מנין לנו ששחיטה מן הצואר?
לימוד מסכת חולין מוקדש על ידי ג’ודי פלבר לכבודה של קהילת הדרן. "במהלך המחזור הראשון שלי בדף היומי, בדיוק כשהתחלנו את מסכת חולין, בני נפצע בעת שירותו בצה”ל. לאורך אותם חודשיים וחצי של קושי וחוסר ודאות, חברותיי ללימוד לא עזבו אותי לרגע. תודה רבה לקהילה שעטפה אותי, עודדה אותי ווידאה שאוכל להמשיך ולהתמיד בלימוד הדף גם בימים המאתגרים ההם.”
הלימוד השבוע מוקדש ע”י אודרי מונדו לע”נ בשיה לאה בת צביה חיה ומאיר יהודה.
רוצה להקדיש שיעור?
0:00
0:00
כלים
לימוד מסכת חולין מוקדש על ידי ג’ודי פלבר לכבודה של קהילת הדרן. "במהלך המחזור הראשון שלי בדף היומי, בדיוק כשהתחלנו את מסכת חולין, בני נפצע בעת שירותו בצה”ל. לאורך אותם חודשיים וחצי של קושי וחוסר ודאות, חברותיי ללימוד לא עזבו אותי לרגע. תודה רבה לקהילה שעטפה אותי, עודדה אותי ווידאה שאוכל להמשיך ולהתמיד בלימוד הדף גם בימים המאתגרים ההם.”
הלימוד השבוע מוקדש ע”י אודרי מונדו לע”נ בשיה לאה בת צביה חיה ומאיר יהודה.
חולין כז
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וּשְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוְּורִידִין. חֲצִי אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְאֶחָד וָחֵצִי בִּבְהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters by cutting one siman, i.e., the windpipe or the gullet, in a bird, and two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid, and the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins [haveridin], i.e., the major blood vessels in the neck. If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.
גְּמָ׳ ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט״ – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא. שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה לְכִתְחִלָּה לָא? עַד כַּמָּה לִשְׁחוֹט וְלֵיזִיל? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַאֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַרוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the term: One who slaughters, that if one slaughtered, then after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid; but ab initio, no, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Is the ruling with regard to the cutting of two simanim in an animal that ab initio, no, it is prohibited? If so, how much is one expected to continue and cut the simanim, ab initio? There are only two relevant simanim to be cut. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the reference is to the cutting of one siman in a bird, as one is required to cut both simanim in a bird ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that the reference is to the passage in the mishna that states that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, as one is required to cut the entire siman ab initio.
(כמ״ש סִימָן).
§ Kaf, mem, shin is a mnemonic for the sources of the statements cited in the discussion that follows: Rav Kahana, Rav Yeimar, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִן הַצַּוָּאר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁח חַטֵּהוּ. מִמַּאי דְּהַאי חַטֵּהוּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּדַכּוֹיֵי הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחִטֵּא אֶת הַבַּיִת״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״תְּחַטְּאֵנִי בְאֵזוֹב וְאֶטְהָר״.
Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat] the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal bends [shaḥ], purify it [ḥattehu] through slaughter. The Gemara asks: From where does one ascertain that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of purification? The Gemara answers: It is ascertained from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall purify [veḥitte] the house” (Leviticus 14:52). And if you wish, say instead that it is ascertained from here: “Purge me [teḥatte’eni] with hyssop and I will be pure” (Psalms 51:9).
וְאֵימָא מִזְּנָבוֹ? שָׁח – מִכְּלָל שֶׁזָּקוּף בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא שָׁח וְעוֹמֵד הוּא. וְאֵימָא מֵאׇזְנוֹ? בָּעֵינַן דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְלֵיכָּא.
The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its tail, which is also a place in the animal’s body that is bent. The Gemara responds: From the term: Bends [shaḥ], one can conclude by inference that we require a part of the animal’s body that can stand erect and that bends; and this, the tail, is bent perpetually and is never erect. The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its ear, which is erect and bends. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animal’s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the ear there is no blood of the soul spilled.
וְאֵימָא: דְּקָרַע וְאָזֵיל עַד דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ! וְתוּ, שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר – מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא. שְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר נָמֵי גְּמָרָא.
The Gemara asks: And say that one rends the animal starting from the ear and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition, i.e., a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition, and has no biblical source.
וּקְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? דְּלָא לְשַׁוְּיַיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the verse: “And you shall slaughter,” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet, which are adjacent to the major blood vessels.
רַב יֵימַר אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְזָבַחְתָּ״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁזָּב חַתֵּהוּ. מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי חַתֵּהוּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּמִתְבַּר הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּירָא וְאַל תֵּחָת״.
Rav Yeimar says: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And you shall slaughter [vezavaḥta] of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the blood flows [shezav], break it [ḥattehu], i.e., cut it. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of breaking? The Gemara answers: It is inferred from a verse, as it is written: “Neither fear nor be dismayed [teḥat]” (Deuteronomy 1:21); ensure that your spirit will not be broken.
וְאֵימָא מֵחוֹטְמוֹ, זָב עַל יְדֵי חִתּוּי בָּעֵינַן, וְהַאי זָב מֵאֵלָיו הוּא. וְאֵימָא מִלִּבּוֹ, וְתוּ: שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר – מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא. שְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר נָמֵי גְּמָרָא.
The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its nose, from which mucus flows, as the verse did not mention blood. The Gemara responds: We require a fluid that flows by means of breaking, and this mucus flows on its own. The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its heart by means of stabbing. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife during slaughter, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.
וּקְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? דְּלָא לְשַׁוְּיֵיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: “And you shall slaughter” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – אַל תִּקְרֵי ״וְשָׁחַט״ אֶלָּא ״וְסָחַט״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁסָּח חַטֵּהוּ.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat]” (Leviticus 1:5). Do not read it as: Veshaḥat; rather, read it as: Vesaḥat, which literally means: And he shall squeeze, which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal speaks [saḥ], purify it [ḥattehu]. The animal’s voice emanates from its throat; therefore, it is slaughtered from the neck.
וְאֵימָא מִלְּשׁוֹנוֹ! בָּעֵינַן דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְלֵיכָּא, וְאֵימָא דְּקָרַע וְאָזֵיל עַד דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ! וְתוּ, שְׁהִיָּיה דְּרָסָה חֲלָדָה הַגְרָמָה וְעִיקּוּר מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא, שְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר נָמֵי גְּמָרָא.
The Gemara objects: And say that slaughter is from its tongue. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animal’s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the tongue there is no blood of the soul spilled. The Gemara objects: And say that one rends the animal starting from the tongue and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife, concealing the knife, diverting the knife, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.
וּקְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? דְּלָא לְשַׁוְּיֵיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: “And you shall slaughter,” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָרְכוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵת הַנְּתָחִים״.
And a tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall cites the source for the halakha that slaughter is performed from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat…upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8).
שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״? וַהֲלֹא רֹאשׁ וּפֶדֶר בִּכְלַל כׇּל הַנְּתָחִים הָיוּ, לָמָּה יָצְאוּ? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִפְשִׁיט אֶת הָעֹלָה וְנִתַּח״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נְתָחִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן בִּכְלַל הַפְשָׁטָה, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁכְּבָר הוּתַּז? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת פִּדְרוֹ וְעָרַךְ״.
Rabbi Ḥiyya explains: As there is no need for the verse to state: “The head, and the fat.” What is the meaning when the verse states: “The head, and the fat”? Weren’t the head and the fat included in the category of all the pieces, mentioned earlier in the verse? For what purpose did they emerge from the category and warrant individual mention? This is due to the fact that it is stated: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6). One might have thought that I have derived that only the pieces that are included in the category of flaying must be arranged on the altar. From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed when the animal was slaughtered, and is not flayed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “With its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them” (Leviticus 1:12).
מִדְּקָאָמַר ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁכְּבָר הוּתַּז״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר.
The tanna concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: The head, which was already partially severed, one learns by inference that slaughter is from the neck, as the neck connects the head to the body.
וְתַנָּא פָּתַח בְּ״רֹאשׁ וּפֶדֶר״, וּמְסַיֵּים בְּ״רֹאשׁוֹ וּפִדְרוֹ״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁכְּבָר הוּתַּז? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״.
The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And the tanna of the baraita opened with a question about the extraneous phrase written with regard to a bull burnt offering: “The head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), and concludes with an explanation of the phrase written with regard to a sheep burnt offering: “Its head and its fat” (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “The head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8).
וְ״רֹאשׁוֹ וּפִדְרוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְרֹאשׁ וּפֶדֶר שֶׁקּוֹדְמִין לְכׇל הַנְּתָחִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת פִּדְרוֹ וְעָרַךְ״.
The Gemara asks: And if so, why do I need the verse cited at the end of the baraita: “Its head and its fat”? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the head and the fat precede all the other pieceswhen the sacrificial portions are sacrificed on the altar? The verse states: “With its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them” (Leviticus 1:12).
וּפֶדֶר קַמָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? חוֹפֶה אֶת הַפֶּדֶר עַל בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְזֶהוּ דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need the first mention of fat that the Merciful One writes: “The pieces, the head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8)? Wasn’t the derivation from that verse restricted to the head? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: How does the priest who elevates the sacrificial portions of the animal to the altar perform that task? He uses the fat to cover the place of slaughter, i.e., to conceal the bloody neck, and elevates the head to the top of the altar, and that is a deferential manner toward the Most High.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״, וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לָעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, עוֹף אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא! עוֹף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה!
And this tanna cites proof that slaughter is from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that the Torah writes with regard to the impurity of carcasses: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, whereas a bird does not impart impurity by contact or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render one’s garments impure when it is in the throat.
בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אַף עוֹף בִּשְׁחִיטָה. אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם – אַף כָּאן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.
The baraita continues: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as an animal avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter, so too, a bird avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter. The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of an animal, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, in the case of a bird, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “This is the law,” to restrict the scope of the juxtaposition in the sense that not all of the halakhot of birds and animals are equal.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה עוֹף הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר, אַף בְּהֵמָה הֶכְשֵׁרָהּ מִן הַצַּוָּאר.
The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as in the case of a bird, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through pinching and slaughter from the neck, as the Torah states with regard to bird offerings that one pinches off its head from the neck, so too, in the case of an animal, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through slaughter from the neck.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן ״מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף״, אַף כָּאן ״מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמָלַק אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ וְלֹא יַבְדִּיל״ – רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, וְאֵין רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אַחַר מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף.
The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of a bird, the pinching is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck, so too here, with regard to an animal, the slaughter is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck and not from the throat. The Gemara explains that therefore, the verse states with regard to a bird: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its nape, but shall not divide it asunder” (Leviticus 5:8), from which it is derived: Its head, i.e., the bird’s head, is pinched adjacent to the nape, but the head of another, the animal, is not cut adjacent to the nape.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״זֹאת״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אִי לָאו ״זֹאת״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מָה עוֹף בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף בְּהֵמָה בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת״.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: “This is the law,” from which the first tanna restricted the scope of the juxtaposition between animals and birds? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from the term “This is the law,” I would say: Just as the fitness of a bird is accomplished by cutting one of the simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet, so too, the fitness of an animal is accomplished by cutting one siman. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “This is the law,” to restrict the juxtaposition.
תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״ – הֵטִיל הַכָּתוּב לְעוֹף בֵּין בְּהֵמָה לְדָגִים, לְחַיְּיבוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר – שֶׁכְּבָר הוּקַּשׁ לְדָגִים, לְפוֹטְרוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם אִי אֶפְשָׁר – שֶׁכְּבָר הוּקַּשׁ לִבְהֵמָה. הָא כֵּיצַד הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ? בְּסִימָן אֶחָד.
§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman.
דָּגִים דְּלָאו בְּנֵי שְׁחִיטָה נִינְהוּ, מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם אִם אֶת כׇּל דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם״, בַּאֲסִיפָה בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: “If flocks and herds be slaughtered for them…or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them” (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי שְׂלָיו דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת הַשְּׂלָיו״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: לְפוֹטְרוֹ בִּוְלֹא כְּלוּם אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר הוּקַּשׁ לִבְהֵמָה! הָתָם לָא כְּתִיבָא אֲסִיפָה בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה דְּאַחֲרִינֵי, הָכָא כְּתִיבָא אֲסִיפָה בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה דְּאַחֲרִינֵי.
The Gemara clarifies: But if that is so, with regard to quail as well, concerning which it is written: “And the people rose up…and gathered the quail” (Numbers 11:32), so too, would one say with regard to birds that, like fish, their fitness is not accomplished with slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question. But didn’t you say: To exempt birds from slaughter altogether with nothing is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal? The Gemara answers: There, gathering of quail is not written in the context of the slaughter of others; therefore, gathering is not to be understood as an alternative to slaughtering the birds. Here, gathering of fish is written in the context of the slaughter of others, i.e., the flocks and herds, which indicates that gathering is an alternative to slaughter.
דָּרַשׁ עוֹבֵר גָּלִילָאָה: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּבְרֵאת מִן הַיַּבָּשָׁה – הֶכְשֵׁרָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִים, דָּגִים שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ מִן הַמַּיִם – הֶכְשֵׁירָן בִּוְלֹא כְּלוּם, עוֹף שֶׁנִּבְרָא מִן הָרְקָק – הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל קַפּוֹטְקָאָה: תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹפוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בְּרַגְלֵיהֶם כַּדָּגִים.
The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.
וְעוֹד שְׁאֵלוֹ, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף״, אַלְמָא מִמַּיָּא אִיבְּרוֹ, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כׇּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כׇּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם״, אַלְמָא מֵאַרְעָא אִיבְּרוֹ!
The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: “And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will fly” (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them” (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.
אָמַר לוֹ: מִן הָרְקָק נִבְרְאוּ. רָאָה תַּלְמִידָיו מִסְתַּכְּלִים זֶה בָּזֶה, אָמַר לָהֶם: קָשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיכֶם שֶׁדָּחִיתִי אֶת אוֹיְבִי בְּקַשׁ? מִן הַמַּיִם נִבְרְאוּ, וְלָמָּה הֱבִיאָן אֶל הָאָדָם? לִקְרוֹת לָהֶן שֵׁם.
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר אָמַר לְאוֹתוֹ הֶגְמוֹן, וּבַלָּשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן אָמַר לָהֶן לְתַלְמִידָיו, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב עַל ״וַיִּצֶר״.
And some say that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן פִּנְחָס: אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁפַךְ״ – בִּשְׁפִיכָה בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי.
On the matter of slaughtering birds, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas: Slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is stated: “And whatever man there be of the children of Israel…who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood, and cover it in earth” (Leviticus 17:13). This indicates that mere spilling of its blood is sufficient.
אִי הָכִי, חַיָּה נָמֵי! אִיתַּקַּשׁ לִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. עוֹף נָמֵי! אִיתַּקַּשׁ לִבְהֵמָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״. הָא כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ״.
The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to an undomesticated animal, which is mentioned in the same verse, spilling should be sufficient also. The Gemara explains: An undomesticated animal is juxtaposed to disqualified consecrated animals, for which slaughter is required, as explained later in the Gemara (28a). The Gemara asks: Birds too are juxtaposed to animals, and therefore slaughter should be required, as it is written: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46). The Gemara answers: But isn’t it written: “He shall spill its blood,” indicating that slaughter is not required?
וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּשָׁדֵית לֵיהּ עַל עוֹף? שַׁדְיֵיהּ אַחַיָּה! מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָלֵיק מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And concerning the derivation that slaughter is not required, based on the phrase in the verse “He shall spill,” what did you see that led you to cast it upon, i.e., apply it to, the case of a bird? Why not cast it upon the case of an undomesticated animal? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to cast the derivation upon the case of a bird due to the fact that the verse concluded with the bird, i.e., the bird is mentioned just prior to the directive to spill and cover the blood, as it is written: “Who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood.”
(סִימָן: נִתְנַבֵּל, דָּם, בִּמְלִיקָה.)
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited in the Gemara with regard to the slaughter of birds: Became a carcass, blood, through pinching.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְּיָדוֹ, הַנּוֹחֵר וְהַמְעַקֵּר – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, נְחִירָתוֹ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ, לִיבְעֵי כִּסּוּי! מִי סָבְרַתְּ בְּעוֹף? לָא, בְּחַיָּה.
The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas from a mishna (85a): One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand because the slaughter was not valid, or one who stabbed the animal by slicing the length of the simanim, or one who ripped the gullet or windpipe of the animal, rendering the slaughter not valid, is exempt from covering the blood because his slaughter was ineffective in permitting consumption of the animal, and it is written that the requirement of covering the blood applies only to “any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten.” And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, the halakhic status of its stabbing is like that of its slaughter; let its blood require covering. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that this mishna is referring to a bird? No, it is referring exclusively to an undomesticated animal.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְצָרִיךְ לַדָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? אוֹ נוֹחֲרוֹ אוֹ עוֹקְרוֹ.
The Gemara cites another challenge: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and requires the blood and not the animal is obligated to cover the blood. Rather, how does he act if he seeks to make use of the blood rather than cover it? He either stabs the animal or rips the simanim, and then he is exempt from covering the blood.
לעקוב 
כלים
העמקה
רוצה להבין מה באמת קורה מתחת לפני השטח של הסוגיה?
שיעורים, פודקאסטים והרחבות של מיטב המורות שלנו יפתחו לך עוד זוויות וכיווני חשיבה.
חדשה בלימוד הגמרא?
זה הדף הראשון שלך? איזו התרגשות עצומה! יש לנו בדיוק את התכנים והכלים שיעזרו לך לעשות את הצעדים הראשונים ללמידה בקצב וברמה שלך, כך תוכלי להרגיש בנוח גם בתוך הסוגיות המורכבות ומאתגרות.
פסיפס הלומדות שלנו
גלי את קהילת הלומדות שלנו, מגוון נשים, רקעים וסיפורים. כולן חלק מתנועה ומסע מרגש ועוצמתי.
בתחילת הסבב הנוכחי של לימוד הדף היומי, נחשפתי לחגיגות המרגשות באירועי הסיום ברחבי העולם. והבטחתי לעצמי שבקרוב אצטרף גם למעגל הלומדות. הסבב התחיל כאשר הייתי בתחילת דרכי בתוכנית קרן אריאל להכשרת יועצות הלכה של נשמ”ת. לא הצלחתי להוסיף את ההתחייבות לדף היומי על הלימוד האינטנסיבי של תוכנית היועצות. בבוקר למחרת המבחן הסופי בנשמ”ת, התחלתי את לימוד הדף במסכת סוכה ומאז לא הפסקתי.
חנה שחם-רוזבי (ד”ר)
קרית גת, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד גמרא בבית הספר בגיל צעיר והתאהבתי. המשכתי בכך כל חיי ואף היייתי מורה לגמרא בבית הספר שקד בשדה אליהו (בית הספר בו למדתי בילדותי)בתחילת מחזור דף יומי הנוכחי החלטתי להצטרף ובע”ה מקווה להתמיד ולהמשיך. אני אוהבת את המפגש עם הדף את "דרישות השלום ” שמקבלת מקשרים עם דפים אחרים שלמדתי את הסנכרון שמתחולל בין התכנים.
אריאלה ביגמן
מעלה גלבוע, ישראל
"התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי במחזור הזה, בח’ בטבת תש””ף. לקחתי על עצמי את הלימוד כדי ליצור תחום של התמדה יומיומית בחיים, והצטרפתי לקבוצת הלומדים בבית הכנסת בכפר אדומים. המשפחה והסביבה מתפעלים ותומכים.
בלימוד שלי אני מתפעלת בעיקר מכך שכדי ללמוד גמרא יש לדעת ולהכיר את כל הגמרא. זו מעין צבת בצבת עשויה שהיא עצומה בהיקפה.”
שרה פוּקס
כפר אדומים, ישראל
לפני 15 שנה, אחרי עשרות שנים של "ג’ינגול” בין משפחה לקריירה תובענית בהייטק, הצטרפתי לשיעורי גמרא במתן רעננה. הלימוד המעמיק והייחודי של הרבנית אושרה קורן יחד עם קבוצת הנשים המגוונת הייתה חוויה מאלפת ומעשירה. לפני כשמונה שנים כאשר מחזור הדף היומי הגיע למסכת תענית הצטרפתי כ”חברותא” לבעלי. זו השעה היומית שלנו ביחד כאשר דפי הגמרא משתלבים בחיי היום יום, משפיעים ומושפעים, וכשלא מספיקים תמיד משלימים בשבת
יודי אסקוף
רעננה, ישראל
כבר סיפרתי בסיום של מועד קטן.
הלימוד מאוד משפיעה על היום שלי כי אני לומדת עם רבנית מישל על הבוקר בזום. זה נותן טון לכל היום – בסיס למחשבות שלי .זה זכות גדול להתחיל את היום בלימוד ובתפילה. תודה רבה !
שרה ברלוביץ
ירושלים, ישראל
התחלתי מחוג במסכת קידושין שהעבירה הרבנית רייסנר במסגרת בית המדרש כלנה בגבעת שמואל; לאחר מכן התחיל סבב הדף היומי אז הצטרפתי. לסביבה לקח זמן לעכל אבל היום כולם תומכים ומשתתפים איתי. הלימוד לעתים מעניין ומעשיר ולעתים קשה ואף הזוי… אך אני ממשיכה קדימה. הוא משפיע על היומיום שלי קודם כל במרדף אחרי הדף, וגם במושגים הרבים שלמדתי ובידע שהועשרתי בו, חלקו ממש מעשי
אביגיל כריסי
ראש העין, ישראל
התחלתי בתחילת הסבב, והתמכרתי. זה נותן משמעות נוספת ליומיום ומאוד מחזק לתת לזה מקום בתוך כל שגרת הבית-עבודה השוטפת.
רעות אברהמי
בית שמש, ישראל
התחלתי לפני 8 שנים במדרשה. לאחרונה סיימתי מסכת תענית בלמידה עצמית ועכשיו לקראת סיום מסכת מגילה.
דניאלה ברוכים
רעננה, ישראל
התחלתי בסיום הש”ס, יצאתי באורות. נשברתי פעמיים, ובשתיהם הרבנית מישל עודדה להמשיך איפה שכולם בסבב ולהשלים כשאוכל, וכך עשיתי וכיום השלמתי הכל. מדהים אותי שאני לומדת כל יום קצת, אפילו בחדר הלידה, בבידוד או בחו”ל. לאט לאט יותר נינוחה בסוגיות. לא כולם מבינים את הרצון, בפרט כפמניסטית. חשה סיפוק גדול להכיר את המושגים וצורת החשיבה. החלום זה להמשיך ולהתמיד ובמקביל ללמוד איך מהסוגיות נוצרה והתפתחה ההלכה.
קרן וינגרטן שרינגטון
מודיעין, ישראל
בסוף הסבב הקודם ראיתי את השמחה הגדולה שבסיום הלימוד, בעלי סיים כבר בפעם השלישית וכמובן הסיום הנשי בבנייני האומה וחשבתי שאולי זו הזדמנות עבורי למשהו חדש.
למרות שאני שונה בסביבה שלי, מי ששומע על הלימוד שלי מפרגן מאוד.
אני מנסה ללמוד קצת בכל יום, גם אם לא את כל הדף ובסך הכל אני בדרך כלל עומדת בקצב.
הלימוד מעניק המון משמעות ליום יום ועושה סדר בלמוד תורה, שתמיד היה (ועדיין) שאיפה. אבל אין כמו קביעות
רחלי מנדלסון
טל מנשה, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בעידוד שתי חברות אתן למדתי בעבר את הפרק היומי במסגרת 929.
בבית מתלהבים מאוד ובשבת אני לומדת את הדף עם בעלי שזה מפתיע ומשמח מאוד! לימוד הדף הוא חלק בלתי נפרד מהיום שלי. לומדת בצהריים ומחכה לזמן הזה מידי יום…
מרים ונגרובר
אפרת, ישראל
שמעתי על הסיום הענק של הדף היומי ע”י נשים בבנייני האומה. רציתי גם.
החלטתי להצטרף. התחלתי ושיכנעתי את בעלי ועוד שתי חברות להצטרף. עכשיו יש לי לימוד משותף איתו בשבת ומפגש חודשי איתן בנושא (והתכתבויות תדירות על דברים מיוחדים שקראנו). הצטרפנו לקבוצות שונות בווטסאפ. אנחנו ממש נהנות. אני שומעת את השיעור מידי יום (בד”כ מהרב יוני גוטמן) וקוראת ומצטרפת לסיומים של הדרן. גם מקפידה על דף משלהן (ונהנית מאד).
ליאת סיטרון
אפרת, ישראל
באירוע של הדרן בנייני האומה. בהשראתה של אמי שלי שסיימה את הש”ס בסבב הקודם ובעידוד מאיר , אישי, וילדיי וחברותיי ללימוד במכון למנהיגות הלכתית של רשת אור תורה סטון ומורתיי הרבנית ענת נובוסלסקי והרבנית דבורה עברון, ראש המכון למנהיגות הלכתית.
הלימוד מעשיר את יומי, מחזיר אותי גם למסכתות שכבר סיימתי וידוע שאינו דומה מי ששונה פרקו מאה לשונה פרקו מאה ואחת במיוחד מרתקים אותי החיבורים בין המסכתות
רוית קלך
מודיעין, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בשנת המדרשה במגדל עוז, בינתיים נהנית מאוד מהלימוד ומהגמרא, מעניין ומשמח מאוד!
משתדלת להצליח לעקוב כל יום, לפעמים משלימה קצת בהמשך השבוע.. מרגישה שיש עוגן מקובע ביום שלי והוא משמח מאוד!
אוריה קסנר
חיפה , ישראל
רבנית מישל הציתה אש התלמוד בלבבות בביניני האומה ואני נדלקתי. היא פתחה פתח ותמכה במתחילות כמוני ואפשרה לנו להתקדם בצעדים נכונים וטובים. הקימה מערך שלם שמסובב את הלומדות בסביבה תומכת וכך נכנסתי למסלול לימוד מעשיר שאין כמוה. הדרן יצר קהילה גדולה וחזקה שמאפשרת התקדמות מכל נקודת מוצא. יש דיבוק לומדות שמחזק את ההתמדה של כולנו. כל פניה ושאלה נענית בזריזות ויסודיות. תודה גם למגי על כל העזרה.
שרה אבר
נתניה, ישראל
אחרי שראיתי את הסיום הנשי של הדף היומי בבנייני האומה זה ריגש אותי ועורר בי את הרצון להצטרף. לא למדתי גמרא קודם לכן בכלל, אז הכל היה לי חדש, ולכן אני לומדת בעיקר מהשיעורים פה בהדרן, בשוטנשטיין או בחוברות ושיננתם.
רבקה שלוס
בית שמש, ישראל
אמא שלי למדה איתי ש”ס משנה, והתחילה ללמוד דף יומי. אני החלטתי שאני רוצה ללמוד גם. בהתחלה למדתי איתה, אח”כ הצטרפתי ללימוד דף יומי שהרב דני וינט מעביר לנוער בנים בעתניאל. במסכת עירובין עוד חברה הצטרפה אלי וכשהתחלנו פסחים הרב דני פתח לנו שעור דף יומי לבנות. מאז אנחנו לומדות איתו קבוע כל יום את הדף היומי (ובשבת אבא שלי מחליף אותו). אני נהנית מהלימוד, הוא מאתגר ומעניין
רננה הלמן
עתניאל, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד את הדף היומי מעט אחרי שבני הקטן נולד. בהתחלה בשמיעה ולימוד באמצעות השיעור של הרבנית שפרבר. ובהמשך העזתי וקניתי לעצמי גמרא. מאז ממשיכה יום יום ללמוד עצמאית, ולפעמים בעזרת השיעור של הרבנית, כל יום. כל סיום של מסכת מביא לאושר גדול וסיפוק. הילדים בבית נהיו חלק מהלימוד, אני משתפת בסוגיות מעניינות ונהנית לשמוע את דעתם.
אלירז בלאו
מעלה מכמש, ישראל
סיום השס לנשים נתן לי מוטביציה להתחיל ללמוד דף יומי. עד אז למדתי גמרא בשבתות ועשיתי כמה סיומים. אבל לימוד יומיומי זה שונה לגמרי ופתאום כל דבר שקורה בחיים מתקשר לדף היומי.
קרן פוגל
רתמים, ישראל
התחלתי לפני כמה שנים אבל רק בסבב הזה זכיתי ללמוד יום יום ולסיים מסכתות
סיגל טל
רעננה, ישראל
חולין כז
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וּשְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְרוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוְּורִידִין. חֲצִי אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְאֶחָד וָחֵצִי בִּבְהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters by cutting one siman, i.e., the windpipe or the gullet, in a bird, and two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid, and the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins [haveridin], i.e., the major blood vessels in the neck. If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.
גְּמָ׳ ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט״ – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא. שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה לְכִתְחִלָּה לָא? עַד כַּמָּה לִשְׁחוֹט וְלֵיזִיל? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַאֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַרוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the term: One who slaughters, that if one slaughtered, then after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid; but ab initio, no, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Is the ruling with regard to the cutting of two simanim in an animal that ab initio, no, it is prohibited? If so, how much is one expected to continue and cut the simanim, ab initio? There are only two relevant simanim to be cut. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the reference is to the cutting of one siman in a bird, as one is required to cut both simanim in a bird ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that the reference is to the passage in the mishna that states that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, as one is required to cut the entire siman ab initio.
(כמ״ש סִימָן).
§ Kaf, mem, shin is a mnemonic for the sources of the statements cited in the discussion that follows: Rav Kahana, Rav Yeimar, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מִן הַצַּוָּאר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁח חַטֵּהוּ. מִמַּאי דְּהַאי חַטֵּהוּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּדַכּוֹיֵי הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחִטֵּא אֶת הַבַּיִת״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״תְּחַטְּאֵנִי בְאֵזוֹב וְאֶטְהָר״.
Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat] the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal bends [shaḥ], purify it [ḥattehu] through slaughter. The Gemara asks: From where does one ascertain that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of purification? The Gemara answers: It is ascertained from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall purify [veḥitte] the house” (Leviticus 14:52). And if you wish, say instead that it is ascertained from here: “Purge me [teḥatte’eni] with hyssop and I will be pure” (Psalms 51:9).
וְאֵימָא מִזְּנָבוֹ? שָׁח – מִכְּלָל שֶׁזָּקוּף בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא שָׁח וְעוֹמֵד הוּא. וְאֵימָא מֵאׇזְנוֹ? בָּעֵינַן דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְלֵיכָּא.
The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its tail, which is also a place in the animal’s body that is bent. The Gemara responds: From the term: Bends [shaḥ], one can conclude by inference that we require a part of the animal’s body that can stand erect and that bends; and this, the tail, is bent perpetually and is never erect. The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its ear, which is erect and bends. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animal’s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the ear there is no blood of the soul spilled.
וְאֵימָא: דְּקָרַע וְאָזֵיל עַד דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ! וְתוּ, שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר – מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא. שְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר נָמֵי גְּמָרָא.
The Gemara asks: And say that one rends the animal starting from the ear and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition, i.e., a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition, and has no biblical source.
וּקְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? דְּלָא לְשַׁוְּיַיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the verse: “And you shall slaughter,” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet, which are adjacent to the major blood vessels.
רַב יֵימַר אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְזָבַחְתָּ״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁזָּב חַתֵּהוּ. מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי חַתֵּהוּ לִישָּׁנָא דְּמִתְבַּר הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּירָא וְאַל תֵּחָת״.
Rav Yeimar says: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And you shall slaughter [vezavaḥta] of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the blood flows [shezav], break it [ḥattehu], i.e., cut it. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of breaking? The Gemara answers: It is inferred from a verse, as it is written: “Neither fear nor be dismayed [teḥat]” (Deuteronomy 1:21); ensure that your spirit will not be broken.
וְאֵימָא מֵחוֹטְמוֹ, זָב עַל יְדֵי חִתּוּי בָּעֵינַן, וְהַאי זָב מֵאֵלָיו הוּא. וְאֵימָא מִלִּבּוֹ, וְתוּ: שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר – מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא. שְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר נָמֵי גְּמָרָא.
The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its nose, from which mucus flows, as the verse did not mention blood. The Gemara responds: We require a fluid that flows by means of breaking, and this mucus flows on its own. The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its heart by means of stabbing. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife during slaughter, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.
וּקְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? דְּלָא לְשַׁוְּיֵיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: “And you shall slaughter” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – אַל תִּקְרֵי ״וְשָׁחַט״ אֶלָּא ״וְסָחַט״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁסָּח חַטֵּהוּ.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat]” (Leviticus 1:5). Do not read it as: Veshaḥat; rather, read it as: Vesaḥat, which literally means: And he shall squeeze, which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal speaks [saḥ], purify it [ḥattehu]. The animal’s voice emanates from its throat; therefore, it is slaughtered from the neck.
וְאֵימָא מִלְּשׁוֹנוֹ! בָּעֵינַן דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְלֵיכָּא, וְאֵימָא דְּקָרַע וְאָזֵיל עַד דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ! וְתוּ, שְׁהִיָּיה דְּרָסָה חֲלָדָה הַגְרָמָה וְעִיקּוּר מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא, שְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר נָמֵי גְּמָרָא.
The Gemara objects: And say that slaughter is from its tongue. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animal’s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the tongue there is no blood of the soul spilled. The Gemara objects: And say that one rends the animal starting from the tongue and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife, concealing the knife, diverting the knife, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.
וּקְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? דְּלָא לְשַׁוְּיֵיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: “And you shall slaughter,” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר: מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָרְכוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֵת הַנְּתָחִים״.
And a tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall cites the source for the halakha that slaughter is performed from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat…upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8).
שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״? וַהֲלֹא רֹאשׁ וּפֶדֶר בִּכְלַל כׇּל הַנְּתָחִים הָיוּ, לָמָּה יָצְאוּ? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִפְשִׁיט אֶת הָעֹלָה וְנִתַּח״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נְתָחִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן בִּכְלַל הַפְשָׁטָה, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁכְּבָר הוּתַּז? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת פִּדְרוֹ וְעָרַךְ״.
Rabbi Ḥiyya explains: As there is no need for the verse to state: “The head, and the fat.” What is the meaning when the verse states: “The head, and the fat”? Weren’t the head and the fat included in the category of all the pieces, mentioned earlier in the verse? For what purpose did they emerge from the category and warrant individual mention? This is due to the fact that it is stated: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6). One might have thought that I have derived that only the pieces that are included in the category of flaying must be arranged on the altar. From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed when the animal was slaughtered, and is not flayed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “With its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them” (Leviticus 1:12).
מִדְּקָאָמַר ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁכְּבָר הוּתַּז״, מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר.
The tanna concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: The head, which was already partially severed, one learns by inference that slaughter is from the neck, as the neck connects the head to the body.
וְתַנָּא פָּתַח בְּ״רֹאשׁ וּפֶדֶר״, וּמְסַיֵּים בְּ״רֹאשׁוֹ וּפִדְרוֹ״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁכְּבָר הוּתַּז? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הַפָּדֶר״.
The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And the tanna of the baraita opened with a question about the extraneous phrase written with regard to a bull burnt offering: “The head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), and concludes with an explanation of the phrase written with regard to a sheep burnt offering: “Its head and its fat” (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “The head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8).
וְ״רֹאשׁוֹ וּפִדְרוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְרֹאשׁ וּפֶדֶר שֶׁקּוֹדְמִין לְכׇל הַנְּתָחִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת פִּדְרוֹ וְעָרַךְ״.
The Gemara asks: And if so, why do I need the verse cited at the end of the baraita: “Its head and its fat”? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the head and the fat precede all the other pieceswhen the sacrificial portions are sacrificed on the altar? The verse states: “With its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them” (Leviticus 1:12).
וּפֶדֶר קַמָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? חוֹפֶה אֶת הַפֶּדֶר עַל בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְזֶהוּ דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need the first mention of fat that the Merciful One writes: “The pieces, the head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8)? Wasn’t the derivation from that verse restricted to the head? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: How does the priest who elevates the sacrificial portions of the animal to the altar perform that task? He uses the fat to cover the place of slaughter, i.e., to conceal the bloody neck, and elevates the head to the top of the altar, and that is a deferential manner toward the Most High.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״, וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לָעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, עוֹף אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא! עוֹף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה!
And this tanna cites proof that slaughter is from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that the Torah writes with regard to the impurity of carcasses: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, whereas a bird does not impart impurity by contact or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render one’s garments impure when it is in the throat.
בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה בְּהֵמָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אַף עוֹף בִּשְׁחִיטָה. אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם – אַף כָּאן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.
The baraita continues: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as an animal avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter, so too, a bird avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter. The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of an animal, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, in the case of a bird, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “This is the law,” to restrict the scope of the juxtaposition in the sense that not all of the halakhot of birds and animals are equal.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בְּאֵיזוֹ תּוֹרָה שָׁוְותָה בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף וְעוֹף לִבְהֵמָה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה עוֹף הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר, אַף בְּהֵמָה הֶכְשֵׁרָהּ מִן הַצַּוָּאר.
The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as in the case of a bird, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through pinching and slaughter from the neck, as the Torah states with regard to bird offerings that one pinches off its head from the neck, so too, in the case of an animal, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through slaughter from the neck.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן ״מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף״, אַף כָּאן ״מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף״? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמָלַק אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ וְלֹא יַבְדִּיל״ – רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, וְאֵין רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אַחַר מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף.
The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of a bird, the pinching is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck, so too here, with regard to an animal, the slaughter is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck and not from the throat. The Gemara explains that therefore, the verse states with regard to a bird: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its nape, but shall not divide it asunder” (Leviticus 5:8), from which it is derived: Its head, i.e., the bird’s head, is pinched adjacent to the nape, but the head of another, the animal, is not cut adjacent to the nape.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״זֹאת״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? אִי לָאו ״זֹאת״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מָה עוֹף בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף בְּהֵמָה בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת״.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: “This is the law,” from which the first tanna restricted the scope of the juxtaposition between animals and birds? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from the term “This is the law,” I would say: Just as the fitness of a bird is accomplished by cutting one of the simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet, so too, the fitness of an animal is accomplished by cutting one siman. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “This is the law,” to restrict the juxtaposition.
תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״ – הֵטִיל הַכָּתוּב לְעוֹף בֵּין בְּהֵמָה לְדָגִים, לְחַיְּיבוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר – שֶׁכְּבָר הוּקַּשׁ לְדָגִים, לְפוֹטְרוֹ בְּלֹא כְּלוּם אִי אֶפְשָׁר – שֶׁכְּבָר הוּקַּשׁ לִבְהֵמָה. הָא כֵּיצַד הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ? בְּסִימָן אֶחָד.
§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman.
דָּגִים דְּלָאו בְּנֵי שְׁחִיטָה נִינְהוּ, מְנָלַן? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״הֲצֹאן וּבָקָר יִשָּׁחֵט לָהֶם אִם אֶת כׇּל דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם״, בַּאֲסִיפָה בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: “If flocks and herds be slaughtered for them…or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them” (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי שְׂלָיו דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת הַשְּׂלָיו״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָאו בִּשְׁחִיטָה? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: לְפוֹטְרוֹ בִּוְלֹא כְּלוּם אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר הוּקַּשׁ לִבְהֵמָה! הָתָם לָא כְּתִיבָא אֲסִיפָה בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה דְּאַחֲרִינֵי, הָכָא כְּתִיבָא אֲסִיפָה בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה דְּאַחֲרִינֵי.
The Gemara clarifies: But if that is so, with regard to quail as well, concerning which it is written: “And the people rose up…and gathered the quail” (Numbers 11:32), so too, would one say with regard to birds that, like fish, their fitness is not accomplished with slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question. But didn’t you say: To exempt birds from slaughter altogether with nothing is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal? The Gemara answers: There, gathering of quail is not written in the context of the slaughter of others; therefore, gathering is not to be understood as an alternative to slaughtering the birds. Here, gathering of fish is written in the context of the slaughter of others, i.e., the flocks and herds, which indicates that gathering is an alternative to slaughter.
דָּרַשׁ עוֹבֵר גָּלִילָאָה: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּבְרֵאת מִן הַיַּבָּשָׁה – הֶכְשֵׁרָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִים, דָּגִים שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ מִן הַמַּיִם – הֶכְשֵׁירָן בִּוְלֹא כְּלוּם, עוֹף שֶׁנִּבְרָא מִן הָרְקָק – הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל קַפּוֹטְקָאָה: תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹפוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בְּרַגְלֵיהֶם כַּדָּגִים.
The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.
וְעוֹד שְׁאֵלוֹ, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף״, אַלְמָא מִמַּיָּא אִיבְּרוֹ, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כׇּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כׇּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם״, אַלְמָא מֵאַרְעָא אִיבְּרוֹ!
The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: “And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will fly” (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them” (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.
אָמַר לוֹ: מִן הָרְקָק נִבְרְאוּ. רָאָה תַּלְמִידָיו מִסְתַּכְּלִים זֶה בָּזֶה, אָמַר לָהֶם: קָשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיכֶם שֶׁדָּחִיתִי אֶת אוֹיְבִי בְּקַשׁ? מִן הַמַּיִם נִבְרְאוּ, וְלָמָּה הֱבִיאָן אֶל הָאָדָם? לִקְרוֹת לָהֶן שֵׁם.
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר אָמַר לְאוֹתוֹ הֶגְמוֹן, וּבַלָּשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן אָמַר לָהֶן לְתַלְמִידָיו, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב עַל ״וַיִּצֶר״.
And some say that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן פִּנְחָס: אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁפַךְ״ – בִּשְׁפִיכָה בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי.
On the matter of slaughtering birds, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas: Slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is stated: “And whatever man there be of the children of Israel…who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood, and cover it in earth” (Leviticus 17:13). This indicates that mere spilling of its blood is sufficient.
אִי הָכִי, חַיָּה נָמֵי! אִיתַּקַּשׁ לִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. עוֹף נָמֵי! אִיתַּקַּשׁ לִבְהֵמָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף״. הָא כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ״.
The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to an undomesticated animal, which is mentioned in the same verse, spilling should be sufficient also. The Gemara explains: An undomesticated animal is juxtaposed to disqualified consecrated animals, for which slaughter is required, as explained later in the Gemara (28a). The Gemara asks: Birds too are juxtaposed to animals, and therefore slaughter should be required, as it is written: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46). The Gemara answers: But isn’t it written: “He shall spill its blood,” indicating that slaughter is not required?
וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּשָׁדֵית לֵיהּ עַל עוֹף? שַׁדְיֵיהּ אַחַיָּה! מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָלֵיק מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And concerning the derivation that slaughter is not required, based on the phrase in the verse “He shall spill,” what did you see that led you to cast it upon, i.e., apply it to, the case of a bird? Why not cast it upon the case of an undomesticated animal? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to cast the derivation upon the case of a bird due to the fact that the verse concluded with the bird, i.e., the bird is mentioned just prior to the directive to spill and cover the blood, as it is written: “Who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood.”
(סִימָן: נִתְנַבֵּל, דָּם, בִּמְלִיקָה.)
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited in the Gemara with regard to the slaughter of birds: Became a carcass, blood, through pinching.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְּיָדוֹ, הַנּוֹחֵר וְהַמְעַקֵּר – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, נְחִירָתוֹ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ, לִיבְעֵי כִּסּוּי! מִי סָבְרַתְּ בְּעוֹף? לָא, בְּחַיָּה.
The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas from a mishna (85a): One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand because the slaughter was not valid, or one who stabbed the animal by slicing the length of the simanim, or one who ripped the gullet or windpipe of the animal, rendering the slaughter not valid, is exempt from covering the blood because his slaughter was ineffective in permitting consumption of the animal, and it is written that the requirement of covering the blood applies only to “any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten.” And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, the halakhic status of its stabbing is like that of its slaughter; let its blood require covering. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that this mishna is referring to a bird? No, it is referring exclusively to an undomesticated animal.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְצָרִיךְ לַדָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? אוֹ נוֹחֲרוֹ אוֹ עוֹקְרוֹ.
The Gemara cites another challenge: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and requires the blood and not the animal is obligated to cover the blood. Rather, how does he act if he seeks to make use of the blood rather than cover it? He either stabs the animal or rips the simanim, and then he is exempt from covering the blood.
לעקוב
