From where do we know that slaughtering is performed from the neck?
Chullin 27
12.24.2018 | ט״ז בטבת תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 27
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.
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.
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, 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
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, 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
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
Chullin 27
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.
Follow
