Chullin Daf 21 (חולין דף כ״א)
Daf: 21 | Amudim: 21a – 21b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (21a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ (Resolution)
Rava resolves a difficulty raised against Ze’eiri’s prior teaching that one must perform melika even on a bird that died on its own.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא: וְכֵן הוּא עוֹשֶׂה – חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
In any case, the statement of Ze’eiri remains difficult. What is the significance of pinching a dead bird? Rava said: Say in explanation: And likewise he does when he pinches, he cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh and then he pinches the simanim.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara had pressed: how can melika be performed on a bird that already died? Rava reframes Ze’eiri’s case — the kohen does not perform a complete melika on the dead bird; rather he cuts only the spinal column and neck bone (without the majority of the surrounding flesh) so that one can complete the act on a still-living bird at the moment when the flesh is severed. This refines the ritual into stages: the bony cut may precede death, but the flesh cut that constitutes the “kosher” action of melika requires life.
Key Terms:
- מְלִיקָה (Melika) = Pinching the nape of a sacrificial bird with the kohen’s thumbnail; the avodah equivalent of slaughter for bird offerings.
- שִׁדְרָה (Shidra) = The spinal column.
- מַפְרֶקֶת (Mafreket) = The neck bone (cervical vertebrae).
- סִימָנִים (Simanim) = The two “signs”: the windpipe (קנה) and the gullet (ושט).
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה / סיפור (Narrative anecdote)
A parallel resolution emerges in Eretz Yisrael when Rabbi Zeira raises the same objection to Rabbi Ami.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מֵתָה עוֹמֵד וּמוֹלֵק? אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא, כָּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה: חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this halakha that Ze’eiri said, and Rabbi Zeira said to him: And does one stand and pinch a dead bird? Rabbi Ami was astonished [eshtomam] for a moment (see Daniel 4:16), and thought about it and said to Rabbi Ami: Say that this is what he does: He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
This delightful anecdote shows how Babylonian and Eretz-Yisrael academies converged on the same resolution. The phrase אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם, drawn from Daniel’s reaction in Daniel 4:16, dramatizes Rabbi Ami’s brief silence as he reaches for the answer — and emerges with precisely Rava’s reformulation. The narrative also illustrates the editorial method of the Gemara: a sugya’s standard answer is stress-tested across geographic centers, lending it authority.
Key Terms:
- כִּי סָלֵיק (ki saleik) = “When he ascended” — the technical phrase for an Amora’s emigration from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.
- אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם (eshtomam) = Was momentarily stunned/silent — a rare Aramaic verb echoing Daniel 4:16.
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא (Baraita — supporting source)
A baraita is cited that confirms the staged procedure of melika and lays out the difference between sin and burnt offerings.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה; הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה, חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד אוֹ רוּבּוֹ וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ, וּבְעוֹלָה שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
English Translation:
That is also taught in a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. Once he has reached the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman or its majority and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it; and in a burnt offering he cuts two simanim or the majority of two simanim.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita describes melika as a two-phase operation: first the bony cut through spine and neck-bone (without majority of flesh), then — once the blade reaches the simanim — the cut that defines the offering: one siman for a sin offering, two for a burnt offering. The “majority of flesh” criterion echoes the threshold of nevela (a carcass): until the flesh-majority is severed, the bird is still juridically alive, so the avodah-cut on the simanim qualifies.
Key Terms:
- חַטַּאת הָעוֹף (Chatat ha-Of) = Bird sin offering, requires cutting one siman.
- עוֹלַת הָעוֹף (Olat ha-Of) = Bird burnt offering, requires cutting two simanim.
- רוֹב בָּשָׂר (Rov Basar) = The majority of the surrounding flesh.
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא (Difficulty)
The Gemara presses on the baraita’s compound formulation: “two or the majority of two” seems to fit neither tannaitic position cleanly.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: שְׁנַיִם דַּוְקָא! אִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָאָמַר: רוֹב שְׁנַיִם!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited in the baraita? If you say it is the Rabbis, don’t they say that one must cut specifically two simanim and not their majority? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that one must cut only a majority of the two simanim and no more, in which case why does the baraita specify two simanim or the majority of two simanim?
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a classic מַנִּי challenge: the baraita’s disjunctive formulation “two simanim or the majority of two” cannot belong to either named tanna without remainder. The Rabbis insist on two whole simanim; Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds a majority of two suffices. The double phrasing therefore demands either a composite source or a re-reading of one of the positions.
Key Terms:
- מַנִּי? (Mani?) = “Whose opinion is this?” — the standard Talmudic challenge to attribute an anonymous baraita.
- רוֹב שְׁנַיִם (Rov Shenayim) = “Majority of two” — cutting the larger portion of both simanim.
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ (Resolution)
Two answers: either the baraita is composite (each clause a different tanna), or the entire baraita follows R. Elazar ben R. Shimon, and “two” is a near-synonym for “majority of two.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: שְׁנַיִם – לְרַבָּנַן, רוֹב שְׁנַיִם – לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּמַאי שְׁנַיִם – שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִשְׁנַיִם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Say that when the baraita says two, it is according to the Rabbis; when it says a majority of two, it is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And if you wish, say instead: Both this, two, and that, a majority of two, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and what is the meaning of two? It does not mean two simanim in their entirety; rather, it means that one must cut a significant majority of the simanim that is similar to two entire simanim.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first answer is a “split brisa” — common Talmudic technique that allows a baraita to record both views. The second answer is more elegant: the entire baraita is uniformly Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s, but “two” inside his system is shorthand for “an amount close enough to two to function as two.” This second reading anticipates a halakhic principle: when a generous majority is cut, the law treats the cut as if it were complete.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִשְׁנַיִם (She-domin Lishnayim) = “Resembling two” — a near-complete majority that functionally equals the whole.
- אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא (Iba’eit Eima) = “If you wish, say” — the Talmud’s marker for an alternative resolution.
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Statement)
Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel applies the same anatomical threshold to corpse-impurity in a human being.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִשְׁבְּרָה מַפְרֶקֶת וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמָּהּ – מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If the neck bone of a person was broken and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it was cut, that person imparts impurity in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with him he becomes impure, as his halakhic status is that of a corpse even though he is still twitching.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now pivots from the kodashim discussion of melika to the parallel issue of when a person is halakhically considered dead. Shmuel transports the same anatomical formula — the cut of the neck-bone plus a majority of surrounding flesh — into the laws of tent-impurity (טומאת אהל). The principle: even though the body is still convulsing (מפרכס), if the structural cut crosses this threshold, the person is a corpse and contaminates anyone under the same roof.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת אֹהֶל (Tumat Ohel) = Tent impurity — the unique impurity of a corpse that spreads to everything under one roof.
- מְפַרְכֵּס (Mefarkes) = Convulsing/twitching after the lethal injury but before clinical stillness.
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Challenge from Tanakh and resolution)
Eli’s death from a broken neck alone seems to challenge Shmuel’s threshold; the answer: old age lowers the lethal threshold.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם תֹּאמַר: אוֹתוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה דְּעֵלִי, מַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר הֲוַאי! זִקְנָה שָׁאנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: “וַיְהִי כְּהַזְכִּירוֹ אֶת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא אֲחֹרַנִּית בְּעַד יַד הַשַּׁעַר וַתִּשָּׁבֵר מַפְרַקְתּוֹ וַיָּמֹת כִּי זָקֵן הָאִישׁ וְכָבֵד וְגוֹ’”.
English Translation:
And if you say that the incident of the death of Eli, the High Priest, whose death is described: “And his neck bone broke, and he died” (I Samuel 4:18), was one where the neck bone broke without the majority of the surrounding flesh being cut, and nevertheless he died immediately, the Gemara responds: Old age is different, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when he made mention of the Ark of God, that he fell from off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died; for he was an old man, and heavy; and he had judged Israel forty years” (I Samuel 4:18).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the famous narrative of Eli the High Priest, whose death seems to undercut Shmuel: Eli died from a broken neck alone. The verse, however, supplies its own explanation — “for he was an old man, and heavy” (I Samuel 4:18). The Gemara reads this clause as halakhically operative: advanced age and corpulence make the same anatomical injury fatal even without majority-of-flesh severance. The aggadic and halakhic readings of Tanakh fuse here: the verse is at once a historical detail and a juristic indicator.
Key Terms:
- זִקְנָה (Zikna) = Old age — accepted here as a factor that alters the threshold of fatal injury.
- כִּי זָקֵן הָאִישׁ וְכָבֵד = “For the man was old and heavy” — read by the Gemara as a halakhic rationale, not narrative color.
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Statement)
A second mode of immediate halakhic death: a longitudinal rip “like a fish,” qualified by Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak as specifically dorsal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְרָעוֹ כַּדָּג – מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: וּמִגַּבּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ripped a person like one cuts a fish, lengthwise, the halakhic status of the ripped person is that of a corpse even though he is still convulsing, and he imparts impurity in a tent. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: And that is specifically if he was ripped from his back.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan adds another anatomically-defined moment of halakhic death: a body ripped lengthwise like a butchered fish. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak supplies a critical specification — the rip must be from the back, where it severs the spinal cord and renders survival impossible. This is the same conceptual move as Shmuel’s earlier ruling: the law identifies states in which the body, despite residual nervous activity, is irreversibly a corpse.
Key Terms:
- קְרָעוֹ כַּדָּג (Kera’o Kadag) = “Ripped him like a fish” — a longitudinal split.
- מִגַּבּוֹ (mi-Gabo) = “From his back” — i.e., severing the spinal cord rather than the abdomen.
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Rulings on Animals)
Two amoraic rulings extend the analysis to animals: Shmuel on transverse bisection, Rabbi Elazar on removal of a thigh, with Rava defining what “obvious recess” means.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא – נְבֵלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִיטַּל הַיָּרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (נִיכָּר) – נְבֵלָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (נִיכָּר)? אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל שֶׁרְבוּצָה וְנִרְאֵית חֲסֵרָה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara resumes discussions of the halakhot of an animal. Shmuel says: If one rendered the animal like a shard [gistera] by cutting it in two widthwise, its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass even though it is still convulsing. Rabbi Elazar says: If the thigh, the hind leg of the animal, was removed and its recess is obvious, it is an unslaughtered carcass and it imparts impurity even if it remains alive. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of its recess being obvious? Rava said: It is any situation where the animal is collapsed and even so its hind leg is visibly lacking.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now collects parallel rulings for animals: a body cut in half widthwise (gistera, like a shard) is a nevela; the loss of an entire thigh, when its absence is visually obvious, is also a nevela. Rava’s test for “visually obvious” is concrete: the animal can be lying down, and one can still see at a glance that a leg is missing. The intuition is structural — the surviving body is so anatomically broken that the remaining life is regarded as residual reflex, not life.
Key Terms:
- גִּיסְטְרָא (Gistera) = A potsherd; here, a body bisected widthwise like a broken vessel.
- נְבֵלָה (Nevela) = An unslaughtered carcass — ritually impure and forbidden as food.
- נִיטַּל הַיָּרֵךְ (Nital ha-Yarekh) = “The thigh was removed” — i.e., severance of the entire hind leg.
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה (Cited Mishna from Oholot)
A mishna in Oholot 1:6 establishes the principle visually: post-decapitation convulsions are like a severed lizard’s tail.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: הוּתְּזוּ רָאשֵׁיהֶן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּפַרְכְּסִין – טְמֵאִים, כִּזְנַב הַלְּטָאָה שֶׁמְּפַרְכֶּסֶת.
English Translation:
We learned in a mishna there (Oholot 1:6) with regard to creeping animals whose carcasses are ritually impure: If their heads were removed, even if they are convulsing, they are impure like the tail of a lizard that was severed that convulses even though it is not alive.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces the controlling source: a mishna from Oholot dealing with sheratzim (eight species of creeping things whose carcasses transmit impurity). The mishna establishes that “headlessness” trumps motion: a sheretz whose head has been removed is impure even while still twitching, and the analogy used is the famous severed lizard’s tail — universally observed to keep moving despite obvious death of the part. Reflex motion is not life.
Key Terms:
- הוּתְּזוּ רָאשֵׁיהֶן (Hutzu Rasheihen) = “Their heads were removed” — the precise meaning of which becomes the dispute below.
- זְנַב הַלְּטָאָה (Zenav ha-Letaa) = The lizard’s tail — proverbial example of post-mortem reflex motion.
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת (Dispute on the Mishna’s Definition)
Reish Lakish vs. R. Asi (in the name of R. Mani) on what “their heads were removed” means.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הוּתְּזוּ? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּתְּזוּ מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Were removed? Reish Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute centers on the threshold: Reish Lakish reads the mishna literally — “removed” means complete decapitation, head fully detached from body. Rabbi Asi citing Rabbi Mani offers a more lenient reading: “removed” means the lesser cut required by havdala in the bird burnt offering. The next two segments will probe which version of “havdala” Rabbi Mani means — the Rabbis’ or that of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.
Key Terms:
- הַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף (Havdalat Olat ha-Of) = “The separation [performed in] the bird burnt offering” — i.e., the decisive cut that makes the head and body separate entities.
- מַמָּשׁ (Mamash) = “Actually” — i.e., physically severed.
Segment 12
TYPE: שאלה (Clarifying question)
Rabbi Yirmeya forces Rabbi Asi to specify which view of havdala he means — which determines whether he and Reish Lakish actually disagree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבָּנַן, וְלָא פְּלִיגִיתוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִגִיתוּ?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Asi: Do you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to the Rabbis, who hold that in addition to the neck bone and the surrounding flesh, one also completely severs the simanim, and then you and Reish Lakish do not disagree, as it is just like breaking the neck of the animal, since nothing remains other than the skin? Or perhaps you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and you and Reish Lakish disagree, as Reish Lakish holds that the animal imparts impurity only when it is completely beheaded.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya is the consummate analytical interlocutor. He sees that Rabbi Asi’s “like the havdala of the bird burnt offering” is ambiguous: under the Rabbis it amounts to nearly complete decapitation (only skin remains), so Asi and Reish Lakish only sound different but agree. Under Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, however, only majority-of-two-simanim is required — significantly less than full decapitation — and a real machloket emerges. The question forces Asi to commit to a position that has substantive consequences.
Key Terms:
- לָא פְּלִיגִיתוּ (Lo Plagitu) = “You do not disagree” — a Talmudic outcome where two apparent positions collapse into one.
Segment 13
TYPE: תשובה (Answer)
Rabbi Asi commits: he means R. Elazar ben R. Shimon’s lighter standard — and explicitly disagrees with Reish Lakish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִיגִינַן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yirmeya: I mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and we disagree.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Asi takes the more daring position: a sheretz with majority-of-two-simanim cut at the neck, even without complete decapitation, is already an impure carcass. This locks in a genuine machloket with Reish Lakish, who insists on physical decapitation. Conceptually, the two views split on whether reflex life is determined by separation (Reish Lakish) or by the loss of integrating function (R. Asi).
Key Terms:
- וּפְלִיגִינַן (u-Pliginan) = “And we disagree” — Asi’s explicit affirmation of dispute.
Segment 14
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא (Alternate Tradition)
A second version of the dispute states the disagreement directly without Rabbi Yirmeya’s mediation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּתְּזוּ מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: כְּהַבְדָּלַת עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
English Translation:
There are those who say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one suffices with cutting a majority of two simanim.
קלאוד על הדף:
The “iká de’amrei” version preserves the same outcome reached in Segment 13 but presents it without the back-and-forth — Rabbi Asi’s position from the outset is the lower threshold of “majority of two simanim.” The Talmud often records both narrative shapes when the substantive halakha is the same, to show both how a position emerges in conversation and how it stands on its own as a fixed teaching.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי (Ika de-Amrei) = “There are those who say” — alternative formulation of the same dispute.
Segment 15
TYPE: בירור המחלוקת (Identification of source-dispute)
The Gemara now traces the underlying tannaitic dispute to the verse “as it is prescribed” in Leviticus 5:10.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי רַבָּנַן וּמַאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא: “וְאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט” – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The dispute is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a sliding-scale offering, in which a poor person who cannot afford an animal sin offering brings two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, it is written: “And he shall prepare the second as a burnt offering, according to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering in whose stead the offering was brought.
קלאוד על הדף:
To understand both positions, the Gemara cites a foundational baraita on the verse “ka-mishpat” (Leviticus 5:10). The phrase appears in the law of the korban oleh ve-yored — the sliding-scale offering — where a poor person brings two birds, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering. The opening tannaitic view reads “ka-mishpat” as “according to the ordinance of the animal sin offering,” generating a derashah that imports specific rules from animal-chatat into the bird burnt offering.
Key Terms:
- קׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד (Korban Oleh ve-Yored) = Sliding-scale offering, varying by means.
- כַּמִּשְׁפָּט (ka-Mishpat) = “According to the ordinance” — the verse’s open-ended phrase that all three tannaim will read differently.
- חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה (Chatat Behema) = An animal sin offering.
Segment 16
TYPE: דרשה (Scriptural Derivation)
The first tanna defends “as the ordinance of an animal sin offering” by ruling out “as the ordinance of a bird sin offering” via the word “ve-hikrivo.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר “וְהִקְרִיבוֹ”, חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים “כַּמִּשְׁפָּט” – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה. מָה חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ בָּאָה
English Translation:
Do you say that it is according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering, or perhaps it is only according to the ordinance of a bird sin offering? The Gemara answers: When it says with regard to the bird burnt offering brought as a gift offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), meaning that it shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, the verse distinguished between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the term “according to the ordinance”? It means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering; just as an animal sin offering comes only
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s tanna defends his reading via the standard “or perhaps only” rejoinder: a counter-reading is offered (perhaps “ka-mishpat” means like the bird-chatat) and then refuted from the word “ve-hikrivo” (Leviticus 1:15), which sets the bird burnt offering apart from the bird sin offering. The phrase “ka-mishpat” must therefore reach further afield, comparing instead to the animal-chatat. The baraita then begins listing the points of comparison — only from chullin, only by day, only with the right hand — which continues into 21b.
Key Terms:
- וְהִקְרִיבוֹ (Ve-Hikrivo) = “And he shall bring it” — the verse cited to distinguish bird-burnt from bird-chatat procedures.
- דרשה (Derashah) = Scriptural exposition deriving halakha from a verse’s wording.
Amud Bet (21b)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך דרשה (Continuation of Derashah)
The completion of the comparison: bird burnt offering inherits three rules from animal-chatat — non-sacred funds, daytime, right hand.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית, אַף עוֹלַת הָעוֹף אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין וּבַיּוֹם וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית.
English Translation:
from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest, so too, a bird burnt offering comes only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita lists the three transferred features: (1) the offering must come from chullin, not from money of ma’aser sheni; (2) its avodah must be performed during the day; (3) it must be performed with the kohen’s right hand. These three rules anchor the bird burnt offering in a “chatat-like” frame even though it is itself a burnt offering, and they will function as the lever for further comparisons that the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon will press in opposite directions.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין (Chullin) = Non-sacred; here, animals not purchased with money sanctified for second tithe.
- בְּיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית (be-Yado ha-Yemanit) = With the right hand of the kohen — required for sacrificial avodah.
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה (Derivation — Rabbis’ position)
The Rabbis push back against importing only “majority of two” — and derive complete decapitation from “u-malak ve-hiktir.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם, אַף כָּאן בְּרוֹב שְׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר “וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר” – מָה הַקְטָרָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף מְלִיקָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita asks: If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to an animal sin offering, slaughter is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, with regard to a bird burnt offering, the pinching is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim. Therefore, the verse states: “And pinched off its head…and burned it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). This indicates that just as with regard to burning, the head is burned by itself and the body is burned by itself, so too with regard to pinching, the head remains by itself and the body remains by itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the Rabbis’ linchpin derashah. If “ka-mishpat” simply transferred the threshold of animal slaughter (majority of two simanim), bird-melika would be no different from animal-shechita — and the unique character of the avodah on a bird would be lost. The verse “u-malak ve-hiktir” (he shall pinch and burn) couples melika to hektarah; just as in burning the head and body are placed separately on the altar, so in melika they must end as separate entities. Hence the Rabbis demand actual separation, not mere majority — driving the dispute with R. Elazar son of R. Shimon.
Key Terms:
- הַקְטָרָה (Haktarah) = Burning on the altar.
- הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ = “The head by itself and the body by itself” — two distinct objects placed on the altar.
Segment 3
TYPE: דעה שניה (Rabbi Yishmael’s Reading)
Rabbi Yishmael reads “ka-mishpat” altogether differently — as comparison to the bird sin offering, generating the location-rule “min mul oref.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: “כְּמִשְׁפָּט” – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, מָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, אַף עוֹלַת הָעוֹף מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yishmael says: “According to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which is written with regard to the sliding-scale bird sin offering, means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in the previous verse. Just as a bird sin offering is pinched adjacent to its nape (Leviticus 5:8), beneath the occipital bone, so too a bird burnt offering is pinched adjacent to its nape, beneath the occipital bone.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yishmael rejects the comparison to animal-chatat altogether: “ka-mishpat” refers to the immediately preceding ordinance — the bird sin offering. The transferred rule is therefore not financial source or hand or time, but the anatomical location of the cut: at the mul oref, the nape. Just as the bird sin offering is pinched at the nape (Leviticus 5:8), so too the bird burnt offering. This makes the verse a precise locational link rather than a sweeping import of multiple rules.
Key Terms:
- מִמּוּל עוֹרֶף (mi-Mul Oref) = “Adjacent to the nape” — the back of the neck, beneath the occipital bone.
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה (Counter-derivation)
A challenge limits Rabbi Yishmael’s import: not all features of the chatat-bird carry over — specifically, the burnt offering does require separating head from body.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן, מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן מוֹלֵק וְאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל בְּסִימָן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר “וְהִקְרִיבוֹ”.
English Translation:
If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut, so too here, with regard to the burnt offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that a bird burnt offering shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, not like the sin offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita asks: if “ka-mishpat” links bird-burnt to bird-chatat in location, perhaps it also imports the chatat’s rule that one cuts only one siman without separating head from body? The answer comes from “ve-hikrivo” (Leviticus 1:15) — that word again. It signals a uniquely carried-out avodah for the burnt offering, distinguishing it from the chatat. Thus the verse imports location but not the procedural details of how much to cut.
Key Terms:
- מַבְדִּיל (Mavdil) = Separates — completes the cut so that head and body part.
- בְּסִימָן אֶחָד (be-Siman Echad) = With one siman — the bird sin offering’s procedure.
Segment 5
TYPE: דעה שלישית (Third Tannaitic View — incomplete)
Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon begins his reading of “ka-mishpat” — the daf cuts off mid-derashah and continues on 22a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: “כַּמִּשְׁפָּט” – “כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף”, מָה לְהַלָּן
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: “According to the ordinance” means according to the ordinance that is written with regard to a bird sin offering. Just as there,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf concludes with the opening of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon’s view — yet another reading of “ka-mishpat” — but breaks off mid-sentence. His position, as anticipated throughout the sugya, will hold that even the bird burnt offering needs only “majority of two simanim,” not full separation. The cliffhanger is purposeful: the dispute between the Rabbis (separation) and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon (majority) is set up but unresolved, awaiting the continuation on Daf 22.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = R. Elazar son of R. Shimon (bar Yochai), the tanna whose lighter-threshold position has been operative throughout this sugya.