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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 26, 2018 | ื™ืดื— ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื˜

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

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

Chullin 29

Rav and Rav Kahane debate whether 50% is like majority or not. On what issue do they have this difference of opinion? The mishna repeats itself – why? Another argument is brought is it considered shechita from the beginning of the process or only at the end?


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

ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื—ืจืช ื•ื’ืžืจื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ืื™ื˜ืจืคื ืœื”

for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, his slaughter is valid. But if you say the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, then by cutting half the windpipe he rendered it a tereifa because it is as though the majority of the windpipe is severed.

ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืจื•ื‘ื ืื™ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this baraita is referring to the slaughter of an animal? No, it is referring to the slaughter of a bird, which requires the cutting of only one siman. Whichever way you look at it, the slaughter should be valid. If the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, he has performed the cutting of the majority and the slaughter is valid. And if the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of the majority, then in cutting half the siman he did not perform any action that would render the animal a tereifa.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื—ืฆื™ ืงื ื” ืคื’ื•ื ื•ื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื•ื’ืžืจื• ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื˜ืจืคื” ื”ื•ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Ravโ€™s opinion from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. And if you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, the animal is a tereifa, as half its windpipe was deficient before the slaughter.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืจืื” ืœืขื™ื ื™ื

Rava said: The matter of tereifa is different, as we require a majority that is clearly visible. If precisely half the windpipe is deficient it does not appear to be a majority. By contrast, with regard to slaughter, the status of half is like that of the majority.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื˜ืจืคื” ื“ื‘ืžืฉื”ื• ืžื™ื˜ืจืคื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืจืื” ืœืขื™ื ื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื ืžื™ืชื›ืฉืจื ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืจืื” ืœืขื™ื ื™ื

Abaye said to Rava: And is it not derived through an a fortiori inference that all the more so, a conspicuous majority is required for slaughter? And just as with regard to tereifa, where the animal is rendered a tereifa by a deficiency of any size, e.g., by a minuscule perforation of the gullet, in cases where we require a majority, we require a majority that is clearly visible, with regard to slaughter, where until there is a majority of the simanim cut, the slaughter is not valid, all the more so is it not clear that we require a majority that is clearly visible?

ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื•ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืคืกื— ืืชืžืจ

Rather, the Gemara revises its understanding of the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Everyone agrees that 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 when the dispute of Rav and Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of the Paschal offering. If a majority of the Jewish people were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Paschal offering is sacrificed that day and eaten in a state of impurity. If only a minority of the Jewish people were impure, the ritually pure majority brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the impure minority brings the Paschal offering on the second Pesaแธฅ one month later.

ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ื ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘

In a case where the Jewish people were equally divided on the fourteenth of Nisan, with half of them pure and half of them impure, Rav said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is like that of a case where the majority was impure, and the entire people brings the Paschal offering in Nisan. And Rav Kahana said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is not like that of a case where the majority was impure. Therefore, those who are pure bring the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and those who are impure bring the Paschal offering on the second Pesaแธฅ.

ื•ื”ืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื˜ืžื ืœื ืคืฉ ืื™ืฉ ื ื“ื—ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื ื“ื—ื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the Paschal offering, what is the reason that Rav accords half the people the status of a majority? It is as it is written: โ€œAny man who shall be impure by reason of a corpseโ€ฆshall observe the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall observe itโ€ (Numbers 9:10โ€“11), from which it is derived: A ritually impure person is deferred to observe the second Pesaแธฅ, but a ritually impure congregation is not deferred to observe the second Pesaแธฅ. The status of half the people is that of a congregation, not that of a collection of individuals.

ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal,his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: We already learn this on another occasion, in the first clause of the mishna: The halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Why is the redundancy necessary?

(ื”ื›ืฉ ืคืฉื— ืกื™ืžืŸ)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amoraโ€™im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Heh, Rav Hoshaya; kaf, Rabbi Kahana; shin, Rabbi Shimi; peh, Rav Pappa; shin, Rav Ashi; แธฅet.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื—ื“ื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื™ืžื ืœื ืชื™ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ื•ืœื™ื”

Rav Hoshaya said: One mention of the equivalence between majority and whole is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and one is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. And it is necessary for the tanna to teach both cases, as, if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, one might think that it is there that one suffices with the majority of the siman, because he does not require the blood; he seeks merely to slaughter the animal. But in the case of sacrificial birds and animals, where he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar, say that it will not suffice for him to cut the majority, and the slaughter is not valid until there is a cutting of the entire windpipe or gullet.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื‘ืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืœื“ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื’ื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

And if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, one might think that one must cut a majority of the siman because he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar; but with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, where he does not require the blood, say that cutting half the siman is sufficient, and there is no need to cut a majority. Therefore, the tanna teaches us the principle twice, once to teach that a majority suffices in the case of sacrificial animals, and once to teach that a majority is required in the case of non-sacred animals.

ื”ื™ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara asks which clause of the mishna is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in non-sacred birds and animals, and which is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in sacrificial birds and animals?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื™ืกืชื‘ืจื ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

Rav Kahana said: It stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Kahana arrive at that conclusion? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the first clause of the mishna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird and two simanim in an animal. And if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to the case of sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it as: One who pinches the nape of the neck of a bird, as sacrificial birds are not slaughtered with a knife, but pinched with a fingernail.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืืœื ืจื™ืฉื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืขืœ ืขื•ืฃ ืงืื™ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it: His pinching is valid. The Gemara answers: That is not difficult; since the tanna concluded with mention of the slaughter of an animal, he also taught: His slaughter is valid, which is referring to the sacrificial animal. But in the first clause, since the tanna stands to begin with the case of a bird, if it enters your mind that the reference is to sacrificial birds, the tanna should have formulated it: One who pinches the nape of the neck of the bird.

ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird. And if it enters your mind that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, isnโ€™t there the bird burnt offering, which requires that two simanim be cut?

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืจื•ื‘ ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds, isnโ€™t there the bird burnt offering, which requires the pinching of two simanim? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of: The majority of one siman? It means the majority of each and every one of the two. And by right the tanna should have taught: The majority of two. But since there is the bird sin offering, which suffices with the cutting of one siman, due to that reason the matter is not clear-cut for him. Therefore, the tanna formulated the halakha in a manner that could apply to one siman, i.e., in the case of a sin offering, and to two simanim, i.e., in the case of a burnt offering and of animal offerings.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืืช ื”ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืขืฆืžื• ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš

Rav Pappa said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. And the Rabbis disagree with him, and do not require that one cut the veins in the neck. Granted, if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it works out well. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, why do the Rabbis disagree with him? He himself, i.e., the one slaughtering, requires the blood in order to sprinkle it on the altar, which would warrant cutting the veins.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืจืืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื

Rav Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches in the mishna (30b): One who slaughters by cutting two animalsโ€™ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara infers from the precise language of the mishna: One who slaughters, indicating that after the fact, yes, his slaughter is valid; but one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ื ื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

Granted, if you say that the reference is to sacrificial birds or animals, this is the reason that one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio: It is due to that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita: โ€œAnd when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅuhu] that you may be acceptedโ€ (Leviticus 19:5). The term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ] and it [hu]. From the term โ€œYou shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ],โ€ it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term โ€œYou shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅuhu]โ€ it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื ืžื™

And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, the term tizbaแธฅehu is written, in the singular, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it should be permitted even ab initio.

ื•ืืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืกื‘ืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืื—ืจ ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ืœืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, too, holds that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Since we learned in the mishna that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, why did we also need to learn later in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal? The latter clause is obvious based on the principle articulated in the first clause.

ืœืคื™ ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืœื• ืืช ื”ืชืžื™ื“ ืงืจืฆื• ื•ืžื™ืจืง ืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ืžื™ืจืง ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืœื›ืš ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains: Since we learned in a mishna (Yoma 31b): They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, and he slaughtered it [keratzo] by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe, and a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel and proceed with the order of the Yom Kippur service, one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ืžื™ืจืง ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The Master said: One might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid.

ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื•

How could that possibility enter oneโ€™s mind? If that is so, the completion of that slaughter is a Temple service performed by another on Yom Kippur. And it is taught in a baraita: The entire Yom Kippur Temple service is valid only if performed by the High Priest.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื›ืš ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืžืื—ืจ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืกื•ืœื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืจืง ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืžืจืง

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is saying: One might have thought that if the slaughter was not completed by the other priest it would be not valid by rabbinic law, as it might enter your mind to say that there is an invalidation by rabbinic law. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal. The Gemara asks: And since there is not even an invalidation by rabbinic law, why do I need the other priest to complete the cutting of the simanim? The Gemara answers: There is a mitzva to complete the slaughter ab initio to facilitate the free flow of the blood.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื•ื™ ืกื‘ื ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ

ยง Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Levi the Elder: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื˜ืจืคื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™

Rava said in establishing the parameters of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Everyone concedes in a case where a gentile slaughtered, i.e., cut, one siman and a Jew slaughtered one siman, that the slaughter is not valid even if slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, as an action rendering the animal a tereifa was performed at the hand of a gentile. Since slaughter by a gentile is not valid, the gentile renders the animal a tereifa.

ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืœื™ืง ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืžืขืœื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืœืžื˜ื”

In the case of a bird burnt offering as well, where one siman was pinched by a priest below the red line marking half the height of the altar, in accordance with the procedure of the sin offering, and one siman was pinched above the red line, in accordance with the procedure of the burnt offering, the pinching is not valid, as the priest performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering below the red line, disqualifying it from being sacrificed as a burnt offering.

ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ืืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree only in a case where an individual cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as the conclusion of the slaughter, which is the determining factor, is performed inside the Temple courtyard.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืžื™ ืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ

Rabba bar Shimi said to Rava: The Master did not say that this was the crux of the dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. And who is the Master? It is Rav Yosef, who says that in a case where one cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard, all agree that the slaughter is not valid and the priest is liable to receive punishment, because he performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering outside the Temple courtyard.

ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ืืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื’ืžืจื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

They disagree only in a case where one slaughtered the minority of each of the simanim outside the Temple courtyard and completed the slaughter inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as he concludes the slaughter in an appropriate place.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื›ืœ ื”ืขืกื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืจื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืœืื›ื” ืื—ืจืช

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from a mishna (Para 4:4): Anyone who is engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer continuously from beginning to end transmits ritual impurity to the garments that he is wearing. And they disqualify the red heifer for use in the rite if they perform any other labor while engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer.

ืื™ืจืข ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื‘ื”ื–ืืชื” ืงื•ื“ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื

If a disqualification befell the heifer during its slaughter, with regard to all those engaged in the rite of the red heifer, whether they engaged in the rite before the heifer was disqualified or after the heifer was disqualified, the heifer does not render garments that they are wearing impure. Since its slaughter was not valid it is disqualified from being used as a red heifer and therefore does not impart impurity. If it became disqualified at the time of sprinkling the blood of the heifer toward the opening of the Temple, with regard to those who engaged in the rite of the red heifer before it was disqualified, the heifer renders the garments that they are wearing impure. By contrast, with regard to those who handled the animal after it was disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that they are wearing impure.

ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื” ืื™ืจืข ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื•ื“ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื

Rabbi Zeira elaborates: And if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, let the mishna also distinguish between disqualification at the beginning and at the end of the slaughter: If it became disqualified during slaughter, with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite before it became disqualified, the heifer renders garments that he is wearing impure, and with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite after it became disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that he is wearing impure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื ืชืงืœืงืœื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงืืžืจืช ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืื’ืœืื™ ืžืœืชื ืœืžืคืจืข ื“ืœืื• ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื™ื ื›ืœืœ

Rava said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case where the slaughter was invalidated? There it is different, because the matter was revealed retroactively, i.e., it was revealed that it was not a valid slaughter at all. Since at no stage of the slaughter was it valid, the heifer does not render the garments impure at all.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ ื”ื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื‘ื”ื›ืฉืจื” ื“ืคืจื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื—ื˜ื•ื” ื‘ืชืจื™ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืงืžื ืœื ืžื˜ืžืื” ื•ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืชืจื ืžื˜ืžืื”

Rava said: If any aspect of that mishna is difficult for me it is this that is difficult for me: According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, let the mishna distinguish between two individuals in the preparation of a fit red heifer, even when the heifer was not disqualified. Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชืจื™ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ื‘ื—ื ืงืืžืจืช ื‘ืจ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืชื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

Rav Yosef said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case of two men slaughtering one offering? Raise difficulties except for that, as we learn in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAnd when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅuhu] that you may be acceptedโ€ (Leviticus 19:5), that the term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ] and it [hu]. From the term โ€œYou shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ],โ€ it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term โ€œYou shall offer it [tizbaแธฅuhu],โ€ it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘

And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, it emerges that the phrase โ€œYou shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅehu],โ€ in the singular, is written, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืื• ืืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasnโ€™t it stated with regard to this halakha that Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

  • 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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 29

ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื—ืจืช ื•ื’ืžืจื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ืื™ื˜ืจืคื ืœื”

for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, his slaughter is valid. But if you say the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, then by cutting half the windpipe he rendered it a tereifa because it is as though the majority of the windpipe is severed.

ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื™ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืจื•ื‘ื ืื™ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this baraita is referring to the slaughter of an animal? No, it is referring to the slaughter of a bird, which requires the cutting of only one siman. Whichever way you look at it, the slaughter should be valid. If the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, he has performed the cutting of the majority and the slaughter is valid. And if the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of the majority, then in cutting half the siman he did not perform any action that would render the animal a tereifa.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื—ืฆื™ ืงื ื” ืคื’ื•ื ื•ื”ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื•ื’ืžืจื• ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื˜ืจืคื” ื”ื•ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Ravโ€™s opinion from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. And if you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, the animal is a tereifa, as half its windpipe was deficient before the slaughter.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืื ื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืจืื” ืœืขื™ื ื™ื

Rava said: The matter of tereifa is different, as we require a majority that is clearly visible. If precisely half the windpipe is deficient it does not appear to be a majority. By contrast, with regard to slaughter, the status of half is like that of the majority.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื“ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ื˜ืจืคื” ื“ื‘ืžืฉื”ื• ืžื™ื˜ืจืคื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืจืื” ืœืขื™ื ื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื“ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืจื•ื‘ื ืœื ืžื™ืชื›ืฉืจื ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื ืจืื” ืœืขื™ื ื™ื

Abaye said to Rava: And is it not derived through an a fortiori inference that all the more so, a conspicuous majority is required for slaughter? And just as with regard to tereifa, where the animal is rendered a tereifa by a deficiency of any size, e.g., by a minuscule perforation of the gullet, in cases where we require a majority, we require a majority that is clearly visible, with regard to slaughter, where until there is a majority of the simanim cut, the slaughter is not valid, all the more so is it not clear that we require a majority that is clearly visible?

ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื•ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืคืกื— ืืชืžืจ

Rather, the Gemara revises its understanding of the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Everyone agrees that 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 when the dispute of Rav and Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of the Paschal offering. If a majority of the Jewish people were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Paschal offering is sacrificed that day and eaten in a state of impurity. If only a minority of the Jewish people were impure, the ritually pure majority brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the impure minority brings the Paschal offering on the second Pesaแธฅ one month later.

ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื˜ืžืื™ื ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ื›ืจื•ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ืขืœ ืžื—ืฆื” ืื™ื ื• ื›ืจื•ื‘

In a case where the Jewish people were equally divided on the fourteenth of Nisan, with half of them pure and half of them impure, Rav said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is like that of a case where the majority was impure, and the entire people brings the Paschal offering in Nisan. And Rav Kahana said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is not like that of a case where the majority was impure. Therefore, those who are pure bring the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and those who are impure bring the Paschal offering on the second Pesaแธฅ.

ื•ื”ืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืฉ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื˜ืžื ืœื ืคืฉ ืื™ืฉ ื ื“ื—ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื ื“ื—ื™ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the Paschal offering, what is the reason that Rav accords half the people the status of a majority? It is as it is written: โ€œAny man who shall be impure by reason of a corpseโ€ฆshall observe the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall observe itโ€ (Numbers 9:10โ€“11), from which it is derived: A ritually impure person is deferred to observe the second Pesaแธฅ, but a ritually impure congregation is not deferred to observe the second Pesaแธฅ. The status of half the people is that of a congregation, not that of a collection of individuals.

ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

ยง The mishna teaches: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal,his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: We already learn this on another occasion, in the first clause of the mishna: The halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Why is the redundancy necessary?

(ื”ื›ืฉ ืคืฉื— ืกื™ืžืŸ)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amoraโ€™im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Heh, Rav Hoshaya; kaf, Rabbi Kahana; shin, Rabbi Shimi; peh, Rav Pappa; shin, Rav Ashi; แธฅet.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ื—ื“ื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื™ืžื ืœื ืชื™ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ื•ืœื™ื”

Rav Hoshaya said: One mention of the equivalence between majority and whole is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and one is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. And it is necessary for the tanna to teach both cases, as, if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, one might think that it is there that one suffices with the majority of the siman, because he does not require the blood; he seeks merely to slaughter the animal. But in the case of sacrificial birds and animals, where he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar, say that it will not suffice for him to cut the majority, and the slaughter is not valid until there is a cutting of the entire windpipe or gullet.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื‘ืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืœื“ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš ืื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื’ื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

And if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, one might think that one must cut a majority of the siman because he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar; but with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, where he does not require the blood, say that cutting half the siman is sufficient, and there is no need to cut a majority. Therefore, the tanna teaches us the principle twice, once to teach that a majority suffices in the case of sacrificial animals, and once to teach that a majority is required in the case of non-sacred animals.

ื”ื™ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara asks which clause of the mishna is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in non-sacred birds and animals, and which is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in sacrificial birds and animals?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื™ืกืชื‘ืจื ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

Rav Kahana said: It stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Kahana arrive at that conclusion? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the first clause of the mishna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird and two simanim in an animal. And if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to the case of sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it as: One who pinches the nape of the neck of a bird, as sacrificial birds are not slaughtered with a knife, but pinched with a fingernail.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืœื™ืงืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ืืœื ืจื™ืฉื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืขืœ ืขื•ืฃ ืงืื™ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ืžื•ืœืง ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it: His pinching is valid. The Gemara answers: That is not difficult; since the tanna concluded with mention of the slaughter of an animal, he also taught: His slaughter is valid, which is referring to the sacrificial animal. But in the first clause, since the tanna stands to begin with the case of a bird, if it enters your mind that the reference is to sacrificial birds, the tanna should have formulated it: One who pinches the nape of the neck of the bird.

ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ื

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird. And if it enters your mind that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, isnโ€™t there the bird burnt offering, which requires that two simanim be cut?

ืืœื ืžืื™ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืฉื ื™ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืจื•ื‘ ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื“ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds, isnโ€™t there the bird burnt offering, which requires the pinching of two simanim? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of: The majority of one siman? It means the majority of each and every one of the two. And by right the tanna should have taught: The majority of two. But since there is the bird sin offering, which suffices with the cutting of one siman, due to that reason the matter is not clear-cut for him. Therefore, the tanna formulated the halakha in a manner that could apply to one siman, i.e., in the case of a sin offering, and to two simanim, i.e., in the case of a burnt offering and of animal offerings.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื—ื•ื˜ ืืช ื”ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืขืฆืžื• ืœื“ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ืš

Rav Pappa said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. And the Rabbis disagree with him, and do not require that one cut the veins in the neck. Granted, if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it works out well. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, why do the Rabbis disagree with him? He himself, i.e., the one slaughtering, requires the blood in order to sprinkle it on the altar, which would warrant cutting the veins.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ืจืืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื

Rav Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches in the mishna (30b): One who slaughters by cutting two animalsโ€™ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara infers from the precise language of the mishna: One who slaughters, indicating that after the fact, yes, his slaughter is valid; but one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio.

ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ื ื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

Granted, if you say that the reference is to sacrificial birds or animals, this is the reason that one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio: It is due to that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita: โ€œAnd when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅuhu] that you may be acceptedโ€ (Leviticus 19:5). The term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ] and it [hu]. From the term โ€œYou shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ],โ€ it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term โ€œYou shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅuhu]โ€ it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื ืžื™

And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, the term tizbaแธฅehu is written, in the singular, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it should be permitted even ab initio.

ื•ืืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืกื‘ืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืื—ืจ ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœ ืื—ื“ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ืœืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, too, holds that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Since we learned in the mishna that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, why did we also need to learn later in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal? The latter clause is obvious based on the principle articulated in the first clause.

ืœืคื™ ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืœื• ืืช ื”ืชืžื™ื“ ืงืจืฆื• ื•ืžื™ืจืง ืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ืžื™ืจืง ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืœื›ืš ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื”

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains: Since we learned in a mishna (Yoma 31b): They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, and he slaughtered it [keratzo] by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe, and a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel and proceed with the order of the Yom Kippur service, one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ืžื™ืจืง ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœ

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The Master said: One might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid.

ืื ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื™ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื—ืจ ื•ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื•

How could that possibility enter oneโ€™s mind? If that is so, the completion of that slaughter is a Temple service performed by another on Yom Kippur. And it is taught in a baraita: The entire Yom Kippur Temple service is valid only if performed by the High Priest.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื›ืš ืฉื ื™ื ื• ืจื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืจื•ื‘ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืžืื—ืจ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืคืกื•ืœื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืจืง ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืžืจืง

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is saying: One might have thought that if the slaughter was not completed by the other priest it would be not valid by rabbinic law, as it might enter your mind to say that there is an invalidation by rabbinic law. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal. The Gemara asks: And since there is not even an invalidation by rabbinic law, why do I need the other priest to complete the cutting of the simanim? The Gemara answers: There is a mitzva to complete the slaughter ab initio to facilitate the free flow of the blood.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื•ื™ ืกื‘ื ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ

ยง Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Levi the Elder: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ืœ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื˜ืจืคื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™

Rava said in establishing the parameters of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Everyone concedes in a case where a gentile slaughtered, i.e., cut, one siman and a Jew slaughtered one siman, that the slaughter is not valid even if slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, as an action rendering the animal a tereifa was performed at the hand of a gentile. Since slaughter by a gentile is not valid, the gentile renders the animal a tereifa.

ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืœื™ืง ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืžื˜ื” ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ืœืžืขืœื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืœืžื˜ื”

In the case of a bird burnt offering as well, where one siman was pinched by a priest below the red line marking half the height of the altar, in accordance with the procedure of the sin offering, and one siman was pinched above the red line, in accordance with the procedure of the burnt offering, the pinching is not valid, as the priest performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering below the red line, disqualifying it from being sacrificed as a burnt offering.

ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ืืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagree only in a case where an individual cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as the conclusion of the slaughter, which is the determining factor, is performed inside the Temple courtyard.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืžื™ ืžืจ ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืฉื—ื˜ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ืกื™ืžืŸ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ

Rabba bar Shimi said to Rava: The Master did not say that this was the crux of the dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. And who is the Master? It is Rav Yosef, who says that in a case where one cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard, all agree that the slaughter is not valid and the priest is liable to receive punishment, because he performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering outside the Temple courtyard.

ืœื ื ื—ืœืงื• ืืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืฉื—ื˜ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ ืกื™ืžื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื’ืžืจื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

They disagree only in a case where one slaughtered the minority of each of the simanim outside the Temple courtyard and completed the slaughter inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as he concludes the slaughter in an appropriate place.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื›ืœ ื”ืขืกื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืจื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื‘ืžืœืื›ื” ืื—ืจืช

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from a mishna (Para 4:4): Anyone who is engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer continuously from beginning to end transmits ritual impurity to the garments that he is wearing. And they disqualify the red heifer for use in the rite if they perform any other labor while engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer.

ืื™ืจืข ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื•ื“ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื‘ื”ื–ืืชื” ืงื•ื“ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื

If a disqualification befell the heifer during its slaughter, with regard to all those engaged in the rite of the red heifer, whether they engaged in the rite before the heifer was disqualified or after the heifer was disqualified, the heifer does not render garments that they are wearing impure. Since its slaughter was not valid it is disqualified from being used as a red heifer and therefore does not impart impurity. If it became disqualified at the time of sprinkling the blood of the heifer toward the opening of the Temple, with regard to those who engaged in the rite of the red heifer before it was disqualified, the heifer renders the garments that they are wearing impure. By contrast, with regard to those who handled the animal after it was disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that they are wearing impure.

ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชื” ืื™ืจืข ื‘ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื•ื“ื ืคืกื•ืœื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ืคืกื•ืœื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื

Rabbi Zeira elaborates: And if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, let the mishna also distinguish between disqualification at the beginning and at the end of the slaughter: If it became disqualified during slaughter, with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite before it became disqualified, the heifer renders garments that he is wearing impure, and with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite after it became disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that he is wearing impure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื ืชืงืœืงืœื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงืืžืจืช ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืื’ืœืื™ ืžืœืชื ืœืžืคืจืข ื“ืœืื• ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื™ื ื›ืœืœ

Rava said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case where the slaughter was invalidated? There it is different, because the matter was revealed retroactively, i.e., it was revealed that it was not a valid slaughter at all. Since at no stage of the slaughter was it valid, the heifer does not render the garments impure at all.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ ื”ื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื‘ื”ื›ืฉืจื” ื“ืคืจื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืฉื—ื˜ื•ื” ื‘ืชืจื™ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ื“ื’ื‘ืจื ืงืžื ืœื ืžื˜ืžืื” ื•ื’ื‘ืจื ื‘ืชืจื ืžื˜ืžืื”

Rava said: If any aspect of that mishna is difficult for me it is this that is difficult for me: According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, let the mishna distinguish between two individuals in the preparation of a fit red heifer, even when the heifer was not disqualified. Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชืจื™ ื’ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ื‘ื—ื ืงืืžืจืช ื‘ืจ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ืชื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฉื ื™ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

Rav Yosef said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case of two men slaughtering one offering? Raise difficulties except for that, as we learn in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAnd when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅuhu] that you may be acceptedโ€ (Leviticus 19:5), that the term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ] and it [hu]. From the term โ€œYou shall sacrifice [tizbaแธฅ],โ€ it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term โ€œYou shall offer it [tizbaแธฅuhu],โ€ it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืชื–ื‘ื—ื”ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘

And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term โ€œtizbaแธฅuhuโ€ is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, it emerges that the phrase โ€œYou shall sacrifice it [tizbaแธฅehu],โ€ in the singular, is written, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืื• ืืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasnโ€™t it stated with regard to this halakha that Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

Scroll To Top