Is the law that birds need to be slaughtered a Torah law or rabbinic? When they say one siman in the bird needs to be slaughtered, do they mean either siman or specifically the gullet? If precisely half was slaughtered, do we consider is that more than half is not unslaughtered and the shechita is valid or do we say that not more than half has been slaughtered and therefore the shechita is not valid?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Chullin 28
מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ לְיָנִיכָא? לָא, בְּחַיָּה דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ לְלַכָּא.
What, is it not referring to a bird, as he requires its blood to remove a moth from his garments? If so, apparently birds require slaughter by Torah law, as, if that were not the case, then even if a bird were stabbed, covering of the blood would be required. The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to an undomesticated animal, as he requires its blood to use as a red dye [lelakka] Therefore, no proof may be cited from this baraita that birds require slaughter by Torah law.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָלַק בְּסַכִּין, מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּכִי תָּבַר לֵיהּ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת הָוְיָא לַהּ טְרֵפָה, תַּהְנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵּי נְבֵלָה!
The Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Zevaḥim 68a): Come and hear: If one cut the nape of the neck of a sacrificial bird with a knife instead of pinching it with his fingernail, this bird carcass renders the garments of one who eats the bird ritually impure when the meat is in his throat. The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, then although when cutting the bird from the nape, he breaks the spine and the neck bone with the knife before severing the gullet and windpipe, and it indeed becomes a tereifa and may not be eaten, cutting the simanim with the knife should be effective to purify it, i.e., to prevent it from assuming the status of an unslaughtered carcass. The fact that the garments of one who swallows the meat of the bird become ritually impure indicates that slaughter is the only method effective in permitting the consumption of a bird and for preventing it from assuming the status of an unslaughtered carcass.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֶת הַצְּבִי וְגוֹ׳״? וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִצְּבִי וְאַיָּל מֵעַתָּה?
The Gemara rejects that proof: Although it is clear from that mishna that slaughter of birds is obligatory by Torah law, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna who holds that it is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the distinguished Sage, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “However, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it” (Deuteronomy 12:22)? And what now have we derived from the gazelle and the deer with regard to disqualified consecrated animals?
הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד, מַקִּישׁ צְבִי וְאַיָּל לִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין: מָה פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אַף צְבִי וְאַיָּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה; וְעוֹף אֵין לוֹ שְׁחִיטָה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
These two undomesticated animals come in the verse to teach a halakha with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, and it is found that a halakha is derived from the case of disqualified consecrated animals in their regard. The Torah juxtaposes a gazelle and a deer to disqualified consecrated animals to teach: Just as disqualified consecrated animals are rendered fit for consumption through slaughter, so too, a gazelle and a deer are rendered fit for consumption only through slaughter. But for a bird, slaughter is not obligatory by Torah law; rather, the obligation is by rabbinic law.
מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ … כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה מֹשֶׁה עַל הַוֶּושֶׁט וְעַל הַקָּנֶה, וְעַל רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְעַל רוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar and holds that the slaughter of a bird is obligatory by Torah law? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse teaches that Moses was previously commanded about the halakhot of slaughter, even though they are not written explicitly in the Torah. He was commanded about cutting the gullet and about cutting the windpipe, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman for a bird, and the majority of two simanim for an animal.
אֶחָד בָּעוֹף אִיתְּמַר: רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹ וֶושֶׁט אוֹ קָנֶה, רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: וֶושֶׁט וְלֹא קָנֶה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹ וֶושֶׁט אוֹ קָנֶה – ״אֶחָד״ קָתָנֵי, ״אֶחָד״ כֹּל דְּהוּ. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: וֶושֶׁט וְלֹא קָנֶה – מַאי ״אֶחָד״? מְיוּחָד.
§ The mishna teaches that in the case of one who cuts one siman in a bird, his slaughter is valid. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. Rav Naḥman said: One may cut either the gullet or the windpipe. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One must cut the gullet for the slaughter to be valid, but cutting the windpipe is not sufficient. The Gemara explains the formulation of the mishna according to the opinion of each amora. Rav Naḥman said: One may cut either the gullet or the windpipe. One siman is taught in the mishna, meaning that the slaughter is valid if he severs one, indicating that either siman is valid. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One must cut the gullet for the slaughter to be valid, but cutting the windpipe is not sufficient. What is the meaning of: One, in the mishna? It means the special one, the gullet.
(סִימָן: שָׁחַט, חֲצָאִין, גַּרְגֶּרֶת, פְּגִימָה, דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף.)
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs to be cited by the Gemara: Slaughter, halves, windpipe, deficiency, of a bird sin offering.
מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה, נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט – פְּסוּלָה, שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְנִמְצֵאת גַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁמוּטָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה אִם לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: כׇּל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְאִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּגַרְגֶּרֶת לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: If one cut the bird’s gullet and thereafter the windpipe was displaced, the slaughter is valid. If the windpipe was displaced and thereafter he cut the gullet, the slaughter is not valid. With regard to a case where one cut the gullet and the windpipe was found displaced and he does not know if it was displaced prior to the slaughter or if it was displaced after the slaughter, that was an incident that transpired, and the Sages said: In any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, the slaughter is not valid. The baraita mentions only the case of cutting the gullet, while cutting the windpipe is not taught. The baraita supports the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava and is contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman.
מִשּׁוּם דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עֲבִידָא לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי.
The Gemara rejects that proof: The baraita mentions only the cutting of the gullet and displacement of the windpipe not because slaughter may be performed only by cutting the gullet. Rather, those scenarios were mentioned because the windpipe, unlike the gullet, is likely to be displaced.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי סִימָנִין בְּעוֹף – פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בָּעוֹף – עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאֶת הַוְּרִידִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּוֶשֶׁט סָמוּךְ לִוְרִידִין.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita. If one cut two halves, one half of each of the simanim, in a bird, the slaughter is not valid, as the requirement is that a majority of one siman is cut; and needless to say the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid in the case of an animal, where the requirement is that a majority of both simanim are cut. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird the slaughter is not valid until he cuts the gullet and the veins; the veins must be cut so that the blood will drain from the body. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda mentions cutting only the gullet and not the windpipe indicates that slaughter is valid only when the gullet is cut. The Gemara rejects that proof: Rabbi Yehuda mentions only the gullet because the gullet is adjacent to the veins.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט חֲצִי גַרְגֶּרֶת, וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַחֶרֶת, וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, וּמַאי גְּמָרָהּ – גְּמָרָהּ לְגַרְגֶּרֶת? לָא, בִּבְהֵמָה, וּמַאי גְּמָרָהּ – גְּמָרָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה כּוּלַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita. If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, the slaughter is valid and it is not invalidated due to an interrupted slaughter. What, is the baraita not referring to the slaughter of a bird? And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? Doesn’t it mean that he completed cutting the windpipe, which he had started cutting, indicating that with the cutting of the windpipe the slaughter is valid, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman as opposed to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to slaughter of an animal, for which both simanim must be cut. And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? It means that he completed the entire slaughter.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, וּמַאי גְּמָרוֹ – גְּמָרוֹ לְקָנֶה? לָא, בִּבְהֵמָה, וּמַאי גְּמָרוֹ – גְּמָרוֹ לְוֶושֶׁט.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient, i.e., somewhat cut, prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. What, is it not referring to the slaughter of a bird? And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? Doesn’t it mean that he completed cutting the majority of the windpipe, indicating that cutting the windpipe renders the bird fit for consumption? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to slaughter of an animal, for which both simanim must be cut. And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? It means that he completed the entire slaughter by cutting the gullet.
תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה; הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה – חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ, וּבָעוֹלָה – שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of the neck of a bird sin offering? Using his thumbnail, the priest cuts the spine and the neck bone, without cutting through the majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches either the gullet or the windpipe. Once he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman with his nail and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it. And in the case of a bird burnt offering, he cuts the two simanim or the majority of the two simanim. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava from this baraita is indeed a conclusive refutation.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?! כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת.
The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the matter? The Gemara asks in response: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the matter? It is as you said, that the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava was conclusively refuted. The Gemara says that there is not absolute proof from the baraita, as perhaps it is different there with regard to pinching, as in that case there is the spine and the neck bone that are cut initially, and therefore cutting the windpipe is sufficient. But in the case of slaughter of a non-sacred bird, perhaps only if one cuts the gullet the slaughter is valid.
מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רָבָא, אֲתָא כִּי מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד?
The Gemara asks: What then is the halakha in the case of slaughter? The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof from the following incident, that there was a certain duck that was in the house of Rava, which came for slaughter with its neck filthy with blood and they did not know whether the blood was the result of its windpipe having been severed or its gullet having been perforated, in which cases the duck is a tereifa. Rava said: What should we do with regard to this duck?
נִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ וַהֲדַר נִבְדְּקֵיהּ? דִּלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב קָשָׁחֵיט! נִבְדְּקֵיהּ וַהֲדַר נִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רַבָּה: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים!
If one suggests: Let us slaughter it and then we will examine it to determine whether its windpipe was severed or its gullet was perforated, that is difficult, because perhaps the slaughterer will slaughter the duck precisely in the place of the perforation and it will be impossible to determine whether the gullet was perforated before the slaughter. If one suggests: Let us slice open the hide and examine the simanim and then we will slaughter it, that is difficult, because didn’t Rabba say: The gullet has no possible examination from without, as its outer side is red, and a small perforation would be indiscernible, but only from within, as its inner side is white, and blood at the site of the perforation would be discerned?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ: נִבְדְּקֵיהּ לְקָנֶה, וְנִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ לְקָנֶה וְלַכְשְׁרֵיהּ, וַהֲדַר לֵפְכֵוהּ לְוֶשֶׁט וְלִבְדְּקֵיהּ. אָמַר רָבָא: חַכִּים יוֹסֵף בְּרִי בִּטְרֵפוֹת כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַלְמָא אֶחָד דְּקָאָמַר – אוֹ הַאי אוֹ הַאי.
Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to him: Let us examine the windpipe, as it is possible to discern from without whether the majority of the windpipe was severed, and then cut the duck’s windpipe and thereby render it permitted, as cutting either of the two simanim suffices in a bird. And then let us turn the gullet inside out and examine its inner side to determine whether it was perforated and the duck is a tereifa. Rava said: My son Yosef is as wise in the halakhot of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan. Apparently, one siman, which is taught in the mishna as being sufficient in the slaughter of a bird, means either this siman, the gullet, or that siman, the windpipe.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף, הוֹאִיל וְצוֹלֵהוּ כּוּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, כֵּיוָן דִּמְנַתְּחַהּ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר – לָא צְרִיךְ.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. Rav Ḥisda said: Rav Yehuda said that one must cut the veins only in the slaughter of a bird, as one typically roasts it in its entirety as one whole entity; therefore, one must cut the veins to ensure that the blood drains. But with regard to the slaughter of an animal, since it is typically quartered into limbs, resulting in the blood draining more readily, one need not cut the veins.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דָּם הוּא? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוְּורִידִין.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires cutting of the veins is due to the need to drain the blood? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts [sheyishḥot] the veins, indicating that the cutting of the veins is a component of the slaughter [sheḥita]?
אֵימָא עַד שֶׁיְּנַקֵּב אֶת הַוְּורִידִין, וּמַאי ״עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט״? עַד שֶׁיִּנְקוֹב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is until he punctures the veins. And what is the meaning of: Until he cuts? Until he punctures the veins at the moment of slaughter, when the blood flows.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְורִידִין בִּשְׁחִיטָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֵימָא: וְורִידִין צָרִיךְ לְנַקְּבָן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof rejecting this interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement from a baraita: The veins through slaughter, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, which indicates that the cutting of the veins is a component of slaughter. The Gemara rejects that proof: Say that the correct reading of the baraita is: He must puncture the veins at the moment of slaughter; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הוּזְכְּרוּ וְורִידִין אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶן דָּם, מָה לִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה, מָה לִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה? מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Since veins were mentioned only to drain blood from them, what difference is there to me whether one cuts them as a component of slaughter, and what difference is there to me whether one cuts them not as a component of slaughter? One can learn by inference from this baraita that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one cuts the veins as a component of slaughter.
הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לַהּ: מָה לִי לְנַקְּבָן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, מָה לִי לְנַקְּבָן שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה? וְהוּא סָבַר: בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אָתֵי דָּם דְּחָיֵים, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה לָא אָתֵי דָּם דְּקָרִיר.
The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Yehuda: What difference is there to me whether one punctures them at the moment of slaughter, and what difference is there to me whether one punctures them not at the moment of slaughter? One can puncture the veins after the slaughter. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that at the time of slaughter the blood emerges from the body quickly because the blood is warm; when it is not at the time of slaughter, the blood does not emerge from the body quickly because it is cool.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וְורִידִין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שָׁהָה בָּהֶן, דָּרַס בָּהֶן, מַהוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In cutting the veins according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one interrupted the act in the midst of cutting them, or if he pressed the knife and cut them instead of drawing the knife back and forth, what is the halakha? Do these actions, which invalidate slaughter when cutting the simanim, also invalidate slaughter when performed in the cutting of the veins?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְנַקְּבָן בְּקוֹץ וְהֵן כְּשֵׁרִין.
A certain elder said to him: This is what Rabbi Elazar said; and some say that a certain elder said to Rabbi Elazar that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He punctures the veins with a thorn and their cutting is valid. Cutting the veins is not a component of the slaughter.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי סִימָנִין בְּעוֹף – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּעוֹף – עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאֶת הַוְּורִידִין.
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda that Rabbi Yehuda requires cutting of the veins only in the slaughter of birds, and not in the slaughter of animals. If one cut two halves, one half of each of the simanim, in a bird, the slaughter is not valid, and needless to say the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid in the case of an animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird the slaughter is not valid until he cuts the gullet and the veins.
חֲצִי אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְכוּ׳. אִתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב.
§ The mishna teaches: If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Rav said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut. Rav Kahana said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut.
רַב אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״לָא תְּשַׁיַּיר רוּבָּא״. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב, הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״שְׁחוֹט רוּבָּא״.
The Gemara elaborates. Rav said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, and this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Do not leave the majority uncut. When cutting precisely half, the majority does not remain uncut. Rav Kahana said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, and this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Cut the majority of the siman. Therefore, cutting precisely half is insufficient.
(סִימָן: חֲצִי, קַטִּינָא, גַּרְגֶּרֶת, פְּגִימָה).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs that it cites with regard to this dispute: Half, Ketina, windpipe, deficiency.
תְּנַן: חֲצִי אֶחָד בְּעוֹף, וְאֶחָד וַחֲצִי בַּבְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, אַמַּאי פָּסוּל? הָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ רוֹב! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, דִּלְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד פַּלְגָא.
We learned in the mishna: If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. The Gemara questions the opinion of Rav: If you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, why is his slaughter not valid? By cutting half, didn’t he perform the cutting of a majority of the siman? The Gemara rejects that proof: By rabbinic law, the slaughter is not valid, due to the concern that perhaps he will not come to perform cutting on even half of the siman.
אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲלָקוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם וְהֵן שָׁוִין – שְׁנֵיהֶם טְמֵאִין, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם.
Rav Ketina said: Come and hear proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita with regard to an impure earthenware vessel that is purified through being broken. If it is broken in two, the larger portion remains impure and the smaller portion is purified. If he divided it into two and they are seemingly equal halves, both are impure, because it is impossible to measure precisely in breaking an earthenware vessel and render both halves equal. Since it is impossible to determine which half is larger, both remain impure due to uncertainty.
הָא אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם – טְהוֹרִין, אַמַּאי טְהוֹרִין? זִיל הָכָא אִיכָּא רוּבָּא, זִיל הָכָא אִיכָּא רוּבָּא!
The Gemara infers: But were it possible to measure precisely and divide it into equal halves, both would be pure. If, as Rav states, the halakhic status of half is like that of a majority, why are they pure? Go here, to one half of the vessel, and you will see that there is a majority and it should remain impure, and go there, to the other half, and you will see that there is a majority and it should remain impure.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תְּרֵי רוּבֵּי בְּחַד מָנָא לֵיכָּא.
Rav Pappa said in rejecting that proof: There are not two majorities in one vessel. Therefore, one cannot consider the halakhic status of half like that of a majority. By contrast, with regard to cutting the windpipe or gullet, the halakhic status of precisely half can be like that of a majority, as there is no other majority contradicting that status.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט חֲצִי גַרְגֶּרֶת, וְשָׁהָה בָּהּ
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter
Follow 
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.
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
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.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, 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.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Chullin 28
מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ לְיָנִיכָא? לָא, בְּחַיָּה דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ לְלַכָּא.
What, is it not referring to a bird, as he requires its blood to remove a moth from his garments? If so, apparently birds require slaughter by Torah law, as, if that were not the case, then even if a bird were stabbed, covering of the blood would be required. The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to an undomesticated animal, as he requires its blood to use as a red dye [lelakka] Therefore, no proof may be cited from this baraita that birds require slaughter by Torah law.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָלַק בְּסַכִּין, מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּכִי תָּבַר לֵיהּ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת הָוְיָא לַהּ טְרֵפָה, תַּהְנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵּי נְבֵלָה!
The Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Zevaḥim 68a): Come and hear: If one cut the nape of the neck of a sacrificial bird with a knife instead of pinching it with his fingernail, this bird carcass renders the garments of one who eats the bird ritually impure when the meat is in his throat. The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, then although when cutting the bird from the nape, he breaks the spine and the neck bone with the knife before severing the gullet and windpipe, and it indeed becomes a tereifa and may not be eaten, cutting the simanim with the knife should be effective to purify it, i.e., to prevent it from assuming the status of an unslaughtered carcass. The fact that the garments of one who swallows the meat of the bird become ritually impure indicates that slaughter is the only method effective in permitting the consumption of a bird and for preventing it from assuming the status of an unslaughtered carcass.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֶת הַצְּבִי וְגוֹ׳״? וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִצְּבִי וְאַיָּל מֵעַתָּה?
The Gemara rejects that proof: Although it is clear from that mishna that slaughter of birds is obligatory by Torah law, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna who holds that it is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the distinguished Sage, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “However, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it” (Deuteronomy 12:22)? And what now have we derived from the gazelle and the deer with regard to disqualified consecrated animals?
הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד, מַקִּישׁ צְבִי וְאַיָּל לִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין: מָה פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אַף צְבִי וְאַיָּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה; וְעוֹף אֵין לוֹ שְׁחִיטָה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
These two undomesticated animals come in the verse to teach a halakha with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, and it is found that a halakha is derived from the case of disqualified consecrated animals in their regard. The Torah juxtaposes a gazelle and a deer to disqualified consecrated animals to teach: Just as disqualified consecrated animals are rendered fit for consumption through slaughter, so too, a gazelle and a deer are rendered fit for consumption only through slaughter. But for a bird, slaughter is not obligatory by Torah law; rather, the obligation is by rabbinic law.
מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ … כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה מֹשֶׁה עַל הַוֶּושֶׁט וְעַל הַקָּנֶה, וְעַל רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְעַל רוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar and holds that the slaughter of a bird is obligatory by Torah law? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse teaches that Moses was previously commanded about the halakhot of slaughter, even though they are not written explicitly in the Torah. He was commanded about cutting the gullet and about cutting the windpipe, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman for a bird, and the majority of two simanim for an animal.
אֶחָד בָּעוֹף אִיתְּמַר: רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹ וֶושֶׁט אוֹ קָנֶה, רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: וֶושֶׁט וְלֹא קָנֶה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹ וֶושֶׁט אוֹ קָנֶה – ״אֶחָד״ קָתָנֵי, ״אֶחָד״ כֹּל דְּהוּ. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: וֶושֶׁט וְלֹא קָנֶה – מַאי ״אֶחָד״? מְיוּחָד.
§ The mishna teaches that in the case of one who cuts one siman in a bird, his slaughter is valid. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. Rav Naḥman said: One may cut either the gullet or the windpipe. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One must cut the gullet for the slaughter to be valid, but cutting the windpipe is not sufficient. The Gemara explains the formulation of the mishna according to the opinion of each amora. Rav Naḥman said: One may cut either the gullet or the windpipe. One siman is taught in the mishna, meaning that the slaughter is valid if he severs one, indicating that either siman is valid. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One must cut the gullet for the slaughter to be valid, but cutting the windpipe is not sufficient. What is the meaning of: One, in the mishna? It means the special one, the gullet.
(סִימָן: שָׁחַט, חֲצָאִין, גַּרְגֶּרֶת, פְּגִימָה, דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף.)
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs to be cited by the Gemara: Slaughter, halves, windpipe, deficiency, of a bird sin offering.
מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה, נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט – פְּסוּלָה, שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְנִמְצֵאת גַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁמוּטָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה אִם לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: כׇּל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְאִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּגַרְגֶּרֶת לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: If one cut the bird’s gullet and thereafter the windpipe was displaced, the slaughter is valid. If the windpipe was displaced and thereafter he cut the gullet, the slaughter is not valid. With regard to a case where one cut the gullet and the windpipe was found displaced and he does not know if it was displaced prior to the slaughter or if it was displaced after the slaughter, that was an incident that transpired, and the Sages said: In any case of uncertainty with regard to slaughter, the slaughter is not valid. The baraita mentions only the case of cutting the gullet, while cutting the windpipe is not taught. The baraita supports the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava and is contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman.
מִשּׁוּם דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עֲבִידָא לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי.
The Gemara rejects that proof: The baraita mentions only the cutting of the gullet and displacement of the windpipe not because slaughter may be performed only by cutting the gullet. Rather, those scenarios were mentioned because the windpipe, unlike the gullet, is likely to be displaced.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי סִימָנִין בְּעוֹף – פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בָּעוֹף – עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאֶת הַוְּרִידִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּוֶשֶׁט סָמוּךְ לִוְרִידִין.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita. If one cut two halves, one half of each of the simanim, in a bird, the slaughter is not valid, as the requirement is that a majority of one siman is cut; and needless to say the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid in the case of an animal, where the requirement is that a majority of both simanim are cut. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird the slaughter is not valid until he cuts the gullet and the veins; the veins must be cut so that the blood will drain from the body. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda mentions cutting only the gullet and not the windpipe indicates that slaughter is valid only when the gullet is cut. The Gemara rejects that proof: Rabbi Yehuda mentions only the gullet because the gullet is adjacent to the veins.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט חֲצִי גַרְגֶּרֶת, וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַחֶרֶת, וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, וּמַאי גְּמָרָהּ – גְּמָרָהּ לְגַרְגֶּרֶת? לָא, בִּבְהֵמָה, וּמַאי גְּמָרָהּ – גְּמָרָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה כּוּלַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita. If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, the slaughter is valid and it is not invalidated due to an interrupted slaughter. What, is the baraita not referring to the slaughter of a bird? And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? Doesn’t it mean that he completed cutting the windpipe, which he had started cutting, indicating that with the cutting of the windpipe the slaughter is valid, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman as opposed to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to slaughter of an animal, for which both simanim must be cut. And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? It means that he completed the entire slaughter.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, וּמַאי גְּמָרוֹ – גְּמָרוֹ לְקָנֶה? לָא, בִּבְהֵמָה, וּמַאי גְּמָרוֹ – גְּמָרוֹ לְוֶושֶׁט.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient, i.e., somewhat cut, prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. What, is it not referring to the slaughter of a bird? And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? Doesn’t it mean that he completed cutting the majority of the windpipe, indicating that cutting the windpipe renders the bird fit for consumption? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to slaughter of an animal, for which both simanim must be cut. And what does the term: Completed it, mean in the baraita? It means that he completed the entire slaughter by cutting the gullet.
תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה; הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה – חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ, וּבָעוֹלָה – שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of the neck of a bird sin offering? Using his thumbnail, the priest cuts the spine and the neck bone, without cutting through the majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches either the gullet or the windpipe. Once he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman with his nail and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it. And in the case of a bird burnt offering, he cuts the two simanim or the majority of the two simanim. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava from this baraita is indeed a conclusive refutation.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?! כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת.
The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the matter? The Gemara asks in response: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the matter? It is as you said, that the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava was conclusively refuted. The Gemara says that there is not absolute proof from the baraita, as perhaps it is different there with regard to pinching, as in that case there is the spine and the neck bone that are cut initially, and therefore cutting the windpipe is sufficient. But in the case of slaughter of a non-sacred bird, perhaps only if one cuts the gullet the slaughter is valid.
מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רָבָא, אֲתָא כִּי מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד?
The Gemara asks: What then is the halakha in the case of slaughter? The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof from the following incident, that there was a certain duck that was in the house of Rava, which came for slaughter with its neck filthy with blood and they did not know whether the blood was the result of its windpipe having been severed or its gullet having been perforated, in which cases the duck is a tereifa. Rava said: What should we do with regard to this duck?
נִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ וַהֲדַר נִבְדְּקֵיהּ? דִּלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב קָשָׁחֵיט! נִבְדְּקֵיהּ וַהֲדַר נִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רַבָּה: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים!
If one suggests: Let us slaughter it and then we will examine it to determine whether its windpipe was severed or its gullet was perforated, that is difficult, because perhaps the slaughterer will slaughter the duck precisely in the place of the perforation and it will be impossible to determine whether the gullet was perforated before the slaughter. If one suggests: Let us slice open the hide and examine the simanim and then we will slaughter it, that is difficult, because didn’t Rabba say: The gullet has no possible examination from without, as its outer side is red, and a small perforation would be indiscernible, but only from within, as its inner side is white, and blood at the site of the perforation would be discerned?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ: נִבְדְּקֵיהּ לְקָנֶה, וְנִשְׁחֲטֵיהּ לְקָנֶה וְלַכְשְׁרֵיהּ, וַהֲדַר לֵפְכֵוהּ לְוֶשֶׁט וְלִבְדְּקֵיהּ. אָמַר רָבָא: חַכִּים יוֹסֵף בְּרִי בִּטְרֵפוֹת כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַלְמָא אֶחָד דְּקָאָמַר – אוֹ הַאי אוֹ הַאי.
Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to him: Let us examine the windpipe, as it is possible to discern from without whether the majority of the windpipe was severed, and then cut the duck’s windpipe and thereby render it permitted, as cutting either of the two simanim suffices in a bird. And then let us turn the gullet inside out and examine its inner side to determine whether it was perforated and the duck is a tereifa. Rava said: My son Yosef is as wise in the halakhot of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan. Apparently, one siman, which is taught in the mishna as being sufficient in the slaughter of a bird, means either this siman, the gullet, or that siman, the windpipe.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף, הוֹאִיל וְצוֹלֵהוּ כּוּלּוֹ כְּאֶחָד, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, כֵּיוָן דִּמְנַתְּחַהּ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר – לָא צְרִיךְ.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. Rav Ḥisda said: Rav Yehuda said that one must cut the veins only in the slaughter of a bird, as one typically roasts it in its entirety as one whole entity; therefore, one must cut the veins to ensure that the blood drains. But with regard to the slaughter of an animal, since it is typically quartered into limbs, resulting in the blood draining more readily, one need not cut the veins.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דָּם הוּא? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוְּורִידִין.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires cutting of the veins is due to the need to drain the blood? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts [sheyishḥot] the veins, indicating that the cutting of the veins is a component of the slaughter [sheḥita]?
אֵימָא עַד שֶׁיְּנַקֵּב אֶת הַוְּורִידִין, וּמַאי ״עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט״? עַד שֶׁיִּנְקוֹב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is until he punctures the veins. And what is the meaning of: Until he cuts? Until he punctures the veins at the moment of slaughter, when the blood flows.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְורִידִין בִּשְׁחִיטָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֵימָא: וְורִידִין צָרִיךְ לְנַקְּבָן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof rejecting this interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement from a baraita: The veins through slaughter, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, which indicates that the cutting of the veins is a component of slaughter. The Gemara rejects that proof: Say that the correct reading of the baraita is: He must puncture the veins at the moment of slaughter; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הוּזְכְּרוּ וְורִידִין אֶלָּא לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶן דָּם, מָה לִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה, מָה לִי שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה? מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Since veins were mentioned only to drain blood from them, what difference is there to me whether one cuts them as a component of slaughter, and what difference is there to me whether one cuts them not as a component of slaughter? One can learn by inference from this baraita that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one cuts the veins as a component of slaughter.
הָכִי קָאָמְרִי לַהּ: מָה לִי לְנַקְּבָן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה, מָה לִי לְנַקְּבָן שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה? וְהוּא סָבַר: בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אָתֵי דָּם דְּחָיֵים, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה לָא אָתֵי דָּם דְּקָרִיר.
The Gemara rejects this proof. This is what the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Yehuda: What difference is there to me whether one punctures them at the moment of slaughter, and what difference is there to me whether one punctures them not at the moment of slaughter? One can puncture the veins after the slaughter. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that at the time of slaughter the blood emerges from the body quickly because the blood is warm; when it is not at the time of slaughter, the blood does not emerge from the body quickly because it is cool.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וְורִידִין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שָׁהָה בָּהֶן, דָּרַס בָּהֶן, מַהוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In cutting the veins according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one interrupted the act in the midst of cutting them, or if he pressed the knife and cut them instead of drawing the knife back and forth, what is the halakha? Do these actions, which invalidate slaughter when cutting the simanim, also invalidate slaughter when performed in the cutting of the veins?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְנַקְּבָן בְּקוֹץ וְהֵן כְּשֵׁרִין.
A certain elder said to him: This is what Rabbi Elazar said; and some say that a certain elder said to Rabbi Elazar that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He punctures the veins with a thorn and their cutting is valid. Cutting the veins is not a component of the slaughter.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי סִימָנִין בְּעוֹף – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּעוֹף – עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאֶת הַוְּורִידִין.
The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda that Rabbi Yehuda requires cutting of the veins only in the slaughter of birds, and not in the slaughter of animals. If one cut two halves, one half of each of the simanim, in a bird, the slaughter is not valid, and needless to say the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid in the case of an animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird the slaughter is not valid until he cuts the gullet and the veins.
חֲצִי אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְכוּ׳. אִתְּמַר: רַב אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב.
§ The mishna teaches: If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Rav said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut. Rav Kahana said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut.
רַב אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״לָא תְּשַׁיַּיר רוּבָּא״. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב, הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״שְׁחוֹט רוּבָּא״.
The Gemara elaborates. Rav said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, and this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Do not leave the majority uncut. When cutting precisely half, the majority does not remain uncut. Rav Kahana said: The halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, and this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Cut the majority of the siman. Therefore, cutting precisely half is insufficient.
(סִימָן: חֲצִי, קַטִּינָא, גַּרְגֶּרֶת, פְּגִימָה).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs that it cites with regard to this dispute: Half, Ketina, windpipe, deficiency.
תְּנַן: חֲצִי אֶחָד בְּעוֹף, וְאֶחָד וַחֲצִי בַּבְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, אַמַּאי פָּסוּל? הָא עֲבַד לֵיהּ רוֹב! מִדְּרַבָּנַן, דִּלְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד פַּלְגָא.
We learned in the mishna: If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. The Gemara questions the opinion of Rav: If you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of a siman of which the majority was cut, why is his slaughter not valid? By cutting half, didn’t he perform the cutting of a majority of the siman? The Gemara rejects that proof: By rabbinic law, the slaughter is not valid, due to the concern that perhaps he will not come to perform cutting on even half of the siman.
אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲלָקוֹ לִשְׁנַיִם וְהֵן שָׁוִין – שְׁנֵיהֶם טְמֵאִין, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם.
Rav Ketina said: Come and hear proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita with regard to an impure earthenware vessel that is purified through being broken. If it is broken in two, the larger portion remains impure and the smaller portion is purified. If he divided it into two and they are seemingly equal halves, both are impure, because it is impossible to measure precisely in breaking an earthenware vessel and render both halves equal. Since it is impossible to determine which half is larger, both remain impure due to uncertainty.
הָא אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם – טְהוֹרִין, אַמַּאי טְהוֹרִין? זִיל הָכָא אִיכָּא רוּבָּא, זִיל הָכָא אִיכָּא רוּבָּא!
The Gemara infers: But were it possible to measure precisely and divide it into equal halves, both would be pure. If, as Rav states, the halakhic status of half is like that of a majority, why are they pure? Go here, to one half of the vessel, and you will see that there is a majority and it should remain impure, and go there, to the other half, and you will see that there is a majority and it should remain impure.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תְּרֵי רוּבֵּי בְּחַד מָנָא לֵיכָּא.
Rav Pappa said in rejecting that proof: There are not two majorities in one vessel. Therefore, one cannot consider the halakhic status of half like that of a majority. By contrast, with regard to cutting the windpipe or gullet, the halakhic status of precisely half can be like that of a majority, as there is no other majority contradicting that status.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט חֲצִי גַרְגֶּרֶת, וְשָׁהָה בָּהּ
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter
Follow
