More questions are asked regarding the debate of does shechita start from the beginning or only at the end? If one slaughters in a few different places, is it valid? A few questions are asked regarding the disqualification of chalada? Can 2 people slaughter the same animal – with two knives or one? If one cut off the head in one moment in the process of drawing the knife, is it valid or is it disqualified because of drisa?
Chullin 30
December 27, 2018 | י״ט בטבת תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 30
סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִים זֶבַח אֶחָד.
which is cited unattributed, i.e., it is one of his many opinions that are cited in the Mishna and baraitot without attribution. But the Rabbis say: Two people may slaughter one offering. According to the Rabbis, Rava’s difficulty remains: Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.
וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נָמֵי לִפְלוֹג כְּגוֹן דִּשְׁחַט חַד גַּבְרָא בִּשְׁנֵי סוּדָרִים, דְּסוּדָר קַמָּא לָא מְטַמֵּא, וְסוּדָר בָּתְרָא מְטַמֵּא. אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּלָא דְּפָרָה קָא מַיְירֵי, בְּהֶכְשֵׁרַהּ לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.
And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two people may not slaughter one offering, let the tanna of the mishna also distinguish and teach a case where one man slaughtered with two cloths on his head, starting the slaughter with one and replacing it with the other midway through the slaughter, as in that case, since halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, the first cloth is not rendered impure but the latter cloth is rendered impure. Rather, one must say that the tanna is speaking only in reference to cases involving the disqualification of the red heifer itself, but he is not speaking in reference to cases involving a fit red heifer, and no proof may be cited from here.
מֵתִיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: וּבַמּוֹעֵד לִשְׁמוֹ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – חַיָּיב.
Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 63a) to the opinion that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan after noon while he has leaven in his possession, he is flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 23:18). If he slaughtered the animal not for the sake of the Paschal offering, he is exempt from receiving lashes. And if he slaughtered the animal during the festival of Passover for the sake of the Paschal offering with leaven in his possession, he is exempt, because it is a disqualified Paschal offering, as it was slaughtered beyond its appointed time. But if he slaughtered the animal during the Festival not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but rather as a peace offering, he is liable for slaughtering the animal with leaven in his possession.
וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הָא סְתָמָא – פָּטוּר.
And we discussed this matter: The reason he is liable is due to the fact that his intent was to slaughter it not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but had he slaughtered it with unspecified intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically intends otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal offering and is disqualified when sacrificed beyond its appointed time.
וְאַמַּאי פָּטוּר? פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.
The Gemara asks: And why is he exempt? Doesn’t a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year assume the status of a peace offering, and doesn’t one who slaughters a peace offering during the time when it is prohibited to possess leaven with leaven in his possession also violate the prohibition? Conclude from it that a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year requires explicit revocation of its status; otherwise, it does not assume the status of a peace offering and it remains a disqualified Paschal offering.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא, נִזְרְקָה מִפִּי חֲבוּרָה וְאָמְרוּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעָלִים טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, דְּנִדְחִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, דִּסְתָמָא לִשְׁמוֹ קָאֵי, וְהַאי הוּא דְּבָעֵי עֲקִירָה, הָא אַחֵר לָא בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said: A response emerged from the group of scholars that discussed this matter, and they said: What are we dealing with here? It is with a case where the owners of the Paschal offering were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case, the Torah commands (Numbers 9:10–11) that since they were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the appointed time, the fourteenth of Nisan, they were deferred to the second Pesaḥ, the fourteenth of Iyyar. Since presumably the owner plans to use his Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ, its unspecified slaughter in the interim stands to be offered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and it is that Paschal offering that requires revocation of its status. But other situations of a Paschal offering that is slaughtered beyond its designated time do not require revocation of the animal’s status, and it assumes the status of a peace offering.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ מִתְּחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף – כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, אִידַּךְ כִּי קָא שָׁחֵיט שְׁלָמִים קָא שָׁחֵיט!
Returning to the matter at hand, if a Paschal offering that is designated for use on the second Pesaḥ is slaughtered on Passover while one has leaven in his possession, he is exempt from receiving lashes because it is a disqualified Paschal offering. Granted, if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, the offering is disqualified from the beginning of the slaughter as a Paschal offering slaughtered beyond its appointed time. Therefore, one is exempt from receiving lashes. But if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, why is one exempt if he slaughtered the animal with leaven in his possession? Once he began and cut a bit of the siman, it is rejected from its status as a Paschal offering and can no longer be offered on the second Pesaḥ. Therefore, when he slaughters the other, remaining, portion of the simanim without specification, it is a peace offering that he is slaughtering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: נְהִי דְּאִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, מִדְּמֵי פֶסַח מִי אִידְּחִי?
Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Even if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, although it was rejected from the possibility of being sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, was it rejected from the possibility of being redeemed and from the possibility of the monetary value of a Paschal offering being used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ? As long as the slaughter is not yet complete, redemption of the animal remains possible. Therefore, unspecified slaughter at that time is for the sake of a Paschal offering and one should be exempt from receiving lashes.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְהָתְנַן: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַיָּה לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ.
And if you would say that in order to redeem a consecrated item one requires that the animal be placed standing before the priest and it requires valuation (see Leviticus 27:11–12), and once it is slaughtered it is unable to stand, but didn’t we learn in a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, two simanim in the animal or a majority of two simanim, and the animal is still convulsing, its halakhic status is like a living animal in every respect, and it may be redeemed until the convulsing ceases?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, וְלֵיכָּא.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who cuts a siman in two or three places on the neck, and together the cuts constitute the requisite measure of slaughter, his slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda adds: When I stated this halakha before Shmuel he said to me: We require a clear and obvious slaughter and in the case of cuts in two or three places there is no obvious slaughter.
וְאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מִנַּיִן לַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מְפוֹרַעַת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish also holds that we require a clear and obvious slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: From where is it derived that slaughter must be clear and obvious? As it is stated: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow, it speaks deceit; one speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lays wait for him” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow clearly enters one part of the body, so too, the slaughter [sheḥita] must be clear and obvious.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!
Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from a mishna (30b): If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. But why is the slaughter valid according to the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? There is no clear and obvious slaughter, as each is cutting a different part of the neck.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בְּסַכִּין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Elazar: The mishna is referring to a case with one knife and two people, each holding one end of the knife, resulting in a single diagonal incision from above to below.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּשְׁתֵּי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – שַׁפִּיר, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא סָמְכִי אַהֲדָדֵי, וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: If so, is this what is taught in that regard in a baraita commenting on that mishna: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of two knives and two people it works out well, lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps each will rely on the other that he will perform the slaughter properly, and neither will this one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim, nor will that one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that one need not be concerned.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּסַכִּין אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, הַאי ״אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ – ״שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
But if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of one knife and two people, that statement in the baraita should not have said: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other; it should have said: One need not be concerned that because one is pulling in one direction and one is pulling in the other, perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife and thereby invalidate the slaughter.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אָבִין, תְּנִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין
Rabbi Avin said to him: Teach: One need not be concerned
שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה.
that perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט לְמַטָּה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה, אוֹ אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט לְמַעְלָה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!
Rabbi Avin raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, the gullet below on the neck and the windpipe above on the neck, or cut the gullet above on the neck and the windpipe below on the neck, his slaughter is valid. Based on this, Rabbi Avin asks: Why is the slaughter valid? But in that case there is no clear and obvious slaughter.
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ, וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: בִּשְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּקוּלְמוֹס.
He raises the objection and he resolves it. This baraita is not referring to cuts on two places on the neck; rather, it is referring to slaughter performed on a diagonal, like the point of a reed [kekulmos] fashioned into a writing utensil. The slaughterer begins cutting from the top of one siman and cuts diagonally downward so that when he reaches the second siman, the knife is lower down.
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דְּאִישְּׁחַט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, עָל רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא שְׁקַל מִשׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בִּשְׁנֵי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain bull that was slaughtered with cuts in two or three places in the simanim on its neck. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta entered the store and took a cut of meat from the highest quality parts of the animal, thereby demonstrating that the slaughter was valid. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Our rabbi, you have taught us through your actions that the mishna: If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even one above and one below, is referring even to a case of two knives and two people who are each cutting the simanim at a different part of the neck with their knives.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן וּפְסָקוֹ – פְּסוּלָה, תַּחַת הָעוֹר – כְּשֵׁרָה.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife in the neck between one siman and the other siman, i.e., he inserted the knife between the windpipe and the gullet, and he severed the gullet first and then removed the knife and cut the windpipe, the slaughter is not valid. If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim, the slaughter is valid.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ – רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר: נְבֵלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us? We already learn this halakha explicitly in a mishna (32a): Or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity. Both agree that the slaughter is not valid in the sense that it does not permit the consumption of the meat of the animal.
אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, דְּלָא קָעָבֵיד כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה, דְּקָעָבֵיד כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה – אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the gullet and cuts it from below to above, i.e., from the nape to the front of the neck, because he did not perform the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter. But if he cut the gullet from above to below, i.e., from the front of the neck to the nape, since he performed the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter, say that the slaughter is valid. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to any case where one conceals the knife during slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.
תַּחַת הָעוֹר – כְּשֵׁרָה, בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי: תַּחַת הָעוֹר – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the second part of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim in the standard manner the slaughter is valid. The school of Rav say that Rav says that in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the hide and cuts the simanim of the animal, I do not know whether the slaughter is valid, or whether it is not valid because he concealed the knife during the slaughter.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְבֵי רַב, דְּאָמְרִי: תַּחַת הָעוֹר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, תַּחַת מַטְלֵית מַהוּ? תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסוּבָּךְ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the school of Rav, who say: Beneath the hide, I do not know, if one concealed the knife beneath a cloth that is around the animal’s neck, what is the halakha? If one concealed the knife beneath tangled wool on the neck of a sheep, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: הֶחְלִיד בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one concealed the knife in cutting the minority of the simanim and cut the majority of the simanim in the standard manner, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִים, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד לְמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת – פְּסוּלָה. הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר – כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. If one decapitated the animal in one motion and did not slaughter the animal in the standard manner of drawing the knife back and forth, the slaughter is not valid. In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal’s entire neck, the slaughter is valid.
הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא, אוֹ הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ, אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, אֲפִילּוּ בְּאִיזְמֵל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals, the slaughter is valid. In what case is this statement, that one must be concerned about the length of the knife, said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back; but if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel [be’izemel], the slaughter is valid.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
GEMARA: The mishna stated: If one decapitated the animal in one motion, the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow, it speaks deceit” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow is propelled by drawing back the bowstring, so too, slaughter [sheḥita] must be performed by drawing the knife across the animal’s neck and not by pressing the knife or striking the neck with the knife.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – אֵין ״וְשָׁחַט״ אֶלָּא וּמָשַׁךְ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״זָהָב שָׁחוּט״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
Likewise, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat] the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5). The term “veshaḥat” means nothing other than: And he shall draw the knife across the neck of the animal. And similarly, the verse states: “And King Solomon made two hundred targets of drawn [shaḥut] gold” (I Kings 10:16), meaning gold that is smoothed in the manner of goldsmiths. And the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaks deceit” (Jeremiah 9:7).
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא ״זָהָב שָׁחוּט״ שֶׁנִּטְוֶוה כְּחוּט הוּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם״.
The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the term “drawn [shaḥut] gold” means that the gold was spun like soft thread [keḥut], come and hear: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow.” In this verse, shaḥut means drawn like the bowstring that propels an arrow, and is not a reference to thread.
רָבָא הֲוָה בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ גִּירָא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, וְשָׁחַט בֵּהּ עוֹפָא בַּהֲדֵי דְּפָרַח. וְדִילְמָא עָבִיד חֲלָדָה? חֲזִינַן
The Gemara relates: Rava would examine the arrow for Rabbi Yona bar Taḥlifa to ensure that there were no notches in it. And Rava shot the arrow and slaughtered a bird with it as it was flying. The Gemara challenges: And perhaps when the arrow cut the bird’s neck it performed an inverted slaughter, with the arrow concealed in the neck, and cut the simanim from back to front. The Gemara responds: We see
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 saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
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
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, 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
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
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’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, 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
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Chullin 30
סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִים זֶבַח אֶחָד.
which is cited unattributed, i.e., it is one of his many opinions that are cited in the Mishna and baraitot without attribution. But the Rabbis say: Two people may slaughter one offering. According to the Rabbis, Rava’s difficulty remains: Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.
וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נָמֵי לִפְלוֹג כְּגוֹן דִּשְׁחַט חַד גַּבְרָא בִּשְׁנֵי סוּדָרִים, דְּסוּדָר קַמָּא לָא מְטַמֵּא, וְסוּדָר בָּתְרָא מְטַמֵּא. אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּלָא דְּפָרָה קָא מַיְירֵי, בְּהֶכְשֵׁרַהּ לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.
And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two people may not slaughter one offering, let the tanna of the mishna also distinguish and teach a case where one man slaughtered with two cloths on his head, starting the slaughter with one and replacing it with the other midway through the slaughter, as in that case, since halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, the first cloth is not rendered impure but the latter cloth is rendered impure. Rather, one must say that the tanna is speaking only in reference to cases involving the disqualification of the red heifer itself, but he is not speaking in reference to cases involving a fit red heifer, and no proof may be cited from here.
מֵתִיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: וּבַמּוֹעֵד לִשְׁמוֹ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – חַיָּיב.
Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 63a) to the opinion that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan after noon while he has leaven in his possession, he is flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 23:18). If he slaughtered the animal not for the sake of the Paschal offering, he is exempt from receiving lashes. And if he slaughtered the animal during the festival of Passover for the sake of the Paschal offering with leaven in his possession, he is exempt, because it is a disqualified Paschal offering, as it was slaughtered beyond its appointed time. But if he slaughtered the animal during the Festival not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but rather as a peace offering, he is liable for slaughtering the animal with leaven in his possession.
וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הָא סְתָמָא – פָּטוּר.
And we discussed this matter: The reason he is liable is due to the fact that his intent was to slaughter it not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but had he slaughtered it with unspecified intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically intends otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal offering and is disqualified when sacrificed beyond its appointed time.
וְאַמַּאי פָּטוּר? פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.
The Gemara asks: And why is he exempt? Doesn’t a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year assume the status of a peace offering, and doesn’t one who slaughters a peace offering during the time when it is prohibited to possess leaven with leaven in his possession also violate the prohibition? Conclude from it that a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year requires explicit revocation of its status; otherwise, it does not assume the status of a peace offering and it remains a disqualified Paschal offering.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא, נִזְרְקָה מִפִּי חֲבוּרָה וְאָמְרוּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעָלִים טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, דְּנִדְחִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, דִּסְתָמָא לִשְׁמוֹ קָאֵי, וְהַאי הוּא דְּבָעֵי עֲקִירָה, הָא אַחֵר לָא בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said: A response emerged from the group of scholars that discussed this matter, and they said: What are we dealing with here? It is with a case where the owners of the Paschal offering were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case, the Torah commands (Numbers 9:10–11) that since they were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the appointed time, the fourteenth of Nisan, they were deferred to the second Pesaḥ, the fourteenth of Iyyar. Since presumably the owner plans to use his Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ, its unspecified slaughter in the interim stands to be offered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and it is that Paschal offering that requires revocation of its status. But other situations of a Paschal offering that is slaughtered beyond its designated time do not require revocation of the animal’s status, and it assumes the status of a peace offering.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ מִתְּחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף – כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, אִידַּךְ כִּי קָא שָׁחֵיט שְׁלָמִים קָא שָׁחֵיט!
Returning to the matter at hand, if a Paschal offering that is designated for use on the second Pesaḥ is slaughtered on Passover while one has leaven in his possession, he is exempt from receiving lashes because it is a disqualified Paschal offering. Granted, if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, the offering is disqualified from the beginning of the slaughter as a Paschal offering slaughtered beyond its appointed time. Therefore, one is exempt from receiving lashes. But if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, why is one exempt if he slaughtered the animal with leaven in his possession? Once he began and cut a bit of the siman, it is rejected from its status as a Paschal offering and can no longer be offered on the second Pesaḥ. Therefore, when he slaughters the other, remaining, portion of the simanim without specification, it is a peace offering that he is slaughtering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: נְהִי דְּאִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, מִדְּמֵי פֶסַח מִי אִידְּחִי?
Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Even if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, although it was rejected from the possibility of being sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, was it rejected from the possibility of being redeemed and from the possibility of the monetary value of a Paschal offering being used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ? As long as the slaughter is not yet complete, redemption of the animal remains possible. Therefore, unspecified slaughter at that time is for the sake of a Paschal offering and one should be exempt from receiving lashes.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְהָתְנַן: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַיָּה לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ.
And if you would say that in order to redeem a consecrated item one requires that the animal be placed standing before the priest and it requires valuation (see Leviticus 27:11–12), and once it is slaughtered it is unable to stand, but didn’t we learn in a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, two simanim in the animal or a majority of two simanim, and the animal is still convulsing, its halakhic status is like a living animal in every respect, and it may be redeemed until the convulsing ceases?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, וְלֵיכָּא.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who cuts a siman in two or three places on the neck, and together the cuts constitute the requisite measure of slaughter, his slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda adds: When I stated this halakha before Shmuel he said to me: We require a clear and obvious slaughter and in the case of cuts in two or three places there is no obvious slaughter.
וְאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מִנַּיִן לַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מְפוֹרַעַת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish also holds that we require a clear and obvious slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: From where is it derived that slaughter must be clear and obvious? As it is stated: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow, it speaks deceit; one speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lays wait for him” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow clearly enters one part of the body, so too, the slaughter [sheḥita] must be clear and obvious.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!
Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from a mishna (30b): If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. But why is the slaughter valid according to the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? There is no clear and obvious slaughter, as each is cutting a different part of the neck.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בְּסַכִּין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Elazar: The mishna is referring to a case with one knife and two people, each holding one end of the knife, resulting in a single diagonal incision from above to below.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּשְׁתֵּי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – שַׁפִּיר, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא סָמְכִי אַהֲדָדֵי, וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: If so, is this what is taught in that regard in a baraita commenting on that mishna: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of two knives and two people it works out well, lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps each will rely on the other that he will perform the slaughter properly, and neither will this one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim, nor will that one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that one need not be concerned.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּסַכִּין אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, הַאי ״אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ – ״שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
But if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of one knife and two people, that statement in the baraita should not have said: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other; it should have said: One need not be concerned that because one is pulling in one direction and one is pulling in the other, perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife and thereby invalidate the slaughter.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אָבִין, תְּנִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין
Rabbi Avin said to him: Teach: One need not be concerned
שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה.
that perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט לְמַטָּה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה, אוֹ אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט לְמַעְלָה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!
Rabbi Avin raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, the gullet below on the neck and the windpipe above on the neck, or cut the gullet above on the neck and the windpipe below on the neck, his slaughter is valid. Based on this, Rabbi Avin asks: Why is the slaughter valid? But in that case there is no clear and obvious slaughter.
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ, וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: בִּשְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּקוּלְמוֹס.
He raises the objection and he resolves it. This baraita is not referring to cuts on two places on the neck; rather, it is referring to slaughter performed on a diagonal, like the point of a reed [kekulmos] fashioned into a writing utensil. The slaughterer begins cutting from the top of one siman and cuts diagonally downward so that when he reaches the second siman, the knife is lower down.
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דְּאִישְּׁחַט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, עָל רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא שְׁקַל מִשׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בִּשְׁנֵי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain bull that was slaughtered with cuts in two or three places in the simanim on its neck. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta entered the store and took a cut of meat from the highest quality parts of the animal, thereby demonstrating that the slaughter was valid. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Our rabbi, you have taught us through your actions that the mishna: If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even one above and one below, is referring even to a case of two knives and two people who are each cutting the simanim at a different part of the neck with their knives.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן וּפְסָקוֹ – פְּסוּלָה, תַּחַת הָעוֹר – כְּשֵׁרָה.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife in the neck between one siman and the other siman, i.e., he inserted the knife between the windpipe and the gullet, and he severed the gullet first and then removed the knife and cut the windpipe, the slaughter is not valid. If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim, the slaughter is valid.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ – רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר: נְבֵלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us? We already learn this halakha explicitly in a mishna (32a): Or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity. Both agree that the slaughter is not valid in the sense that it does not permit the consumption of the meat of the animal.
אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, דְּלָא קָעָבֵיד כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה, דְּקָעָבֵיד כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה – אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the gullet and cuts it from below to above, i.e., from the nape to the front of the neck, because he did not perform the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter. But if he cut the gullet from above to below, i.e., from the front of the neck to the nape, since he performed the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter, say that the slaughter is valid. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to any case where one conceals the knife during slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.
תַּחַת הָעוֹר – כְּשֵׁרָה, בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי: תַּחַת הָעוֹר – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the second part of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim in the standard manner the slaughter is valid. The school of Rav say that Rav says that in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the hide and cuts the simanim of the animal, I do not know whether the slaughter is valid, or whether it is not valid because he concealed the knife during the slaughter.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְבֵי רַב, דְּאָמְרִי: תַּחַת הָעוֹר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, תַּחַת מַטְלֵית מַהוּ? תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסוּבָּךְ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the school of Rav, who say: Beneath the hide, I do not know, if one concealed the knife beneath a cloth that is around the animal’s neck, what is the halakha? If one concealed the knife beneath tangled wool on the neck of a sheep, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: הֶחְלִיד בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one concealed the knife in cutting the minority of the simanim and cut the majority of the simanim in the standard manner, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִים, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד לְמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת – פְּסוּלָה. הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר – כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. If one decapitated the animal in one motion and did not slaughter the animal in the standard manner of drawing the knife back and forth, the slaughter is not valid. In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal’s entire neck, the slaughter is valid.
הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא, אוֹ הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ, אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, אֲפִילּוּ בְּאִיזְמֵל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals, the slaughter is valid. In what case is this statement, that one must be concerned about the length of the knife, said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back; but if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel [be’izemel], the slaughter is valid.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
GEMARA: The mishna stated: If one decapitated the animal in one motion, the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow, it speaks deceit” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow is propelled by drawing back the bowstring, so too, slaughter [sheḥita] must be performed by drawing the knife across the animal’s neck and not by pressing the knife or striking the neck with the knife.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – אֵין ״וְשָׁחַט״ אֶלָּא וּמָשַׁךְ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״זָהָב שָׁחוּט״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
Likewise, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat] the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5). The term “veshaḥat” means nothing other than: And he shall draw the knife across the neck of the animal. And similarly, the verse states: “And King Solomon made two hundred targets of drawn [shaḥut] gold” (I Kings 10:16), meaning gold that is smoothed in the manner of goldsmiths. And the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaks deceit” (Jeremiah 9:7).
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא ״זָהָב שָׁחוּט״ שֶׁנִּטְוֶוה כְּחוּט הוּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם״.
The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the term “drawn [shaḥut] gold” means that the gold was spun like soft thread [keḥut], come and hear: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow.” In this verse, shaḥut means drawn like the bowstring that propels an arrow, and is not a reference to thread.
רָבָא הֲוָה בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ גִּירָא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, וְשָׁחַט בֵּהּ עוֹפָא בַּהֲדֵי דְּפָרַח. וְדִילְמָא עָבִיד חֲלָדָה? חֲזִינַן
The Gemara relates: Rava would examine the arrow for Rabbi Yona bar Taḥlifa to ensure that there were no notches in it. And Rava shot the arrow and slaughtered a bird with it as it was flying. The Gemara challenges: And perhaps when the arrow cut the bird’s neck it performed an inverted slaughter, with the arrow concealed in the neck, and cut the simanim from back to front. The Gemara responds: We see
Follow
