CHULIN 31-43 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham 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 RESH LAKISH AMAR MUTERES

úåñôåú ã"ä øéù ì÷éù àîø îåúøú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the sinner is nevertheless Chayav Misah, despite the fact that he may well retract and not Shecht the animal.)

îåãä ø"ì ãçééá îéúä, ëãàîøéðï áô' ã' îéúåú (ñðäãøéï ñà.) ...

(a)

Clarification: Resh Lakish nevertheless concedes that the perpetrator is Chayav Misah, like the Gemara says in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 61b) ...

îéãé ãäåä à'îùúçåä ìäø' ãäø îåúø åòåáãå áñééó.

(b)

Precedent: ... like a case where somebody prostrates himself to a mountain, where the mountain is permitted, even though the worshipper is Chayav Hereg (by the sword.

åàéï ìúîåä äéàê ðäøâ, äà ãìîà îéîìê åìà æøé÷ ãí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí ...

(c)

Refuted Question: Why can one not ask how it is possible for the perpetrator to be sentenced to death, how do we know that he would not have relented and not sprinkled the blood in the name of Avodas-Kochavim ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ ã' îéúåú (â"æ ùí:) ã'ðéñú ùàîø "àìê åàòáåã" ôèåø, ãîéîìê åìà òáéã?

(d)

Source: ... like we say in Perek Arba Misos (Ibid.) - that a Nisas (one who is incited) who says that he will go and worship ... is Patur, since he will probably retract and not worship?

ãäëà åãàé ìà îéîìê, ëéåï ãòáéã îòùä ùùçè ò"î ìæøå÷.

(e)

Refutation #1: Because here he will definitely not retract, seeing as he performed an act (when he Shechted the animal having in mind to sprinkle the blood).

åòåã, ãäëà àôéìå éãåò åãàé ùìà éæøå÷, çééá, ãçùéá òåáã òáåãú ëåëáéí áùçéèä æå îä ùùåçè ò"î ìæøå÷.

(f)

Refutation #2: Moreover, even if we would know for sure that he will not sprinkle the blood, he is Chayav, because the mere fact that he is Shechting having in mind to sprinkle to Avodah-Zarah renders it Avodah-Zarah.

2)

TOSFOS DH ELA Z'VICHAH D'AVODAS-KOCHAVIM DE'MITS'RA HEICHI MASHKACHAS LAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àìà æáéçä ãòáåãú ëåëáéí ãîéúñøà äéëé îùëçú ìä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos suggests a case of Shechitah that is forbidden with mere words.)

úéîä, àé çùéá ôéâåì àó áîçùáä áìà ãéáåø, àí ëï, îùëçú æáéçú òáåãú ëåëáéí ãîúñøà áãéáåø, ùôéøù áôéøåù ùùåçè ìòáåãú ëåëáéí?

(a)

Question: If thought alone is considered Pigul even without actually verbalizing one's thoughts, then we will have a case where Shechting Avodah-Zarah becomes forbidden with mere words - there where one specifically states that he is Shechting to Avodas-Kochavim?

3)

TOSFOS DH PANIM KASHYA L'REBBI SHIMON BEN LAKISH

úåñôåú ã"ä ôðéí ÷ùéà ìø"ù áï ì÷éù

(SUMMARY: Tosfos elaborates on Rashi's explanation before presenting their own interpretation and that of Rabeinu Chananel.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ, ãìà îöé ìîéîø ÷"å ùìå îôâåì, ãìà äåéà ìéä ìåîø 'ôåñìú' àìà 'îôâìú'.

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he could not have learned his Kal-va'Chomer from Pigul, since he ought then to have said (not 'Poseles' but) 'Mefageles'.

åàò"â ãîöéðå ã÷øé ìéä ìôéâåì ôñåì - ãúðéà áô"á ãæáçéí (ãó ëç.) 'çåõ ìî÷åîå - ôñåì åàéï çééáéï òìéå ëøú'?

(b)

Implied Question: Even though we do find that the Gemara refers to Pigul as 'Pasul', as we learned in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 28a) with regard to Chutz li'Mekomo - 'Pasul ve'Ein Chayavin alav Kareis' ...

äëà ãàéëà ìîèòé ä"ì ìîéúðé 'îôâìú' ...

(c)

Answer (Part 1): Here where one might have misconstrued the Gemara's meaning, it ought to have said 'Mefageles' ...

ëãàîøéðï áô"á ãæáçéí (âí æä ùí) âáé äà ãúðï ù'äæáç ðôñì áã' ãáøéí ... .

(d)

Precedent (Part 1): ... like we say in the second Perek of Zevachim (Ibid.) regarding the Mishnah which declares a Korban Pasul in any one of four ways ...

åãéé÷ áâîøà 'ãé÷à ðîé ã÷úðé "ùäæáç ðôñì" åìà ÷úðé "ùäæáç îúôâì".

(e)

Precedent (Part 2): ... and the Gemara proves the point that it is making there from the fact that, since the Tana uses the expression 'became Pasul' rather than 'became Pigul'.

àáì ÷ùä, àîàé ìà îå÷é ìä áùéðåé áòìéí, ãîåãä ø"ì ãîçùáéï îòáåãä ìòáåãä, àí àîø 'äøéðé ùåçè ò"î ìæøå÷ ãîå ìùí ôìåðé', ãôñåì.

(f)

Question: The question remains however, why we do not establish the case by Shinuy Ba'alim, where Resh Lakish concedes that 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah - there where one said 'I am going to Shecht having in mind to sprinkle the blood in the name of P'loni, it is Pasul ...

ëãàîøéðï áôø÷ á' ãæáçéí (â"æ ùí)?

(g)

Precedent: ... like the Gemara states in Zevachim (Ibid.)?

ìë"ð, ãìéëà ìàå÷îé ÷"å ìà áîçùáú ôéâåì åìà áùéðåé áòìéí, ãîä ìúøååééäå ùëï àéðï áàåúä òáåãä ...

(h)

Explanation #2 (Part 1): We must therefore conclude that it is not possible to establish the 'Kal va'Chomer either by Machsheves Pigul or by Shinuy Ba'alim, seeing as neither of them are applicable by the same Avodah ...

ùàí àîø 'äøéðé ùåçè ìùí çåõ ìæîðå àå çåõ ìî÷åîå àå ìùí ôìåðé, ëùø', ëãàîøéðï áô"÷ ãæáçéí (ãó é.).

(i)

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... because if one were to say 'I am going to Shecht having in mind Chutz li'Zemano, Chutz li'Mekomo or in the name of P'loni, it would be Kasher', as we learned in the first Perek of Zevachim (10.).

åøáéðå çððàì âøéñ 'ôðéí ìøéù ì÷éù ìà ÷ùéà', ãîå÷é ìä áîçùáú ôéâåì.

(j)

Alternative Text: Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'P'nim is not a Kashya according to Resh Lakish', since he establishes it by a Machshavah of Pigul..

4)

TOSFOS DH CHUTZ KASHYA L'REBBI YOCHANAN

úåñôåú ã"ä çåõ ÷ùéà ìøáé éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Chutz mi'Penim does not apply by 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah'.)

åà"ú, åìéîà ã÷àé øáé éåçðï ëøáðï, ãëé äéëé ãéìôé øáðï çåõ îôðéí ìòðéï ãæä îçùá åæä òåáã, ä"ð éìôéðï ìòðéï ãîçùáéï îòáåãä ìòáåãä?

(a)

Question (Part 1): Why do we not answer that Rebbi Yochanan holds like the Rabbanan, inasmuch as just as they learn Chutz from P'nim with regard to 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid', so too, will they make the same D'rashah with regard to 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah'?

åììéùðà áúøà, ìéîà ã÷àé ëø"à?

(b)

Question (Part 2): And by the same token, according to the second Lashon, why can we not answer that they hold like Rebbi Eliezer?

åé"ì, ãìâáé æä îçùá åæä òåáã ùééê ìîéìó çåõ îôðéí, ãâìé øçîðà áôðéí ãáòìéí ÷øåé î÷øéá åäåà äãéï áçåõ ...

(c)

Answer (Part 1): Regarding 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid' it makes sense to learn Chutz from P'nim, because seeing as the Torah reveals by P'nim that the owner is called 'the Makriv', the same will apply to Chutz ...

ãëúéá (úäìéí ÷å) "æáçé îúéí", ãàí áòìéí îçùáéï çùéá 'æáçé îúéí', ëéåï ãáòìéí ÷øåé 'î÷øéá' áôðéí, åàéï æä àìà âéìåé îéìúà áòìîà;

(d)

Reason: ... since the Torah writes in Tehilim (106) "Zivchei Meisim" insinuating that if the owner thinks a wrong thought it is considered 'Zivchei Meisim'; Since the owner is called the 'Makriv' by P'nim, any Limud that the same applies to Chutz is no more than a 'Giluy Milsa' (a revelation - since a real Limud is not required) ...

àáì ìòðéï ãîçùáéï îòáåãä ìòáåãä, ìà àùëçéðï ãéìôéðï ëìì.

(e)

Answer (Part 2): ... but regarding 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah', we do find any such Limud at all ...

åäà ãîçùáéï áôðéí, âæéøú äëúåá áòìîà äåà.

(f)

Conclusion: ... and that what Mechashvin by P'nim is simply a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

5)

TOSFOS DH HA MEKAMI D'SHAM'EIH ME'REBBI YOCHANAN

úåñôåú ã"ä äà î÷îé ãùîòéä îø' éåçðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos queries the Gemara's answer.)

úéîä, îàé úéøåõ äåà æä, ùîúøõ ùàîø øéù ì÷éù ÷åãí ùìîã äîùðä?

(a)

Question: What sort of answer is this - to tell us what Resh Lakish said before he learned the Mishnah?

39b----------------------------------------39b

6)

TOSFOS DH MAKOM SHE'EIN MACHSHAVAH POSELES B'CHULIN ELA B'SHTEI AVODOS

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷åí ùàéï îçùáä ôåñìú áçåìéï àìà áùúé òáåãåú

(SUMMARY: After citing Rashi's explanation, Tosfos deals with the problem that the Basar does not become forbidden in any case.)

ôéøù á÷åðèøñ áùçéèä åáæøé÷ä, ãäëé äåà ãëúéáé.

(a)

Clarification: Rashi establishes this by Shechitah and Zerikah, both of which are written specifically (in connection with Avodas-Kochavim).

å÷ùä ìøéá"à, ãáæøé÷ú ãí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí ìà îéúñø áùø ...

(b)

Question #1 (Part 1): The Riva queries this however, in that if one sprinkles the blood to Avodas-Kochavim, the Basar does not become forbidden ...

ëãîåëç ì÷îï âáé 'äðäå èééòé ãéäáé ãéëøé ìèáçé éùøàì, åàîøé ìäå 'ãîà åúøáà ìãéãï, åáéùøà ìãéãëå!' åîñé÷ ã'ëùøä', ãäìëä ëøáé éåñé ã'æä îçùá åæä òåáã ìà àîøéðï'.

(c)

Source: ... as is evident later with regard to the case where certain Arab merchants gave rams to Yisrael butchers, and stipulated that the blood and the fat should belong to them, and the Basar, to the butchers, and where the Gemara concludes that the Basar was Kasher, since the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi, who holds that we do not say 'Zeh Mechashev ve'Zeh Oveid'.

òåã úðéà áäãéà áúåñôúà 'àí îùùçèä, æø÷ ãí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, åä÷èéø çìáä ìòáåãú ëåëáéí, æä äéä îòùä á÷éñøé åìà àîøå áä ìà àéñåø åìà äéúø.

(d)

Question #2 (Part 1): Moreover, the Tosefta specifically rules in a case that took place in Caesaria, where, after Shechting the animal, they sprinkled the blood to Avodas-Kochavim and burned the Cheilev to Avodas-Kochavim, the Chachamim said neither that it was Asur nor that it was Mutar ...

åäééðå îùåí ùäåëéç ñåôå òì úçìúå ëãáñîåê.

(e)

Question #2 (Part 2): That was, because the end revealed on the beginning, as the Gemara will explain shortly.

àáì áæøé÷ä îéäà ìà îéúñøà.

(f)

Question #2 (Part 3): In any event, it did not become forbidden due to the Zerikah?

åö"ì ðäé ãáäîä ìà îéúñøà, ãí îéäà àéúñø.

(g)

Answer: We therefore need to say that even though the animal does not become forbidden, the blood does.

7)

TOSFOS DH AD KAN LO KA SHARI RABBANAN ELA DELO SHAM'INAN D'CHASHIV

úåñôåú ã"ä òã ëàï ìà ÷à ùøå øáðï àìà ãìà ùîòéðï ãçùéá

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Tzerichusa according to the second Lashon earlier.)

åììéùðà áúøà ãìòéì, ò"ë ìà ùøå øáðï àìà áæä îçùá åæä òåáã, àáì äëà àåúå òöîå ùùçè, æø÷ àçøé ëï ãí ìòáåãú ëåëáéí.

(a)

Clarification: And according to the second Lashon earlier (see end of 38b) until now the Rabbanan only permitted where Reuven thinks and Shimon performs the Avodah, whereas here it is the same person who Shechted who then sprinkles the blood to Avodas-Kochavim.

8)

TOSFOS DH IM HAYAH RABO SHEINI KOHEN OCHEL B'TERUMAH

úåñôåú ã"ä àí äéä øáå ùðé ëäï àåëì áúøåîä

(SUMMARY: Citing a Gemara in Kerisus, Tosfos supplies the reason for this ruling.)

áôø÷ äîáéà àùí úìåé (ëøéúåú ãó ëã:) îôøù ã÷ñáøé øáðï 'äîô÷éø òáãå éöà ìçéøåú åöøéê âè ùçøåø, åîòåëá âè ùçøåø àåëì áúøåîä'.

(a)

Clarification: In Perek ha'Meivi Asham Taluy (Kerisus 24b) the Gemara explains that this is because the Rabbanan hold that if someone declares his Eved Hefker he (the Eved) goes free, but he requires a Get Shichrur, and that an Eved belonging to a Kohen who requires a Get Shichrur is allowed to eat Terumah'.

9)

TOSFOS DH MI LO ASI L'YEDEIH AMAI ATZVACH

úåñôåú ã"ä ëé ìà àúé ìéãéä àîàé àöååç

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles the Sugya here with the Sugya in Bava Metzi'a, which seems to encroach in the Machlokes here.)

äà ãáòé áô"÷ ãá"î (ãó å.) 'ú÷ôä àçã áôðéðå îäå'? åîå÷é áùú÷ åìáñåó öååç.

(a)

Clarification (Part 1): When the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 5a) asks what the Din will be if someone grabs the article in front of Beis-Din, and establishes the case where the owner is initially silent before beginning to protest (seemingly encroaching on the Gemara here) ...

ùôéø áòé áéï ìø"ù áéï ìøáðï ...

(b)

Clarification (Part 2): The Question could go both according to Rebbi Shimon (ben Gamliel) and according to the Rabbanan ...

ãäàé èòîà 'ëé ìà àúé ìéãéä àîàé àöååç?' ìà ùééê äúí; åàéëà èòîà àçøéðà äúí ã÷ñáø 'àîàé àöååç. äà ÷à çæå ìéä øáðï'.

(c)

Reason: ... because the reason 'If it did not reach his hand why should I object?' does not apply there; and the reason there is why he finds it necessary to object, since the Rabbanan saw what happened.

10)

TOSFOS DH REISHACH V'HAR

úåñôåú ã"ä øéùê åäø

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this dual ruling applies irrespective of whether it is money or Meshichah that acquires by a Nochri.)

àôéìå ìî"ã îòåú áòåáã ëåëáéí ÷åðåú ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion (in Bechoros 13a) that money acquires by a Nochri (so why does it not acquire here?) ...

äëà ìà ñîëà ãòúéä, ëéåï ãîöé îãçé ìéä;

(b)

Answer (Part 1): Here the Nochri does not relay on the transaction, since he is able to push him off (as the Gemara explains) ...

åàé àìîà äåà àñåø îãøáðï, åàôéìå ìî"ã áô' ùðé ãáëåøåú (ãó éâ.) ãîùéëä áòåáã ëåëáé' ÷åðä åìà îòåú.

(c)

Answer (Part Answer (Part 2): .... and if he is a tough guy it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, even according to the opinion in the second Perek of Bechoros (13a) that Meshichah acquires by a Nochri, and not money.