Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rav Nachman permitted slaughtering above the large ring, at the point where the “hat” begins to slope inward, provided that the chitim (wheat-shaped glands) are at least partially left intact below the cut. This ruling matches neither the rabbis nor Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Yehuda, but appears to follow the position of Rabbi Chanina ben Antignus.
Rav Huna and Rav Nachman dispute the exact parameters of the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Yehuda. One view posits that they disagree in a case where the slaughterer cut the first third too high up, and the remaining two-thirds in the correct place – whereas if one cut two-thirds in the correct place and then veered upward for the last third, all agree it is valid (as the majority was already severed properly). An alternative version shifts the opinions between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Both versions include a difficulty and resolution exchanged between either Rav Chisda, Rav Yosef, and Abaye.
Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda further disagree on cases of alternating validity – such as when one slaughters the first third in the wrong place, the next third in the right place, and the final third in the wrong place (or the reverse scenario). Rav Yehuda follows the absolute majority; if the total sum of the valid cuts constitutes a majority, the slaughter is kosher. Rav Huna, however, evaluates the chronological moment the majority is achieved, requiring the majority to be made continuously in a valid manner.
Rav Kahana asked Rav Yehuda for the ruling on the cases of alternating thirds. He then raised several subsequent queries regarding the validity of shechita performed over a pre-existing perforation (nekev) in the windpipe.
The Mishna notes that the location for shechita is the exact opposite of the location for melika (the sacrificial pinching of a bird’s neck). Melika must be performed from the back of the neck (oref), whereas shechita must be performed from the front or the sides of the neck.
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Jonathan, Coby, Noam, Meital, and Aryeh in honor of Orna Siegel on completion of her doctorate in Jewish education. “Your mission to uplift Jewish education through research, leadership, and Jewish learning is an inspiration to us everyday.”
Today’s daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Leah Meritza bat Raizel (Sarah Cohen), my sister-in-law, who is having a liver transplant today.
Chullin 19
וְהִלְכְתָא מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהַיְינוּ דְּשַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי.
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 arytenoid cartilage extends beyond this point.
רַב נַחְמָן אַכְשַׁר מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבָּנַן וְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naḥman: 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא חִילָק יָדַעְנָא וְלָא בִּילָק יָדַעְנָא, אֲנָא שְׁמַעְתָּא יָדַעְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה כְּשֵׁרָה.
Rav Naḥman said to him: Neither do I know Ḥillek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this one’s opinion nor for that one’s opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi Ḥanina says, and some say that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מוּגְרֶמֶת דְּרַבָּנַן כְּשֵׁרָה לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ 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 Ḥanina 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.
וּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כְּשֵׁרָה לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס.
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 Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אַדְּרַבָּנַן קָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, ״הֵעִיד עָלֶיהָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס, דְּקָאֵי רַב נַחְמָן כְּוָותֵיהּ.
The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with his opinion.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כּוּלַּהּ שְׁחִיטָה בָּעֵינַן בְּטַבַּעַת גְּדוֹלָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ.
§ 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 holds 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.
אֲבָל הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, דְּכִי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא בָּעֵינַן רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְלֵיכָּא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, לֵימָא מָר אִיפְּכָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם.
Rav Ḥisda 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.
וְרַבָּנַן, הָתָם מָקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הָכָא לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה.
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.
אֲבָל שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּהָא תְּנַן: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
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’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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן נֵימָא לַן דְּהָהוּא רוּבָּא דְּהָתָם לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ!
Rav Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ כֹּל רוּבֵּי דְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רוּבָּא דִּשְׁחִיטָה קָאָמֵינָא, דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ דִּפְלִיגִי.
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.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְרַבָּנַן – הָתָם מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הָכָא לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה.
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.
אֲבָל שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּהָא תְּנַן: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
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’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?
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּהָהוּא רוּבָּא דְּהָתָם לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אַטּוּ כֹּל רוּבֵּי דְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רוּבָּא דִּשְׁחִיטָה קָאָמֵינָא, דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ דִּפְלִיגִי.
Rav Ḥisda 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 Ḥisda: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Ḥisda said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.
הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְרֵפָה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה – כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה קָא נָפְקָא. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְרֵפָה – בָּעֵינַן רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלֵיכָּא.
§ 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.
שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ – רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: טְרֵפָה. שְׁמַע רַב יְהוּדָה אִיקְּפַד, אֲמַר: טָרֵיפְנָא (ומכשר) [מַכְשַׁר], (ומכשרנא) [מַכְשַׁרְנָא] טָרֵיף! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שַׁפִּיר קָא מִיקְּפַד, חֲדָא – אִיהוּ שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וַאֲנָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וְעוֹד – הָאִיכָּא רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
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’t there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא תֶּהְדַּר בָּךְ,
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,
דְּאִם כֵּן, מַפְסְדַתְּ לַהּ לְקַמַּיְיתָא. הָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא קָא מַכְשְׁרַתְּ? דְּכִי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בְּהֶכְשֵׁירַהּ קָא נָפְקָא. הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בְּהַגְרָמָה קָא נָפְקָא.
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.
אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי: שְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּמַסְרֵק כְּשֵׁרָה.
Rav Naḥman 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’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.
וְדִלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה! בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת וְלֵיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
(סִימָן: בַּכַּ״ד).
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.
יְתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
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.
שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
שָׁחַט וּפָגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
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.
אֲזַל רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא?
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 Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט גּוֹי וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל. שָׁחַט וּפָגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר גּוֹי. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״.
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 Yoḥanan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yoḥanan did not accept the distinction.
אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁפִּיר קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״, בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁחַט רוּבָּא וְלָא שְׁחַט, כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בִּידָא דְּגוֹי קָא נָפְקָא, אֶלָּא הָכָא מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁחָט שָׁחֵיט, מָה לִי בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, מָה לִי פָּגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב?
Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצְּדָדִין – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הַצְּדָדִין – מְלִיקָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעוֹרֶף – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הָעוֹרֶף – מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הַצַּוָּאר – מְלִיקָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר לִמְלִיקָה, וְכׇל הַצַּוָּאר כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה. נִמְצָא, כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי עוֹרֶף? אִילֵימָא עוֹרֶף מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִרְיָא שׁוֹחֵט? אֲפִילּוּ מוֹלֵק נָמֵי! ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא עׇרְפּוֹ. אֶלָּא מַאי עוֹרֶף? מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כׇּל הָעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר לִמְלִיקָה.
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: “Pinch 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.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ – מוּל הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הָעוֹרֶף, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב מִמֻּלִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי פָנוּ אֵלַי עֹרֶף וְלֹא פָנִים״. מַאי וְאוֹמֵר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: עוֹרֶף גּוּפֵיהּ לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא, דְּנִדַּע מוּל דִּידֵיהּ הֵיכָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כִּי פָנוּ אֵלַי עֹרֶף וְלֹא פָנִים״, מִכְּלָל דְּעוֹרֶף לַהֲדֵי פָּנִים.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase “adjacent to [mimmul] its oref,” adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: “And they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]” (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face” (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: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,” from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.
אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִים לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף וּמוֹלֵק. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף מַחְזִיר, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא.
§ The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף מַחְזִיר, מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעוֹרֶף – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הָעוֹרֶף – מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה,
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.
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Chullin 19
וְהִלְכְתָא מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהַיְינוּ דְּשַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי.
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 arytenoid cartilage extends beyond this point.
רַב נַחְמָן אַכְשַׁר מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבָּנַן וְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naḥman: 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא חִילָק יָדַעְנָא וְלָא בִּילָק יָדַעְנָא, אֲנָא שְׁמַעְתָּא יָדַעְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה כְּשֵׁרָה.
Rav Naḥman said to him: Neither do I know Ḥillek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this one’s opinion nor for that one’s opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi Ḥanina says, and some say that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מוּגְרֶמֶת דְּרַבָּנַן כְּשֵׁרָה לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ 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 Ḥanina 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.
וּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כְּשֵׁרָה לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס.
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 Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אַדְּרַבָּנַן קָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina 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.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, ״הֵעִיד עָלֶיהָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס, דְּקָאֵי רַב נַחְמָן כְּוָותֵיהּ.
The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with his opinion.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כּוּלַּהּ שְׁחִיטָה בָּעֵינַן בְּטַבַּעַת גְּדוֹלָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ.
§ 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 holds 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.
אֲבָל הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, דְּכִי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא בָּעֵינַן רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְלֵיכָּא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, לֵימָא מָר אִיפְּכָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם.
Rav Ḥisda 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.
וְרַבָּנַן, הָתָם מָקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הָכָא לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה.
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.
אֲבָל שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּהָא תְּנַן: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
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’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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן נֵימָא לַן דְּהָהוּא רוּבָּא דְּהָתָם לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ!
Rav Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ כֹּל רוּבֵּי דְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רוּבָּא דִּשְׁחִיטָה קָאָמֵינָא, דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ דִּפְלִיגִי.
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.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְרַבָּנַן – הָתָם מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הָכָא לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה.
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.
אֲבָל שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּהָא תְּנַן: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
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’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?
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּהָהוּא רוּבָּא דְּהָתָם לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אַטּוּ כֹּל רוּבֵּי דְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רוּבָּא דִּשְׁחִיטָה קָאָמֵינָא, דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ דִּפְלִיגִי.
Rav Ḥisda 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 Ḥisda: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Ḥisda said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.
הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְרֵפָה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה – כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה קָא נָפְקָא. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְרֵפָה – בָּעֵינַן רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלֵיכָּא.
§ 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.
שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ – רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: טְרֵפָה. שְׁמַע רַב יְהוּדָה אִיקְּפַד, אֲמַר: טָרֵיפְנָא (ומכשר) [מַכְשַׁר], (ומכשרנא) [מַכְשַׁרְנָא] טָרֵיף! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שַׁפִּיר קָא מִיקְּפַד, חֲדָא – אִיהוּ שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וַאֲנָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וְעוֹד – הָאִיכָּא רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
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’t there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא תֶּהְדַּר בָּךְ,
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,
דְּאִם כֵּן, מַפְסְדַתְּ לַהּ לְקַמַּיְיתָא. הָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא קָא מַכְשְׁרַתְּ? דְּכִי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בְּהֶכְשֵׁירַהּ קָא נָפְקָא. הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בְּהַגְרָמָה קָא נָפְקָא.
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.
אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי: שְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּמַסְרֵק כְּשֵׁרָה.
Rav Naḥman 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’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.
וְדִלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה! בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת וְלֵיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
(סִימָן: בַּכַּ״ד).
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.
יְתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
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.
שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
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.
שָׁחַט וּפָגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
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.
אֲזַל רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא?
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 Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט גּוֹי וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל. שָׁחַט וּפָגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר גּוֹי. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״.
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 Yoḥanan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yoḥanan did not accept the distinction.
אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁפִּיר קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״, בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁחַט רוּבָּא וְלָא שְׁחַט, כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בִּידָא דְּגוֹי קָא נָפְקָא, אֶלָּא הָכָא מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁחָט שָׁחֵיט, מָה לִי בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, מָה לִי פָּגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב?
Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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?
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצְּדָדִין – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הַצְּדָדִין – מְלִיקָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעוֹרֶף – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הָעוֹרֶף – מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הַצַּוָּאר – מְלִיקָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר לִמְלִיקָה, וְכׇל הַצַּוָּאר כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה. נִמְצָא, כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי עוֹרֶף? אִילֵימָא עוֹרֶף מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִרְיָא שׁוֹחֵט? אֲפִילּוּ מוֹלֵק נָמֵי! ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא עׇרְפּוֹ. אֶלָּא מַאי עוֹרֶף? מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כׇּל הָעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר לִמְלִיקָה.
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: “Pinch 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.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ – מוּל הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הָעוֹרֶף, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב מִמֻּלִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי פָנוּ אֵלַי עֹרֶף וְלֹא פָנִים״. מַאי וְאוֹמֵר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: עוֹרֶף גּוּפֵיהּ לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא, דְּנִדַּע מוּל דִּידֵיהּ הֵיכָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כִּי פָנוּ אֵלַי עֹרֶף וְלֹא פָנִים״, מִכְּלָל דְּעוֹרֶף לַהֲדֵי פָּנִים.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase “adjacent to [mimmul] its oref,” adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: “And they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]” (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face” (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: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,” from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.
אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִים לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף וּמוֹלֵק. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף מַחְזִיר, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא.
§ The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף מַחְזִיר, מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעוֹרֶף – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הָעוֹרֶף – מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה,
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.
