brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
|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. If one slaughters an animal with intent to sprinkle the blood or to burn the fats for an Avodah Zarah, according to Rebbi Yochanan it is Pasul. Reish Lakish disagrees.
2. If one slaughters a Korban Chatas Lishmah, intending to place the blood or burn the fats on the Mizbe'ach she'Lo Lishmah, according to Rebbi Yochanan the Korban is Pasul. Reish Lakish disagrees.
3. Rebbi Yosi maintains that only the Machshavas Avodah Zarah of the Shochet can invalidate the Shechitah, but not the Machshavah of the owner.
4. An incident occurred in Kesari in which a Shochet had a Machshavas Avodah Zarah after the Shechitah. The Rabanan did not say that the animal was permitted, but they also did not say that it was forbidden.
5. If a healthy man instructs witnesses to write a Get for his wife, they are not authorized to give the Get to the wife unless he instructs them to give it to her.
6. If a healthy person instructs witnesses to write a Get for his wife, and they write a Get and give it to her, and he subsequently jumps off a roof and dies, the Get is valid, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
7. One gives to his friend a document which says that he is giving him his property. If the recipient protests, the gift is not valid, but if he is silent, the gift is valid.
8. One gives to a third party a document which says that he is giving all of his property, including servants, to a certain Kohen. If the Kohen is silent and then subsequently protests, the servants may eat Terumah, according to the Tana Kama. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees.
A BIT MORE
1. According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Machshavah that one has for one Avodah while he performs another Avodah can invalidate the Shechitah. This is derived from the law of Pigul for a Korban: when one slaughters a Korban with intent to sprinkle the blood or to burn the Eimurim the next day, he disqualifies the Korban and renders it Pigul. However, according to Reish Lakish, we do not derive the laws of Chulin from the laws of Korbanos.
2. A Chatas that is offered she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul. According to Rebbi Yochanan, a Machshavah to perform one Avodah she'Lo Lishmah while doing another Avodah invalidates the Chatas, as is derived from the laws of a Machshavas Pigul. Reish Lakish maintains that the Pesul of she'Lo Lishmah is not derived from the Pesul of Pigul.
3. Rebbi Yosi derives this through a Kal va'Chomer from Kodshim. If, for Kodshim, only the Machshavah of the Shochet during the four primary Avodos can invalidate the Korban, then certainly for Chulin, which can be invalidated with a Machshavah during only two Avodos, only the Machshavah of the Shochet can invalidate the Shechitah.
4. Rav Shizbi explains that the Rabanan did not say that it was permitted because of the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that "the end retroactively clarifies the beginning." Since, after the Shechitah, he had a Machshavas Avodah Zarah, we may assume that he had a Machshavas Avodah Zarah during the Shechitah as well.
5. However, if a person who is dangerously-ill instructs witnesses to write a Get to his wife, they may write and give it to her, according to Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, because we assume that his failure to instruct them to give it was an oversight as a result of his agitated state.
6. According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, "the end retroactively clarifies the beginning," and we assume that at the time he instructed the witnesses to write a Get for his wife, he was planning to kill himself. Therefore, he was in an agitated state which resulted in his failure to instruct them to give her the Get.
7. If he is silent at first and then subsequently protests, it is a valid gift. His silence implies acquiescence. His subsequent protest is because he had a change of heart.
8. According to the Tana Kama, the Kohen's initial silence implies acquiescence. According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the fact that he subsequently protested reveals that he never wanted the gift in the first place; he was quiet at first only because he did not see the need to protest, since the document regarding the gift was not given directly to him.
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Chulin