Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara asks whether the requirement to slaughter birds is a Torah law or a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Pinchas rules that it is only a rabbinic law. The Gemara raises three difficulties against his position but resolves them. The final difficulty is resolved by pointing out that this matter is subject to a Tannaitic debate, and the Gemara brings both positions.
Although only one siman needs to be slaughtered in a bird, the Gemara asks if it can be any siman or specifically the gullet. Rav Nachman and Rav Ada bar Ahava disagree on this point, and difficulties are raised against both positions. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that cutting either siman is valid.
Rabbi Yehuda requires that the veins in the neck (veridin) must also be cut during slaughter. Rav Chisda explains that this rule applies specifically to birds, and its purpose is to drain out the extra blood so people will not come to eat it, but it is not an essential part of the shechita obligation. The Gemara raises three difficulties against this explanation, but they are all resolved.
If exactly half of a siman was slaughtered, there is a debate between Rav and Rav Kahana – do we say that since the majority is not unslaughtered, the shechita is valid, or do we say that since the majority has not been slaughtered, the shechita is invalid? The Gemara begins by raising difficulties against Rav’s position that half of a siman is considered as if the majority is slaughtered and the bird is permitted.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg in loving memory of her father, Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg. “A man who loved learning, who fought for the establishment of the State of Israel, who was loved by family, friends, and his community.”
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 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
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.
The Role(s) of People in Explaining Torah: Understanding Divrei Soferim
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.
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, 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!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
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 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
