Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 16, 2018 | ื—ืณ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 19

Where exactly on the windpipe does one slaughter the animal? What are the differences between shichita nad melika?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืžืฉื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ื—ื™ื˜ื™

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: If one slaughters from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below in the direction of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid, and that is in accordance with the opinion that one who left part of the arytenoid cartilage has still performed a valid slaughter, as the arytenoids cartilage extends beyond this point.

ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื›ืฉืจ ืžืฉื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara relates that Rav Naแธฅman deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav แธคanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naแธฅman: In accordance with whose opinion is that ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who both hold that if one cuts the windpipe above the large upper ring, the cricoid cartilage, the slaughter is not valid.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืœื ื—ื™ืœืง ื™ื“ืขื ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืœืง ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืฉื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Neither do I know แธคillek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this oneโ€™s opinion nor for that oneโ€™s opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi แธคanina says, and some say that Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžื•ื’ืจืžืช ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The Gemara returns to analyzing the baraita (18b): In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus testified about a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring that the slaughter is valid. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the mishna, the slaughter is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who ruled that the slaughter is valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut within the large, upper ring.

ื•ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก

And with regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that in a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring it is valid, addresses the statement of the Rabbis and he agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the slaughter is not valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut above the large upper ring, therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches us that this is not the case.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ื“ืงืื™ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื”

The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus was introduced merely with the term: Testified, apparently he disagrees with all of the other opinions. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Naแธฅman holds in accordance with his opinion.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ื•ืœื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืจื•ื‘ื• ื›ื›ื•ืœื•

ยง The mishna cited a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that in a case where one slaughtered within the large upper ring and did not leave a thread breadth over the entire surface of the ring, the slaughter is not valid, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that even if one left a thread breadth over a majority of the surface of the ring, the slaughter is valid. Apropos to that, Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal and cut the remaining one-third, as the Rabbis hold that we require the entire slaughter to be performed within the large ring, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The halakhic status of its majority is like that of its entirety.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืœื™ื›ื

But if one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, everyone agrees that the slaughter is not valid, as when the life left the animal, i.e., when the majority of the windpipe was cut, we require that the entire majority be cut by means of slaughter, and that is not so in this case.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืื™ืคื›ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื›ืฉื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื—ืฆื™ ืงื ื” ืคื’ื•ื

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Huna: On the contrary, let the Master say the opposite. The dispute is only in a case when one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient. In that case, once the slaughterer cuts any additional part of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid because the cut that rendered a majority of the windpipe slaughtered was performed properly. So too in this case, since the cut of the second third was performed properly, the slaughter is valid.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื›ื ืœืื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

And the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, and therefore most of the life of the animal left in the proper place. Here, the first third was cut while the knife was diverted, and therefore most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื” ื“ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ื”ืชื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื“ืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

Rav Yosef said to Rav แธคisda: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื˜ื• ื›ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื™ ื“ืขืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงืืžื™ื ื ื“ืฉืžืขื ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Yosef said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.

ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื—ืฆื™ ืงื ื” ืคื’ื•ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื›ื ืœืื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

Some say that there is an alternative version of this discussion: Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient, and the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, but here, most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื” ื“ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ื”ืชื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื“ืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื˜ื• ื›ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื™ ื“ืขืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงืืžื™ื ื ื“ืฉืžืขื ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Rav แธคisda objects to this: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree. Rav Yosef said to Rav แธคisda: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav แธคisda said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.

ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืจื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ืจืคื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืจื” ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื ื ืคืงื ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ืจืคื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืœื™ื›ื

ยง If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, i.e., forbidden. Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid, as when the life left the animal, it was in the course of a valid slaughter that it left. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, as we require a majority of the windpipe to be cut with valid slaughter,and that is not the case.

ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืจื” ืืชื• ืฉื™ื™ืœื•ื” ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื˜ืจืคื” ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ืงืคื“ ืืžืจ ื˜ืจื™ืคื ื ื•ืžื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื›ืฉืจื ื ื˜ืจื™ืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžื™ืงืคื“ ื—ื“ื ืื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื•ืื ื ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ืื™ื›ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav said: The slaughter is valid. When the Sages came and asked Rav Huna, he said to them: It is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda heard the ruling of Rav Huna, and he was angry. He said: I deem it a tereifa and he deems the slaughter valid, and I deem the slaughter valid and he deems it a tereifa. Rav Huna said: It is proper that he was angry. One reason is that he heard it from Rav and I did not hear it from Rav; and furthermore, isnโ€™t there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืชื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืš

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,

ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืคืกื“ืช ืœื” ืœืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื”ืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงื ืžื›ืฉืจืช ื“ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืงื ื ืคืงื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื”ื’ืจืžื” ืงื ื ืคืงื

as, if you retract your statement, you repudiate the first ruling that you stated with regard to a case where one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third. There, what is the reason that you deemed the slaughter valid? The reason is that when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of valid slaughter. Based on that reasoning, here too, when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of diverting the knife, and the slaughter is invalid.

ืื™ืงืœืข ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืกื•ืจื ื‘ืขื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืœืื• ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ื›ืžืกืจืง ื›ืฉืจื”

Rav Naแธฅman happened to come to Sura, where they asked him: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? He said to them: Isnโ€™t that the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi, as Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi says: Slaughter that is performed like the teeth of a comb, which are jagged, is valid.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืคื•ืจืขืช ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara objects: And perhaps Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi stated his halakha only when the slaughter goes up and down within the proper place of slaughter. The Gemara asks in response: Within the proper place of slaughter, what is the purpose of stating it? Clearly the slaughter is valid in that case. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we require slaughter that is clear and straight, and slaughter that is jagged is not straight, therefore, Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi teaches us that nevertheless, the slaughter is valid.

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ื“)

The Gemara cites a mnemonic for the order of the Sages in the following discussion: Beit for Rabbi Abba; kaf for Rav Kahana; dalet for Rav Yehuda.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืื—ื•ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

Rabbi Abba sat behind Rav Kahana and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and said to Rav Yehuda: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to Rav Kahana: His slaughter is valid.

ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”

Rav Kahana then asked: If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.

ืฉื—ื˜ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืงื‘ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

Rav Kahana then asked: If one cut in a place where there was a perforation in the front of the windpipe and continued cutting, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is valid.

ืฉื—ื˜ ื•ืคื’ืข ื‘ื• ื ืงื‘ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”

Rav Kahana further asked: If one cut the windpipe and after cutting half the windpipe encountered a perforation, after which point a majority of the windpipe had been cut, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.

ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื

Rabbi Abba went to Eretz Yisrael and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar went and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: What is different about a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation relative to a case where he encountered a perforation in the middle of the slaughter?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื˜ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืงื‘ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื’ืžืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ื•ืคื’ืข ื‘ื• ื ืงื‘ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ืžืจ ื’ื•ื™ ืงืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื’ื•ื™

Rabbi Elazar said to him: In a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a gentile began to slaughter and a Jew completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is valid. In a case where one cut the windpipe and encountered a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a Jew began to slaughter and a gentile completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan did not accept the distinction.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ืžื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืžืฉื—ื˜ ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืœื ืฉื—ื˜ ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื ื“ื’ื•ื™ ืงื ื ืคืงื ืืœื ื”ื›ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืงื‘ ืžื” ืœื™ ืคื’ืข ื‘ื• ื ืงื‘

Rava said: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan did well when he proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile. Granted, there, in the case where the gentile completed the slaughter, since a Jew was supposed to cut a majority of the windpipe and he did not cut it, when life left the animal it left by the hand of a gentile. But here, after all, he was the one who slaughtered the entire animal, and the animal was not a tereifa until this point, and so what difference is there to me if one began to cut in a place where there was a perforation and what difference is there to me if he encountered a perforation?

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžืœื™ืงื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื ืžืฆื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืžืœื™ืงื” ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืžืœื™ืงื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

MISHNA: One who slaughters from the sides of the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches the neck of a bird offering from the sides, his pinching is not valid.One who slaughters from the nape [oref] of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid. One who slaughters from the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the throat, his pinching is not valid, as the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter. It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืžืฉ ืžืื™ ืืจื™ื ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ืœืง ื ืžื™ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขืจืคื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืขืจืคื• ืืœื ืžืื™ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžืœื™ืงื”

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna: One who slaughters an animal from the oref, its slaughter is not valid, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oref? If we say that the reference is to the actual occipital bone at the rear of the skull, why does this halakha apply specifically to one who slaughters from the oref? Even if one pinches a bird offering from the oref it would also not be valid, as the Merciful One states: โ€œPinch off its head adjacent to its orefโ€ (Leviticus 5:8), at the nape beneath the occipital bone, and not its oref. Rather, what is the oref mentioned in the mishna? It is adjacent to the oref, the back of the neck below the occipital bone, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: The entire nape is valid for pinching.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขืจืคื• ืžื•ืœ ื”ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉื‘ ืžืžืœื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ืคื ื• ืืœื™ ืขืจืฃ ื•ืœื ืคื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืขื•ืจืฃ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื“ืข ืžื•ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื›ื™ ืคื ื• ืืœื™ ืขืจืฃ ื•ืœื ืคื ื™ื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืขื•ืจืฃ ืœื”ื“ื™ ืคื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase โ€œadjacent to [mimmul] its oref,โ€ adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: โ€œAnd they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]โ€ (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: โ€œFor they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their faceโ€ (Jeremiah 2:27). The Gemara asks: What is added by the latter proof, introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say, we do not know where the oref itself is, so that we will know where adjacent to it is, come and hear: โ€œFor they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,โ€ from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.

ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืœื™ืงื” ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื•ืžื•ืœืง ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื•ืงื

ยง The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya say: How is the mitzva of pinching of a bird offering performed? One moves the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, behind the nape and pinches. There is a dispute among the Sages with regard to the meaning of the statement. There are those who say: The mitzva ab initio is to pinch through the spinal column first and then pinch the windpipe and the gullet, and one may even move the simanim to behind the nape and pinch. And there are those who say: The mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch.

ื•ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

The Gemara notes: And it is reasonable according to the one who says: One may even move the simanim behind the nape. From where does one draw that conclusion? It is from the fact that the mishna teaches: One who slaughters from the nape of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 19

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืžืฉื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื‘ื—ื™ื˜ื™

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: If one slaughters from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below in the direction of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid, and that is in accordance with the opinion that one who left part of the arytenoid cartilage has still performed a valid slaughter, as the arytenoids cartilage extends beyond this point.

ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื›ืฉืจ ืžืฉื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Gemara relates that Rav Naแธฅman deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav แธคanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naแธฅman: In accordance with whose opinion is that ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who both hold that if one cuts the windpipe above the large upper ring, the cricoid cartilage, the slaughter is not valid.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืœื ื—ื™ืœืง ื™ื“ืขื ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื™ืœืง ื™ื“ืขื ื ืื ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจ ื–ื‘ื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืฉื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ื•ื‘ืข ื•ืœืžื˜ื” ื›ืฉืจื”

Rav Naแธฅman said to him: Neither do I know แธคillek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this oneโ€™s opinion nor for that oneโ€™s opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi แธคanina says, and some say that Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžื•ื’ืจืžืช ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The Gemara returns to analyzing the baraita (18b): In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus testified about a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring that the slaughter is valid. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the mishna, the slaughter is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who ruled that the slaughter is valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut within the large, upper ring.

ื•ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก

And with regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ืื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that in a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring it is valid, addresses the statement of the Rabbis and he agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the slaughter is not valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut above the large upper ring, therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches us that this is not the case.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ืื ื˜ื™ื’ื ื•ืก ื“ืงืื™ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื”

The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus was introduced merely with the term: Testified, apparently he disagrees with all of the other opinions. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Naแธฅman holds in accordance with his opinion.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ื•ืœื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืจื•ื‘ื• ื›ื›ื•ืœื•

ยง The mishna cited a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that in a case where one slaughtered within the large upper ring and did not leave a thread breadth over the entire surface of the ring, the slaughter is not valid, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that even if one left a thread breadth over a majority of the surface of the ring, the slaughter is valid. Apropos to that, Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal and cut the remaining one-third, as the Rabbis hold that we require the entire slaughter to be performed within the large ring, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The halakhic status of its majority is like that of its entirety.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืœื™ื›ื

But if one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, everyone agrees that the slaughter is not valid, as when the life left the animal, i.e., when the majority of the windpipe was cut, we require that the entire majority be cut by means of slaughter, and that is not so in this case.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืื™ืคื›ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื›ืฉื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื—ืฆื™ ืงื ื” ืคื’ื•ื

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Huna: On the contrary, let the Master say the opposite. The dispute is only in a case when one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient. In that case, once the slaughterer cuts any additional part of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid because the cut that rendered a majority of the windpipe slaughtered was performed properly. So too in this case, since the cut of the second third was performed properly, the slaughter is valid.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื›ื ืœืื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

And the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, and therefore most of the life of the animal left in the proper place. Here, the first third was cut while the knife was diverted, and therefore most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื” ื“ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ื”ืชื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื“ืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”

Rav Yosef said to Rav แธคisda: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื˜ื• ื›ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื™ ื“ืขืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงืืžื™ื ื ื“ืฉืžืขื ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Yosef said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.

ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืื—ืฆื™ ืงื ื” ืคื’ื•ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื›ื ืœืื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

Some say that there is an alternative version of this discussion: Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient, and the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, but here, most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื” ื“ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ื”ืชื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ื“ืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื˜ื• ื›ืœ ืจื•ื‘ื™ ื“ืขืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืชื ื™ ืœื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงืืžื™ื ื ื“ืฉืžืขื ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Rav แธคisda objects to this: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree. Rav Yosef said to Rav แธคisda: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav แธคisda said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.

ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืจื” ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ืจืคื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืจื” ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื ื ืคืงื ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ืจืคื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืœื™ื›ื

ยง If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, i.e., forbidden. Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid, as when the life left the animal, it was in the course of a valid slaughter that it left. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, as we require a majority of the windpipe to be cut with valid slaughter,and that is not the case.

ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ืฉืจื” ืืชื• ืฉื™ื™ืœื•ื” ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื˜ืจืคื” ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื™ืงืคื“ ืืžืจ ื˜ืจื™ืคื ื ื•ืžื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžื›ืฉืจื ื ื˜ืจื™ืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžื™ืงืคื“ ื—ื“ื ืื™ื”ื• ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื•ืื ื ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ืื™ื›ื ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav said: The slaughter is valid. When the Sages came and asked Rav Huna, he said to them: It is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda heard the ruling of Rav Huna, and he was angry. He said: I deem it a tereifa and he deems the slaughter valid, and I deem the slaughter valid and he deems it a tereifa. Rav Huna said: It is proper that he was angry. One reason is that he heard it from Rav and I did not hear it from Rav; and furthermore, isnโ€™t there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœื ืชื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืš

Rav แธคisda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,

ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืคืกื“ืช ืœื” ืœืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื”ืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงื ืžื›ืฉืจืช ื“ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ืงื ื ืคืงื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื”ื’ืจืžื” ืงื ื ืคืงื

as, if you retract your statement, you repudiate the first ruling that you stated with regard to a case where one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third. There, what is the reason that you deemed the slaughter valid? The reason is that when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of valid slaughter. Based on that reasoning, here too, when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of diverting the knife, and the slaughter is invalid.

ืื™ืงืœืข ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืกื•ืจื ื‘ืขื• ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืœืื• ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ื›ืžืกืจืง ื›ืฉืจื”

Rav Naแธฅman happened to come to Sura, where they asked him: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? He said to them: Isnโ€™t that the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi, as Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi says: Slaughter that is performed like the teeth of a comb, which are jagged, is valid.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืคื•ืจืขืช ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara objects: And perhaps Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi stated his halakha only when the slaughter goes up and down within the proper place of slaughter. The Gemara asks in response: Within the proper place of slaughter, what is the purpose of stating it? Clearly the slaughter is valid in that case. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we require slaughter that is clear and straight, and slaughter that is jagged is not straight, therefore, Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi teaches us that nevertheless, the slaughter is valid.

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื‘ื›ื“)

The Gemara cites a mnemonic for the order of the Sages in the following discussion: Beit for Rabbi Abba; kaf for Rav Kahana; dalet for Rav Yehuda.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืื—ื•ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

Rabbi Abba sat behind Rav Kahana and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and said to Rav Yehuda: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to Rav Kahana: His slaughter is valid.

ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืฉืœื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื’ืจื™ื ืฉืœื™ืฉ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”

Rav Kahana then asked: If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.

ืฉื—ื˜ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืงื‘ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

Rav Kahana then asked: If one cut in a place where there was a perforation in the front of the windpipe and continued cutting, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is valid.

ืฉื—ื˜ ื•ืคื’ืข ื‘ื• ื ืงื‘ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื”

Rav Kahana further asked: If one cut the windpipe and after cutting half the windpipe encountered a perforation, after which point a majority of the windpipe had been cut, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.

ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื

Rabbi Abba went to Eretz Yisrael and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar went and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: What is different about a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation relative to a case where he encountered a perforation in the middle of the slaughter?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื—ื˜ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืงื‘ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื’ืžืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื—ื˜ ื•ืคื’ืข ื‘ื• ื ืงื‘ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ืžืจ ื’ื•ื™ ืงืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื’ื•ื™

Rabbi Elazar said to him: In a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a gentile began to slaughter and a Jew completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is valid. In a case where one cut the windpipe and encountered a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a Jew began to slaughter and a gentile completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan did not accept the distinction.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ืžื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืžืฉื—ื˜ ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืœื ืฉื—ื˜ ื›ื™ ื ืคืงื ื—ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื ื“ื’ื•ื™ ืงื ื ืคืงื ืืœื ื”ื›ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžืฉื—ื˜ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืงื‘ ืžื” ืœื™ ืคื’ืข ื‘ื• ื ืงื‘

Rava said: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan did well when he proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile. Granted, there, in the case where the gentile completed the slaughter, since a Jew was supposed to cut a majority of the windpipe and he did not cut it, when life left the animal it left by the hand of a gentile. But here, after all, he was the one who slaughtered the entire animal, and the animal was not a tereifa until this point, and so what difference is there to me if one began to cut in a place where there was a perforation and what difference is there to me if he encountered a perforation?

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžืœื™ืงื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื ืžืฆื ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืžืœื™ืงื” ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืžืœื™ืงื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

MISHNA: One who slaughters from the sides of the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches the neck of a bird offering from the sides, his pinching is not valid.One who slaughters from the nape [oref] of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid. One who slaughters from the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the throat, his pinching is not valid, as the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter. It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืžืฉ ืžืื™ ืืจื™ื ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื•ืœืง ื ืžื™ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขืจืคื• ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ืขืจืคื• ืืœื ืžืื™ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžืœื™ืงื”

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna: One who slaughters an animal from the oref, its slaughter is not valid, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oref? If we say that the reference is to the actual occipital bone at the rear of the skull, why does this halakha apply specifically to one who slaughters from the oref? Even if one pinches a bird offering from the oref it would also not be valid, as the Merciful One states: โ€œPinch off its head adjacent to its orefโ€ (Leviticus 5:8), at the nape beneath the occipital bone, and not its oref. Rather, what is the oref mentioned in the mishna? It is adjacent to the oref, the back of the neck below the occipital bone, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: The entire nape is valid for pinching.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขืจืคื• ืžื•ืœ ื”ืจื•ืื” ืืช ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉื‘ ืžืžืœื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ืคื ื• ืืœื™ ืขืจืฃ ื•ืœื ืคื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืขื•ืจืฃ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ื“ืข ืžื•ืœ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื›ื™ ืคื ื• ืืœื™ ืขืจืฃ ื•ืœื ืคื ื™ื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืขื•ืจืฃ ืœื”ื“ื™ ืคื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase โ€œadjacent to [mimmul] its oref,โ€ adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: โ€œAnd they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]โ€ (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: โ€œFor they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their faceโ€ (Jeremiah 2:27). The Gemara asks: What is added by the latter proof, introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say, we do not know where the oref itself is, so that we will know where adjacent to it is, come and hear: โ€œFor they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,โ€ from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.

ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืœื™ืงื” ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ืœืื—ื•ืจื™ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ื•ืžื•ืœืง ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื“ื•ืงื

ยง The sons of Rabbi แธคiyya say: How is the mitzva of pinching of a bird offering performed? One moves the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, behind the nape and pinches. There is a dispute among the Sages with regard to the meaning of the statement. There are those who say: The mitzva ab initio is to pinch through the spinal column first and then pinch the windpipe and the gullet, and one may even move the simanim to behind the nape and pinch. And there are those who say: The mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch.

ื•ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืจืฃ ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

The Gemara notes: And it is reasonable according to the one who says: One may even move the simanim behind the nape. From where does one draw that conclusion? It is from the fact that the mishna teaches: One who slaughters from the nape of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid.

Scroll To Top