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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 17, 2018 | 讟壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Chullin 20

The gemara continues to discuss differences between slaughtering and melika聽(the method used to slaughter聽birds in the mikdash) and also between slaughtering animals/slaughtering birds.


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

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讝讬专 讚讜拽讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讜诇拽 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讞讟 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚诇讗 讗讛讚专

And if it enters your mind that the mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch them, why did the tanna say specifically that if one pinches in this manner it is valid? Even if one slaughters from the nape in this manner the slaughter would be valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the proper understanding is: One may even move the simanim behind the nape and pinch, and the mishna is referring to a case where one did not move the simanim behind the nape.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讬拽讘诇讜 讛专讜讘讬谉 讗转 转砖讜讘转谉 讚拽转谞讬 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 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讞讝讬专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛注讜专祝 讚诇讗

Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi 岣yya, shall receive their response that rejects their statement from that which is taught in the mishna: 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. What does this statement serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude the case where one moves the simanim behind the nape, teaching that it is valid only for slaughter and not for pinching?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖谉 讜爪驻讜专谉 砖谉 讜爪驻讜专谉 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na said: No, perhaps it serves to exclude one who uses a tooth or a fingernail that is not detached, which are valid for pinching and not valid for slaughter. The Gemara objects: That could not be, as the tanna teaches explicitly the case of a tooth and a fingernail in a mishna (15b), and there was no need to repeat it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 驻住讜诇

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said: The statement of the mishna: That which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching, serves to exclude drawing back and forth. One who pinches may not cut the simanim by drawing his fingernail back and forth. Rather, he must press and cut them in one motion. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid, but according to the one who says: It is valid, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪爪讜转 诪诇讬拽讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转讛 住讘专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪专 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讻砖专 讜诪讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转讛 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转讛

Rav Kahana says: The mitzva of pinching is that one cuts with his fingernail from the nape and continues downward, and that is its mitzva. Rabbi Avin thought to say: Cuts and continues downward, yes; draws back and forth, no. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: All the more so that drawing back and forth for pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the phrase: That is its mitzva, which indicates that it is specifically in that manner? The Gemara answers: Say that it means: That too is its mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛讻砖专 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讘注讜专祝 讻砖专 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇 讘诪诇讬拽讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝

Rabbi Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape. By inference, any place on the throat that is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara asks: What does this statement serve to exclude? If we say that it serves to exclude ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, which is invalid with regard to pinching just as with regard to slaughter, but didn鈥檛 Rami bar Ye岣zkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 专讗砖讜 专讗砖讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讘专讗砖讜

Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude pinching the occipital bone at the back of its head; just as it is not the place of slaughter, it is not the place of pinching. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: 鈥淎djacent to its nape,鈥 and not at its head.

诪讗讬 专讗砖讜 砖讬驻讜讬 专讗砖讜 讻讙讜谉 讚谞拽讟 诪砖讬驻讜讬 专讗砖讜 讜讛讙专讬诐 讜讗讝诇 注讚 讚诪讟讗 转转讗讬 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara answers: What is its head that is not the place for pinching? It is the incline of its head, e.g., in a case where one began at the incline of its head and diverted and continued until he reached below to the place of the simanim, where he completed the pinching. Since he began the process in the incorrect location, it is invalid, similar to slaughter. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says, as Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: If one diverted the knife upward and cut one-third of the windpipe and then cut two-thirds within the ring, the slaughter is not valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Ye岣zkel teaches: There is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah.

讗讘诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讬砖 注讬拽讜专

But according to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, there is disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讛讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 讚讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘讛诪讛 诇注谞讬谉 注讬拽讜专 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讘讛诪讛

Rav Ashi said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, the halakhot of slaughter are not explicit and were transmitted to Moses orally, and it can be said that this is what God taught him, that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim. And even according to the one who says that the halakhic status of a bird is like that of an animal, as the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird are derived from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal, perhaps God taught Moses that with regard to the matter of ripping simanim it will not be like an animal.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪讘讛诪讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讻讘讛诪讛

But according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, but rather it is by rabbinic law, from where are the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird learned? They are learned from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal; consequently, the entire matter of the slaughter of a bird is like that of an animal.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬谉 讘专 拽讬住讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讬砖 注讬拽讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛讻砖专 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讘注讜专祝 讻砖专 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讛讗 驻住讜诇 驻住讜诇 讛讛讜讗 驻诇讬讙讗

Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Ye岣zkel teaches, i.e., that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only with regard to pinching, but with regard to slaughter, there is disqualification for ripping simanim. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yirmeya say that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape, but that which is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara explains: That halakha disagrees with this statement of Shmuel.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 谞砖讘专讛 诪驻专拽转 讜专讜讘 讘砖专 注诪讛 谞讘诇讛

Ze鈥檈iri says: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass. It is dead and can no longer be rendered fit by slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诪诇拽 讘住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟专驻讛 讛讜讬讗 诪诇讬拽转讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 转讛谞讬 诇讛 住讻讬谉 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛

Rav 岣sda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zeva岣m 68a) as well: If one pinched a bird offering with a knife and not with his thumbnail, the bird renders the garments of one who swallows it impure when it is in the throat, which is the halakha in the case of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. And if you would say that if the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the bird is not an unslaughtered carcass but it is a tereifa, then since with regard to a bird offering its pinching is its slaughter, let pinching with a knife be effective to purify the bird from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, as a tereifa does not transmit impurity when slaughtered properly. From the halakha that pinching with a knife does not render the bird pure it is evident that when its neck bone is broken the bird is rendered an unslaughtered carcass.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讬讗 讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇讬讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜专住

The Sages say in response: There, pinching with a knife is ineffective in rendering it pure not because the breaking of the neck bone renders the bird an unslaughtered carcass. Rather, it is because it is not slaughter at all. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Huna says: It is because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, which invalidates the slaughter. Rava says: It is because he presses the knife.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜专住 拽住讘专 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讻砖专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜专住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇讬讚 讗诪专 诇讱 讞诇讚讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讞讜诇讚讛 讛讚专讛 讘注讬拽专讬 讘转讬诐 讚诪讻住讬讗 讛讻讗 讛讗 诪讬讙诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says: Because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he presses the knife? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that drawing back and forth in pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And the one who says: Because he presses the knife, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he conceals [ma岣id] the knife? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: What are the circumstances of concealing the knife? It is like a rat [岣lda] that resides in the foundations of houses that are concealed. Here, when he begins cutting from the nape of the neck, that knife is exposed.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜讻讬 诪转讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讜诇拽

Rava said: If that which Ze鈥檈iri said: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass, is difficult for me, this is difficult for me: How does pinching a bird offering prepare it for sacrifice? Since pinching involves breaking the neck bone and cutting most of the surrounding flesh with it before cutting the simanim, what significance is there to pinching the simanim? And does he stand and pinch a dead bird? If it is dead, of what use is the pinching?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜转拽砖讬 诇讱 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚讘注讬讗 砖谞讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讻讬 诪转讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讜诇拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讛 诪爪讜转 讛讘讚诇讛

Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, let the case of a bird burnt offering be difficult for you, as it requires cutting of two simanim. Since slaughter of a non-sacred bird requires cutting of one siman, once one siman is cut the bird is considered dead for all intents and purposes, and does he stand and pinch a dead bird? Rava said to him: There, he continues pinching in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of separation between the head and the body in the bird burnt offering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 注讜专 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛诪注讻讘 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪注讻讘 讘讛讘讚诇讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讘讛讘讚诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, there should be an obligation to cut the skin of the bird as well in order to fulfill the mitzva of separation. Abaye answers: Any element that invalidates slaughter invalidates separation, and any element that does not invalidate slaughter does not invalidate separation. Failure to cut the skin does not invalidate slaughter.

讜讛讗 诪讬注讜讟 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪注讻讘讬 讘讛讘讚诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛讘讚诇讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛讘讚诇讛

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the minority of the simanim according to the Rabbis, which do not invalidate slaughter, as, if one slaughtered a majority of the simanim and a minority remained uncut, the slaughter is valid, and they hold that they invalidate separation? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, say: Any element that is in effect with regard to slaughter is in effect with regard to separation, and any element that is not in effect with regard to slaughter is not in effect with regard to separation. The two simanim, although they do not invalidate slaughter, are part of the mitzva of slaughter, while the skin is not part of the mitzva of slaughter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Chullin 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 20

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞讝讬专 讚讜拽讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪讜诇拽 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讞讟 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗祝 诪讞讝讬专 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚诇讗 讗讛讚专

And if it enters your mind that the mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch them, why did the tanna say specifically that if one pinches in this manner it is valid? Even if one slaughters from the nape in this manner the slaughter would be valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the proper understanding is: One may even move the simanim behind the nape and pinch, and the mishna is referring to a case where one did not move the simanim behind the nape.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讬拽讘诇讜 讛专讜讘讬谉 讗转 转砖讜讘转谉 讚拽转谞讬 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 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讞讝讬专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗讞讜专讬 讛注讜专祝 讚诇讗

Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi 岣yya, shall receive their response that rejects their statement from that which is taught in the mishna: 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. What does this statement serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude the case where one moves the simanim behind the nape, teaching that it is valid only for slaughter and not for pinching?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖谉 讜爪驻讜专谉 砖谉 讜爪驻讜专谉 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na said: No, perhaps it serves to exclude one who uses a tooth or a fingernail that is not detached, which are valid for pinching and not valid for slaughter. The Gemara objects: That could not be, as the tanna teaches explicitly the case of a tooth and a fingernail in a mishna (15b), and there was no need to repeat it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 驻住讜诇

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said: The statement of the mishna: That which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching, serves to exclude drawing back and forth. One who pinches may not cut the simanim by drawing his fingernail back and forth. Rather, he must press and cut them in one motion. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid, but according to the one who says: It is valid, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The sons of Rabbi 岣yya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪爪讜转 诪诇讬拽讛 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转讛 住讘专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪专 拽讜爪抓 讜讬讜专讚 讗讬谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讻砖专 讜诪讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转讛 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪爪讜转讛

Rav Kahana says: The mitzva of pinching is that one cuts with his fingernail from the nape and continues downward, and that is its mitzva. Rabbi Avin thought to say: Cuts and continues downward, yes; draws back and forth, no. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: All the more so that drawing back and forth for pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the phrase: That is its mitzva, which indicates that it is specifically in that manner? The Gemara answers: Say that it means: That too is its mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛讻砖专 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讘注讜专祝 讻砖专 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇 讘诪诇讬拽讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝

Rabbi Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape. By inference, any place on the throat that is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara asks: What does this statement serve to exclude? If we say that it serves to exclude ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, which is invalid with regard to pinching just as with regard to slaughter, but didn鈥檛 Rami bar Ye岣zkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 专讗砖讜 专讗砖讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪诪讜诇 注专驻讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讘专讗砖讜

Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude pinching the occipital bone at the back of its head; just as it is not the place of slaughter, it is not the place of pinching. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: 鈥淎djacent to its nape,鈥 and not at its head.

诪讗讬 专讗砖讜 砖讬驻讜讬 专讗砖讜 讻讙讜谉 讚谞拽讟 诪砖讬驻讜讬 专讗砖讜 讜讛讙专讬诐 讜讗讝诇 注讚 讚诪讟讗 转转讗讬 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讙专讬诐 砖诇讬砖 讜砖讞讟 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara answers: What is its head that is not the place for pinching? It is the incline of its head, e.g., in a case where one began at the incline of its head and diverted and continued until he reached below to the place of the simanim, where he completed the pinching. Since he began the process in the incorrect location, it is invalid, similar to slaughter. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says, as Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: If one diverted the knife upward and cut one-third of the windpipe and then cut two-thirds within the ring, the slaughter is not valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Ye岣zkel teaches: There is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah.

讗讘诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讬砖 注讬拽讜专

But according to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, there is disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讛讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 讚讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘讛诪讛 诇注谞讬谉 注讬拽讜专 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讘讛诪讛

Rav Ashi said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, the halakhot of slaughter are not explicit and were transmitted to Moses orally, and it can be said that this is what God taught him, that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim. And even according to the one who says that the halakhic status of a bird is like that of an animal, as the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird are derived from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal, perhaps God taught Moses that with regard to the matter of ripping simanim it will not be like an animal.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讛讬讻讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪讘讛诪讛 讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讻讘讛诪讛

But according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, but rather it is by rabbinic law, from where are the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird learned? They are learned from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal; consequently, the entire matter of the slaughter of a bird is like that of an animal.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬谉 讘专 拽讬住讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗讬谉 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讬砖 注讬拽讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛讻砖专 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻谞讙讚讜 讘注讜专祝 讻砖专 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讛讗 驻住讜诇 驻住讜诇 讛讛讜讗 驻诇讬讙讗

Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Ye岣zkel teaches, i.e., that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only with regard to pinching, but with regard to slaughter, there is disqualification for ripping simanim. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yirmeya say that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape, but that which is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara explains: That halakha disagrees with this statement of Shmuel.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 谞砖讘专讛 诪驻专拽转 讜专讜讘 讘砖专 注诪讛 谞讘诇讛

Ze鈥檈iri says: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass. It is dead and can no longer be rendered fit by slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诪诇拽 讘住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟专驻讛 讛讜讬讗 诪诇讬拽转讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讛 转讛谞讬 诇讛 住讻讬谉 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛

Rav 岣sda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zeva岣m 68a) as well: If one pinched a bird offering with a knife and not with his thumbnail, the bird renders the garments of one who swallows it impure when it is in the throat, which is the halakha in the case of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. And if you would say that if the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the bird is not an unslaughtered carcass but it is a tereifa, then since with regard to a bird offering its pinching is its slaughter, let pinching with a knife be effective to purify the bird from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, as a tereifa does not transmit impurity when slaughtered properly. From the halakha that pinching with a knife does not render the bird pure it is evident that when its neck bone is broken the bird is rendered an unslaughtered carcass.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讬讗 讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇讬讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜专住

The Sages say in response: There, pinching with a knife is ineffective in rendering it pure not because the breaking of the neck bone renders the bird an unslaughtered carcass. Rather, it is because it is not slaughter at all. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Huna says: It is because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, which invalidates the slaughter. Rava says: It is because he presses the knife.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜专住 拽住讘专 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讘诪诇讬拽讛 讻砖专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讚讜专住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讞诇讬讚 讗诪专 诇讱 讞诇讚讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讞讜诇讚讛 讛讚专讛 讘注讬拽专讬 讘转讬诐 讚诪讻住讬讗 讛讻讗 讛讗 诪讬讙诇讬讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says: Because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he presses the knife? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that drawing back and forth in pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And the one who says: Because he presses the knife, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he conceals [ma岣id] the knife? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: What are the circumstances of concealing the knife? It is like a rat [岣lda] that resides in the foundations of houses that are concealed. Here, when he begins cutting from the nape of the neck, that knife is exposed.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜讻讬 诪转讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讜诇拽

Rava said: If that which Ze鈥檈iri said: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass, is difficult for me, this is difficult for me: How does pinching a bird offering prepare it for sacrifice? Since pinching involves breaking the neck bone and cutting most of the surrounding flesh with it before cutting the simanim, what significance is there to pinching the simanim? And does he stand and pinch a dead bird? If it is dead, of what use is the pinching?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜转拽砖讬 诇讱 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚讘注讬讗 砖谞讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜讻讬 诪转讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讜诇拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讛 诪爪讜转 讛讘讚诇讛

Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze鈥檈iri, let the case of a bird burnt offering be difficult for you, as it requires cutting of two simanim. Since slaughter of a non-sacred bird requires cutting of one siman, once one siman is cut the bird is considered dead for all intents and purposes, and does he stand and pinch a dead bird? Rava said to him: There, he continues pinching in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of separation between the head and the body in the bird burnt offering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 注讜专 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛诪注讻讘 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪注讻讘 讘讛讘讚诇讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注讻讘 讘讛讘讚诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, there should be an obligation to cut the skin of the bird as well in order to fulfill the mitzva of separation. Abaye answers: Any element that invalidates slaughter invalidates separation, and any element that does not invalidate slaughter does not invalidate separation. Failure to cut the skin does not invalidate slaughter.

讜讛讗 诪讬注讜讟 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪注讻讘讬 讘讛讘讚诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛讘讚诇讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛讘讚诇讛

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there the minority of the simanim according to the Rabbis, which do not invalidate slaughter, as, if one slaughtered a majority of the simanim and a minority remained uncut, the slaughter is valid, and they hold that they invalidate separation? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, say: Any element that is in effect with regard to slaughter is in effect with regard to separation, and any element that is not in effect with regard to slaughter is not in effect with regard to separation. The two simanim, although they do not invalidate slaughter, are part of the mitzva of slaughter, while the skin is not part of the mitzva of slaughter.

Scroll To Top