The gemara continues to discuss differences between slaughtering and melika (the method used to slaughter birds in the mikdash) and also between slaughtering animals/slaughtering birds.
Chullin 20
12.17.2018 | ט׳ בטבת תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 20
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא, מַאי אִירְיָא מוֹלֵק? אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹחֵט נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַף מַחְזִיר, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּדְלָא אַהְדַּר.
And if it enters your mind that the mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch them, why did the tanna say specifically that if one pinches in this manner it is valid? Even if one slaughters from the nape in this manner the slaughter would be valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the proper understanding is: One may even move the simanim behind the nape and pinch, and the mishna is referring to a case where one did not move the simanim behind the nape.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: יְקַבְּלוּ הָרוֹבִין אֶת תְּשׁוּבָתָן, דְּקָתָנֵי: נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִין לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף, דְּלָא?
Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, shall receive their response that rejects their statement from that which is taught in the mishna: It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter. What does this statement serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude the case where one moves the simanim behind the nape, teaching that it is valid only for slaughter and not for pinching?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן. שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: No, perhaps it serves to exclude one who uses a tooth or a fingernail that is not detached, which are valid for pinching and not valid for slaughter. The Gemara objects: That could not be, as the tanna teaches explicitly the case of a tooth and a fingernail in a mishna (15b), and there was no need to repeat it.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְמַעוֹטֵי מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל.
Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said: The statement of the mishna: That which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching, serves to exclude drawing back and forth. One who pinches may not cut the simanim by drawing his fingernail back and forth. Rather, he must press and cut them in one motion. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid, but according to the one who says: It is valid, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד, וְזוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ. סָבַר רַבִּי אָבִין לְמֵימַר: קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד – אִין, מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא – לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר, וּמַאי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ? אֵימָא: אַף זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ.
Rav Kahana says: The mitzva of pinching is that one cuts with his fingernail from the nape and continues downward, and that is its mitzva. Rabbi Avin thought to say: Cuts and continues downward, yes; draws back and forth, no. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: All the more so that drawing back and forth for pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the phrase: That is its mitzva, which indicates that it is specifically in that manner? The Gemara answers: Say that it means: That too is its mitzva.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין, וְהָא תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף!
§ Rabbi Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape. By inference, any place on the throat that is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara asks: What does this statement serve to exclude? If we say that it serves to exclude ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, which is invalid with regard to pinching just as with regard to slaughter, but didn’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי רֹאשׁוֹ. רֹאשׁוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא? ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ!
Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude pinching the occipital bone at the back of its head; just as it is not the place of slaughter, it is not the place of pinching. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: “Adjacent to its nape,” and not at its head.
מַאי ״רֹאשׁוֹ״? שִׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ, כְּגוֹן דְּנָקֵט מִשִּׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִגְרִים וַאֲזַל עַד דִּמְטָא תַּתַּאי, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara answers: What is its head that is not the place for pinching? It is the incline of its head, e.g., in a case where one began at the incline of its head and diverted and continued until he reached below to the place of the simanim, where he completed the pinching. Since he began the process in the incorrect location, it is invalid, similar to slaughter. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says, as Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: If one diverted the knife upward and cut one-third of the windpipe and then cut two-thirds within the ring, the slaughter is not valid.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel teaches: There is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah.
אֲבָל לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר.
But according to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, there is disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird as well.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּהָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ דְּאֵין עִיקּוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּבְהֵמָה, לְעִנְיַן עִיקּוּר לָא לֶיהֱוֵי כִּבְהֵמָה.
Rav Ashi said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, the halakhot of slaughter are not explicit and were transmitted to Moses orally, and it can be said that this is what God taught him, that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim. And even according to the one who says that the halakhic status of a bird is like that of an animal, as the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird are derived from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal, perhaps God taught Moses that with regard to the matter of ripping simanim it will not be like an animal.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, מֵהֵיכָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ? מִבְּהֵמָה, כּוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא כִּבְהֵמָה!
But according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, but rather it is by rabbinic law, from where are the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird learned? They are learned from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal; consequently, the entire matter of the slaughter of a bird is like that of an animal.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, אָמַר לִי רָבִין בַּר קִיסִי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל – פָּסוּל! הָהִיא פְּלִיגָא.
Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel teaches, i.e., that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only with regard to pinching, but with regard to slaughter, there is disqualification for ripping simanim. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape, but that which is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara explains: That halakha disagrees with this statement of Shmuel.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – נְבֵלָה.
§ Ze’eiri says: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass. It is dead and can no longer be rendered fit by slaughter.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, מָלַק בְּסַכִּין – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא, מְלִיקָתָהּ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ – תַּהֲנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה.
Rav Ḥisda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zevaḥim 68a) as well: If one pinched a bird offering with a knife and not with his thumbnail, the bird renders the garments of one who swallows it impure when it is in the throat, which is the halakha in the case of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. And if you would say that if the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the bird is not an unslaughtered carcass but it is a tereifa, then since with regard to a bird offering its pinching is its slaughter, let pinching with a knife be effective to purify the bird from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, as a tereifa does not transmit impurity when slaughtered properly. From the halakha that pinching with a knife does not render the bird pure it is evident that when its neck bone is broken the bird is rendered an unslaughtered carcass.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס.
The Sages say in response: There, pinching with a knife is ineffective in rendering it pure not because the breaking of the neck bone renders the bird an unslaughtered carcass. Rather, it is because it is not slaughter at all. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Huna says: It is because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, which invalidates the slaughter. Rava says: It is because he presses the knife.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס? קָסָבַר: מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד? אָמַר לָךְ: חֲלָדָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּחוּלְדָּה הַדָּרָה בְּעִיקְּרֵי בָתִּים דְּמִכַּסְּיָא, הָכָא הָא מִיגַּלְּיָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says: Because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he presses the knife? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that drawing back and forth in pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And the one who says: Because he presses the knife, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he conceals [maḥlid] the knife? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: What are the circumstances of concealing the knife? It is like a rat [ḥulda] that resides in the foundations of houses that are concealed. Here, when he begins cutting from the nape of the neck, that knife is exposed.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק?
Rava said: If that which Ze’eiri said: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass, is difficult for me, this is difficult for me: How does pinching a bird offering prepare it for sacrifice? Since pinching involves breaking the neck bone and cutting most of the surrounding flesh with it before cutting the simanim, what significance is there to pinching the simanim? And does he stand and pinch a dead bird? If it is dead, of what use is the pinching?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְתִקְשֵׁי לָךְ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, דְּבָעֲיָא שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בָּהּ מִצְוַת הַבְדָּלָה.
Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze’eiri, let the case of a bird burnt offering be difficult for you, as it requires cutting of two simanim. Since slaughter of a non-sacred bird requires cutting of one siman, once one siman is cut the bird is considered dead for all intents and purposes, and does he stand and pinch a dead bird? Rava said to him: There, he continues pinching in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of separation between the head and the body in the bird burnt offering.
אִי הָכִי, עוֹר נָמֵי! כׇּל הַמְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, there should be an obligation to cut the skin of the bird as well in order to fulfill the mitzva of separation. Abaye answers: Any element that invalidates slaughter invalidates separation, and any element that does not invalidate slaughter does not invalidate separation. Failure to cut the skin does not invalidate slaughter.
וְהָא מִיעוּט סִימָנִין לְרַבָּנַן, דְּלָא מִעַכְּבִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּמְעַכְּבִי בְּהַבְדָּלָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the minority of the simanim according to the Rabbis, which do not invalidate slaughter, as, if one slaughtered a majority of the simanim and a minority remained uncut, the slaughter is valid, and they hold that they invalidate separation? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, say: Any element that is in effect with regard to slaughter is in effect with regard to separation, and any element that is not in effect with regard to slaughter is not in effect with regard to separation. The two simanim, although they do not invalidate slaughter, are part of the mitzva of slaughter, while the skin is not part of the mitzva of slaughter.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
Chullin 20
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא, מַאי אִירְיָא מוֹלֵק? אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹחֵט נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַף מַחְזִיר, וּמַתְנִיתִין בִּדְלָא אַהְדַּר.
And if it enters your mind that the mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch them, why did the tanna say specifically that if one pinches in this manner it is valid? Even if one slaughters from the nape in this manner the slaughter would be valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the proper understanding is: One may even move the simanim behind the nape and pinch, and the mishna is referring to a case where one did not move the simanim behind the nape.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: יְקַבְּלוּ הָרוֹבִין אֶת תְּשׁוּבָתָן, דְּקָתָנֵי: נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִין לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף, דְּלָא?
Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, shall receive their response that rejects their statement from that which is taught in the mishna: It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter. What does this statement serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude the case where one moves the simanim behind the nape, teaching that it is valid only for slaughter and not for pinching?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן. שֵׁן וְצִפּוֹרֶן בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: No, perhaps it serves to exclude one who uses a tooth or a fingernail that is not detached, which are valid for pinching and not valid for slaughter. The Gemara objects: That could not be, as the tanna teaches explicitly the case of a tooth and a fingernail in a mishna (15b), and there was no need to repeat it.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְמַעוֹטֵי מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל.
Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said: The statement of the mishna: That which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching, serves to exclude drawing back and forth. One who pinches may not cut the simanim by drawing his fingernail back and forth. Rather, he must press and cut them in one motion. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid, but according to the one who says: It is valid, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד, וְזוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ. סָבַר רַבִּי אָבִין לְמֵימַר: קוֹצֵץ וְיוֹרֵד – אִין, מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא – לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר, וּמַאי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ? אֵימָא: אַף זוֹ הִיא מִצְוָתָהּ.
Rav Kahana says: The mitzva of pinching is that one cuts with his fingernail from the nape and continues downward, and that is its mitzva. Rabbi Avin thought to say: Cuts and continues downward, yes; draws back and forth, no. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: All the more so that drawing back and forth for pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the phrase: That is its mitzva, which indicates that it is specifically in that manner? The Gemara answers: Say that it means: That too is its mitzva.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין, וְהָא תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף!
§ Rabbi Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape. By inference, any place on the throat that is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara asks: What does this statement serve to exclude? If we say that it serves to exclude ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, which is invalid with regard to pinching just as with regard to slaughter, but didn’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי רֹאשׁוֹ. רֹאשׁוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא? ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא בְּרֹאשׁוֹ!
Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude pinching the occipital bone at the back of its head; just as it is not the place of slaughter, it is not the place of pinching. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: “Adjacent to its nape,” and not at its head.
מַאי ״רֹאשׁוֹ״? שִׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ, כְּגוֹן דְּנָקֵט מִשִּׁיפּוּי רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִגְרִים וַאֲזַל עַד דִּמְטָא תַּתַּאי, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara answers: What is its head that is not the place for pinching? It is the incline of its head, e.g., in a case where one began at the incline of its head and diverted and continued until he reached below to the place of the simanim, where he completed the pinching. Since he began the process in the incorrect location, it is invalid, similar to slaughter. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says, as Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: If one diverted the knife upward and cut one-third of the windpipe and then cut two-thirds within the ring, the slaughter is not valid.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה,
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel teaches: There is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah.
אֲבָל לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר.
But according to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, there is disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird as well.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא! לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּהָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ דְּאֵין עִיקּוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּבְהֵמָה, לְעִנְיַן עִיקּוּר לָא לֶיהֱוֵי כִּבְהֵמָה.
Rav Ashi said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, the halakhot of slaughter are not explicit and were transmitted to Moses orally, and it can be said that this is what God taught him, that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim. And even according to the one who says that the halakhic status of a bird is like that of an animal, as the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird are derived from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal, perhaps God taught Moses that with regard to the matter of ripping simanim it will not be like an animal.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, מֵהֵיכָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ? מִבְּהֵמָה, כּוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא כִּבְהֵמָה!
But according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, but rather it is by rabbinic law, from where are the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird learned? They are learned from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal; consequently, the entire matter of the slaughter of a bird is like that of an animal.
אָמַר רָבִינָא, אָמַר לִי רָבִין בַּר קִיסִי: הָא דְּתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל, אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֵשׁ עִיקּוּר. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בָּעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה, הָא פָּסוּל – פָּסוּל! הָהִיא פְּלִיגָא.
Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel teaches, i.e., that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only with regard to pinching, but with regard to slaughter, there is disqualification for ripping simanim. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape, but that which is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara explains: That halakha disagrees with this statement of Shmuel.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – נְבֵלָה.
§ Ze’eiri says: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass. It is dead and can no longer be rendered fit by slaughter.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, מָלַק בְּסַכִּין – מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא, מְלִיקָתָהּ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתָהּ – תַּהֲנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה.
Rav Ḥisda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zevaḥim 68a) as well: If one pinched a bird offering with a knife and not with his thumbnail, the bird renders the garments of one who swallows it impure when it is in the throat, which is the halakha in the case of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. And if you would say that if the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the bird is not an unslaughtered carcass but it is a tereifa, then since with regard to a bird offering its pinching is its slaughter, let pinching with a knife be effective to purify the bird from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, as a tereifa does not transmit impurity when slaughtered properly. From the halakha that pinching with a knife does not render the bird pure it is evident that when its neck bone is broken the bird is rendered an unslaughtered carcass.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס.
The Sages say in response: There, pinching with a knife is ineffective in rendering it pure not because the breaking of the neck bone renders the bird an unslaughtered carcass. Rather, it is because it is not slaughter at all. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Huna says: It is because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, which invalidates the slaughter. Rava says: It is because he presses the knife.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס? קָסָבַר: מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בִּמְלִיקָה כָּשֵׁר. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַחְלִיד? אָמַר לָךְ: חֲלָדָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּחוּלְדָּה הַדָּרָה בְּעִיקְּרֵי בָתִּים דְּמִכַּסְּיָא, הָכָא הָא מִיגַּלְּיָא.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says: Because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he presses the knife? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that drawing back and forth in pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And the one who says: Because he presses the knife, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he conceals [maḥlid] the knife? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: What are the circumstances of concealing the knife? It is like a rat [ḥulda] that resides in the foundations of houses that are concealed. Here, when he begins cutting from the nape of the neck, that knife is exposed.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק?
Rava said: If that which Ze’eiri said: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass, is difficult for me, this is difficult for me: How does pinching a bird offering prepare it for sacrifice? Since pinching involves breaking the neck bone and cutting most of the surrounding flesh with it before cutting the simanim, what significance is there to pinching the simanim? And does he stand and pinch a dead bird? If it is dead, of what use is the pinching?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְתִקְשֵׁי לָךְ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, דְּבָעֲיָא שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין, וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בָּהּ מִצְוַת הַבְדָּלָה.
Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze’eiri, let the case of a bird burnt offering be difficult for you, as it requires cutting of two simanim. Since slaughter of a non-sacred bird requires cutting of one siman, once one siman is cut the bird is considered dead for all intents and purposes, and does he stand and pinch a dead bird? Rava said to him: There, he continues pinching in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of separation between the head and the body in the bird burnt offering.
אִי הָכִי, עוֹר נָמֵי! כׇּל הַמְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, there should be an obligation to cut the skin of the bird as well in order to fulfill the mitzva of separation. Abaye answers: Any element that invalidates slaughter invalidates separation, and any element that does not invalidate slaughter does not invalidate separation. Failure to cut the skin does not invalidate slaughter.
וְהָא מִיעוּט סִימָנִין לְרַבָּנַן, דְּלָא מִעַכְּבִי בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּמְעַכְּבִי בְּהַבְדָּלָה! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֵינוֹ בְּהַבְדָּלָה.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the minority of the simanim according to the Rabbis, which do not invalidate slaughter, as, if one slaughtered a majority of the simanim and a minority remained uncut, the slaughter is valid, and they hold that they invalidate separation? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, say: Any element that is in effect with regard to slaughter is in effect with regard to separation, and any element that is not in effect with regard to slaughter is not in effect with regard to separation. The two simanim, although they do not invalidate slaughter, are part of the mitzva of slaughter, while the skin is not part of the mitzva of slaughter.
Follow
