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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 24, 2018 | ื˜ืดื– ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 27

ย  From where do we know that slaughtering is performed from the neck?


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

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืืช ื”ื•ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters by cutting one siman, i.e., the windpipe or the gullet, in a bird, and two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid, and the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins [haveridin], i.e., the major blood vessels in the neck. If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืœืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื•ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the term: One who slaughters, that if one slaughtered, then after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid; but ab initio, no, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Is the ruling with regard to the cutting of two simanim in an animal that ab initio, no, it is prohibited? If so, how much is one expected to continue and cut the simanim, ab initio? There are only two relevant simanim to be cut. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the reference is to the cutting of one siman in a bird, as one is required to cut both simanim in a bird ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that the reference is to the passage in the mishna that states that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, as one is required to cut the entire siman ab initio.

(ื›ืžืฉ ืกื™ืžืŸ)

ยง Kaf, mem, shin is a mnemonic for the sources of the statements cited in the discussion that follows: Rav Kahana, Rav Yeimar, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉืฉื— ื—ื˜ื”ื• ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ืื™ ื—ื˜ื”ื• ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ื“ื›ื•ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื˜ื ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื”ื›ื ืชื—ื˜ืื ื™ ื‘ืื–ื•ื‘ ื•ืื˜ื”ืจ

Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter [veshaแธฅat] the young bull before the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 1:5), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal bends [shaแธฅ], purify it [แธฅattehu] through slaughter. The Gemara asks: From where does one ascertain that this term, แธฅattehu, is an expression of purification? The Gemara answers: It is ascertained from a verse, as it is written: โ€œAnd he shall purify [veแธฅitte] the houseโ€ (Leviticus 14:52). And if you wish, say instead that it is ascertained from here: โ€œPurge me [teแธฅatteโ€™eni] with hyssop and I will be pureโ€ (Psalms 51:9).

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžื–ื ื‘ื• ืฉื— ืžื›ืœืœ ืฉื–ืงื•ืฃ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืฉื— ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืื–ื ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืœื™ื›ื

The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its tail, which is also a place in the animalโ€™s body that is bent. The Gemara responds: From the term: Bends [shaแธฅ], one can conclude by inference that we require a part of the animalโ€™s body that can stand erect and that bends; and this, the tail, is bent perpetually and is never erect. The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its ear, which is erect and bends. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animalโ€™s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the ear there is no blood of the soul spilled.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื“ืงืจืข ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืขื“ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืจืกื” ื—ืœื“ื” ื”ื’ืจืžื” ื•ืขื™ืงื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื

The Gemara asks: And say that one rends the animal starting from the ear and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition, i.e., a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition, and has no biblical source.

ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื“ืœื ืœืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the verse: โ€œAnd you shall slaughter,โ€ come to teach? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animalโ€™s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet, which are adjacent to the major blood vessels.

ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื–ื‘ื—ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื–ื‘ ื—ืชื”ื• ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื—ืชื”ื• ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืžืชื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœ ืชื™ืจื ื•ืืœ ืชื—ืช

Rav Yeimar says: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œAnd you shall slaughter [vezavaแธฅta] of your herd and of your flockโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the blood flows [shezav], break it [แธฅattehu], i.e., cut it. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term, แธฅattehu, is an expression of breaking? The Gemara answers: It is inferred from a verse, as it is written: โ€œNeither fear nor be dismayed [teแธฅat]โ€ (Deuteronomy 1:21); ensure that your spirit will not be broken.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื–ื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื—ืชื•ื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ ื–ื‘ ืžืืœื™ื• ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืœื‘ื• ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืจืกื” ื—ืœื“ื” ื”ื’ืจืžื” ื•ืขื™ืงื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื

The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its nose, from which mucus flows, as the verse did not mention blood. The Gemara responds: We require a fluid that flows by means of breaking, and this mucus flows on its own. The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its heart by means of stabbing. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife during slaughter, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื“ืœื ืœืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall slaughterโ€ come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animalโ€™s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืœ ืชืงืจื™ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืœื ื•ืกื—ื˜ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉืกื— ื—ื˜ื”ื•

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter [veshaแธฅat]โ€ (Leviticus 1:5). Do not read it as: Veshaแธฅat; rather, read it as: Vesaแธฅat, which literally means: And he shall squeeze, which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal speaks [saแธฅ], purify it [แธฅattehu]. The animalโ€™s voice emanates from its throat; therefore, it is slaughtered from the neck.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืœืฉื•ื ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ื•ืื™ืžื ื“ืงืจืข ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืขื“ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืจืกื” ื—ืœื“ื” ื”ื’ืจืžื” ื•ืขื™ืงื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื

The Gemara objects: And say that slaughter is from its tongue. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animalโ€™s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the tongue there is no blood of the soul spilled. The Gemara objects: And say that one rends the animal starting from the tongue and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife, concealing the knife, diverting the knife, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื“ืœื ืœืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall slaughter,โ€ come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animalโ€™s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.

ื•ืชื ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืจื›ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ื ืชื—ื™ื

And a tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall cites the source for the halakha that slaughter is performed from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi แธคiyya says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fatโ€ฆupon the altarโ€ (Leviticus 1:8).

ืฉืื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ื•ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ื•ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ ื•ื”ืœื ืจืืฉ ื•ืคื“ืจ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ื ืชื—ื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืื• ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืืช ื”ืขืœื” ื•ื ืชื— ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื ืชื—ื™ื ืฉื™ืฉื ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืคืฉื˜ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืชื– ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ืจืืฉื• ื•ืืช ืคื“ืจื• ื•ืขืจืš

Rabbi แธคiyya explains: As there is no need for the verse to state: โ€œThe head, and the fat.โ€ What is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œThe head, and the fatโ€? Werenโ€™t the head and the fat included in the category of all the pieces, mentioned earlier in the verse? For what purpose did they emerge from the category and warrant individual mention? This is due to the fact that it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its piecesโ€ (Leviticus 1:6). One might have thought that I have derived that only the pieces that are included in the category of flaying must be arranged on the altar. From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed when the animal was slaughtered, and is not flayed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œWith its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange themโ€ (Leviticus 1:12).

ืžื“ืงืืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืชื– ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ

The tanna concludes: From the fact that Rabbi แธคiyya says: The head, which was already partially severed, one learns by inference that slaughter is from the neck, as the neck connects the head to the body.

ื•ืชื ื ืคืชื— ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ืคื“ืจ ื•ืžืกื™ื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ืคื“ืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืชื– ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ื•ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And the tanna of the baraita opened with a question about the extraneous phrase written with regard to a bull burnt offering: โ€œThe head, and the fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:8), and concludes with an explanation of the phrase written with regard to a sheep burnt offering: โ€œIts head and its fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œThe head, and the fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:8).

ื•ืจืืฉื• ื•ืคื“ืจื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจืืฉ ื•ืคื“ืจ ืฉืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ ืœื›ืœ ื”ื ืชื—ื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ืจืืฉื• ื•ืืช ืคื“ืจื• ื•ืขืจืš

The Gemara asks: And if so, why do I need the verse cited at the end of the baraita: โ€œIts head and its fatโ€? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the head and the fat precede all the other pieceswhen the sacrificial portions are sacrificed on the altar? The verse states: โ€œWith its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange themโ€ (Leviticus 1:12).

ื•ืคื“ืจ ืงืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืžืขืœื”ื• ื•ื–ื”ื• ื“ืจืš ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื”

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the first mention of fat that the Merciful One writes: โ€œThe pieces, the head, and the fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:8)? Wasnโ€™t the derivation from that verse restricted to the head? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: How does the priest who elevates the sacrificial portions of the animal to the altar perform that task? He uses the fat to cover the place of slaughter, i.e., to conceal the bloody neck, and elevates the head to the top of the altar, and that is a deferential manner toward the Most High.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื•ื›ื™ ื‘ืื™ื–ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ืžื’ืข ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ืขื•ืฃ ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ืžื’ืข ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ืขื•ืฃ ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”

And this tanna cites proof that slaughter is from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that the Torah writes with regard to the impurity of carcasses: โ€œThis is the law of the animal, and of the birdโ€ (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, whereas a bird does not impart impurity by contact or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render oneโ€™s garments impure when it is in the throat.

ื‘ืื™ื–ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืฃ ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช

The baraita continues: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as an animal avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter, so too, a bird avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter. The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of an animal, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, in the case of a bird, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim. The Gemara explains that the verse states: โ€œThis is the law,โ€ to restrict the scope of the juxtaposition in the sense that not all of the halakhot of birds and animals are equal.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืื™ื–ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื›ืฉืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ

The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as in the case of a bird, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through pinching and slaughter from the neck, as the Torah states with regard to bird offerings that one pinches off its head from the neck, so too, in the case of an animal, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through slaughter from the neck.

ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืžืœืง ืืช ืจืืฉื• ืžืžื•ืœ ืขืจืคื• ื•ืœื ื™ื‘ื“ื™ืœ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืื—ืจ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ

The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of a bird, the pinching is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck, so too here, with regard to an animal, the slaughter is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck and not from the throat. The Gemara explains that therefore, the verse states with regard to a bird: โ€œAnd pinch off its head adjacent to its nape, but shall not divide it asunderโ€ (Leviticus 5:8), from which it is derived: Its head, i.e., the birdโ€™s head, is pinched adjacent to the nape, but the head of another, the animal, is not cut adjacent to the nape.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืื™ ื–ืืช ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืœืื• ื–ืืช ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžื” ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืืฃ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื–ืืช

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: โ€œThis is the law,โ€ from which the first tanna restricted the scope of the juxtaposition between animals and birds? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from the term โ€œThis is the law,โ€ I would say: Just as the fitness of a bird is accomplished by cutting one of the simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet, so too, the fitness of an animal is accomplished by cutting one siman. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: โ€œThis is the law,โ€ to restrict the juxtaposition.

ืชื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืขื•ืฃ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื“ื’ื™ื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉ ืœื“ื’ื™ื ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ื‘ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

ยง The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earthโ€ (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman.

ื“ื’ื™ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื ืœืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉื—ื˜ ืœื”ื ืื ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ื’ื™ ื”ื™ื ื™ืืกืฃ ืœื”ื ื‘ืืกื™ืคื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืกื’ื™ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: โ€œIf flocks and herds be slaughtered for themโ€ฆor if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice themโ€ (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉืœื™ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืกืคื• ืืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื ืืžืจืช ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืืกื™ืคื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืืกื™ืคื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ื™

The Gemara clarifies: But if that is so, with regard to quail as well, concerning which it is written: โ€œAnd the people rose upโ€ฆand gathered the quailโ€ (Numbers 11:32), so too, would one say with regard to birds that, like fish, their fitness is not accomplished with slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question. But didnโ€™t you say: To exempt birds from slaughter altogether with nothing is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal? The Gemara answers: There, gathering of quail is not written in the context of the slaughter of others; therefore, gathering is not to be understood as an alternative to slaughtering the birds. Here, gathering of fish is written in the context of the slaughter of others, i.e., the flocks and herds, which indicates that gathering is an alternative to slaughter.

ื“ืจืฉ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื’ืœื™ืœืื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ื‘ืจืืช ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ื”ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื ื‘ืจืื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจืŸ ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืขื•ืฃ ืฉื ื‘ืจื ืžืŸ ื”ืจืงืง ื”ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืงืคื•ื˜ืงืื” ืชื“ืข ืฉื”ืจื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื”ื ื›ื“ื’ื™ื

The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืืœื• ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื™ืฉืจืฆื• ื”ืžื™ื ืฉืจืฅ ื ืคืฉ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื™ืขื•ืคืฃ ืืœืžื ืžืžื™ื ืื™ื‘ืจื• ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืื“ืžื” ื›ืœ ื—ื™ืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืืœืžื ืžืืจืขื ืื™ื‘ืจื•

The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: โ€œAnd God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will flyโ€ (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: โ€œAnd from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call themโ€ (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืจืงืง ื ื‘ืจืื• ืจืื” ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืžืกืชื›ืœื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืงืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื›ื ืฉื“ื—ื™ืชื™ ืืช ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืงืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื ื‘ืจืื• ื•ืœืžื” ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืืœ ื”ืื“ื ืœืงืจื•ืช ืœื”ืŸ ืฉื

Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.

ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืื—ืจ ืืžืจ ืœืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื•ื™ืฆืจ

And some say that Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: โ€œAnd from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the airโ€ (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืŸ ืคื ื—ืก ืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉืคืš ื‘ืฉืคื™ื›ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืกื’ื™

On the matter of slaughtering birds, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak ben Pineแธฅas: Slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is stated: โ€œAnd whatever man there be of the children of Israelโ€ฆwho traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood, and cover it in earthโ€ (Leviticus 17:13). This indicates that mere spilling of its blood is sufficient.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ ื”ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืคืš ืืช ื“ืžื•

The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to an undomesticated animal, which is mentioned in the same verse, spilling should be sufficient also. The Gemara explains: An undomesticated animal is juxtaposed to disqualified consecrated animals, for which slaughter is required, as explained later in the Gemara (28a). The Gemara asks: Birds too are juxtaposed to animals, and therefore slaughter should be required, as it is written: โ€œThis is the law of the animal, and of the birdโ€ (Leviticus 11:46). The Gemara answers: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œHe shall spill its blood,โ€ indicating that slaughter is not required?

ื•ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืฉื“ื™ื™ื” ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ืขื•ืฃ ืฉื“ื™ื™ื” ืื—ื™ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžื™ื ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And concerning the derivation that slaughter is not required, based on the phrase in the verse โ€œHe shall spill,โ€ what did you see that led you to cast it upon, i.e., apply it to, the case of a bird? Why not cast it upon the case of an undomesticated animal? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to cast the derivation upon the case of a bird due to the fact that the verse concluded with the bird, i.e., the bird is mentioned just prior to the directive to spill and cover the blood, as it is written: โ€œWho traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood.โ€

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื ืชื ื‘ืœ ื“ื ื‘ืžืœื™ืงื”)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited in the Gemara with regard to the slaughter of birds: Became a carcass, blood, through pinching.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื ืชื ื‘ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื ื•ื—ืจ ื•ื”ืžืขืงืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ืกื•ืช ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื ื—ื™ืจืชื• ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ื›ืกื•ื™ ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืœื ื‘ื—ื™ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak ben Pineแธฅas from a mishna (85a): One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand because the slaughter was not valid, or one who stabbed the animal by slicing the length of the simanim, or one who ripped the gullet or windpipe of the animal, rendering the slaughter not valid, is exempt from covering the blood because his slaughter was ineffective in permitting consumption of the animal, and it is written that the requirement of covering the blood applies only to โ€œany undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten.โ€ And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, the halakhic status of its stabbing is like that of its slaughter; let its blood require covering. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that this mishna is referring to a bird? No, it is referring exclusively to an undomesticated animal.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื“ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื›ืกื•ืช ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืื• ื ื•ื—ืจื• ืื• ืขื•ืงืจื•

The Gemara cites another challenge: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and requires the blood and not the animal is obligated to cover the blood. Rather, how does he act if he seeks to make use of the blood rather than cover it? He either stabs the animal or rips the simanim, and then he is exempt from covering the blood.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 27

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืืช ื”ื•ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืคืกื•ืœื” ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื”

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters by cutting one siman, i.e., the windpipe or the gullet, in a bird, and two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid, and the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins [haveridin], i.e., the major blood vessels in the neck. If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืœืฉื—ื•ื˜ ื•ืœื™ื–ื™ืœ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the term: One who slaughters, that if one slaughtered, then after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid; but ab initio, no, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Is the ruling with regard to the cutting of two simanim in an animal that ab initio, no, it is prohibited? If so, how much is one expected to continue and cut the simanim, ab initio? There are only two relevant simanim to be cut. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the reference is to the cutting of one siman in a bird, as one is required to cut both simanim in a bird ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that the reference is to the passage in the mishna that states that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, as one is required to cut the entire siman ab initio.

(ื›ืžืฉ ืกื™ืžืŸ)

ยง Kaf, mem, shin is a mnemonic for the sources of the statements cited in the discussion that follows: Rav Kahana, Rav Yeimar, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉืฉื— ื—ื˜ื”ื• ืžืžืื™ ื“ื”ืื™ ื—ื˜ื”ื• ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ื“ื›ื•ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื˜ื ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื”ื›ื ืชื—ื˜ืื ื™ ื‘ืื–ื•ื‘ ื•ืื˜ื”ืจ

Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter [veshaแธฅat] the young bull before the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 1:5), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal bends [shaแธฅ], purify it [แธฅattehu] through slaughter. The Gemara asks: From where does one ascertain that this term, แธฅattehu, is an expression of purification? The Gemara answers: It is ascertained from a verse, as it is written: โ€œAnd he shall purify [veแธฅitte] the houseโ€ (Leviticus 14:52). And if you wish, say instead that it is ascertained from here: โ€œPurge me [teแธฅatteโ€™eni] with hyssop and I will be pureโ€ (Psalms 51:9).

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžื–ื ื‘ื• ืฉื— ืžื›ืœืœ ืฉื–ืงื•ืฃ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืฉื— ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืื–ื ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืœื™ื›ื

The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its tail, which is also a place in the animalโ€™s body that is bent. The Gemara responds: From the term: Bends [shaแธฅ], one can conclude by inference that we require a part of the animalโ€™s body that can stand erect and that bends; and this, the tail, is bent perpetually and is never erect. The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its ear, which is erect and bends. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animalโ€™s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the ear there is no blood of the soul spilled.

ื•ืื™ืžื ื“ืงืจืข ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืขื“ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืจืกื” ื—ืœื“ื” ื”ื’ืจืžื” ื•ืขื™ืงื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื

The Gemara asks: And say that one rends the animal starting from the ear and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition, i.e., a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition, and has no biblical source.

ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื“ืœื ืœืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the verse: โ€œAnd you shall slaughter,โ€ come to teach? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animalโ€™s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet, which are adjacent to the major blood vessels.

ืจื‘ ื™ื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื–ื‘ื—ืช ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉื–ื‘ ื—ืชื”ื• ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื—ืชื”ื• ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืžืชื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœ ืชื™ืจื ื•ืืœ ืชื—ืช

Rav Yeimar says: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œAnd you shall slaughter [vezavaแธฅta] of your herd and of your flockโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the blood flows [shezav], break it [แธฅattehu], i.e., cut it. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term, แธฅattehu, is an expression of breaking? The Gemara answers: It is inferred from a verse, as it is written: โ€œNeither fear nor be dismayed [teแธฅat]โ€ (Deuteronomy 1:21); ensure that your spirit will not be broken.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžื—ื•ื˜ืžื• ื–ื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื—ืชื•ื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืื™ ื–ื‘ ืžืืœื™ื• ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืœื‘ื• ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืจืกื” ื—ืœื“ื” ื”ื’ืจืžื” ื•ืขื™ืงื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื

The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its nose, from which mucus flows, as the verse did not mention blood. The Gemara responds: We require a fluid that flows by means of breaking, and this mucus flows on its own. The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its heart by means of stabbing. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife during slaughter, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื“ืœื ืœืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall slaughterโ€ come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animalโ€™s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืœ ืชืงืจื™ ื•ืฉื—ื˜ ืืœื ื•ืกื—ื˜ ืžืžืงื•ื ืฉืกื— ื—ื˜ื”ื•

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall slaughter [veshaแธฅat]โ€ (Leviticus 1:5). Do not read it as: Veshaแธฅat; rather, read it as: Vesaแธฅat, which literally means: And he shall squeeze, which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal speaks [saแธฅ], purify it [แธฅattehu]. The animalโ€™s voice emanates from its throat; therefore, it is slaughtered from the neck.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืœืฉื•ื ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ื•ืื™ืžื ื“ืงืจืข ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืขื“ ื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื™ื” ื“ืจืกื” ื—ืœื“ื” ื”ื’ืจืžื” ื•ืขื™ืงื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื’ืžืจื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ื ืžื™ ื’ืžืจื

The Gemara objects: And say that slaughter is from its tongue. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animalโ€™s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the tongue there is no blood of the soul spilled. The Gemara objects: And say that one rends the animal starting from the tongue and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife, concealing the knife, diverting the knife, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

ื•ืงืจื ืœืžืื™ ืืชื ื“ืœื ืœืฉื•ื™ื™ื” ื’ื™ืกื˜ืจื

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall slaughter,โ€ come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animalโ€™s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.

ื•ืชื ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืจื›ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื”ืจืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืืช ื”ื ืชื—ื™ื

And a tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall cites the source for the halakha that slaughter is performed from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi แธคiyya says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Aaronโ€™s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fatโ€ฆupon the altarโ€ (Leviticus 1:8).

ืฉืื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ื•ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ื•ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ ื•ื”ืœื ืจืืฉ ื•ืคื“ืจ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ื ืชื—ื™ื ื”ื™ื• ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืื• ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืืช ื”ืขืœื” ื•ื ืชื— ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื ืชื—ื™ื ืฉื™ืฉื ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ืคืฉื˜ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืชื– ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ืจืืฉื• ื•ืืช ืคื“ืจื• ื•ืขืจืš

Rabbi แธคiyya explains: As there is no need for the verse to state: โ€œThe head, and the fat.โ€ What is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œThe head, and the fatโ€? Werenโ€™t the head and the fat included in the category of all the pieces, mentioned earlier in the verse? For what purpose did they emerge from the category and warrant individual mention? This is due to the fact that it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its piecesโ€ (Leviticus 1:6). One might have thought that I have derived that only the pieces that are included in the category of flaying must be arranged on the altar. From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed when the animal was slaughtered, and is not flayed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œWith its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange themโ€ (Leviticus 1:12).

ืžื“ืงืืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืชื– ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ

The tanna concludes: From the fact that Rabbi แธคiyya says: The head, which was already partially severed, one learns by inference that slaughter is from the neck, as the neck connects the head to the body.

ื•ืชื ื ืคืชื— ื‘ืจืืฉ ื•ืคื“ืจ ื•ืžืกื™ื™ื ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ืคื“ืจื• ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืชื– ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืจืืฉ ื•ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And the tanna of the baraita opened with a question about the extraneous phrase written with regard to a bull burnt offering: โ€œThe head, and the fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:8), and concludes with an explanation of the phrase written with regard to a sheep burnt offering: โ€œIts head and its fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œThe head, and the fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:8).

ื•ืจืืฉื• ื•ืคื“ืจื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจืืฉ ื•ืคื“ืจ ืฉืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ ืœื›ืœ ื”ื ืชื—ื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืช ืจืืฉื• ื•ืืช ืคื“ืจื• ื•ืขืจืš

The Gemara asks: And if so, why do I need the verse cited at the end of the baraita: โ€œIts head and its fatโ€? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the head and the fat precede all the other pieceswhen the sacrificial portions are sacrificed on the altar? The verse states: โ€œWith its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange themโ€ (Leviticus 1:12).

ื•ืคื“ืจ ืงืžื ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ื”ืคื“ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ืžืขืœื”ื• ื•ื–ื”ื• ื“ืจืš ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื”

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the first mention of fat that the Merciful One writes: โ€œThe pieces, the head, and the fatโ€ (Leviticus 1:8)? Wasnโ€™t the derivation from that verse restricted to the head? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: How does the priest who elevates the sacrificial portions of the animal to the altar perform that task? He uses the fat to cover the place of slaughter, i.e., to conceal the bloody neck, and elevates the head to the top of the altar, and that is a deferential manner toward the Most High.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื•ื›ื™ ื‘ืื™ื–ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ืžื’ืข ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ืขื•ืฃ ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ืžื’ืข ื•ื‘ืžืฉื ืขื•ืฃ ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืœื™ืขื”

And this tanna cites proof that slaughter is from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that the Torah writes with regard to the impurity of carcasses: โ€œThis is the law of the animal, and of the birdโ€ (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, whereas a bird does not impart impurity by contact or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render oneโ€™s garments impure when it is in the throat.

ื‘ืื™ื–ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืฃ ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช

The baraita continues: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as an animal avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter, so too, a bird avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter. The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of an animal, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, in the case of a bird, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim. The Gemara explains that the verse states: โ€œThis is the law,โ€ to restrict the scope of the juxtaposition in the sense that not all of the halakhot of birds and animals are equal.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืื™ื–ื• ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื•ื•ืชื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื›ืฉืจื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื•ืืจ

The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as in the case of a bird, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through pinching and slaughter from the neck, as the Torah states with regard to bird offerings that one pinches off its head from the neck, so too, in the case of an animal, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through slaughter from the neck.

ืื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืžืœืง ืืช ืจืืฉื• ืžืžื•ืœ ืขืจืคื• ื•ืœื ื™ื‘ื“ื™ืœ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจืืฉื• ืฉืœ ืื—ืจ ืžืžื•ืœ ืขื•ืจืฃ

The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of a bird, the pinching is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck, so too here, with regard to an animal, the slaughter is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck and not from the throat. The Gemara explains that therefore, the verse states with regard to a bird: โ€œAnd pinch off its head adjacent to its nape, but shall not divide it asunderโ€ (Leviticus 5:8), from which it is derived: Its head, i.e., the birdโ€™s head, is pinched adjacent to the nape, but the head of another, the animal, is not cut adjacent to the nape.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืื™ ื–ืืช ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืœืื• ื–ืืช ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžื” ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืืฃ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื–ืืช

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: โ€œThis is the law,โ€ from which the first tanna restricted the scope of the juxtaposition between animals and birds? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from the term โ€œThis is the law,โ€ I would say: Just as the fitness of a bird is accomplished by cutting one of the simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet, so too, the fitness of an animal is accomplished by cutting one siman. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: โ€œThis is the law,โ€ to restrict the juxtaposition.

ืชื ื™ ื‘ืจ ืงืคืจื ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื˜ื™ืœ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืœืขื•ืฃ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื“ื’ื™ื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉ ืœื“ื’ื™ื ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ื‘ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“

ยง The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earthโ€ (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman.

ื“ื’ื™ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื ืœืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื™ืฉื—ื˜ ืœื”ื ืื ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ื’ื™ ื”ื™ื ื™ืืกืฃ ืœื”ื ื‘ืืกื™ืคื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืกื’ื™ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: โ€œIf flocks and herds be slaughtered for themโ€ฆor if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice themโ€ (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉืœื™ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืกืคื• ืืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื ืืžืจืช ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ืงืฉ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ืชื ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืืกื™ืคื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืืกื™ืคื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ื™

The Gemara clarifies: But if that is so, with regard to quail as well, concerning which it is written: โ€œAnd the people rose upโ€ฆand gathered the quailโ€ (Numbers 11:32), so too, would one say with regard to birds that, like fish, their fitness is not accomplished with slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question. But didnโ€™t you say: To exempt birds from slaughter altogether with nothing is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal? The Gemara answers: There, gathering of quail is not written in the context of the slaughter of others; therefore, gathering is not to be understood as an alternative to slaughtering the birds. Here, gathering of fish is written in the context of the slaughter of others, i.e., the flocks and herds, which indicates that gathering is an alternative to slaughter.

ื“ืจืฉ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื’ืœื™ืœืื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ื‘ืจืืช ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื‘ืฉื” ื”ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื“ื’ื™ื ืฉื ื‘ืจืื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจืŸ ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืขื•ืฃ ืฉื ื‘ืจื ืžืŸ ื”ืจืงืง ื”ื›ืฉืจื• ื‘ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืงืคื•ื˜ืงืื” ืชื“ืข ืฉื”ืจื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืงืฉืงืฉืช ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื”ื ื›ื“ื’ื™ื

The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืืœื• ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ื™ืฉืจืฆื• ื”ืžื™ื ืฉืจืฅ ื ืคืฉ ื—ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ื™ืขื•ืคืฃ ืืœืžื ืžืžื™ื ืื™ื‘ืจื• ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืื“ืžื” ื›ืœ ื—ื™ืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืืœืžื ืžืืจืขื ืื™ื‘ืจื•

The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: โ€œAnd God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will flyโ€ (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: โ€œAnd from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call themโ€ (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืจืงืง ื ื‘ืจืื• ืจืื” ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืžืกืชื›ืœื™ื ื–ื” ื‘ื–ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืงืฉื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื›ื ืฉื“ื—ื™ืชื™ ืืช ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ ื‘ืงืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื ื‘ืจืื• ื•ืœืžื” ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืืœ ื”ืื“ื ืœืงืจื•ืช ืœื”ืŸ ืฉื

Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.

ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืื—ืจ ืืžืจ ืœืื•ืชื• ื”ื’ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื•ื™ืฆืจ

And some say that Rabban Yoแธฅanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: โ€œAnd from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the airโ€ (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืŸ ืคื ื—ืก ืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืฉืคืš ื‘ืฉืคื™ื›ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืกื’ื™

On the matter of slaughtering birds, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak ben Pineแธฅas: Slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is stated: โ€œAnd whatever man there be of the children of Israelโ€ฆwho traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood, and cover it in earthโ€ (Leviticus 17:13). This indicates that mere spilling of its blood is sufficient.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ ื”ืžื•ืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืคืš ืืช ื“ืžื•

The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to an undomesticated animal, which is mentioned in the same verse, spilling should be sufficient also. The Gemara explains: An undomesticated animal is juxtaposed to disqualified consecrated animals, for which slaughter is required, as explained later in the Gemara (28a). The Gemara asks: Birds too are juxtaposed to animals, and therefore slaughter should be required, as it is written: โ€œThis is the law of the animal, and of the birdโ€ (Leviticus 11:46). The Gemara answers: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œHe shall spill its blood,โ€ indicating that slaughter is not required?

ื•ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืฉื“ื™ื™ื” ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ืขื•ืฃ ืฉื“ื™ื™ื” ืื—ื™ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžื™ื ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And concerning the derivation that slaughter is not required, based on the phrase in the verse โ€œHe shall spill,โ€ what did you see that led you to cast it upon, i.e., apply it to, the case of a bird? Why not cast it upon the case of an undomesticated animal? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to cast the derivation upon the case of a bird due to the fact that the verse concluded with the bird, i.e., the bird is mentioned just prior to the directive to spill and cover the blood, as it is written: โ€œWho traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood.โ€

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื ืชื ื‘ืœ ื“ื ื‘ืžืœื™ืงื”)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited in the Gemara with regard to the slaughter of birds: Became a carcass, blood, through pinching.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ื ืชื ื‘ืœื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื ื•ื—ืจ ื•ื”ืžืขืงืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœื›ืกื•ืช ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœืขื•ืฃ ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื ื—ื™ืจืชื• ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ื›ืกื•ื™ ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืœื ื‘ื—ื™ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak ben Pineแธฅas from a mishna (85a): One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand because the slaughter was not valid, or one who stabbed the animal by slicing the length of the simanim, or one who ripped the gullet or windpipe of the animal, rendering the slaughter not valid, is exempt from covering the blood because his slaughter was ineffective in permitting consumption of the animal, and it is written that the requirement of covering the blood applies only to โ€œany undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten.โ€ And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, the halakhic status of its stabbing is like that of its slaughter; let its blood require covering. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that this mishna is referring to a bird? No, it is referring exclusively to an undomesticated animal.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื“ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื›ืกื•ืช ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ืขื•ืฉื” ืื• ื ื•ื—ืจื• ืื• ืขื•ืงืจื•

The Gemara cites another challenge: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and requires the blood and not the animal is obligated to cover the blood. Rather, how does he act if he seeks to make use of the blood rather than cover it? He either stabs the animal or rips the simanim, and then he is exempt from covering the blood.

Scroll To Top