This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Chullin 21
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא: וְכֵן הוּא עוֹשֶׂה – חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר.
In any case, the statement of Ze’eiri remains difficult. What is the significance of pinching a dead bird? Rava said: Say in explanation: And likewise he does when he pinches, he cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh and then he pinches the simanim.
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא, כָּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה: חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר.
The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this halakha that Ze’eiri said, and Rabbi Zeira said to him: And does one stand and pinch a dead bird? Rabbi Ami was astonished [eshtomam] for a moment (see Daniel 4:16), and thought about it and said to Rabbi Ami: Say that this is what he does: He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה; הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה, חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד אוֹ רוּבּוֹ וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ, וּבְעוֹלָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
That is also taught in a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. Once he has reached the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman or its majority and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it; and in a burnt offering he cuts two simanim or the majority of two simanim.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: שְׁנַיִם דַּוְקָא! אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָאָמַר: רוֹב שְׁנַיִם!
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited in the baraita? If you say it is the Rabbis, don’t they say that one must cut specifically two simanim and not their majority? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that one must cut only a majority of the two simanim and no more, in which case why does the baraita specify two simanim or the majority of two simanim?
אֵימָא: שְׁנַיִם – לְרַבָּנַן, רוֹב שְׁנַיִם – לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּמַאי שְׁנַיִם – שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִשְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara answers: Say that when the baraita says two, it is according to the Rabbis; when it says a majority of two, it is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And if you wish, say instead: Both this, two, and that, a majority of two, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and what is the meaning of two? It does not mean two simanim in their entirety; rather, it means that one must cut a significant majority of the simanim that is similar to two entire simanim.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If the neck bone of a person was broken and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it was cut, that person imparts impurity in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with him he becomes impure, as his halakhic status is that of a corpse even though he is still twitching.
וְאִם תֹּאמַר: אוֹתוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה דְּעֵלִי, מַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר הֲוַאי! זִקְנָה שָׁאנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּהַזְכִּירוֹ אֶת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא אֲחֹרַנִּית בְּעַד יַד הַשַּׁעַר וַתִּשָּׁבֵר מַפְרַקְתּוֹ וַיָּמֹת כִּי זָקֵן הָאִישׁ וְכָבֵד וְגוֹ׳״.
And if you say that the incident of the death of Eli, the High Priest, whose death is described: “And his neck bone broke, and he died” (I Samuel 4:18), was one where the neck bone broke without the majority of the surrounding flesh being cut, and nevertheless he died immediately, the Gemara responds: Old age is different, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when he made mention of the Ark of God, that he fell from off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died; for he was an old man, and heavy; and he had judged Israel forty years” (I Samuel 4:18).
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְרָעוֹ כַּדָּג – מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: וּמִגַּבּוֹ.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ripped a person like one cuts a fish, lengthwise, the halakhic status of the ripped person is that of a corpse even though he is still convulsing, and he imparts impurity in a tent. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: And that is specifically if he was ripped from his back.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא – נְבֵלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִיטַּל הַיָּרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (נִיכָּר) – נְבֵלָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (נִיכָּר)? אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁרְבוּצָה וְנִרְאֵית חֲסֵרָה.
§ The Gemara resumes discussions of the halakhot of an animal. Shmuel says: If one rendered the animal like a shard [gistera] by cutting it in two widthwise, its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass even though it is still convulsing. Rabbi Elazar says: If the thigh, the hind leg of the animal, was removed and its recess is obvious, it is an unslaughtered carcass and it imparts impurity even if it remains alive. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of its recess being obvious? Rava said: It is any situation where the animal is collapsed and even so its hind leg is visibly lacking.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הוּתְּזוּ רָאשֵׁיהֶן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּפַרְכְּסִין – טְמֵאִים, כִּזְנַב הַלְּטָאָה שֶׁמְּפַרְכֶּסֶת.
We learned in a mishna there (Oholot 1:6) with regard to creeping animals whose carcasses are ritually impure: If their heads were removed, even if they are convulsing, they are impure like the tail of a lizard that was severed that convulses even though it is not alive.
מַאי הוּתְּזוּ? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּתְּזוּ מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Were removed? Reish Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבָּנַן, וְלָא פְּלִיגִיתוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִגִיתוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Asi: Do you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to the Rabbis, who hold that in addition to the neck bone and the surrounding flesh, one also completely severs the simanim, and then you and Reish Lakish do not disagree, as it is just like breaking the neck of the animal, since nothing remains other than the skin? Or perhaps you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and you and Reish Lakish disagree, as Reish Lakish holds that the animal imparts impurity only when it is completely beheaded.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִיגִינַן.
Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yirmeya: I mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and we disagree.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּתְּזוּ מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
There are those who say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one suffices with cutting a majority of two simanim.
מַאי רַבָּנַן וּמַאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה.
§ The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The dispute is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a sliding-scale offering, in which a poor person who cannot afford an animal sin offering brings two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, it is written: “And he shall prepare the second as a burnt offering, according to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering in whose stead the offering was brought.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה. מָה חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ בָּאָה
Do you say that it is according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering, or perhaps it is only according to the ordinance of a bird sin offering? The Gemara answers: When it says with regard to the bird burnt offering brought as a gift offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), meaning that it shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, the verse distinguished between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the term “according to the ordinance”? It means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering; just as an animal sin offering comes only
אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית, אַף עוֹלַת הָעוֹף אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין וּבַיּוֹם וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית.
from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest, so too, a bird burnt offering comes only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם, אַף כָּאן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר״ – מָה הַקְטָרָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף מְלִיקָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ.
The baraita asks: If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to an animal sin offering, slaughter is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, with regard to a bird burnt offering, the pinching is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim. Therefore, the verse states: “And pinched off its head…and burned it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). This indicates that just as with regard to burning, the head is burned by itself and the body is burned by itself, so too with regard to pinching, the head remains by itself and the body remains by itself.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״כְּמִשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, מָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, אַף עוֹלַת הָעוֹף מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף.
Rabbi Yishmael says: “According to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which is written with regard to the sliding-scale bird sin offering, means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in the previous verse. Just as a bird sin offering is pinched adjacent to its nape (Leviticus 5:8), beneath the occipital bone, so too a bird burnt offering is pinched adjacent to its nape, beneath the occipital bone.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן, מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל בְּסִימָן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״.
If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut, so too here, with regard to the burnt offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that a bird burnt offering shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, not like the sin offering.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – ״כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף״, מָה לְהַלָּן
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: “According to the ordinance” means according to the ordinance that is written with regard to a bird sin offering. Just as there,
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.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
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
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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 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
Berlin, Germany
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, 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
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Ontario, 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
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Chullin 21
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא: וְכֵן הוּא עוֹשֶׂה – חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר.
In any case, the statement of Ze’eiri remains difficult. What is the significance of pinching a dead bird? Rava said: Say in explanation: And likewise he does when he pinches, he cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh and then he pinches the simanim.
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא, כָּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה: חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר.
The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this halakha that Ze’eiri said, and Rabbi Zeira said to him: And does one stand and pinch a dead bird? Rabbi Ami was astonished [eshtomam] for a moment (see Daniel 4:16), and thought about it and said to Rabbi Ami: Say that this is what he does: He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה; הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה, חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד אוֹ רוּבּוֹ וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ, וּבְעוֹלָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
That is also taught in a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. Once he has reached the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman or its majority and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it; and in a burnt offering he cuts two simanim or the majority of two simanim.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: שְׁנַיִם דַּוְקָא! אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָאָמַר: רוֹב שְׁנַיִם!
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited in the baraita? If you say it is the Rabbis, don’t they say that one must cut specifically two simanim and not their majority? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that one must cut only a majority of the two simanim and no more, in which case why does the baraita specify two simanim or the majority of two simanim?
אֵימָא: שְׁנַיִם – לְרַבָּנַן, רוֹב שְׁנַיִם – לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּמַאי שְׁנַיִם – שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִשְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara answers: Say that when the baraita says two, it is according to the Rabbis; when it says a majority of two, it is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And if you wish, say instead: Both this, two, and that, a majority of two, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and what is the meaning of two? It does not mean two simanim in their entirety; rather, it means that one must cut a significant majority of the simanim that is similar to two entire simanim.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If the neck bone of a person was broken and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it was cut, that person imparts impurity in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with him he becomes impure, as his halakhic status is that of a corpse even though he is still twitching.
וְאִם תֹּאמַר: אוֹתוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה דְּעֵלִי, מַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר הֲוַאי! זִקְנָה שָׁאנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּהַזְכִּירוֹ אֶת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא אֲחֹרַנִּית בְּעַד יַד הַשַּׁעַר וַתִּשָּׁבֵר מַפְרַקְתּוֹ וַיָּמֹת כִּי זָקֵן הָאִישׁ וְכָבֵד וְגוֹ׳״.
And if you say that the incident of the death of Eli, the High Priest, whose death is described: “And his neck bone broke, and he died” (I Samuel 4:18), was one where the neck bone broke without the majority of the surrounding flesh being cut, and nevertheless he died immediately, the Gemara responds: Old age is different, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when he made mention of the Ark of God, that he fell from off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died; for he was an old man, and heavy; and he had judged Israel forty years” (I Samuel 4:18).
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְרָעוֹ כַּדָּג – מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: וּמִגַּבּוֹ.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ripped a person like one cuts a fish, lengthwise, the halakhic status of the ripped person is that of a corpse even though he is still convulsing, and he imparts impurity in a tent. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: And that is specifically if he was ripped from his back.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא – נְבֵלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִיטַּל הַיָּרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (נִיכָּר) – נְבֵלָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (נִיכָּר)? אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁרְבוּצָה וְנִרְאֵית חֲסֵרָה.
§ The Gemara resumes discussions of the halakhot of an animal. Shmuel says: If one rendered the animal like a shard [gistera] by cutting it in two widthwise, its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass even though it is still convulsing. Rabbi Elazar says: If the thigh, the hind leg of the animal, was removed and its recess is obvious, it is an unslaughtered carcass and it imparts impurity even if it remains alive. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of its recess being obvious? Rava said: It is any situation where the animal is collapsed and even so its hind leg is visibly lacking.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הוּתְּזוּ רָאשֵׁיהֶן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּפַרְכְּסִין – טְמֵאִים, כִּזְנַב הַלְּטָאָה שֶׁמְּפַרְכֶּסֶת.
We learned in a mishna there (Oholot 1:6) with regard to creeping animals whose carcasses are ritually impure: If their heads were removed, even if they are convulsing, they are impure like the tail of a lizard that was severed that convulses even though it is not alive.
מַאי הוּתְּזוּ? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּתְּזוּ מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Were removed? Reish Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבָּנַן, וְלָא פְּלִיגִיתוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִגִיתוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Asi: Do you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to the Rabbis, who hold that in addition to the neck bone and the surrounding flesh, one also completely severs the simanim, and then you and Reish Lakish do not disagree, as it is just like breaking the neck of the animal, since nothing remains other than the skin? Or perhaps you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and you and Reish Lakish disagree, as Reish Lakish holds that the animal imparts impurity only when it is completely beheaded.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִיגִינַן.
Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yirmeya: I mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and we disagree.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּתְּזוּ מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
There are those who say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one suffices with cutting a majority of two simanim.
מַאי רַבָּנַן וּמַאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה.
§ The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The dispute is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a sliding-scale offering, in which a poor person who cannot afford an animal sin offering brings two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, it is written: “And he shall prepare the second as a burnt offering, according to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering in whose stead the offering was brought.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה. מָה חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ בָּאָה
Do you say that it is according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering, or perhaps it is only according to the ordinance of a bird sin offering? The Gemara answers: When it says with regard to the bird burnt offering brought as a gift offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), meaning that it shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, the verse distinguished between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the term “according to the ordinance”? It means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering; just as an animal sin offering comes only
אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית, אַף עוֹלַת הָעוֹף אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין וּבַיּוֹם וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית.
from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest, so too, a bird burnt offering comes only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם, אַף כָּאן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר״ – מָה הַקְטָרָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף מְלִיקָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ.
The baraita asks: If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to an animal sin offering, slaughter is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, with regard to a bird burnt offering, the pinching is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim. Therefore, the verse states: “And pinched off its head…and burned it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). This indicates that just as with regard to burning, the head is burned by itself and the body is burned by itself, so too with regard to pinching, the head remains by itself and the body remains by itself.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״כְּמִשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, מָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, אַף עוֹלַת הָעוֹף מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף.
Rabbi Yishmael says: “According to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which is written with regard to the sliding-scale bird sin offering, means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in the previous verse. Just as a bird sin offering is pinched adjacent to its nape (Leviticus 5:8), beneath the occipital bone, so too a bird burnt offering is pinched adjacent to its nape, beneath the occipital bone.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן, מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל בְּסִימָן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״.
If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut, so too here, with regard to the burnt offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that a bird burnt offering shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, not like the sin offering.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – ״כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף״, מָה לְהַלָּן
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: “According to the ordinance” means according to the ordinance that is written with regard to a bird sin offering. Just as there,
