CHULIN 30 (19 Teves) - Dedicated in memory of Hagaon Rav Yisrael Avraham Abba ben Harav Chaim Binyamin Ze'ev Krieger ZT"L, author of Yad Yisrael (on Rambam) and many other Sefarim. Dedicated by his granddaughter and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Avi and Lily Berger, of Queens, New York.

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 by 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 liable, 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, he transgresses the Isur of "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz."
The Gemara says that according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof" -- "the act of Shechitah is not [considered 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 liable 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 liable. 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.
It is clear from the Gemara that even the beginning of an act of Shechitah can be considered a Mum to allow the redemption of the animal. This is problematic, however, 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 a Shechitah that does not permit the animal to be eaten; one can redeem the animal after Shechitah and, once it becomes Chulin, he can eat it! Its Shechitah, therefore, does permit it to be eaten.
Tosfos answers that an animal of Kodshim may be redeemed only when it has become 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, in the case of "Shechutei Chutz" the animal cannot be redeemed.
However, the Gemara here teaches that as soon as the Shechitah begins, before the animal dies, the Shechitah constitutes a Mum that renders 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! Why, then, does Tosfos say that "Shechutei Chutz" did not acquire a Mum before its death?
(a) RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV shlit'a (quoted in HE'OROS L'MASECHES CHULIN) answers this question as follows. According to the opinion that "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 liable for "Shechutei Chutz" at the end of the Shechitah? After all, 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 render the animal a Ba'al Mum. It remains fit to be a Korban. For the same reason, the animal does not become redeemable.
This explains the answer which Tosfos gives to his question 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 blemish that comes about through Shechitah of the Shechutei Chutz is not considered a Mum. In contrast, the Gemara here is not discussing Shechutei Chutz, and thus the beginning of the Shechitah does make the Korban redeemable, and thus the Korban Pesach remains a Korban Pesach; there is no Akirah.
(b) The SEFER YERE'IM (#281) also 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.)
As the To'afos Re'em (5) notes, this distinction is obvious, because otherwise every animal, even of Chulin, would be a Tereifah at the time of the Shechitah. If the Shechitah takes effect only at the end, the animal was already a Tereifah at the time of the Shechitah. It must be that the part of the Shechitah which is part of the Shechitah process does not make it a Tereifah. Therefore, in the case of Shechutei Chutz, the animal does not become disqualified from being offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash because of the beginning of the Shechitah, since it is part of the Hechsher of the Korban (had it been done in the Beis ha'Mikdash).
In contrast, in the case of the Gemara here, 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, and a Rov of the Simanim was cut, then this is an ordinary, valid Shechitah, and Rav Yehudah is teaching nothing new.
Tosfos explains that, according to Rashi's explanation, one 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 one 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 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.)


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 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 the entire Siman is considered to have been cut. However, when the entire Siman actually was cut, with a majority cut properly and a minority cut improperly, the rule of "Rubo k'Chulo" cannot apply to give the entire Siman the status of having 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 no different from 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 thus a Rov that was cut properly is left, and the Shechitah is valid.
However, the ROSH rules that one 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 the Shechitah should be considered invalid. 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 with a cutting motion in one direction. When the knife is shorter than that, there is a concern that the head was cut off through Derasah, pressing the knife down, and not through 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 downward pressure.
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) notes 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 it is assumed that he did not do Derasah since his intention was to cut properly.)
How 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 intended to cut with multiple motions of Holachah and Hava'ah, cutting back and forth many times. Since this was his intention, it is assumed that he cut properly and did not press down. Moreover, there is no requirement 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 intended 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)