Chullin Daf 19 (חולין דף י״ט)
Daf: 19 | Amudim: 19a – 19b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (19a)
Segment 1
TYPE: הלכתא (Halakhic Conclusion)
The final halakhic ruling on the upper boundary of valid shechita on the windpipe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהִלְכְתָא מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהַיְינוּ דְּשַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: If one slaughters from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below in the direction of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid, and that is in accordance with the opinion that one who left part of the arytenoid cartilage has still performed a valid slaughter, as the arytenoids cartilage extends beyond this point.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with a decisive halakhic ruling that fixes the upper boundary of valid shechita on the windpipe at the שיפוי כובע — the inclined edge of the thyroid cartilage. Below that line is valid; above it is not. The parenthetical comment ties this to the prior debate about the chittin (arytenoid cartilage), which projects above this point: leaving part of the chittin intact does not invalidate the slaughter. This sets up the next several segments, which probe whose Tannaitic opinion the ruling actually follows.
Key Terms:
- שיפוי כובע (shipuy kova) = the inclined or sloping edge of the thyroid cartilage
- חיטי (chittin) = the arytenoid cartilages, paired structures at the top of the larynx
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה רב + קושיא (Practical Ruling + Challenge)
Rav Nachman’s practical ruling and Rav Chanan bar Rav Ketina’s challenge that no known Tanna seems to support it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן אַכְשַׁר מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבָּנַן וְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose opinion is that ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who both hold that if one cuts the windpipe above the large upper ring, the cricoid cartilage, the slaughter is not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman issued a practical ruling that matches the halakha just stated, but Rav Chanan bar Rav Ketina raises a sharp objection: both the Rabbanan and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — the only two Tannaitic positions on record from the prior baraita — disqualify cuts above the tabba’at gedola (the large cricoid ring). Since the שיפוי כובע lies above that ring, Rav Nachman appears to be ruling against every named Tanna. This challenge frames the next segment, in which Rav Nachman defends himself by citing a third Tannaitic position transmitted through a chain of Amoraim.
Key Terms:
- רבנן (Rabbanan) = the anonymous majority opinion among the Tannaim cited in the prior baraita
- טבעת גדולה (tabba’at gedola) = the large upper ring of the windpipe, identified with the cricoid cartilage
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ (Response via Tradition)
Rav Nachman defends his ruling not by reasoning but by transmitted tradition from Eretz Yisrael.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא חִילָק יָדַעְנָא וְלָא בִּילָק יָדַעְנָא, אֲנָא שְׁמַעְתָּא יָדַעְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִשִּׁיפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּלְמַטָּה כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said to him: Neither do I know Ḥillek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this one’s opinion nor for that one’s opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi Ḥanina says, and some say that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman gives a striking reply: he refuses to engage in the dialectical reconstruction of which Tanna stands behind the ruling. “I do not know Chillek or Billek” (a colorful idiom denoting unfamiliar disputants) signals that the ruling rests on transmitted halakha, not on reasoning. He then cites a triple chain of transmission — Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s ruling reaches him through three independent Amoraic relays — establishing it as a robust tradition. The next segment will reveal that this corresponds to Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus’s testimony in the baraita, which Rav Chanan bar Rav Ketina had not initially treated as a substantive third opinion.
Key Terms:
- חילק ובילק (Chillek u’Villek) = an Aramaic idiom meaning “this one and that one,” used dismissively to mean “I’m not interested in their reasoning”
- שמעתא (shemata) = a transmitted halakha or learned tradition
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Statement)
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cross-aligns the Tannaitic positions on hagrama: each Tanna’s “diverted” case is kosher according to the next Tanna’s standard.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מוּגְרֶמֶת דְּרַבָּנַן כְּשֵׁרָה לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to analyzing the baraita (18b): In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring that the slaughter is valid. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the mishna, the slaughter is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who ruled that the slaughter is valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut within the large, upper ring.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to a previously cited baraita and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi maps the relationships between the three Tannaitic positions on mugremet (cases of hagrama). The Rabbanan’s “diverted” case — which the Rabbanan themselves disqualify — is in fact kosher by Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s more lenient standard. This sets up a chain of three opinions of progressively widening leniency: Rabbanan, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus.
Key Terms:
- מוגרמת (mugremet) = a slaughter in which the knife was diverted above (or outside) the proper place
- הגרמה (hagrama) = the act of diverting the knife from the valid zone of shechita
Segment 5
TYPE: המשך המימרא (Continuation)
Continuing Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s chain — Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s “diverted” case is kosher according to Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כְּשֵׁרָה לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס.
English Translation:
And with regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi extends the cross-alignment one step further: even Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s “diverted” case — which he himself disqualifies — is valid according to the still more lenient view of Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. This establishes that Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus stands as a genuinely third position, not merely a clarifying voice on the others. It also lays the groundwork for the Gemara’s conclusion that Rav Nachman’s ruling tracks Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, vindicating his halakha against Rav Chanan bar Rav Ketina’s challenge.
Key Terms:
- רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס = a Tanna whose lenient testimony allows even cases of hagrama above the large ring
- כשרה (kshera) = ritually valid
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Challenge and Resolution)
The Gemara questions whether Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement is necessary, then explains its purpose.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אַדְּרַבָּנַן קָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that in a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring it is valid, addresses the statement of the Rabbis and he agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the slaughter is not valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut above the large upper ring, therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches us that this is not the case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes whether Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement adds anything new — isn’t the chain of leniencies obvious from the baraita itself? The answer is that one might have read Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus narrowly, as merely countering the Rabbanan and agreeing with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi forecloses that misreading by asserting that Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus is more lenient than Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — a third, distinct position.
Key Terms:
- פשיטא (peshita) = “It is obvious” — a standard Gemara objection challenging whether a statement teaches anything new
- קא משמע לן (ka mashma lan) = “It teaches us” — the standard response identifying the chiddush of a statement
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ + הלכתא (Counter-challenge, Linguistic Proof, and Halakhic Conclusion)
The Gemara extracts a precise textual proof from the baraita’s wording and crystallizes the halakha.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי? אִם כֵּן, ״הֵעִיד עָלֶיהָ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס, דְּקָאֵי רַב נַחְמָן כְּוָותֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus was introduced merely with the term: Testified, apparently he disagrees with all of the other opinions. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the alternative reading and resolves it through close textual analysis. If Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus were merely seconding Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, the baraita would have used the focused formulation “he testified about it”; the open-ended “he testified” indicates an independent, fully distinct position. The conclusion is decisive: halakha follows Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, vindicating Rav Nachman’s earlier ruling against Rav Chanan bar Rav Ketina’s challenge — and this is the doctrinal foundation for the opening segment’s halakhic statement.
Key Terms:
- העיד עליה (he’id aleha) = “he testified about it” — would mark a narrow disagreement with one specific Tanna
- והלכתא (ve-hilkheta) = “and the halakha is” — a marker of the Stam Gemara’s binding ruling
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא + פירוש מחלוקת (Amoraic Statement Locating the Dispute)
Rav Huna in the name of Rav Asi pinpoints the precise factual scenario underlying the Tannaitic machloket.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כּוּלַּהּ שְׁחִיטָה בָּעֵינַן בְּטַבַּעַת גְּדוֹלָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna cited a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that in a case where one slaughtered within the large upper ring and did not leave a thread breadth over the entire surface of the ring, the slaughter is not valid, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that even if one left a thread breadth over a majority of the surface of the ring, the slaughter is valid. Apropos to that, Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal and cut the remaining one-third, as the Rabbis hold that we require the entire slaughter to be performed within the large ring, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The halakhic status of its majority is like that of its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna in Rav Asi’s name turns to the original Tannaitic dispute and stakes out a specific reading: the disagreement applies only when shechita came first (2/3 within the ring) and hagrama came after (1/3 above). For the Rabbanan, the requirement is that the entire shechita lie within the proper zone; for Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, the principle of rubo k’kulo (the majority is treated as the whole) suffices. This locates the dispute in a relatively narrow case and prepares the Gemara to clarify that the inverse case is universally invalid.
Key Terms:
- רובו ככולו (rubo k’kulo) = a majority is treated halakhically as the whole — a foundational principle invoked by Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda
- מחלוקת (machloket) = the locus of the Tannaitic dispute, here being narrowed to a specific scenario
Segment 9
TYPE: המשך + הסבר עקרוני (Continuation + Foundational Principle)
Rav Huna’s principle: the inverse order — hagrama first, then shechita — is universally pasul because chiyuta exits during the bad cut.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, דְּכִי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא בָּעֵינַן רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְלֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
But if one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, everyone agrees that the slaughter is not valid, as when the life left the animal, i.e., when the majority of the windpipe was cut, we require that the entire majority be cut by means of slaughter, and that is not so in this case.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna distinguishes the inverse case: when hagrama comes first and shechita second, all Tannaim agree the slaughter is pasul. The reason crystallizes a foundational principle that recurs throughout the rest of the daf — when the chiyuta (the animal’s vital force) exits, the rov of the windpipe must have been cut entirely through valid shechita. Here, since the first 1/3 was hagrama, the rov includes that invalid third, so the requirement is not met. This sets up the Gemara’s analysis of every three-third permutation that follows.
Key Terms:
- חיותא (chiyuta) = the animal’s life or vital force; its “exit” marks the halakhically decisive moment of slaughter
- דברי הכל (divrei hakol) = “all agree” — used to mark a point on which all Tannaim concur
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא (Counter-position by Rav Chisda)
Rav Chisda inverts Rav Huna’s reading and grounds Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s leniency in the chatzi kaneh pagum analogy.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, לֵימָא מָר אִיפְּכָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: On the contrary, let the Master say the opposite. The dispute is only in a case when one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient. In that case, once the slaughterer cuts any additional part of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid because the cut that rendered a majority of the windpipe slaughtered was performed properly. So too in this case, since the cut of the second third was performed properly, the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda offers the diametrically opposite reading: the dispute is precisely in the hagrama-then-shechita case, and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda holds it kosher. His logic invokes the well-known chatzi kaneh pagum (a pre-existing perforation of half the windpipe) — there, even the smallest additional valid cut yields a kosher shechita because the moment of rov was reached through valid action. By analogy, even though the first 1/3 here was hagrama, the cut that brought the windpipe to rov was the second third, performed properly. The dispute then becomes a question of whether to count cumulatively (Rabbi Yosei) or to require that every part of the rov be valid (Rabbanan).
Key Terms:
- חצי קנה פגום (chatzi kaneh pagum) = a pre-existing perforation of half the windpipe; used as a precedent for crediting the moment that achieves rov
- אדרבה (adrabba) = “on the contrary” — a standard Talmudic marker for proposing the opposite reading
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ (Rabbanan’s Distinction)
The Rabbanan distinguish chatzi kaneh pagum from hagrama by location: the deficiency in the former is in the proper zone, while hagrama is outside it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הָתָם מָקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הָכָא לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, and therefore most of the life of the animal left in the proper place. Here, the first third was cut while the knife was diverted, and therefore most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbanan reject Rav Chisda’s analogy with a precise distinction: chatzi kaneh pagum is a deficiency within the proper place of slaughter, so the entire chiyuta exits in the valid zone. But hagrama places part of the cut outside the valid zone entirely, so even if the moment of rov is reached through proper shechita, a portion of the chiyuta has exited where it should not. The location, not just the timing, of the cut is determinative for the Rabbanan.
Key Terms:
- מקום שחיטה (mekom shechita) = the proper anatomical place of slaughter, contrasted with the zone of hagrama
- התם / הכא (hatam/hakha) = “there/here” — a standard Talmudic device for highlighting a distinction
Segment 12
TYPE: המשך + ראיה ממשנה (Continuation + Proof from Mishna)
Per Rav Chisda’s reading, the inverse case (shechita first, hagrama second) is universally kosher based on the principle of “rubo shel echad k’mohu.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּהָא תְּנַן: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
English Translation:
But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda completes his inversion of Rav Huna: on his reading, the case where shechita preceded hagrama is universally kosher because the rov was completed through valid shechita, and the Mishna on 27a establishes that “the majority of one siman is like the whole.” Once the rov has been reached, the remaining 1/3 is halakhically irrelevant — even if it is performed through hagrama. This sets up the Gemara’s next move, which probes whether that Mishna’s principle was authored by Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda or is universally accepted.
Key Terms:
- רובו של אחד כמוהו (rubo shel echad k’mohu) = “the majority of one [siman] is like [the whole of] it” — a Mishnaic principle that completes shechita once the rov is cut
- דהא תנן (de-ha tnan) = “for didn’t we learn” — a marker introducing a Mishnaic proof-text
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא (Rav Yosef’s Challenge)
Rav Yosef challenges the assumption that the Mishna of “rubo k’kulo” is universally accepted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן נֵימָא לַן דְּהָהוּא רוּבָּא דְּהָתָם לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ!
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef destabilizes Rav Chisda’s proof by questioning the authorship of the Mishna on 27a. If that Mishna’s “rubo k’kulo” principle was actually taught by Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — and the Rabbanan disagree — then it cannot be cited as a “divrei hakol” proof. This is a methodological challenge: anonymous Mishnayot are not always universal positions; sometimes they record one Tanna’s view that the other Tannaim contest.
Key Terms:
- קתני (katani) = “he taught” — used in the Gemara to identify which Tanna authored a particular teaching
- מאן נימא לן (man neima lan) = “who will tell us” — a rhetorical Talmudic challenge questioning an unstated assumption
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Counter-challenge by Abaye and Rav Yosef’s Defense)
Abaye objects that not every “rov” principle belongs to Rabbi Yosei; Rav Yosef qualifies — he means specifically the rov of shechita, where the Rabbanan are known to disagree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ כֹּל רוּבֵּי דְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רוּבָּא דִּשְׁחִיטָה קָאָמֵינָא, דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ דִּפְלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Yosef said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye sharpens the methodological point: surely not every Mishna invoking the principle of rov is to be attributed to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef refines his challenge: he is not making a sweeping claim about all majority-based principles, only about the specific principle of “rov bishechita” — and there is direct evidence (from the prior baraita) that the Rabbanan disagree with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda on it. The exchange clarifies the precise scope of the doubt and shows that Rav Chisda’s proof from the Mishna is genuinely vulnerable.
Key Terms:
- רובי דעלמא (rubei de-alma) = principles of majority in general (in any halakhic context)
- רובא דשחיטה (ruba di-shechita) = the specific principle of majority that applies to slaughter
Segment 15
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא (Alternative Version)
An alternative tradition reverses the attribution: Rav Asi himself reads the dispute as Rav Chisda did.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְרַבָּנַן – הָתָם מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הָכָא לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
Some say that there is an alternative version of this discussion: Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient, and the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, but here, most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now records a lishana acharina — an alternative tradition of the same exchange. In this version, Rav Asi himself originally placed the dispute where Rav Chisda placed it: the disagreement is the hagrama-then-shechita case, with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda holding it kosher (via the chatzi kaneh pagum analogy) and the Rabbanan disqualifying it (via the location distinction). The two versions invert the roles of Rav Asi and Rav Chisda, but the substantive halakhic positions remain the same.
Key Terms:
- לישנא אחרינא (lishana acharina) = “another version” — alternative transmission of the same Amoraic discussion
- אמרי לה (amrei lah) = “they say it” — anonymous transmission marker
Segment 16
TYPE: המשך לישנא אחרינא (Continuation of Alternative Version)
Per the alternative version, shechita-first/hagrama-second is universally kosher, again grounded in the Mishna of “rubo k’kulo.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּהָא תְּנַן: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ.
English Translation:
But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?
קלאוד על הדף:
The lishana acharina parallels the original version: with the dispute located in the hagrama-first case, the inverse case (shechita first, hagrama second) is universally kosher. The same Mishna of “rubo shel echad k’mohu” supplies the proof. The Gemara is repeating the structure to set up the same Rav Yosef vs. Rav Chisda exchange in the alternative version’s idiom.
Key Terms:
- דברי הכל (divrei hakol) = “all agree” — universally accepted halakhic outcome
- רוב סימן (rov siman) = the majority of one of the simanim (windpipe or gullet)
Segment 17
TYPE: סיום לישנא אחרינא (Completion of Alternative Version)
The same challenge-and-defense exchange replays, but with the speakers’ roles inverted: Rav Chisda asks the methodological question; Rav Yosef defends the proof.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּהָהוּא רוּבָּא דְּהָתָם לָאו רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אַטּוּ כֹּל רוּבֵּי דְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא רוּבָּא דִּשְׁחִיטָה קָאָמֵינָא, דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהוּ דִּפְלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda objects to this: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree. Rav Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Ḥisda said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now has Rav Chisda raise the methodological challenge that Rav Yosef raised in the first version, and Rav Yosef issues the response that Abaye gave initially. The substance is identical, but the inversion of speakers shows the fluidity of Amoraic transmission. Both versions ultimately leave the question open: the proof from the Mishna of “rubo k’kulo” is methodologically vulnerable, but no decisive refutation is offered.
Key Terms:
- מתקיף לה (matkif lah) = “objects to it” — a standard Amoraic challenge
- דשמענא להו דפליגי (de-shemana lehu de-pligi) = “as we have heard them dispute it” — appeal to known disagreement
Segment 18
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute on Three-Third Case)
Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda transmit conflicting versions of Rav’s ruling on higrim-shachat-higrim, each grounded in a different criterion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ – רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְרֵפָה. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה – כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה קָא נָפְקָא. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: טְרֵפָה – בָּעֵינַן רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
§ If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, i.e., forbidden. Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid, as when the life left the animal, it was in the course of a valid slaughter that it left. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, as we require a majority of the windpipe to be cut with valid slaughter,and that is not the case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the more complex three-third permutations. In the higrim-shachat-higrim case, Rav Huna in Rav’s name rules kosher because the moment of chiyuta — when the second 1/3 brought the cut to rov — occurred during valid shechita. Rav Yehuda transmits the opposite ruling: pasul, because the rov of the windpipe must be cut entirely through valid shechita, and only 1/3 is. The two transmissions thus crystallize the two competing principles that have governed the entire sugya: chiyuta-timing versus rov-content.
Key Terms:
- כי נפקא חיותא בשחיטה קא נפקא = “when the chiyuta exits, it exits through shechita” — Rav Huna’s chiyuta-timing principle
- בעינן רובא בשחיטה (ba’inan ruba bi-shechita) = “we require the rov to be through shechita” — Rav Yehuda’s rov-content principle
Segment 19
TYPE: סיפור + מחלוקת (Narrative and Dispute on Shachat-Higrim-Shachat)
A dramatic episode: Rav Huna gives the opposite ruling to Rav Yehuda’s in this case, Rav Yehuda is offended, and Rav Huna concedes.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ – רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: טְרֵפָה. שְׁמַע רַב יְהוּדָה אִיקְּפַד, אֲמַר: טָרֵיפְנָא (ומכשר) [מַכְשַׁר], (ומכשרנא) [מַכְשַׁרְנָא] טָרֵיף! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שַׁפִּיר קָא מִיקְּפַד, חֲדָא – אִיהוּ שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וַאֲנָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וְעוֹד – הָאִיכָּא רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav said: The slaughter is valid. When the Sages came and asked Rav Huna, he said to them: It is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda heard the ruling of Rav Huna, and he was angry. He said: I deem it a tereifa and he deems the slaughter valid, and I deem the slaughter valid and he deems it a tereifa. Rav Huna said: It is proper that he was angry. One reason is that he heard it from Rav and I did not hear it from Rav; and furthermore, isn’t there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid shechita?
קלאוד על הדף:
In a striking exchange, Rav Yehuda transmits Rav as ruling shachat-higrim-shachat kosher; Rav Huna independently rules pasul. When Rav Yehuda learns of Rav Huna’s contrary ruling, he protests sharply: “I deem it pasul where he deems it kosher, and I deem it kosher where he deems it pasul!” The interplay with Segment 18 produces a chiastic pattern in which each Amora rules the opposite way in each of the two cases. Rav Huna concedes Rav Yehuda’s anger is justified — first because Rav Yehuda heard the ruling directly from Rav, and second because the substantive reasoning favors kosher: the rov was indeed cut through valid shechita (the first and third pieces sum to 2/3).
Key Terms:
- איקפד (ikped) = “he was angered” — describes Rav Yehuda’s reaction
- שפיר קא מיקפד (shapir ka mikped) = “he is right to be angry” — Rav Huna’s concession
Segment 20
TYPE: התחלת קושיא (Opening of Rav Chisda’s Counter-argument)
Rav Chisda intervenes, urging Rav Huna not to retract — but the reason is held in suspense until 19b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא תֶּהְדַּר בָּךְ,
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda intercepts Rav Huna’s apparent concession with a sharp counter-instruction: do not retract. The argument that follows — that retracting on shachat-higrim-shachat would force Rav Huna to also retract on the previous case — is held in suspense by the daf division and continues at the start of 19b. This reflects a recurring pattern in which Rav Chisda functions as a guardian of consistency in Rav Huna’s reasoning.
Key Terms:
- לא תהדר בך (lo tehadar bakh) = “do not retract from yourself” — Rav Chisda’s instruction to maintain the original position
- רב חסדא = an Amora who frequently engages with Rav Huna’s rulings, often defending logical consistency
Amud Bet (19b)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום הקושיא (Completion of Rav Chisda’s Argument)
Rav Chisda demonstrates that retracting would force Rav Huna into self-contradiction across the two three-third cases.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאִם כֵּן, מַפְסְדַתְּ לַהּ לְקַמַּיְיתָא. הָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא קָא מַכְשְׁרַתְּ? דְּכִי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בְּהֶכְשֵׁירַהּ קָא נָפְקָא. הָכָא נָמֵי, כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בְּהַגְרָמָה קָא נָפְקָא.
English Translation:
as, if you retract your statement, you repudiate the first ruling that you stated with regard to a case where one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third. There, what is the reason that you deemed the slaughter valid? The reason is that when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of valid slaughter. Based on that reasoning, here too, when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of diverting the knife, and the slaughter is invalid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda completes the trap: in higrim-shachat-higrim, Rav Huna had ruled kosher because the chiyuta exited during the valid middle third. By the same logic, in shachat-higrim-shachat the chiyuta exits during the hagrama middle, so the slaughter must be pasul. To retract here would not just modify one ruling — it would dismantle the principle that justified the prior ruling. The asymmetric outcome (kosher in 18, pasul in 1) is therefore precisely what the chiyuta-timing logic demands; consistency is preserved by holding firm.
Key Terms:
- מפסדת לה לקמייתא (mafsedet lah le-kammeyta) = “you ruin the earlier one” — the consistency argument
- בהכשירה (be-hekhsherah) = “during its valid [moment]” — referring to the moment of valid shechita
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה רב + מימרא (Practical Ruling and Tannaitic Citation)
Rav Nachman in Sura answers the shachat-higrim-shachat question directly via Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi’s “comb” principle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיקְּלַע רַב נַחְמָן לְסוּרָא, בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי: שְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּמַסְרֵק כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura, where they asked him: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? He said to them: Isn’t that the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi, as Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi says: Slaughter that is performed like the teeth of a comb, which are jagged, is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman’s visit to Sura introduces a decisive Tannaitic source. Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi’s principle — “shechita asuya k’masrek kshera” (slaughter performed like the teeth of a comb is valid) — supplies a Tannaitic foundation for ruling shachat-higrim-shachat kosher. The “comb” image is suggestive: the alternation between valid and invalid cuts forms a pattern of teeth, but the instrument as a whole functions. The citation confirms the position transmitted by Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name and defended by Rav Chisda’s consistency argument.
Key Terms:
- שחיטה העשויה כמסרק (shechita asuya k’masrek) = “slaughter made like a comb” — alternating valid and invalid segments
- איקלע (ikla) = “happened to come” — describes a Sage’s visit to a different academy
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Challenge and Resolution on the Scope of the Comb-Principle)
The Gemara probes whether the masrek principle applies to hagrama at all or only to a jagged but valid cut, then defends the hagrama reading.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה! בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת וְלֵיכָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: And perhaps Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi stated his halakha only when the slaughter goes up and down within the proper place of slaughter. The Gemara asks in response: Within the proper place of slaughter, what is the purpose of stating it? Clearly the slaughter is valid in that case. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we require slaughter that is clear and straight, and slaughter that is jagged is not straight, therefore, Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi teaches us that nevertheless, the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara worries that Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi’s masrek principle might only apply to a zigzag cut entirely within the valid zone — not to actual hagrama-and-shechita alternation. The objection is rebutted: even within the valid zone, one might have thought a jagged cut fails to satisfy a hypothetical requirement of shechita meforaat (a clear, straight cut). The very fact that Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi needed to teach his principle suggests it has substantive force, and the Gemara reads it as encompassing the alternating shechita/hagrama case.
Key Terms:
- שחיטה מפורעת (shechita meforaat) = a clear, unambiguous, straight slaughter — a hypothetical requirement that the masrek principle rejects
- מקום שחיטה (mekom shechita) = the proper anatomical zone of slaughter
Segment 4
TYPE: סימן (Mnemonic)
A memory aid for the chain of Sages in the upcoming discussion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(סִימָן: בַּכַּ״ד).
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a mnemonic for the order of the Sages in the following discussion: Beit for Rabbi Abba; kaf for Rav Kahana; dalet for Rav Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
A simanim (mnemonic) is inserted to help fix the chain of transmission: Beit-Kaf-Dalet for Rabbi Abba sitting behind Rav Kahana, who sat before Rav Yehuda. The Gemara employs such mnemonics frequently to anchor the precise sequence of teachers and students in transmissions where the order matters for understanding the question and the rationale behind the answer.
Key Terms:
- סימן (siman) = a mnemonic device, often abbreviating the names of Sages or topics in a sequence
- בכ”ד (BaKhaD) = the mnemonic letters for the chain of Rabbi Abba → Rav Kahana → Rav Yehuda
Segment 5
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (Question and Answer in Beit Midrash Setting)
The first of four rapid-fire questions Rav Kahana posed to Rav Yehuda.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יְתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba sat behind Rav Kahana and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and said to Rav Yehuda: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to Rav Kahana: His slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The scene is set in a beit midrash with the classic three-tier hierarchy of seating. Rav Kahana opens with the shachat-higrim-shachat case; Rav Yehuda affirms it as kosher, consistent with what he transmitted earlier in Rav’s name. Rabbi Abba is the silent witness who will later carry these rulings to Eretz Yisrael. The structured setting indicates that what follows is a formal teaching transmission, not a casual conversation.
Key Terms:
- יתיב אחוריה (yatib achorei) = “sat behind” — the standard posture for a third-tier listener in the beit midrash
- קמיה (kameih) = “before” — denoting the direct student of the teacher
Segment 6
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (Second Question)
Rav Yehuda rules higrim-shachat-higrim pasul.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana then asked: If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda rules higrim-shachat-higrim pasul. The combination of segments 5 and 6 reveals a clean asymmetry: when shechita brackets the hagrama (good-bad-good), the slaughter is kosher; when hagrama brackets the shechita (bad-good-bad), it is pasul. This mirrors the dispute earlier in the daf and reflects the chiyuta-timing principle: in segment 5 the chiyuta exits during the closing valid third, whereas here it exits during the closing hagrama.
Key Terms:
- פסולה (pesula) = ritually invalid
- הגרים (higrim) = “diverted” — the verb for performing hagrama
Segment 7
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (Third Question — on Perforations)
The discussion turns to a new question: a slaughter that begins at the site of a pre-existing perforation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana then asked: If one cut in a place where there was a perforation in the front of the windpipe and continued cutting, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The questioning shifts to a related issue: nekev, a perforation in the windpipe. If the shochet’s blade enters at a spot where a hole already exists, is this still kosher shechita? Rav Yehuda rules kosher. The intuition is that the existing hole is treated as already-cut tissue, and the rest of the cut is valid shechita that completes the rov in the proper place.
Key Terms:
- נקב (nekev) = a perforation or pre-existing hole in the windpipe
- שחט במקום נקב = “he slaughtered at the site of a perforation” — the knife begins at the hole
Segment 8
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה (Fourth Question — Encountering a Nekev Mid-Cut)
The contrasting case: shechita begins normally and only later encounters a perforation as the rov is being completed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט וּפָגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana further asked: If one cut the windpipe and after cutting half the windpipe encountered a perforation, after which point a majority of the windpipe had been cut, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contrasting case: the shochet begins valid shechita and the cut runs into a pre-existing hole only as the rov is being achieved. Rav Yehuda rules pasul. The asymmetry is striking — beginning at the perforation is kosher, but encountering it mid-cut is pasul. This puzzling distinction will be the very point Rabbi Yochanan questions and Rabbi Elazar will try (unsuccessfully) to defend in segments 9-11.
Key Terms:
- פגע בו נקב (paga bo nekev) = “he encountered a perforation in it” — the knife meets the hole during slaughter
- רובא (ruba) = the majority of the siman, the threshold at which shechita is halakhically complete
Segment 9
TYPE: העברת תורה + קושיא (Transmission to Eretz Yisrael and Challenge)
Rabbi Abba carries the rulings to Eretz Yisrael, where Rabbi Yochanan immediately challenges the asymmetry between the two perforation cases.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא?
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba went to Eretz Yisrael and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar went and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is different about a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation relative to a case where he encountered a perforation in the middle of the slaughter?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba travels to Eretz Yisrael (he was originally from Bavel) and transmits the chain of four rulings. The teaching reaches Rabbi Yochanan via Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Yochanan immediately seizes on the asymmetry between segments 7 and 8: what justifies treating the two perforation cases differently? The challenge is sharp because in both cases the mechanical reality is identical — the knife passes through tissue that includes a pre-existing hole.
Key Terms:
- מאי שנא (mai shana) = “what is different?” — a standard Talmudic challenge demanding a distinction between two similar cases
- רבי אבא = a Bavli-trained Sage who later moved to Eretz Yisrael and served as a conduit between the academies
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ + לגלוג (Attempted Defense and Mocking Rejection)
Rabbi Elazar offers an analogy from the laws of a goy and a Yisrael sharing a slaughter; Rabbi Yochanan dismisses it with a mocking refrain.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט גּוֹי וְגָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל. שָׁחַט וּפָגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגָמַר גּוֹי. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar said to him: In a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a gentile began to slaughter and a Jew completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is valid. In a case where one cut the windpipe and encountered a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a Jew began to slaughter and a gentile completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Yoḥanan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yoḥanan did not accept the distinction.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar attempts to ground the asymmetry in a familiar halakha: a slaughter begun by a goy and finished by a Yisrael is kosher, but the reverse is pasul. The pre-existing nekev, on this analogy, is like a goy’s beginning — neutralized by the Yisrael’s valid completion; encountering a nekev mid-cut is like a goy’s finish — invalidating what came before. Rabbi Yochanan dismisses the analogy with the cutting refrain “goy goy!” — implying that Rabbi Elazar is merely parroting an irrelevant halakha. The next segment will give Rava’s defense of Rabbi Yochanan’s rejection.
Key Terms:
- קרי עליה (kari aleih) = “he proclaimed about him” — Rabbi Yochanan’s verbal dismissal
- גוי וגמר ישראל (goy ve-gamar Yisrael) = a slaughter begun by a goy and completed by a Jew
Segment 11
TYPE: ביאור רבא (Rava’s Defense of Rabbi Yochanan)
Rava explains why the goy/Yisrael analogy fails: there, the chiyuta exits at a different agent’s hand; here, the same shochet does the whole act.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: שַׁפִּיר קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״גּוֹי גּוֹי״, בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁחַט רוּבָּא וְלָא שְׁחַט, כִּי נָפְקָא חִיּוּתָא – בִּידָא דְּגוֹי קָא נָפְקָא, אֶלָּא הָכָא מִכְּדֵי מִשְׁחָט שָׁחֵיט, מָה לִי בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב, מָה לִי פָּגַע בּוֹ נֶקֶב?
English Translation:
Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan did well when he proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile. Granted, there, in the case where the gentile completed the slaughter, since a Jew was supposed to cut a majority of the windpipe and he did not cut it, when life left the animal it left by the hand of a gentile. But here, after all, he was the one who slaughtered the entire animal, and the animal was not a tereifa until this point, and so what difference is there to me if one began to cut in a place where there was a perforation and what difference is there to me if he encountered a perforation?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava endorses Rabbi Yochanan’s rejection with surgical precision. The goy/Yisrael case is structurally different because two agents are involved: when the goy completes the slaughter, the chiyuta literally exits at the goy’s hand, and the requirement that the rov of valid shechita be performed by a Yisrael is unmet. But in the perforation cases, a single Jewish shochet performs the entire act on a windpipe that was kosher (not yet a tereifa) when the slaughter began. The distinction between cutting at a perforation and encountering one mid-cut is, on Rava’s view, halakhically indefensible — both should yield the same ruling.
Key Terms:
- שפיר קרי עליה (shapir kari aleih) = “he was right to proclaim about him” — Rava’s endorsement of the rebuke
- בידא דגוי קא נפקא (bida de-goy ka nafka) = “it exits at the hand of the goy” — the operative criterion that distinguishes the cases
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
A new Mishna mapping the geometry of valid zones for shechita versus melika — they cover entirely opposite regions of the neck.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצְּדָדִין – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הַצְּדָדִין – מְלִיקָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעוֹרֶף – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הָעוֹרֶף – מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הַצַּוָּאר – מְלִיקָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר לִמְלִיקָה, וְכׇל הַצַּוָּאר כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה. נִמְצָא, כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פָּסוּל בִּמְלִיקָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּמְלִיקָה – פָּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: One who slaughters from the sides of the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches the neck of a bird offering from the sides, his pinching is not valid. One who slaughters from the nape [oref] of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid. One who slaughters from the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the throat, his pinching is not valid, as the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter. It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new Mishna shifts the discussion from where on the windpipe shechita is valid to where on the neck either shechita or melika may be performed. The Mishna sets up a perfect binary: the tzavar (front) and the sides are the shechita zone; the oref (back) is the melika zone. The summary principle is striking — what is valid for one is invalid for the other; the two procedures occupy completely non-overlapping anatomical zones. This is rooted in the Torah’s verse for melika (“mimul orpo,” Vayikra 5:8), which the Gemara will analyze.
Key Terms:
- מליקה (melika) = the priestly act of pinching a bird offering’s neck with the fingernail
- עורף (oref) = the back of the neck (in the Mishna, the area below the occipital, as the Gemara will clarify)
- צואר (tzavar) = the throat / front of the neck
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא + תירוץ (Gemara — Defining “Oref”)
The Gemara clarifies that “oref” in the Mishna does not mean the actual occipital bone but the area immediately below it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי עוֹרֶף? אִילֵימָא עוֹרֶף מַמָּשׁ, מַאי אִרְיָא שׁוֹחֵט? אֲפִילּוּ מוֹלֵק נָמֵי! ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא עׇרְפּוֹ. אֶלָּא מַאי עוֹרֶף? מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כׇּל הָעוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר לִמְלִיקָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna: One who slaughters an animal from the oref, its slaughter is not valid, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oref? If we say that the reference is to the actual occipital bone at the rear of the skull, why does this halakha apply specifically to one who slaughters from the oref? Even if one pinches a bird offering from the oref it would also not be valid, as the Merciful One states: “Pinch off its head adjacent to its oref” (Leviticus 5:8), at the nape beneath the occipital bone, and not its oref. Rather, what is the oref mentioned in the mishna? It is adjacent to the oref, the back of the neck below the occipital bone, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: The entire nape is valid for pinching.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with a definitional clarification. If “oref” in the Mishna meant the actual occipital bone, then melika would also fail there — the Torah explicitly says mimul orpo (adjacent to the oref), not on the oref itself. So when the Mishna says shechita from the oref is pasul and melika from the oref is kosher, the term must refer to mimul oref — the soft tissue immediately below the occipital bone. The seifa of the Mishna (“the entire oref is valid for melika”) confirms this reading: the entire region understood as “oref” must be the melika-valid zone.
Key Terms:
- עורף ממש (oref mamash) = the actual occipital bone — what the Gemara rejects as the Mishna’s intent
- ממול עורף (mimul oref) = “adjacent to / facing the oref” — the back of the neck just below the occipital, the actual referent in the Mishna
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא + דרשה (Baraita and Scriptural Derivation)
A baraita derives the meaning of mimul from Bilam and Yirmiyahu, then explains why a second verse is needed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִמּוּל עׇרְפּוֹ״ – מוּל הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הָעוֹרֶף, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב מִמֻּלִי״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי פָנוּ אֵלַי עֹרֶף וְלֹא פָנִים״. מַאי וְאוֹמֵר? וְכִי תֵּימָא: עוֹרֶף גּוּפֵיהּ לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא, דְּנִדַּע מוּל דִּידֵיהּ הֵיכָא – תָּא שְׁמַע: ״כִּי פָנוּ אֵלַי עֹרֶף וְלֹא פָנִים״, מִכְּלָל דְּעוֹרֶף לַהֲדֵי פָּנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase “adjacent to [mimmul] its oref,” adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: “And they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]” (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face” (Jeremiah 2:27). The Gemara asks: What is added by the latter proof, introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say, we do not know where the oref itself is, so that we will know where adjacent to it is, come and hear: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,” from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita supplies the scriptural foundation. “Mimmul” denotes a place that “sees” or faces the referent — supported by the Bilam verse (the people residing “facing” him). The Yirmiyahu verse contributes a second piece: it identifies the oref as the opposite of the face, anchoring the anatomical reference. The two verses together establish that mimul orpo means the soft tissue directly facing the occipital — neither the bone itself nor an unrelated location — and this is precisely the melika zone of the Mishna.
Key Terms:
- מול הרואה את העורף (mul ha-roeh et ha-oref) = “facing what sees the oref” — the Gemara’s anatomical formulation
- מאי ואומר (mai ve-omer) = “what does the additional verse add?” — a standard Talmudic device probing the necessity of a second proof-text
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא + מחלוקת בפירוש (Statement and Dispute on Its Meaning)
The sons of Rabbi Chiyya describe the mechanics of melika; the Sages dispute whether moving the simanim is required or merely permitted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִצְוַת מְלִיקָה מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִים לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף וּמוֹלֵק. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף מַחְזִיר, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַחְזִיר דַּוְקָא.
English Translation:
The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: How is the mitzva of pinching of a bird offering performed? One moves the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, behind the nape and pinches. There is a dispute among the Sages with regard to the meaning of the statement. There are those who say: The mitzva ab initio is to pinch through the spinal column first and then pinch the windpipe and the gullet, and one may even move the simanim to behind the nape and pinch. And there are those who say: The mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sons of Rabbi Chiyya add a procedural detail to the Mishna’s geometric rule: the kohen rotates the simanim (windpipe and gullet) around to the back of the neck before pinching from the oref. The Sages then dispute the force of this teaching: af machzir reads it as permission (one may rotate the simanim and pinch through them after the spine), while machzir davka reads it as requirement (the rotation is constitutive of the mitzva). The dispute is over whether the simanim’s relocation is the essence of melika or merely an acceptable method.
Key Terms:
- מחזיר סימנים (machzir simanim) = “rotating the simanim” — moving the windpipe and gullet to the back of the neck for melika
- אף מחזיר / מחזיר דווקא (af machzir / machzir davka) = “may also rotate” / “must rotate” — the two competing readings of the practice
Segment 16
TYPE: סברא (Reasoning Toward One Position)
The Gemara begins arguing — from the Mishna’s wording — that the af machzir reading is preferable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף מַחְזִיר, מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעוֹרֶף – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה, הַמּוֹלֵק מִן הָעוֹרֶף – מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה,
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And it is reasonable according to the one who says: One may even move the simanim behind the nape. From where does one draw that conclusion? It is from the fact that the mishna teaches: One who slaughters from the nape of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now begins to argue that the af machzir reading is more plausible. The argument is rooted in the Mishna’s plain language: “ha-molek min ha-oref melikato kshera” — pinching from the oref is valid. If the rotation of the simanim were strictly required (machzir davka), the Mishna should have phrased the act differently. The argument is interrupted by the daf division and continues at the start of 20a; the substance of the proof is that the Mishna’s broad permission for melika anywhere on the oref suggests that rotating the simanim is one valid option, not the sole acceptable method.
Key Terms:
- מסתברא (mistabra) = “it is reasonable” — a Talmudic marker introducing a sevara (logical argument)
- מדקתני (mi-de-katani) = “from what it teaches” — a textual proof from a Mishna’s wording