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
The sons of Rabbi Chiya taught that when performing melika (pinching the neck of a sacrificial bird), the kohen may draw the simanim (the windpipe and gullet) toward the back of the neck and sever them without breaking the neck bone. The Sages dispute whether they meant this is the only valid method (to avoid rendering the bird a treifa by breaking the bone first), or if breaking the neck bone prior to cutting the simanim is also permitted as a Torah-prescribed approach. The Mishna supports this latter explanation.
Rabbi Yannai raises a difficulty against the sons of Rabbi Chiya based on an inference from another line in the Mishna, which the Gemara resolves by demonstrating that an alternative inference can be drawn.
The Gemara notes a debate regarding whether melika can be performed with a back-and-forth sawing motion (holacha v’hava’a) similar to shechita.
Rabbi Yirmia quotes a statement by Shmuel comparing shechita and melika. After analyzing what specific law was being equated, the Gemara concludes that Shmuel is teaching that if one begins the melika too high on the neck (hagrama) and finishes in the correct area, it is disqualified – just as we learned regarding shechita.
Rami bar Yechezkel cites a braita stating that there is no issue with birds if the simanim are found to be displaced. The Gemara disputes whether this applies only according to the opinion that shechita of a bird is not a Torah law, or if it holds true even for those who view it as a Torah obligation derived via halakha l’Moshe m’Sinai.
A further debate ensues over whether Rami bar Yechezkel’s braita applies exclusively to melika or extends to the shechita of a bird as well. Additionally, Rabbi Yirmia’s statement in the name of Shmuel is presented as a conflicting view to this braita.
Zeiri rules that if the neck bone is broken with the majority of the flesh around it also cut off, the animal or bird immediately becomes a neveila (carcass), even if the animal is still convulsing. Rava challenges this: if breaking the neck bone creates a neveila, how could melika ever be validly performed on a bird, given that the process begins by breaking the neck? This would mean the kohen is performing melika on a bird that is already dead. Abaye raises a difficulty against Rava’s challenge from the laws of a bird burnt offering, and the Gemara resolves the issue.
Today’s daily daf tools:
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.”
Chullin 20
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא, מַאי אִירְיָא מוֹלֵק? אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹחֵט נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַף מַחְזִיר, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּדְלָא אַהְדַּר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: יְקַבְּלוּ הָרוֹבִין אֶת תְּשׁוּבָתָן, דְּקָתָנֵי: נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִין לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף, דְּלָא?
Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן. שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְמַעוֹטֵי מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל.
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 Ḥiyya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד, וְזוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ. סָבַר רַבִּי אָבִין לְמֵימַר: קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד – אִין, מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא – לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר, וּמַאי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ? אֵימָא: אַף זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין, וְהָא תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף!
§ 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’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי רֹאשׁוֹ. רֹאשׁוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא? ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ!
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’t it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: “Adjacent to its nape,” and not at its head.
מַאי ״רֹאשׁוֹ״? שִׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ, כְּגוֹן דְּנָקֵט מִשִּׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִגְרִים וַאֲזַל עַד דִּמְטָא תַּתַּאי, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel 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.
אֲבָל לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּהָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ דְּאֵין עִיקּוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּבְהֵמָה, לְעִנְיַן עִיקּוּר לָא לֶיהֱוֵי כִּבְהֵמָה.
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.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, מֵהֵיכָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ? מִבְּהֵמָה, כּוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא כִּבְהֵמָה!
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.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, אָמַר לִי רָבִין בַּר קִיסִי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל – פָּסוּל! הָהִיא פְּלִיגָא.
Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel 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’t 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.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – נְבֵלָה.
§ Ze’eiri 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.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, מָלַק בְּסַכִּין – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא, מְלִיקָתָהּ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ – תַּהֲנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה.
Rav Ḥisda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zevaḥim 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.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס.
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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס? קָסָבַר: מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד? אָמַר לָךְ: חֲלָדָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּחוּלְדָּה הַדָּרָה בְּעִיקְּרֵי בָתִּים דְּמִכַּסְּיָא, הָכָא הָא מִיגַּלְּיָא.
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 [maḥlid] 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 [ḥulda] 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק?
Rava said: If that which Ze’eiri 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְתִקְשֵׁי לָךְ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, דְּבָעֲיָא שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בָּהּ מִצְוַת הַבְדָּלָה.
Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze’eiri, 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.
אִי הָכִי, עוֹר נָמֵי! כׇּל הַמְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
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.
וְהָא מִיעוּט סִימָנִין לְרַבָּנַן, דְּלָא מִעַכְּבִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּמְעַכְּבִי בְּהַבְדָּלָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t 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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
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.
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Blacksburg, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
Chullin 20
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא, מַאי אִירְיָא מוֹלֵק? אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹחֵט נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַף מַחְזִיר, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּדְלָא אַהְדַּר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: יְקַבְּלוּ הָרוֹבִין אֶת תְּשׁוּבָתָן, דְּקָתָנֵי: נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִין לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף, דְּלָא?
Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, 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?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן. שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְמַעוֹטֵי מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל.
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 Ḥiyya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד, וְזוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ. סָבַר רַבִּי אָבִין לְמֵימַר: קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד – אִין, מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא – לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר, וּמַאי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ? אֵימָא: אַף זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין, וְהָא תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף!
§ 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’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי רֹאשׁוֹ. רֹאשׁוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא? ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ!
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’t it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: “Adjacent to its nape,” and not at its head.
מַאי ״רֹאשׁוֹ״? שִׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ, כְּגוֹן דְּנָקֵט מִשִּׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִגְרִים וַאֲזַל עַד דִּמְטָא תַּתַּאי, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel 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.
אֲבָל לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּהָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ דְּאֵין עִיקּוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּבְהֵמָה, לְעִנְיַן עִיקּוּר לָא לֶיהֱוֵי כִּבְהֵמָה.
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.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, מֵהֵיכָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ? מִבְּהֵמָה, כּוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא כִּבְהֵמָה!
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.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, אָמַר לִי רָבִין בַּר קִיסִי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל – פָּסוּל! הָהִיא פְּלִיגָא.
Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel 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’t 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.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – נְבֵלָה.
§ Ze’eiri 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.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, מָלַק בְּסַכִּין – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא, מְלִיקָתָהּ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ – תַּהֲנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה.
Rav Ḥisda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zevaḥim 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.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס.
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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס? קָסָבַר: מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד? אָמַר לָךְ: חֲלָדָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּחוּלְדָּה הַדָּרָה בְּעִיקְּרֵי בָתִּים דְּמִכַּסְּיָא, הָכָא הָא מִיגַּלְּיָא.
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 [maḥlid] 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 [ḥulda] 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק?
Rava said: If that which Ze’eiri 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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְתִקְשֵׁי לָךְ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, דְּבָעֲיָא שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בָּהּ מִצְוַת הַבְדָּלָה.
Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze’eiri, 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.
אִי הָכִי, עוֹר נָמֵי! כׇּל הַמְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
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.
וְהָא מִיעוּט סִימָנִין לְרַבָּנַן, דְּלָא מִעַכְּבִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּמְעַכְּבִי בְּהַבְדָּלָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t 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.
