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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 27, 2018 | 讬状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 30

More questions are asked regarding the debate of does shechita聽start from the beginning or only at the end? If one slaughters in a few different places, is it valid? A few questions are asked regarding the disqualification of chalada? Can 2 people slaughter the same animal – with two knives or one? If one cut off the head in one moment in the process of drawing the knife, is it聽valid or is it disqualified because of drisa?


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

住转讬诪转讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讜讞讟讬诐 讝讘讞 讗讞讚

which is cited unattributed, i.e., it is one of his many opinions that are cited in the Mishna and baraitot without attribution. But the Rabbis say: Two people may slaughter one offering. According to the Rabbis, Rava鈥檚 difficulty remains: 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.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 诇驻诇讜讙 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讞讚 讙讘专讗 讘砖谞讬 住讜讚专讬诐 讚住讜讚专 拽诪讗 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讜住讜讚专 讘转专讗 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘驻住讜诇讗 讚驻专讛 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘讛讻砖专讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two people may not slaughter one offering, let the tanna of the mishna also distinguish and teach a case where one man slaughtered with two cloths on his head, starting the slaughter with one and replacing it with the other midway through the slaughter, as in that case, since halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, the first cloth is not rendered impure but the latter cloth is rendered impure. Rather, one must say that the tanna is speaking only in reference to cases involving the disqualification of the red heifer itself, but he is not speaking in reference to cases involving a fit red heifer, and no proof may be cited from here.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讘诪讜注讚 诇砖诪讜 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘

Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection from a mishna (Pesa岣m 63a) to the opinion that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan after noon while he has leaven in his possession, he is flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread鈥 (Exodus 23:18). If he slaughtered the animal not for the sake of the Paschal offering, he is exempt from receiving lashes. And if he slaughtered the animal during the festival of Passover for the sake of the Paschal offering with leaven in his possession, he is exempt, because it is a disqualified Paschal offering, as it was slaughtered beyond its appointed time. But if he slaughtered the animal during the Festival not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but rather as a peace offering, he is liable for slaughtering the animal with leaven in his possession.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讛讗 住转诪讗 驻讟讜专

And we discussed this matter: The reason he is liable is due to the fact that his intent was to slaughter it not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but had he slaughtered it with unspecified intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically intends otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal offering and is disqualified when sacrificed beyond its appointed time.

讜讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 驻住讞 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻住讞 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛

The Gemara asks: And why is he exempt? Doesn鈥檛 a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year assume the status of a peace offering, and doesn鈥檛 one who slaughters a peace offering during the time when it is prohibited to possess leaven with leaven in his possession also violate the prohibition? Conclude from it that a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year requires explicit revocation of its status; otherwise, it does not assume the status of a peace offering and it remains a disqualified Paschal offering.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 谞讝专拽讛 诪驻讬 讞讘讜专讛 讜讗诪专讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讚谞讚讞讬谉 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬 讚住转诪讗 诇砖诪讜 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讛讗 讗讞专 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda said: A response emerged from the group of scholars that discussed this matter, and they said: What are we dealing with here? It is with a case where the owners of the Paschal offering were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case, the Torah commands (Numbers 9:10鈥11) that since they were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the appointed time, the fourteenth of Nisan, they were deferred to the second Pesa岣, the fourteenth of Iyyar. Since presumably the owner plans to use his Paschal offering on the second Pesa岣, its unspecified slaughter in the interim stands to be offered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and it is that Paschal offering that requires revocation of its status. But other situations of a Paschal offering that is slaughtered beyond its designated time do not require revocation of the animal鈥檚 status, and it assumes the status of a peace offering.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诪转讞诇转 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 讗讬讚讱 讻讬 拽讗 砖讞讬讟 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讗 砖讞讬讟

Returning to the matter at hand, if a Paschal offering that is designated for use on the second Pesa岣 is slaughtered on Passover while one has leaven in his possession, he is exempt from receiving lashes because it is a disqualified Paschal offering. Granted, if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, the offering is disqualified from the beginning of the slaughter as a Paschal offering slaughtered beyond its appointed time. Therefore, one is exempt from receiving lashes. But if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, why is one exempt if he slaughtered the animal with leaven in his possession? Once he began and cut a bit of the siman, it is rejected from its status as a Paschal offering and can no longer be offered on the second Pesa岣. Therefore, when he slaughters the other, remaining, portion of the simanim without specification, it is a peace offering that he is slaughtering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 谞讛讬 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 诪讚诪讬 驻住讞 诪讬 讗讬讚讞讬

Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Even if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, although it was rejected from the possibility of being sacrificed on the second Pesa岣, was it rejected from the possibility of being redeemed and from the possibility of the monetary value of a Paschal offering being used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed on the second Pesa岣? As long as the slaughter is not yet complete, redemption of the animal remains possible. Therefore, unspecified slaughter at that time is for the sake of a Paschal offering and one should be exempt from receiving lashes.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘注讬 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讜讛转谞谉 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪驻专讻住转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讞讬讛 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛

And if you would say that in order to redeem a consecrated item one requires that the animal be placed standing before the priest and it requires valuation (see Leviticus 27:11鈥12), and once it is slaughtered it is unable to stand, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, two simanim in the animal or a majority of two simanim, and the animal is still convulsing, its halakhic status is like a living animal in every respect, and it may be redeemed until the convulsing ceases?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who cuts a siman in two or three places on the neck, and together the cuts constitute the requisite measure of slaughter, his slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda adds: When I stated this halakha before Shmuel he said to me: We require a clear and obvious slaughter and in the case of cuts in two or three places there is no obvious slaughter.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诪驻讜专注转 砖谞讗诪专 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐 诪专诪讛 讚讘专

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish also holds that we require a clear and obvious slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: From where is it derived that slaughter must be clear and obvious? As it is stated: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened [sha岣t] arrow, it speaks deceit; one speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lays wait for him鈥 (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow clearly enters one part of the body, so too, the slaughter [she岣ta] must be clear and obvious.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘住讻讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞讚 诪诇诪讟讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转

Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from a mishna (30b): If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. But why is the slaughter valid according to the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? There is no clear and obvious slaughter, as each is cutting a different part of the neck.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讘住讻讬谉 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Elazar: The mishna is referring to a case with one knife and two people, each holding one end of the knife, resulting in a single diagonal incision from above to below.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞讬 注诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讬讟专驻讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘砖转讬 住讻讬谞讬谉 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖驻讬专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 住诪讻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 专讜讘讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 专讜讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: If so, is this what is taught in that regard in a baraita commenting on that mishna: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of two knives and two people it works out well, lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps each will rely on the other that he will perform the slaughter properly, and neither will this one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim, nor will that one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that one need not be concerned.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘住讻讬谉 讗讞转 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讬讟专驻讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 砖诪讗 讬讚专讜住讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

But if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of one knife and two people, that statement in the baraita should not have said: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other; it should have said: One need not be concerned that because one is pulling in one direction and one is pulling in the other, perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife and thereby invalidate the slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 转谞讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

Rabbi Avin said to him: Teach: One need not be concerned

砖诪讗 讬讚专讜住讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

that perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛拽谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讜 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗转 讛拽谞讛 诇诪讟讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转

Rabbi Avin raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, the gullet below on the neck and the windpipe above on the neck, or cut the gullet above on the neck and the windpipe below on the neck, his slaughter is valid. Based on this, Rabbi Avin asks: Why is the slaughter valid? But in that case there is no clear and obvious slaughter.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽讜诇诪讜住

He raises the objection and he resolves it. This baraita is not referring to cuts on two places on the neck; rather, it is referring to slaughter performed on a diagonal, like the point of a reed [kekulmos] fashioned into a writing utensil. The slaughterer begins cutting from the top of one siman and cuts diagonally downward so that when he reaches the second siman, the knife is lower down.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚讗讬砖讞讟 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 注诇 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 砖拽诇 诪砖讜驻专讬 砖讜驻专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讘砖谞讬 住讻讬谞讬谉 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bull that was slaughtered with cuts in two or three places in the simanim on its neck. Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta entered the store and took a cut of meat from the highest quality parts of the animal, thereby demonstrating that the slaughter was valid. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Our rabbi, you have taught us through your actions that the mishna: If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even one above and one below, is referring even to a case of two knives and two people who are each cutting the simanim at a different part of the neck with their knives.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讞诇讬讚 讗转 讛住讻讬谉 讘讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇住讬诪谉 讜驻住拽讜 驻住讜诇讛 转讞转 讛注讜专 讻砖专讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife in the neck between one siman and the other siman, i.e., he inserted the knife between the windpipe and the gullet, and he severed the gullet first and then removed the knife and cut the windpipe, the slaughter is not valid. If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim, the slaughter is valid.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讗讜 砖讛讞诇讬讚 讗转 讛住讻讬谉 转讞转 讛砖谞讬 讜驻住拽讜 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讗讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us? We already learn this halakha explicitly in a mishna (32a): Or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity. Both agree that the slaughter is not valid in the sense that it does not permit the consumption of the meat of the animal.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 讻讚专讱 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讚拽注讘讬讚 讻讚专讱 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the gullet and cuts it from below to above, i.e., from the nape to the front of the neck, because he did not perform the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter. But if he cut the gullet from above to below, i.e., from the front of the neck to the nape, since he performed the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter, say that the slaughter is valid. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to any case where one conceals the knife during slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.

转讞转 讛注讜专 讻砖专讛 讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 转讞转 讛注讜专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the second part of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim in the standard manner the slaughter is valid. The school of Rav say that Rav says that in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the hide and cuts the simanim of the animal, I do not know whether the slaughter is valid, or whether it is not valid because he concealed the knife during the slaughter.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 专讘 讚讗诪专讬 转讞转 讛注讜专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 转讞转 诪讟诇讬转 诪讛讜 转讞转 爪诪专 诪住讜讘讱 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the school of Rav, who say: Beneath the hide, I do not know, if one concealed the knife beneath a cloth that is around the animal鈥檚 neck, what is the halakha? If one concealed the knife beneath tangled wool on the neck of a sheep, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讞诇讬讚 讘诪讬注讜讟 住讬诪谞讬诐 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one concealed the knife in cutting the minority of the simanim and cut the majority of the simanim in the standard manner, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬谉 讻讗讞讚 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘住讻讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讟讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛转讬讝 讗转 讛专讗砖 讘讘转 讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 讗转 讛专讗砖 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters by cutting two animals鈥 heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. If one decapitated the animal in one motion and did not slaughter the animal in the standard manner of drawing the knife back and forth, the slaughter is not valid. In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck, the slaughter is valid.

讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗讜 讛讘讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讜诇讬讱 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛讘讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讬讝诪诇 讻砖专讛

If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals, the slaughter is valid. In what case is this statement, that one must be concerned about the length of the knife, said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back; but if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel [be鈥檌zemel], the slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐 诪专诪讛 讚讘专

GEMARA: The mishna stated: If one decapitated the animal in one motion, the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened [sha岣t] arrow, it speaks deceit鈥 (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow is propelled by drawing back the bowstring, so too, slaughter [she岣ta] must be performed by drawing the knife across the animal鈥檚 neck and not by pressing the knife or striking the neck with the knife.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讞讟 讗讬谉 讜砖讞讟 讗诇讗 讜诪砖讱 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讝讛讘 砖讞讜讟 讜讗讜诪专 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐 诪专诪讛 讚讘专

Likewise, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter [vesha岣t] the young bull before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). The term vesha岣t means nothing other than: And he shall draw the knife across the neck of the animal. And similarly, the verse states: 鈥淎nd King Solomon made two hundred targets of drawn [sha岣t] gold鈥 (I聽Kings 10:16), meaning gold that is smoothed in the manner of goldsmiths. And the verse states: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaks deceit鈥 (Jeremiah 9:7).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讝讛讘 砖讞讜讟 砖谞讟讜讜讛 讻讞讜讟 讛讜讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐

The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the term 鈥渄rawn [sha岣t] gold鈥 means that the gold was spun like soft thread [ke岣t], come and hear: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened [sha岣t] arrow.鈥 In this verse, sha岣t means drawn like the bowstring that propels an arrow, and is not a reference to thread.

专讘讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讬拽 诇讬讛 讙讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 注讜驻讗 讘讛讚讬 讚驻专讞 讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讬讚 讞诇讚讛 讞讝讬谞谉

The Gemara relates: Rava would examine the arrow for Rabbi Yona bar Ta岣ifa to ensure that there were no notches in it. And Rava shot the arrow and slaughtered a bird with it as it was flying. The Gemara challenges: And perhaps when the arrow cut the bird鈥檚 neck it performed an inverted slaughter, with the arrow concealed in the neck, and cut the simanim from back to front. The Gemara responds: We see

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 30

住转讬诪转讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讜讞讟讬诐 讝讘讞 讗讞讚

which is cited unattributed, i.e., it is one of his many opinions that are cited in the Mishna and baraitot without attribution. But the Rabbis say: Two people may slaughter one offering. According to the Rabbis, Rava鈥檚 difficulty remains: 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.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 诇驻诇讜讙 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讞讚 讙讘专讗 讘砖谞讬 住讜讚专讬诐 讚住讜讚专 拽诪讗 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讜住讜讚专 讘转专讗 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘驻住讜诇讗 讚驻专讛 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘讛讻砖专讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two people may not slaughter one offering, let the tanna of the mishna also distinguish and teach a case where one man slaughtered with two cloths on his head, starting the slaughter with one and replacing it with the other midway through the slaughter, as in that case, since halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, the first cloth is not rendered impure but the latter cloth is rendered impure. Rather, one must say that the tanna is speaking only in reference to cases involving the disqualification of the red heifer itself, but he is not speaking in reference to cases involving a fit red heifer, and no proof may be cited from here.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讘诪讜注讚 诇砖诪讜 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讞讬讬讘

Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection from a mishna (Pesa岣m 63a) to the opinion that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan after noon while he has leaven in his possession, he is flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread鈥 (Exodus 23:18). If he slaughtered the animal not for the sake of the Paschal offering, he is exempt from receiving lashes. And if he slaughtered the animal during the festival of Passover for the sake of the Paschal offering with leaven in his possession, he is exempt, because it is a disqualified Paschal offering, as it was slaughtered beyond its appointed time. But if he slaughtered the animal during the Festival not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but rather as a peace offering, he is liable for slaughtering the animal with leaven in his possession.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讛讗 住转诪讗 驻讟讜专

And we discussed this matter: The reason he is liable is due to the fact that his intent was to slaughter it not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but had he slaughtered it with unspecified intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically intends otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal offering and is disqualified when sacrificed beyond its appointed time.

讜讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 驻住讞 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻住讞 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛

The Gemara asks: And why is he exempt? Doesn鈥檛 a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year assume the status of a peace offering, and doesn鈥檛 one who slaughters a peace offering during the time when it is prohibited to possess leaven with leaven in his possession also violate the prohibition? Conclude from it that a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year requires explicit revocation of its status; otherwise, it does not assume the status of a peace offering and it remains a disqualified Paschal offering.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 谞讝专拽讛 诪驻讬 讞讘讜专讛 讜讗诪专讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬 诪转讬诐 讚谞讚讞讬谉 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬 讚住转诪讗 诇砖诪讜 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 注拽讬专讛 讛讗 讗讞专 诇讗 讘注讬 注拽讬专讛

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda said: A response emerged from the group of scholars that discussed this matter, and they said: What are we dealing with here? It is with a case where the owners of the Paschal offering were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case, the Torah commands (Numbers 9:10鈥11) that since they were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the appointed time, the fourteenth of Nisan, they were deferred to the second Pesa岣, the fourteenth of Iyyar. Since presumably the owner plans to use his Paschal offering on the second Pesa岣, its unspecified slaughter in the interim stands to be offered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and it is that Paschal offering that requires revocation of its status. But other situations of a Paschal offering that is slaughtered beyond its designated time do not require revocation of the animal鈥檚 status, and it assumes the status of a peace offering.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诪转讞诇转 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讗诇讗 讘住讜祝 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 讗讬讚讱 讻讬 拽讗 砖讞讬讟 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讗 砖讞讬讟

Returning to the matter at hand, if a Paschal offering that is designated for use on the second Pesa岣 is slaughtered on Passover while one has leaven in his possession, he is exempt from receiving lashes because it is a disqualified Paschal offering. Granted, if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, the offering is disqualified from the beginning of the slaughter as a Paschal offering slaughtered beyond its appointed time. Therefore, one is exempt from receiving lashes. But if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, why is one exempt if he slaughtered the animal with leaven in his possession? Once he began and cut a bit of the siman, it is rejected from its status as a Paschal offering and can no longer be offered on the second Pesa岣. Therefore, when he slaughters the other, remaining, portion of the simanim without specification, it is a peace offering that he is slaughtering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 谞讛讬 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 诪讚诪讬 驻住讞 诪讬 讗讬讚讞讬

Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Even if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, although it was rejected from the possibility of being sacrificed on the second Pesa岣, was it rejected from the possibility of being redeemed and from the possibility of the monetary value of a Paschal offering being used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed on the second Pesa岣? As long as the slaughter is not yet complete, redemption of the animal remains possible. Therefore, unspecified slaughter at that time is for the sake of a Paschal offering and one should be exempt from receiving lashes.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘注讬 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讜讛转谞谉 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪驻专讻住转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讞讬讛 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛

And if you would say that in order to redeem a consecrated item one requires that the animal be placed standing before the priest and it requires valuation (see Leviticus 27:11鈥12), and once it is slaughtered it is unable to stand, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, two simanim in the animal or a majority of two simanim, and the animal is still convulsing, its halakhic status is like a living animal in every respect, and it may be redeemed until the convulsing ceases?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who cuts a siman in two or three places on the neck, and together the cuts constitute the requisite measure of slaughter, his slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda adds: When I stated this halakha before Shmuel he said to me: We require a clear and obvious slaughter and in the case of cuts in two or three places there is no obvious slaughter.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讗 诪驻讜专注转 砖谞讗诪专 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐 诪专诪讛 讚讘专

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish also holds that we require a clear and obvious slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: From where is it derived that slaughter must be clear and obvious? As it is stated: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened [sha岣t] arrow, it speaks deceit; one speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lays wait for him鈥 (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow clearly enters one part of the body, so too, the slaughter [she岣ta] must be clear and obvious.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘住讻讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞讚 诪诇诪讟讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转

Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from a mishna (30b): If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. But why is the slaughter valid according to the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? There is no clear and obvious slaughter, as each is cutting a different part of the neck.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讘住讻讬谉 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Elazar: The mishna is referring to a case with one knife and two people, each holding one end of the knife, resulting in a single diagonal incision from above to below.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞讬 注诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讬讟专驻讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘砖转讬 住讻讬谞讬谉 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖驻讬专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 住诪讻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 专讜讘讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 专讜讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: If so, is this what is taught in that regard in a baraita commenting on that mishna: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of two knives and two people it works out well, lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps each will rely on the other that he will perform the slaughter properly, and neither will this one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim, nor will that one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that one need not be concerned.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘住讻讬谉 讗讞转 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讬讟专驻讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 砖诪讗 讬讚专讜住讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

But if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of one knife and two people, that statement in the baraita should not have said: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other; it should have said: One need not be concerned that because one is pulling in one direction and one is pulling in the other, perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife and thereby invalidate the slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 转谞讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

Rabbi Avin said to him: Teach: One need not be concerned

砖诪讗 讬讚专讜住讜 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

that perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 砖讞讟 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛拽谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讜 讗转 讛讜讜砖讟 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗转 讛拽谞讛 诇诪讟讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讞讬讟讛 诪驻讜专注转

Rabbi Avin raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, the gullet below on the neck and the windpipe above on the neck, or cut the gullet above on the neck and the windpipe below on the neck, his slaughter is valid. Based on this, Rabbi Avin asks: Why is the slaughter valid? But in that case there is no clear and obvious slaughter.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽讜诇诪讜住

He raises the objection and he resolves it. This baraita is not referring to cuts on two places on the neck; rather, it is referring to slaughter performed on a diagonal, like the point of a reed [kekulmos] fashioned into a writing utensil. The slaughterer begins cutting from the top of one siman and cuts diagonally downward so that when he reaches the second siman, the knife is lower down.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚讗讬砖讞讟 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 注诇 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 砖拽诇 诪砖讜驻专讬 砖讜驻专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讘砖谞讬 住讻讬谞讬谉 讜砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bull that was slaughtered with cuts in two or three places in the simanim on its neck. Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta entered the store and took a cut of meat from the highest quality parts of the animal, thereby demonstrating that the slaughter was valid. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Our rabbi, you have taught us through your actions that the mishna: If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even one above and one below, is referring even to a case of two knives and two people who are each cutting the simanim at a different part of the neck with their knives.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讞诇讬讚 讗转 讛住讻讬谉 讘讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇住讬诪谉 讜驻住拽讜 驻住讜诇讛 转讞转 讛注讜专 讻砖专讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife in the neck between one siman and the other siman, i.e., he inserted the knife between the windpipe and the gullet, and he severed the gullet first and then removed the knife and cut the windpipe, the slaughter is not valid. If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim, the slaughter is valid.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讗讜 砖讛讞诇讬讚 讗转 讛住讻讬谉 转讞转 讛砖谞讬 讜驻住拽讜 专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讗讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us? We already learn this halakha explicitly in a mishna (32a): Or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity. Both agree that the slaughter is not valid in the sense that it does not permit the consumption of the meat of the animal.

讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讚诇讗 拽注讘讬讚 讻讚专讱 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讚拽注讘讬讚 讻讚专讱 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬诪讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the gullet and cuts it from below to above, i.e., from the nape to the front of the neck, because he did not perform the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter. But if he cut the gullet from above to below, i.e., from the front of the neck to the nape, since he performed the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter, say that the slaughter is valid. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to any case where one conceals the knife during slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.

转讞转 讛注讜专 讻砖专讛 讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 转讞转 讛注讜专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the second part of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim in the standard manner the slaughter is valid. The school of Rav say that Rav says that in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the hide and cuts the simanim of the animal, I do not know whether the slaughter is valid, or whether it is not valid because he concealed the knife during the slaughter.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 专讘 讚讗诪专讬 转讞转 讛注讜专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 转讞转 诪讟诇讬转 诪讛讜 转讞转 爪诪专 诪住讜讘讱 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the school of Rav, who say: Beneath the hide, I do not know, if one concealed the knife beneath a cloth that is around the animal鈥檚 neck, what is the halakha? If one concealed the knife beneath tangled wool on the neck of a sheep, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讞诇讬讚 讘诪讬注讜讟 住讬诪谞讬诐 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one concealed the knife in cutting the minority of the simanim and cut the majority of the simanim in the standard manner, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬谉 讻讗讞讚 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘住讻讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞讚 诇诪讟讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛转讬讝 讗转 讛专讗砖 讘讘转 讗讞转 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 讗转 讛专讗砖 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters by cutting two animals鈥 heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. If one decapitated the animal in one motion and did not slaughter the animal in the standard manner of drawing the knife back and forth, the slaughter is not valid. In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal鈥檚 entire neck, the slaughter is valid.

讛讬讛 砖讜讞讟 讜讛转讬讝 砖谞讬 专讗砖讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗诐 讬砖 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇讗 爪讜讗专 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗讜 讛讘讬讗 讜诇讗 讛讜诇讬讱 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛讘讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讬讝诪诇 讻砖专讛

If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals, the slaughter is valid. In what case is this statement, that one must be concerned about the length of the knife, said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back; but if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel [be鈥檌zemel], the slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐 诪专诪讛 讚讘专

GEMARA: The mishna stated: If one decapitated the animal in one motion, the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened [sha岣t] arrow, it speaks deceit鈥 (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow is propelled by drawing back the bowstring, so too, slaughter [she岣ta] must be performed by drawing the knife across the animal鈥檚 neck and not by pressing the knife or striking the neck with the knife.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讞讟 讗讬谉 讜砖讞讟 讗诇讗 讜诪砖讱 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讝讛讘 砖讞讜讟 讜讗讜诪专 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐 诪专诪讛 讚讘专

Likewise, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter [vesha岣t] the young bull before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). The term vesha岣t means nothing other than: And he shall draw the knife across the neck of the animal. And similarly, the verse states: 鈥淎nd King Solomon made two hundred targets of drawn [sha岣t] gold鈥 (I聽Kings 10:16), meaning gold that is smoothed in the manner of goldsmiths. And the verse states: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaks deceit鈥 (Jeremiah 9:7).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讝讛讘 砖讞讜讟 砖谞讟讜讜讛 讻讞讜讟 讛讜讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞抓 砖讞讜讟 诇砖讜谞诐

The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the term 鈥渄rawn [sha岣t] gold鈥 means that the gold was spun like soft thread [ke岣t], come and hear: 鈥淭heir tongue is a sharpened [sha岣t] arrow.鈥 In this verse, sha岣t means drawn like the bowstring that propels an arrow, and is not a reference to thread.

专讘讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讬拽 诇讬讛 讙讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 注讜驻讗 讘讛讚讬 讚驻专讞 讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讬讚 讞诇讚讛 讞讝讬谞谉

The Gemara relates: Rava would examine the arrow for Rabbi Yona bar Ta岣ifa to ensure that there were no notches in it. And Rava shot the arrow and slaughtered a bird with it as it was flying. The Gemara challenges: And perhaps when the arrow cut the bird鈥檚 neck it performed an inverted slaughter, with the arrow concealed in the neck, and cut the simanim from back to front. The Gemara responds: We see

Scroll To Top