì, äøé àéï ëàï øåá, åèäåøéï?

(a)

Question: What is the problem, bearing in mind that, even if we were to say that here, it would not be significant, seeing as Moshe was taught on Har Sinai 'Don't leave over a majority', there would not be a majority here, and they would therefore both be Tahor?

åé"ì, ãúìåé äãáø áçùéáåú, ãîùåí ãçùéá ìéä îçöä ëøåá, ùøé ìòéì - ãéù ëàï ùéòåø äëùø ùçéèä; åëàï ðîé éù çùéáåú áîçöä ëîå øåá.

(b)

Answer: The issue here is a question of importance, because, since Mechtzah is considered a majority, it is permitted earlier, since there is a Shi'ur of a Hechsher Shechitah - and here too, half has the importance of a majority.

2)

TOSFOS DH DE'KULI ALMA MECHTZAH AL MECHTZAH EINO KE'ROV

úåñ' ã"ä ãëåìé òìîà îçöä òì îçöä àéðå ëøåá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Sugya with that of the first Perek of Eruvin, which are otherwise faced with two Kashyos).

åà"ú, ãáô"÷ ãòéøåáéï (ãó èæ: åùí) ôñ÷éðï ëøá ôôà, ãàîø 'ôøåõ ëòåîã, îåúø'?

(a)

Question #1: In the first Perek of Eruvin (16b) we rule like Rav Papa, who holds Parutz ke'Omeid is permitted'?

åäéä ðøàä ìçì÷ áéï ùàø àéñåøéï ìãáø äúìåé áçéåú ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: We might have drawn a distinction between other Isurim (the Sugya in Eruvin) and things that contain life (our Sugya) ...

àé ìàå ãîééúé òìä ìòéì ãúðåø.

(c)

Refutation: ... had the Gemara not cited earlier the example of 'Tanur' in our Sugya.

åâí úéîä, ãáòéøåáéï ìà îééúé ìä, åäðäå ãîééúé äúí ìà îééúé äëà?

(d)

Question #2: Another Kashya is that, in the Sugya in Eruvin, it does not cite the case mentioned in our Sugya, nor does our Sugya cite the cases mentioned there?

åùîà éù ìçì÷, ãäëà àéñåø åèåîàä, åäúí ìòðéï îçéöåú, åìà ãîé.

(e)

Answer: Perhaps we can answer that here it is talking about Isur and Tum'ah, whereas there it is talking about Mechitzos, two issues which are simply not comparable.

3)

TOSFOS DH ISH NIDCHEH VE'EIN TZIBUR NIDACHIN

úåñ' ã"ä àéù ðãçä åàéï öéáåø ðãçéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara make a different inference here than it does in Sanhedrin regarding the location of Sekilah).

úéîä, ãáô"÷ ãñðäãøéï (ãó èæ.) âáé "åäåöàú àú äàéù ääåà ... " ãøùéðï 'àéù åàùä àúä îåöéà ìùòøéê, åàé àúä îåöéà ëì äùáè ëåìå ìùòøéê'.

(a)

Question (Part 1): Why, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 16.) in connection with the Pasuk "Vehotzeisa es ha'Ish Hahu ... " do we Darshen 'Ish ve'Ishah Atah Motzi li'She'arecha - but not the whole tribe' ...

åäëà ìà îîòèé î"àéù" àìà øåá éùøàì.

(b)

Question (Part 2): ... whereas here we only preclude the majority of Yisrael?

åé"ì, ãäúí îöéðå ùçéì÷ äëúåá áéï éçéã ìîøåáéí îùåí òéø áòìîà ìòðéï òéø äðãçú; ìôéëê îñúáøà ìçì÷ îùåí ùáè, åìåîø ãìà îé÷øé 'àéù'.

(c)

Answer #1: That is because we find there that the Torah draws a distinction between an individual and many with regard to Ir ha'Nidachas. Therefore it is logical to distinguish between an individual and a tribe, to say that a tribe is not called 'Ish'.

à"ð, èåáà "àéù åàùä" ëúéáé äúí.

(d)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Torah writes"Ish ve'Ishah" a number of times there (from one of which we will preclude the majority of Yisrael, and from a second one, a tribe).

4)

TOSFOS DH AVAL BE'CHULIN DE'LA'V LE'DAM HU TZARICH EIMA BE'PALGA SAGI.

úåñ' ã"ä àáì áçåìéï ãìàå ìãí äåà öøéê àéîà áôìâà ñâé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles this with the Mishnah which then renders invalid half a Si'man).

åäà ã÷úðé 'çöé àçã áòåó åàçã åçöé ááäîä, ùçéèúä ôñåìä'?

(a)

Implied Question: Then why does the Tana then say 'Chatzi Echad be'Of ve'Echad va'Chetzi bi'Beheimah, Shechitasah Pesulah'?

äééðå ñéôà ãàééøé á÷ãùéí.

(b)

Answer: That is the Seifa, which is speaking about Kodshim.

5)

TOSFOS DH U'MEIRAK ACHAR SHECHITASO AL YADO

úåñ' ã"ä åîéø÷ àçø ùçéèúå òì éãå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos simply explains the word 'Meirak').

îéø÷ ìùåï 'âîø' ...

(a)

Clarification: 'Meirak' is an expression of 'completing' ...

ëãàîøéðï áîãøù 'îé ùäúçéì áîöåä, àåîøéí ìå îøå÷'.

(b)

Source: ... like we find in the Midrash that 'Someone who begins to perform a Mitzvah, we say to him 'M'rok' (Complete it)!

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

6)

TOSFOS DH IM-KEIN HAVI LEI AVODAH BE'ACHER

úåñ' ã"ä àí ëï äåé ìéä òáåãä áàçø

(SUMMARY: After citing an alternative question, Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemara in Yoma, which permits someone else to Shecht min ha'Torah).

äåä îöé ðîé ìîéôøê 'à"ë, äåéà ìéä ùçéèä áùðéí', ëéåï ãàí ìà îéø÷ ôñåì, åàéï ùðéí ùåçèéï áæáç àçã àôéìå áæä àçø æä, ëãîåëç ì÷îï áùîòúéï?

(a)

Alternative Question: The Gemara could equally well have asked 'If so, it will be a Shechitah performed by two people?', seeing as if he did not complete the Shechitah it is Pasul, and two people are not permitted to Shecht a Korban, even one after the other, as is evident later in the Sugya.

åà"ú, åîàé ÷ùéà ìéä îòáåãä áàçø, äà áôø÷ èøó á÷ìôé (éåîà ãó îá.) àéëà îàï ãîëùø àôéìå ùçéèú ôø ë"â áæø?

(b)

Question (Part 1): What is the problem with 'Avodah ba'Acher', seeing as there is an opinion in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma 42a) which renders Kasher even the Shechitah of the Kohen Gadol's bull by a Zar? ...

åàôéìå îàï ãôñéì äééðå ãå÷à ôøå, ã÷àúé ìçåáú éä"ë, å÷àé òìéä "àäøï" "åçå÷ä"; àáì úîéã ãìà ùééê ìçåáú éä"ë, åìà ÷àé òìéä "àäøï" "åçå÷ä" ìà?

(c)

Question (Part 2): ... and even the opinion that declares it Pasul, that is only the Kohen Gadol's bull, which is a Yom-Kipur obligation, regarding which the Torah writes "Aharon" and "Chukah"; but not the Tamid, which does not belong to Yom Kipur, and to which "Aharon: and "Chukah" do not relate?

åé"ì, ãî"î ôñåì îãøáðï.

(d)

Answer: It is nevertheless Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan.

7)

TOSFOS DH LAMAH LI LAMAREK

úåñ' ã"ä ìîä ìé ìîø÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's Kashya in light of the fact that Lechatchilah even by Chulin one needs to sever the Simanim).

åàò"â ãáçåìéï ðîé áòéðï ëì äùðéí ìëúçìä?

(a)

Implied Question: Despite the fact that even by Chulin, one needs to sever both Simanim Lechatchilah ...

î"î, ëéåï ùéù ãåç÷ áãáø, ìà äéä ìðå ìòùåú ò"é àçø.

(b)

Answer: ... nevertheless, since concluding the Shechitah (on Yom Kipur) is problematic, the Kohen Gadol should not need to complete the Shechitah through somebody else.

8)

TOSFOS DH AMAR RESH LAKISH MI'SHEMEIH DE'LEVI SABA EINAH LI'SHECHITAH ELA BE'SOF

úåñ' ã"ä àîø ø"ì îùîéä ãìåé ñáà àéðä ìùçéèä àìà áñåó

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rava does not include this ruling in his list of three things where he rules like Resh Lakish against Rebbi Yochanan).

àò"â ãøáà ñ"ì äëé, áô"á ãæáçéí (ãó ì.), àô"ä ìà çùéá ìéä áäãé úìú ãäìëä ëø"ì ìâáé øáé éåçðï, áøéù ôø÷ äçåìõ (éáîåú ãó ìå) ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though Rava agrees with this ruling, in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 30a), he nevertheless does not include it in his list of three things where he rules like Resh Lakish against Rebbi Yochanan, at the beginning of 'ha'Choletz' (Yevamos, 36a) ...

îùåí ãäê îùîéä ãìåé àîøä ø"ì.

(b)

Answer (Part 2): ... because this ruling Resh Lakish cites (not in his own name, but) in the name of Levi.

9)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHE'SHACHAT SI'MAN ECHAD BA'CHUTZ

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ùùçè ñéîï àçã áçåõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refutes Rashi, who establishes the Sugya by a bird of Kodshim, and establishes it by an animal).

ôé' á÷åðèøñ, áòåó ÷ãùéí.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes it by a bird of Kodshim.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå, ãî"è ãîàï ãôèø, ëéåï ãáîìé÷ä áçåõ ìà îçééá àìà áùçéèä, åäøé òùä äëùø ùçéèä áçåõ?

(b)

Question #1: What is the reason of the opinion that declares him Patur, seeing as one is not Chayav for performing Melikah outside the Azarah, only for Shechitah, in which case it cannot be said that he did an act of Hechsher Shechitah outside?

åøá éåñó ðîé ìîä ìéä ìîéð÷è 'ùäøé òùä áä îòùä çèàú äòåó', äåä ìéä ìîéîø 'îùåí ãäëùø ùçéèú äòåó áñéîï àçã'?

(c)

Question #2: And why does Rav Yosef say 'Because he did an act of Chatas ha'Of? He ought rather to have said 'Because the Hechsher of Shechitas ha'Of is with one Siman'?

åòåã, ãð÷è øá éåñó ã'àçã áçåõ åàçã áôðéí ðîé ôñåìä', îùîò äà ùðéäí áôðéí, ëùøä. åàé áòåó, äà àéï äëùøå àìà áîìé÷ä, 'åçééá' ä"ì ìîéð÷è, åìà 'ôñåìä.

(d)

Question #3: Moreover, Rav Yosef says that 'Echad ba'Chutz and Echad bi'Fenim is also Pasul', implying that if both would be inside, it would be Kasher. And if the Gemara is talking about a bird, its Hechsher is specially by means of Melikah, in which case he ought to have said 'Chayav', and not 'Pasul'?

åðøàä ìôøù ãàééøé ááäîä ... åôèåø ìîàï ãàîø 'àéðä ìùçéèä àìà áñåó'.

(e)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the Gemara is talking about an animal, and he is Patur according to the opinion that holds 'Einah li'Shechitah Ela be'Sof''.

åøá éåñó ìëåìé òìîà îçééá, ùäøé òùä áä îòùä çèàú äòåó áçåõ ...

(f)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and Rav Yosef holds that he is Chayav unanimously, seeing as he performed an act of a Chatas ha'Of outside.

å'ôñåìä' ãð÷è øá éåñó ìàå ãå÷à, ãçééá ðîé ìëåìé òìîà.

(g)

Clarification: And 'Pesulah' that Rav Yosef mentions is 'La'av Davka', since he is even Chayav unanimously (as we just explained) ...

ãàé çéåáà ìéëà, à"ë ìå÷é ôìåâúééäå áñéîï àçã áçåõ åñéîï àçã áôðéí, åôìéâé áçéåáà,

(h)

Proof (Part 1): ... because if he was not, why does he not establish the Machlokes by one Si'man outside and one Si'man inside, and they are arguing over whether he is Chayav or not ...

åàîàé îå÷é ìä áîéòåè ñéîðéï áçåõ åâîøå áôðéí.

(i)

Proof (Part 2): ... why does he need to establish it where he Shechted a minority of the Simanim outside and completed the Shechitah inside?

åà"ú, åáñåó ôø÷éï (ãó î:) âáé äà ãúðéà 'äùåçè çèàú áùáú áçåõ ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, çééá â' çèàåú' - åîå÷é ìä á'çèàú äòåó ùäéä çöé ÷ðä ôâåí, åäåñéó òìéå ëì ùäåà - ãàúå ëåìäå áäãé äããé.

(j)

Question (Part 1): At the end of the Perek (Daf 40b) where the Beraisa declares someone who Shechts a Chatas on Shabbos outside to Avodas-Kochavim Chayav three Chata'os, and which we establish there with regard to a Chatas ha'Of a half of whose wind-pipe was cut, and he added a Kolshehu, where all three Isurim come into effect simultaneously.

åìäëé ð÷è çèàú åìà ð÷è æáç, ùáùàø æáç îëé ùçè ñéîï àçã ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, àñøä - åúå ìà îçééá îùåí ùçåèé çåõ.

(k)

Clarification: The reason that the Tana mentions specifically 'Chatas' and not 'Zevach' (another Korban), is because, by any other Korban, once one Shechts one Si'man to Avodah-Zarah, one invalidates it, in which case, one would no longer be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz.

åäùúà, àëúé ëéåï ãááäîä ðîé îéçééá áñéîï àçã îùåí ùçåèé çåõ, ìùîòéðï æáç, åáçöé ÷ðä ôâåí ...

(l)

Question (Part 2): ... but now, that even by an animal one is Chayav for Shechting one Si'man because of Shechutei Chutz (as Tosfos just explained), why does the Tana not mention 'Zevach' in the same case where half the wind-pipe is already cut? ...

åàò"â ãñéîï àçã ìà îéçééá îùåí ùáú, ùìà ú÷ï ëìåí ...

(m)

Refuted Answer: ... and even though on one Si'man he will not be Chayav for Shabbos, seeing as one Si'man does not achieve anything ...

îä áëê? î"î, ëùéâîåø ñéîï ùðé îéäà ìéçééá îùåí ùáú?

(n)

Refutation: ... so what if he won't? In any event, as soon as he Shechts the second Si'man he will be Chayav because of Shabbos as well?

åéù ìåîø, ãäà ãîçééá áñéîï àçã äëà, äééðå îùåí ãâîø äùðé áôðéí.

(o)

Answer (Part 1): The reason that he is Chayav for one Si'man in our case, is because he completes the second Si'man inside ...

àáì äúí ãàééøé áùåçè ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, îëéåï ãðàñøä áñéîï øàùåï, ìà çùéá ñéîï ùðé àìà ëîçúê áòôø ...

(p)

Answer (Part 2): ... there on the other hand, where he Shechts to Avodas-Kochavim, since the bird became forbidden with the first Si'man, Shechting the second Si'man is akin to cutting in the dust ...

åäåé ëîå ðú÷ì÷ìä áùçéèä, ãàîø áñîåê ãàâìàé îéìúà ìîôøò ãìàå ùçéèä äéà ëìì âáé ôøä.

(q)

Precedent: And it can be compared to a P'sul that occurred in the Shechitah, about which the Gemara will shortly say that it is revealed that retroactively, with regard to Parah, the Shechitah was no Shechitah at all.

ìëê ð÷è òåó, ãäëùøå áñéîï àçã

(r)

Conclusion (Part 1): That explains why the Gemara establishes it by a bird and not an animal.

åëï ôéøù ì÷îï á÷åðèøñ.

(s)

Conclusion (Part 2): Rashi later concurs with this explanation.

10)

TOSFOS DH IRA P'SUL BI'SHECHITASAH

úåñ' ã"ä àéøò ôñåì áùçéèúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara must be talking about a P'sul Melachah, and not a P'sul in the Shechitah itself, like Rashi learns).

ô"ä, ëâåï ðúðáìä.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the P'sul in question is that it became a Neveilah.

åø"ú îôøù ôñåì ùì îìàëä àçøú, ãåîéà ãäæàä.

(b)

Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Tam explains that it became Pasul through another Melachah being performed with it, similar to Haza'ah ...

ãàé àîøú áùçéèä ðîé éù çéìå÷ áôñåì îìàëä, áéï ÷åãí ôñåìä áéï ìàçø ôñåìä, à"ë ìôìåâ áùçéèä òöîä, åàîàé ð÷è äæàä?

(c)

Proof: ... because if one will say that by Shechitah too, there will be a difference between before it became Pasul and afterwards (as implied by Rashi), then the Gemara ought to draw a distinction by Shechitah itself, so why does it mention Haza'ah? ...

åàò"â ãàééøé áôñåì îìàëä, î"î, ÷àîø ùôéø áñîåê 'ùàðé ðú÷ì÷ìä áùçéèä ... '

(d)

Refuted Question: ... and even though we are speaking about a P'sul Melachah, the Gemara nevertheless will shortly say 'that if it occurred during the Shechitah it is different ...

ãàâìàé îéìúà ìîôøò ãìàå ùçéèä äéà ëìì'.

(e)

Refutation (Part 1): ... seeing as it becomes revealed that retroactively there was no Shechitah at all ...

ãëéåï ãðú÷ì÷ìä, à"ë ìà ðòùä òãééï ëìåí ìùí ôøä áëùøåú.

(f)

Refutation (Part 2): ... because since it became spoiled, it transpires that nothing was performed for the sake of the Parah be'Kashrus ...

àáì àéøò ôñåì áäæàúä àéï ìçåù, ãëáø ðòùéú äùçéèä áëùøåú.

(g)

Conclusion: ... whereas if a P'sul occurred with the Haza'ah, it doesn't matter, seeing as the Shechitah was already performed be'Kashrus.

11)

TOSFOS DH T'REI GAVRI BE'CHAD ZIVSA KA'AMRAT

úåñ' ã"ä úøé âáøé áçã æéáçà ÷àîøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the pr1ohibition of two people Shechting a Korban is only Lechatchilah and and queries it.)

úéîä, äà ò"ë 'ùìà éäéå á' ùåçèéï æáç àçã', äééðå ìëúçìä, àáì áãéòáã ëùø ...

(a)

Question (Part 1): It is clear that the prohibition of two people Shechting one Korban is speaking Lechatchilah, and that it is Kasher Bedi'eved

ëîå 'àçã ùåçè á' æáçéí' - ãîå÷é ìòéì îúðéúéï ã'ùåçè á' øàùéí ëàçã, ùçéèúå ëùøä', á÷ãùéí.

(b)

Precedent: ... just like where one person Shechts two Korbanos, like we learned on the previous Amud, when we established the Mishnah of 'ha'Shochet Sh'nei Roshim ke'Echad, Shechitaso Kesheirah' by Kodshim.

åà"ë, àëúé ìôìåâ áäëùø ãôøä?

(c)

Question (Part 2): If so, why don't we draw a distinction by the Hechsher of the Parah?

åé"ì, ãëéåï ãìëúçìä àñåø, îéìúà ãìà ùëéçà äéà,

(d)

Answer: Since Lechatchilah it is forbidden, it falls under the category of 'something that is not common' (which the Tana does not generally discuss).

àò"â ãôøéê 'ìôìåâ áá' ñåãøéí'?

(e)

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara asks 'why it is does not draw a distinction in a case concerning two head-scarves (which is also not common) ...

äà ùëéçà èôé.

(f)

Answer: ... that is more common (than two people Shechting one Korban).