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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 25, 2018 | 讬状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • 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 28

聽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?


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

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注讜祝 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讬讛 诇讬谞讬讻讗 诇讗 讘讞讬讛 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讬讛 诇诇讻讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诇拽 讘住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 转讘专 诇讬讛 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讟专驻讛 转讛谞讬 诇讛 住讻讬谉 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛

The Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Zeva岣m 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.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讻讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讛爪讘讬 讜讙讜壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 诪注转讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: Although it is clear from that mishna that slaughter of birds is obligatory by Torah law, Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Pine岣s 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: 鈥淗owever, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:22)? And what now have we derived from the gazelle and the deer with regard to disqualified consecrated animals?

讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 诇驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诪讛 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗祝 爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜注讜祝 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讝讘讞转 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讱 诪诇诪讚 砖谞爪讟讜讛 诪砖讛 注诇 讛讜讜砖讟 讜注诇 讛拽谞讛 讜注诇 专讜讘 讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讜注诇 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讘讘讛诪讛

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: 鈥淎nd you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you鈥 (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.

讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讗讬转诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讜 讜讜砖讟 讗讜 拽谞讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讜讜砖讟 讜诇讗 拽谞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讜 讜讜砖讟 讗讜 拽谞讛 讗讞讚 拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 讻诇 讚讛讜 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讜讜砖讟 讜诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 诪讬讜讞讚

搂 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 Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

(住讬诪谉 砖讞讟 讞爪讗讬谉 讙专讙专转 驻讙讬诪讛 讚讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs to be cited by the Gemara: Slaughter, halves, windpipe, deficiency, of a bird sin offering.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讻砖专讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 驻住讜诇讛 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜谞诪爪讗转 讙专讙专转 砖诪讜讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讗诐 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讻诇 住驻拽 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讙专讙专转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a baraita: If one cut the bird鈥檚 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 Na岣an.

诪砖讜诐 讚讙专讙专转 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜祝 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讗转 讛讜专讬讚讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讜砖讟 住诪讜讱 诇讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof contrary to the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞讟 讞爪讬 讙专讙专转 讜砖讛讛 讻讚讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讞专转 讜讙诪专 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注讜祝 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讛 讙诪专讛 诇讙专讙专转 诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讛 讙诪专讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 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 Na岣an 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讜讛讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讙诪专讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注讜祝 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讜 讙诪专讜 诇拽谞讛 诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讜 讙诪专讜 诇讜讜砖讟

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 诪讜诇拽讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讞讜转讱 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转 讘诇讗 专讜讘 讘砖专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讛讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讞讜转讱 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讜专讜讘 讘砖专 注诪讜 讜讘注讜诇讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转

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.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专 讗讜讜讝讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘讗 讗转讗 讻讬 诪诪住诪住 拽讜注讬讛 讚诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚

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?

谞砖讞讟讬讛 讜讛讚专 谞讘讚拽讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 拽砖讞讬讟 谞讘讚拽讬讛 讜讛讚专 谞砖讞讟讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬讛 诇拽谞讛 讜谞砖讞讟讬讛 诇拽谞讛 讜诇讻砖专讬讛 讜讛讚专 诇驻讻讜讛 诇讜砖讟 讜诇讘讚拽讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讻讬诐 讬讜住祝 讘专讬 讘讟专驻讜转 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讞讚 讚拽讗诪专 讗讜 讛讗讬 讗讜 讛讗讬

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鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan. 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜爪讜诇讛讜 讻讜诇讜 讻讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞转讞讛 讗讘专 讗讘专 诇讗 爪专讬讱

搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. Rav 岣sda 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诐 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗转 讛讜讜专讬讚讬谉

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鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts [sheyish岣t] the veins, indicating that the cutting of the veins is a component of the slaughter [she岣ta]?

讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖讬谞拽讘 讗转 讛讜讜专讬讚讬谉 讜诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 注讚 砖讬谞拽讜讘 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇谞拽讘谉 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof rejecting this interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讞专 砖诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 讚诐 诪讛 诇讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讛 诇讬 砖诇讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇谞拽讘谉 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇谞拽讘谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讛讜讗 住讘专 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转讬 讚诐 讚讞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讗转讬 讚诐 讚拽专讬专

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛讛 讘讛谉 讚专住 讘讛谉 诪讛讜

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞拽讘谉 讘拽讜抓 讜讛谉 讻砖专讬谉

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 Yo岣nan said: He punctures the veins with a thorn and their cutting is valid. Cutting the veins is not a component of the slaughter.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜祝 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讗转 讛讜讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda 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.

讞爪讬 讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讜讻讜壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讻专讜讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗讬谞讜 讻专讜讘

搂 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.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讻专讜讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 诇讗 转砖讬讬专 专讜讘讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗讬谞讜 讻专讜讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 砖讞讜讟 专讜讘讗

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.

(住讬诪谉 讞爪讬 拽讟讬谞讗 讙专讙专转 驻讙讬诪讛)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs that it cites with regard to this dispute: Half, Ketina, windpipe, deficiency.

转谞谉 讞爪讬 讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讜讗讞讚 讜讞爪讬 讘讘讛诪讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讻专讜讘 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇 讛讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讜讘 诪讚专讘谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 驻诇讙讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞诇拽讜 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讛谉 砖讜讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐

Rav Ketina said: Come and hear proof contrary to Rav鈥檚 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.

讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 讝讬诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 讝讬诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转专讬 专讜讘讬 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讻讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞讟 讞爪讬 讙专讙专转 讜砖讛讛 讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter

  • 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 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 28

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注讜祝 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讬讛 诇讬谞讬讻讗 诇讗 讘讞讬讛 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讬讛 诇诇讻讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诇拽 讘住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇注讜祝 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 转讘专 诇讬讛 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讟专驻讛 转讛谞讬 诇讛 住讻讬谉 诇讟讛专讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛

The Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Zeva岣m 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.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 讘专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讻讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讛爪讘讬 讜讙讜壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 诪注转讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: Although it is clear from that mishna that slaughter of birds is obligatory by Torah law, Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Pine岣s 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: 鈥淗owever, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:22)? And what now have we derived from the gazelle and the deer with regard to disqualified consecrated animals?

讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 诇驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诪讛 驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗祝 爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜注讜祝 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛拽驻专 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讝讘讞转 讻讗砖专 爪讜讬转讱 诪诇诪讚 砖谞爪讟讜讛 诪砖讛 注诇 讛讜讜砖讟 讜注诇 讛拽谞讛 讜注诇 专讜讘 讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讜注诇 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讘讘讛诪讛

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: 鈥淎nd you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you鈥 (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.

讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讗讬转诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讜 讜讜砖讟 讗讜 拽谞讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讜讜砖讟 讜诇讗 拽谞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讜 讜讜砖讟 讗讜 拽谞讛 讗讞讚 拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 讻诇 讚讛讜 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讜讜砖讟 讜诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 诪讬讜讞讚

搂 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 Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

(住讬诪谉 砖讞讟 讞爪讗讬谉 讙专讙专转 驻讙讬诪讛 讚讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs to be cited by the Gemara: Slaughter, halves, windpipe, deficiency, of a bird sin offering.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讻砖专讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讛讙专讙专转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 驻住讜诇讛 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜谞诪爪讗转 讙专讙专转 砖诪讜讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讗诐 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 谞砖诪讟讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讻诇 住驻拽 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讙专讙专转 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a baraita: If one cut the bird鈥檚 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 Na岣an.

诪砖讜诐 讚讙专讙专转 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜祝 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讗转 讛讜专讬讚讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讜砖讟 住诪讜讱 诇讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof contrary to the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞讟 讞爪讬 讙专讙专转 讜砖讛讛 讻讚讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讞专转 讜讙诪专 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注讜祝 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讛 讙诪专讛 诇讙专讙专转 诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讛 讙诪专讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 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 Na岣an 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讞爪讬 拽谞讛 驻讙讜诐 讜讛讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讙诪专讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注讜祝 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讜 讙诪专讜 诇拽谞讛 诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诪讗讬 讙诪专讜 讙诪专讜 诇讜讜砖讟

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 诪讜诇拽讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讞讜转讱 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转 讘诇讗 专讜讘 讘砖专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讛讙讬注 诇讜讜砖讟 讗讜 诇拽谞讛 讞讜转讱 住讬诪谉 讗讞讚 讜专讜讘 讘砖专 注诪讜 讜讘注讜诇讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof in support of the opinion of Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讚专讛 讜诪驻专拽转

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.

诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专 讗讜讜讝讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘讗 讗转讗 讻讬 诪诪住诪住 拽讜注讬讛 讚诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚

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?

谞砖讞讟讬讛 讜讛讚专 谞讘讚拽讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 拽砖讞讬讟 谞讘讚拽讬讛 讜讛讚专 谞砖讞讟讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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鈥檛 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 谞讘讚拽讬讛 诇拽谞讛 讜谞砖讞讟讬讛 诇拽谞讛 讜诇讻砖专讬讛 讜讛讚专 诇驻讻讜讛 诇讜砖讟 讜诇讘讚拽讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讻讬诐 讬讜住祝 讘专讬 讘讟专驻讜转 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讞讚 讚拽讗诪专 讗讜 讛讗讬 讗讜 讛讗讬

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鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan. 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讘注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜爪讜诇讛讜 讻讜诇讜 讻讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞转讞讛 讗讘专 讗讘专 诇讗 爪专讬讱

搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. Rav 岣sda 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诐 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗转 讛讜讜专讬讚讬谉

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鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts [sheyish岣t] the veins, indicating that the cutting of the veins is a component of the slaughter [she岣ta]?

讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖讬谞拽讘 讗转 讛讜讜专讬讚讬谉 讜诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 注讚 砖讬谞拽讜讘 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇谞拽讘谉 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof rejecting this interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讞专 砖诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 讚诐 诪讛 诇讬 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讛 诇讬 砖诇讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘砖讞讬讟讛

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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇谞拽讘谉 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇谞拽讘谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讛讜讗 住讘专 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讗转讬 讚诐 讚讞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讗转讬 讚诐 讚拽专讬专

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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讜专讬讚讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛讛 讘讛谉 讚专住 讘讛谉 诪讛讜

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞拽讘谉 讘拽讜抓 讜讛谉 讻砖专讬谉

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 Yo岣nan said: He punctures the veins with a thorn and their cutting is valid. Cutting the veins is not a component of the slaughter.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘注讜祝 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜祝 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讗转 讛讜讜专讬讚讬谉

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda 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.

讞爪讬 讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讜讻讜壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讻专讜讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗讬谞讜 讻专讜讘

搂 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.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讻专讜讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 诇讗 转砖讬讬专 专讜讘讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗讬谞讜 讻专讜讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 砖讞讜讟 专讜讘讗

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.

(住讬诪谉 讞爪讬 拽讟讬谞讗 讙专讙专转 驻讙讬诪讛)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs that it cites with regard to this dispute: Half, Ketina, windpipe, deficiency.

转谞谉 讞爪讬 讗讞讚 讘注讜祝 讜讗讞讚 讜讞爪讬 讘讘讛诪讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讻专讜讘 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇 讛讗 注讘讚 诇讬讛 专讜讘 诪讚专讘谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 驻诇讙讗

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞诇拽讜 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讛谉 砖讜讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐

Rav Ketina said: Come and hear proof contrary to Rav鈥檚 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.

讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 讝讬诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 讝讬诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转专讬 专讜讘讬 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 诇讬讻讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讞讟 讞爪讬 讙专讙专转 讜砖讛讛 讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: If one cut half the windpipe and interrupted the slaughter

Scroll To Top