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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 16, 2018 | 讞壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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"

讜讛诇讻转讗 诪砖讬驻讜讬 讻讜讘注 讜诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖讬讬专 讘讞讬讟讬

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讻砖专 诪砖讬驻讜讬 讻讜讘注 讜诇诪讟讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav 岣nan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Na岣an: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讞讬诇拽 讬讚注谞讗 讜诇讗 讘讬诇拽 讬讚注谞讗 讗谞讗 砖诪注转讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讬驻讜讬 讻讜讘注 讜诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: Neither do I know 岣llek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this one鈥檚 opinion nor for that one鈥檚 opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi 岣nina says, and some say that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讜讙专诪转 讚专讘谞谉 讻砖专讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 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 岣nina 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.

讜讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖专讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住

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 岣nina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 讛注讬讚 注诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讚拽讗讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nina ben Antigonus, as Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讜诇讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘注讬谞谉 讘讟讘注转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜

搂 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.

讗讘诇 讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讚讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诇讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐

Rav 岣sda 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讗讘诇 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 讚讛讗 转谞谉 专讜讘讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讻诪讜讛讜

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 didn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讛讜讗 专讜讘讗 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛

Rav Yosef said to Rav 岣sda: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 专讜讘讬 讚注诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 专讜讘讗 讚砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讜 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讗讘诇 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 讚讛讗 转谞谉 专讜讘讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讻诪讜讛讜

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 didn鈥檛 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?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讛讜讗 专讜讘讗 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讟讜 讻诇 专讜讘讬 讚注诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 专讜讘讗 讚砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讜 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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

讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟专驻讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专讛 讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟专驻讛 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诇讬讻讗

搂 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.

砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专讛 讗转讜 砖讬讬诇讜讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟专驻讛 砖诪注 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 讟专讬驻谞讗 讜诪讻砖专 讜诪讻砖专谞讗 讟专讬祝 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讬拽驻讚 讞讚讗 讗讬讛讜 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗谞讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜注讜讚 讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛

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, isn鈥檛 there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 转讛讚专 讘讱

Rav 岣sda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,

讚讗诐 讻谉 诪驻住讚转 诇讛 诇拽诪讬讬转讗 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 诪讻砖专转 讚讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讛 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘讛讙专诪讛 拽讗 谞驻拽讗

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.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻诪住专拽 讻砖专讛

Rav Na岣an 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: Isn鈥檛 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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转 讜诇讬讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

(住讬诪谉 讘讻讚)

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

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.

讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

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.

砖讞讟 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

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.

砖讞讟 讜驻讙注 讘讜 谞拽讘 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗

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 Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讟 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖砖讞讟 讙讜讬 讜讙诪专 讬砖专讗诇 砖讞讟 讜驻讙注 讘讜 谞拽讘 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖砖讞讟 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙诪专 讙讜讬 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讙讜讬

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 Yo岣nan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yo岣nan did not accept the distinction.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖驻讬专 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讙讜讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇诪砖讞讟 专讜讘讗 讜诇讗 砖讞讟 讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘讬讚讗 讚讙讜讬 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讻讚讬 诪砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟 诪讛 诇讬 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 诪讛 诇讬 驻讙注 讘讜 谞拽讘

Rava said: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪诇讬拽转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 诪诇讬拽转讜 讻砖讬专讛 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 诪诇讬拽转讜 驻住讜诇讛 砖讻诇 讛注讜专祝 讻砖专 诇诪诇讬拽讛 讜讻诇 讛爪讜讗专 讻砖专 诇砖讞讬讟讛 谞诪爪讗 讻砖专 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讻砖专 讘诪诇讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 注讜专祝 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讜专祝 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 砖讜讞讟 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜诇拽 谞诪讬 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 注专驻讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讜专祝 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻诇 讛注讜专祝 讻砖专 诇诪诇讬拽讛

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: 鈥淧inch off its head adjacent to its oref (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.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讜 诪讜诇 讛专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注讜专祝 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 讬砖讘 诪诪诇讬 讜讗讜诪专 讻讬 驻谞讜 讗诇讬 注专祝 讜诇讗 驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注讜专祝 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讚注 诪讜诇 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 驻谞讜 讗诇讬 注专祝 讜诇讗 驻谞讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚注讜专祝 诇讛讚讬 驻谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase 鈥渁djacent to [mimmul] its oref,鈥 adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: 鈥淎nd they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]鈥 (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: 鈥淔or they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face鈥 (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: 鈥淔or they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,鈥 from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.

讗诪专讬 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪爪讜转 诪诇讬拽讛 诪讞讝讬专 住讬诪谞讬诐 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛注讜专祝 讜诪讜诇拽 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讞讝讬专 讚讜拽讗

The sons of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 诪诇讬拽转讜 讻砖专讛

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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

讜讛诇讻转讗 诪砖讬驻讜讬 讻讜讘注 讜诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖讬讬专 讘讞讬讟讬

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讻砖专 诪砖讬驻讜讬 讻讜讘注 讜诇诪讟讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav 岣nan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Na岣an: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讞讬诇拽 讬讚注谞讗 讜诇讗 讘讬诇拽 讬讚注谞讗 讗谞讗 砖诪注转讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讬驻讜讬 讻讜讘注 讜诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: Neither do I know 岣llek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this one鈥檚 opinion nor for that one鈥檚 opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi 岣nina says, and some say that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讜讙专诪转 讚专讘谞谉 讻砖专讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 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 岣nina 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.

讜讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖专讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住

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 岣nina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讚专讘谞谉 拽讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 讛注讬讚 注诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讚拽讗讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nina ben Antigonus, as Rav Na岣an holds in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讜诇讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘注讬谞谉 讘讟讘注转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜

搂 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.

讗讘诇 讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讚讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诇讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐

Rav 岣sda 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讗讘诇 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 讚讛讗 转谞谉 专讜讘讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讻诪讜讛讜

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 didn鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讛讜讗 专讜讘讗 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛

Rav Yosef said to Rav 岣sda: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 专讜讘讬 讚注诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 专讜讘讗 讚砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讜 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讗讘诇 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讛 讚讛讗 转谞谉 专讜讘讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讻诪讜讛讜

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 didn鈥檛 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?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讛讛讜讗 专讜讘讗 讚讛转诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讟讜 讻诇 专讜讘讬 讚注诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 专讜讘讗 讚砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讚砖诪注谞讗 诇讛讜 讚驻诇讬讙讬

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

讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟专驻讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专讛 讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟专驻讛 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诇讬讻讗

搂 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.

砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻砖专讛 讗转讜 砖讬讬诇讜讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟专驻讛 砖诪注 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬拽驻讚 讗诪专 讟专讬驻谞讗 讜诪讻砖专 讜诪讻砖专谞讗 讟专讬祝 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讬拽驻讚 讞讚讗 讗讬讛讜 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗谞讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜注讜讚 讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛

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, isn鈥檛 there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 转讛讚专 讘讱

Rav 岣sda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,

讚讗诐 讻谉 诪驻住讚转 诇讛 诇拽诪讬讬转讗 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 诪讻砖专转 讚讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讛 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘讛讙专诪讛 拽讗 谞驻拽讗

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.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇住讜专讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻诪住专拽 讻砖专讛

Rav Na岣an 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: Isn鈥檛 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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转 讜诇讬讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

(住讬诪谉 讘讻讚)

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

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.

讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

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.

砖讞讟 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

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.

砖讞讟 讜驻讙注 讘讜 谞拽讘 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

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.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讝诇 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗

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 Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讞讟 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖砖讞讟 讙讜讬 讜讙诪专 讬砖专讗诇 砖讞讟 讜驻讙注 讘讜 谞拽讘 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖砖讞讟 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙诪专 讙讜讬 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讙讜讬

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 Yo岣nan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yo岣nan did not accept the distinction.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖驻讬专 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讙讜讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 诪讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇诪砖讞讟 专讜讘讗 讜诇讗 砖讞讟 讻讬 谞驻拽讗 讞讬讜转讗 讘讬讚讗 讚讙讜讬 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讻讚讬 诪砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟 诪讛 诇讬 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 诪讛 诇讬 驻讙注 讘讜 谞拽讘

Rava said: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛爪讚讚讬谉 诪诇讬拽转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 诪诇讬拽转讜 讻砖讬专讛 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 诪诇讬拽转讜 驻住讜诇讛 砖讻诇 讛注讜专祝 讻砖专 诇诪诇讬拽讛 讜讻诇 讛爪讜讗专 讻砖专 诇砖讞讬讟讛 谞诪爪讗 讻砖专 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讻砖专 讘诪诇讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 注讜专祝 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讜专祝 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 砖讜讞讟 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜诇拽 谞诪讬 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 注专驻讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 注讜专祝 诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻诇 讛注讜专祝 讻砖专 诇诪诇讬拽讛

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: 鈥淧inch off its head adjacent to its oref (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.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讜 诪讜诇 讛专讜讗讛 讗转 讛注讜专祝 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讜讗 讬砖讘 诪诪诇讬 讜讗讜诪专 讻讬 驻谞讜 讗诇讬 注专祝 讜诇讗 驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注讜专祝 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讚注 诪讜诇 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讻讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讬 驻谞讜 讗诇讬 注专祝 讜诇讗 驻谞讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚注讜专祝 诇讛讚讬 驻谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase 鈥渁djacent to [mimmul] its oref,鈥 adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: 鈥淎nd they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]鈥 (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: 鈥淔or they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face鈥 (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: 鈥淔or they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,鈥 from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.

讗诪专讬 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪爪讜转 诪诇讬拽讛 诪讞讝讬专 住讬诪谞讬诐 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛注讜专祝 讜诪讜诇拽 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讞讝讬专 讚讜拽讗

The sons of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛诪讜诇拽 诪谉 讛注讜专祝 诪诇讬拽转讜 讻砖专讛

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