Chullin Daf 29 (חולין דף כ״ט)
Daf: 29 | Amudim: 29a – 29b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (29a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
Continuation of a baraita from 28b that challenges Rav’s position on cutting half a siman
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַחֶרֶת וּגְמָרָהּ, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, אִיטָּרְפָא לַהּ.
English Translation:
for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, his slaughter is valid. But if you say the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, then by cutting half the windpipe he rendered it a tereifa because it is as though the majority of the windpipe is severed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara, picking up from 28b, finishes citing a baraita: if a slaughterer paused mid-shechita for the duration of another slaughter and then completed the cut, his slaughter is valid. The challenge to Rav is sharp — if precisely half a siman cut already counts as a majority, then the moment he cut half the windpipe he would have rendered the animal a tereifa (since a windpipe deficient in its majority is a tereifa), and his completion should not save it. So the baraita’s validation of the slaughter seems to refute Rav.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחִיטָה = shechita — the ritual slaughter of an animal by cutting the simanim
- מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב = mechetza al mechetza kerov — the doctrine that exactly half is treated as a majority
- טְרֵפָה = tereifa — an animal disqualified by a flaw that would cause death within twelve months
- רוֹב = rov — the majority, the legal threshold past which a cut is sufficient
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
First attempted resolution: the baraita is about a bird, not an animal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִי סָבְרַתְּ בִּבְהֵמָה? לָא, בְּעוֹף! מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב – הָא עָבֵיד לֵיהּ רוּבָּא, אִי מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this baraita is referring to the slaughter of an animal? No, it is referring to the slaughter of a bird, which requires the cutting of only one siman. Whichever way you look at it, the slaughter should be valid. If the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, he has performed the cutting of the majority and the slaughter is valid. And if the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of the majority, then in cutting half the siman he did not perform any action that would render the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tries to rescue Rav by re-framing the baraita as describing a bird, which requires the cutting of only one siman. In a bird the dilemma evaporates: if half counts as majority, the bird is already validly slaughtered; if half does not count as majority, no tereifa has yet been created. Either way the slaughter remains valid and the baraita poses no challenge.
Key Terms:
- עוֹף = of — a bird, whose shechita requires cutting only one of the two simanim (gullet or windpipe)
- בְּהֵמָה = behema — a domesticated animal, whose shechita requires cutting both simanim
- מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ = mima nafshach — ‘whichever way you look at it,’ a dialectical move showing the same conclusion holds under both alternatives
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
Second baraita challenging Rav: a pre-existing half-deficient windpipe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב – טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. And if you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, the animal is a tereifa, as half its windpipe was deficient before the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fresh challenge: a baraita teaches that if half the windpipe was already deficient before slaughter and the shochet added any small cut to complete it, the slaughter is valid. But on Rav’s view that half equals majority, the windpipe was already a tereifa before he started cutting, and the slaughter should be invalid. This challenge is harder to dismiss because the case unambiguously concerns an animal.
Key Terms:
- פָּגוּם = pagum — deficient, defective; a windpipe with a missing piece
- קָנֶה = kaneh — the windpipe (trachea), one of the two simanim of shechita
- כׇּל שֶׁהוּא = kol shehu — any amount, however small
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rava distinguishes tereifa from shechita: tereifa requires a visible majority
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם.
English Translation:
Rava said: The matter of tereifa is different, as we require a majority that is clearly visible. If precisely half the windpipe is deficient it does not appear to be a majority. By contrast, with regard to slaughter, the status of half is like that of the majority.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava defends Rav by drawing a sharp distinction between the concept of majority in the laws of tereifa and in the laws of shechita. Tereifa-status, he argues, requires a visibly dominant majority — a deficiency that looks like a majority to the eye — whereas for shechita itself, half technically counts. The pre-existing half-deficient windpipe therefore did not yet render the animal a tereifa, since a fifty-fifty split is not visually a majority; once the shochet adds even a small cut, the slaughter satisfies the (lower) threshold for valid shechita.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם = rov hanireh la’einayim — a majority visible to the eye, a conspicuous majority
- רָבָא = Rava — fourth-generation Babylonian amora, leading colleague-disputant of Abaye
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא — דחיה
Abaye demolishes Rava’s distinction with a kal vachomer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָא כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? וּמָה טְרֵפָה, דִּבְמַשֶּׁהוּ מִיטָּרְפָא, הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵינַן רוּבָּא – בָּעֵינַן רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם; שְׁחִיטָה, דְּעַד דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא לָא מִיתַּכְשְׁרָא – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם?
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rava: And is it not derived through an a fortiori inference that all the more so, a conspicuous majority is required for slaughter? And just as with regard to tereifa, where the animal is rendered a tereifa by a deficiency of any size, e.g., by a minuscule perforation of the gullet, in cases where we require a majority, we require a majority that is clearly visible, with regard to slaughter, where until there is a majority of the simanim cut, the slaughter is not valid, all the more so is it not clear that we require a majority that is clearly visible?
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye refutes Rava with an a fortiori argument: tereifa is the more easily incurred status (the slightest perforation of the gullet renders the animal a tereifa), and yet wherever tereifa requires a majority, that majority must be visible. Shechita, by contrast, is the more demanding status — until a majority is cut, nothing is achieved. All the more so, then, must shechita’s majority be visible to the eye. The kal vachomer collapses Rava’s distinction.
Key Terms:
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר = kal vachomer — a fortiori, an inference from a lighter case to a heavier one
- בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ = bemashehu — by even the slightest amount; the threshold at which gullet-perforation alone creates a tereifa
- אַבָּיֵי = Abaye — fourth-generation Babylonian amora, head of the academy at Pumbedita and Rava’s lifelong sparring partner
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — מסקנא
Resolution: the Rav/Rav Kahana machloket is about the Paschal offering, not shechita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב, וְכִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב וּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא – לְעִנְיַן פֶּסַח אִתְּמַר.
English Translation:
Rather, the Gemara revises its understanding of the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Everyone agrees that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut. And when the dispute of Rav and Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of the Paschal offering. If a majority of the Jewish people were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Paschal offering is sacrificed that day and eaten in a state of impurity. If only a minority of the Jewish people were impure, the ritually pure majority brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the impure minority brings the Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ one month later.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara accepts that for shechita, everyone agrees half is not a majority. The Rav/Rav Kahana dispute is then relocated to the laws of the Paschal offering: when a majority of the people are impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the entire community brings the korban Pesach in tum’ah; when only a minority is impure, the pure majority brings it in Nisan and the impure minority brings Pesach Sheni a month later. The hard case is when the people are evenly split — and that, the Gemara now reveals, is the actual battleground of Rav and Rav Kahana.
Key Terms:
- פֶּסַח = Pesach — here, the korban Pesach, the Paschal offering brought on the fourteenth of Nisan
- פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי = Pesach Sheni — the ‘second Passover’ on the fourteenth of Iyar for those who were impure or distant on the original date
- טוּמְאָה = tum’ah — ritual impurity; particularly, contact with a corpse, which normally disqualifies one from bringing the Pesach
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — מחלוקת
Rav and Rav Kahana on a tzibbur evenly split between pure and impure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֶחֱצָה טְהוֹרִים וּמֶחֱצָה טְמֵאִים – רַב אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, וְרַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב.
English Translation:
In a case where the Jewish people were equally divided on the fourteenth of Nisan, with half of them pure and half of them impure, Rav said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is like that of a case where the majority was impure, and the entire people brings the Paschal offering in Nisan. And Rav Kahana said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is not like that of a case where the majority was impure. Therefore, those who are pure bring the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and those who are impure bring the Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ.
קלאוד על הדף:
When the tzibbur is precisely half pure and half impure on Pesach, Rav rules that half counts as a majority — so the situation is treated as ‘majority impure’ and the whole community brings the Pesach together in tum’ah. Rav Kahana rules that half does not count as a majority — so each subgroup brings according to its own status: the pure on the fourteenth, the impure a month later. The dispute now stands free of the shechita objections that defeated it earlier.
Key Terms:
- צִיבּוּר = tzibbur — the community as a halachic entity, distinct from a collection of individuals
- יָחִיד = yachid — an individual; deferred to Pesach Sheni when impure, unlike a tzibbur
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
Rav’s exegetical basis: ‘ish ish’ — individual is deferred, congregation is not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא דְרַב, דִּכְתִיב ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״, אִישׁ נִדְחֶה, וְאֵין צִיבּוּר נִדְחִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the Paschal offering, what is the reason that Rav accords half the people the status of a majority? It is as it is written: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse…shall observe the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall observe it” (Numbers 9:10–11), from which it is derived: A ritually impure person is deferred to observe the second Pesaḥ, but a ritually impure congregation is not deferred to observe the second Pesaḥ. The status of half the people is that of a congregation, not that of a collection of individuals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara supplies Rav’s textual basis. The verse ‘אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ’ (Bamidbar 9:10) emphasizes ‘ish ish’ — an individual who is impure is deferred to Pesach Sheni, but a congregation is not. For Rav, an evenly-split community already qualifies as a ‘congregation’ with respect to its impure half — it is no mere collection of individuals — and therefore is not deferred. Rav Kahana presumably reads the same verse as treating a non-majority impure group as a collection of individuals who must each be deferred.
Key Terms:
- דְּרָשָׁה = derasha — a midrashic derivation, an interpretive amplification of a verse
- אִישׁ אִישׁ = ish ish — ‘each man,’ the doubled singular Rav exploits to limit deferral to individuals
- בָּמִדְבָּר ט:י = Bamidbar 9:10 — the verse establishing Pesach Sheni for one defiled by a corpse or on a distant journey
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
The mishna seems to repeat itself: why mention ‘majority of one in a bird’ twice?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: We already learn this on another occasion, in the first clause of the mishna: The halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Why is the redundancy necessary?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to a structural problem with the mishna. The opening clause already taught that ‘the majority of one [siman] is like the whole’ — a general principle. So why does the mishna later restate ‘majority of one in a bird, majority of two in an animal’? The redundancy demands explanation, and the entire discussion that follows will be devoted to resolving it.
Key Terms:
- רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ = rubo shel echad kamohu — ‘the majority of one is like its whole,’ the principle from the mishna’s opening
- רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף = rov echad ba’of — ‘the majority of one [siman] in a bird,’ the later mishnaic phrase whose redundancy is being explained
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — סימן
A mnemonic for the five amoraim about to participate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(הכ״ש פש״ח סִימָן).
English Translation:
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Heh, Rav Hoshaya; kaf, Rabbi Kahana; shin, Rabbi Shimi; peh, Rav Pappa; shin, Rav Ashi; ḥet.
קלאוד על הדף:
Before unrolling the discussion, the Gemara offers a mnemonic — הכ״ש פש״ח — encoding the initials of the five amoraim whose answers will be cited: Hoshaya, Kahana, Shimi, Pappa, Ashi (with a final ḥet for Reish Lakish at the conclusion). Such mnemonics, common throughout shas, helped students of an oral tradition keep track of the order of speakers in long stretches of give-and-take.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן = siman — here, a mnemonic device (in another sense the word can also mean ‘siman of shechita’)
- הכ״ש פש״ח = hach-sh pash-ch — initials of Hoshaya, Kahana, Shimi, Pappa, Ashi, plus chet
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav Hoshaya: one mention is for chullin, the other for kodashim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: חֲדָא בְּחוּלִּין וַחֲדָא בְּקָדָשִׁים, וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן חוּלִּין – הָתָם הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּרוּבָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו לְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים דִּלְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ – אֵימָא לָא תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּרוּבָּא עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Hoshaya said: One mention of the equivalence between majority and whole is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and one is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. And it is necessary for the tanna to teach both cases, as, if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, one might think that it is there that one suffices with the majority of the siman, because he does not require the blood; he seeks merely to slaughter the animal. But in the case of sacrificial birds and animals, where he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar, say that it will not suffice for him to cut the majority, and the slaughter is not valid until there is a cutting of the entire windpipe or gullet.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hoshaya proposes that the two mentions are not redundant — one is teaching the rule for non-sacred slaughter (chullin), the other for sacrificial slaughter (kodashim). His reasoning is symmetric: had the mishna only taught chullin, we might think kodashim — where the blood is needed for the altar — requires a fuller cut; had it only taught kodashim, we might think chullin — where blood is not collected — could suffice with even less than a majority. Both cases must be stated.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין = chullin — non-sacred slaughter, for ordinary consumption
- קָדָשִׁים = kodashim — sacred slaughter, of an animal designated for the altar
- רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא = Rav Hoshaya — second-generation amora, traditional editor (with Bar Kappara) of important mishna collections
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — צריכותא
The completion of Rav Hoshaya’s necessity argument
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קָדָשִׁים, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ, אֲבָל חוּלִּין דִּלְדָם לָא צְרִיךְ – אֵימָא בְּפַלְגָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
And if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, one might think that one must cut a majority of the siman because he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar; but with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, where he does not require the blood, say that cutting half the siman is sufficient, and there is no need to cut a majority. Therefore, the tanna teaches us the principle twice, once to teach that a majority suffices in the case of sacrificial animals, and once to teach that a majority is required in the case of non-sacred animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the tzricha (necessity-argument): if only kodashim had been taught, one might infer that the majority threshold applies there because of the need for blood at the altar — but for chullin, where no blood is needed, half might be sufficient. By teaching both, the mishna forecloses both wrong guesses. The structure of this tzricha is a classic two-step argument familiar from many sugyot.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכָא = tzricha — the necessity argument; a dialectical structure showing that each of two repetitions in a source is essential
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
Which clause is about chullin and which about kodashim?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵי בְּחוּלִּין, וְהֵי בְּקָדָשִׁים?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks which clause of the mishna is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in non-sacred birds and animals, and which is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in sacrificial birds and animals?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having accepted Rav Hoshaya’s basic move, the Gemara now asks the operative question: of the mishna’s two repetitions, which is the one teaching chullin and which is teaching kodashim? Four amoraim will offer four different textual arguments, each looking at a different feature of the mishna’s language to assign the two clauses.
Key Terms:
- (no new technical terms in this segment)
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav Kahana: ‘one who slaughters’ — must be chullin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִיסְתַּבְּרָא רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין וְסֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רֵישָׁא בְּקָדָשִׁים, ״הַמּוֹלֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana said: It stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Kahana arrive at that conclusion? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the first clause of the mishna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird and two simanim in an animal. And if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to the case of sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it as: One who pinches the nape of the neck of a bird, as sacrificial birds are not slaughtered with a knife, but pinched with a fingernail.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana looks at the verb. The first clause uses ‘הַשּׁוֹחֵט’ — ‘one who slaughters’ — and slaughter is the act used for chullin. Sacrificial birds are not slaughtered with a knife but pinched (melika) with the priest’s fingernail. So if the first clause concerned sacrificial birds, the mishna should have written ‘one who pinches.’ The use of ‘shochet’ shows the first clause is about chullin, and (by elimination) the second clause is about kodashim.
Key Terms:
- רַב כָּהֲנָא = Rav Kahana — a name borne by several amoraim across generations; here, the amora answering the question of which clause is which
- מְלִיקָה = melika — the priestly pinching of a sacrificial bird’s nape with the fingernail, the kodashim equivalent of shechita
- הַשּׁוֹחֵט = hashochet — ‘one who slaughters,’ the noun-form verb of the first mishnaic clause
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא ופירוקא
Counter and rejoinder on Rav Kahana’s argument
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי, סֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים? ״שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״? ״מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, אַיְּידֵי דְּסָלֵיק מִבְּהֵמָה תְּנָא נָמֵי ״שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״. אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא, מִכְּדֵי עַל עוֹף קָאֵי, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּקָדָשִׁים – ״הַמּוֹלֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it: His pinching is valid. The Gemara answers: That is not difficult; since the tanna concluded with mention of the slaughter of an animal, he also taught: His slaughter is valid, which is referring to the sacrificial animal. But in the first clause, since the tanna stands to begin with the case of a bird, if it enters your mind that the reference is to sacrificial birds, the tanna should have formulated it: One who pinches the nape of the neck of the bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
But if the latter clause is about kodashim, why does the mishna there still say ‘his slaughter is valid’ rather than ‘his pinching is valid’? Rav Kahana answers: since the previous line of the mishna was discussing animals (whose kodashim service is by slaughter, not by melika), the tanna continued the language of ‘slaughter’ even into the bird half. By contrast, in the opening clause, where birds were mentioned first, only ‘one who pinches’ would have suited a kodashim reading — and the mishna used ‘one who slaughters,’ confirming chullin.
Key Terms:
- הָמְשַׁךְ לָשׁוֹן = hemshech lashon — continuation of phrasing; a stylistic tail-effect where the tanna lets earlier vocabulary carry into a later clause
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav Shimi bar Ashi: ‘one in a bird’ implies chullin, since olat ha-of needs two simanim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין מֵהָכָא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֶחָד בְּעוֹף״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּקָדָשִׁים – הָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף דְּבָעֵי שְׁנֵי סִימָנִים!
English Translation:
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird. And if it enters your mind that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, isn’t there the bird burnt offering, which requires that two simanim be cut?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Shimi bar Ashi argues from a different angle. The first clause says ‘one [siman] in a bird’ suffices. But the olat ha-of, the sacrificial bird burnt-offering, requires that both simanim be cut. So the first clause cannot be about kodashim — it must be about chullin (where one siman in a bird is indeed enough).
Key Terms:
- עוֹלַת הָעוֹף = olat ha-of — the bird burnt-offering, which requires that both simanim be severed
- רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי = Rav Shimi bar Ashi — sixth-generation Babylonian amora
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא ופירוקא
Counter and Rav Shimi bar Ashi’s rejoinder: ‘rov echad’ means majority of each
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי, סֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים? רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף – הָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף דְּבָעֵי שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין! מַאי ״רוֹב אֶחָד״? רוֹב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלִיתְנֵי רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חַטָּאת דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּחַד סִימָן – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds, isn’t there the bird burnt offering, which requires the pinching of two simanim? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of: The majority of one siman? It means the majority of each and every one of the two. And by right the tanna should have taught: The majority of two. But since there is the bird sin offering, which suffices with the cutting of one siman, due to that reason the matter is not clear-cut for him. Therefore, the tanna formulated the halakha in a manner that could apply to one siman, i.e., in the case of a sin offering, and to two simanim, i.e., in the case of a burnt offering and of animal offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
But the latter clause says ‘majority of one [siman] in a bird’ — and that too seems to require only one siman, yet we are saying the latter clause is kodashim, where the olah requires both! Rav Shimi answers that ‘rov echad’ really means ‘the majority of each and every siman.’ By right the mishna should have written ‘majority of two,’ but it chose the singular phrasing because of the bird sin-offering (chatat ha-of), which is performed by melika of a single siman. The mishna’s wording is calibrated to cover both bird kodashim — sin-offering (one siman) and burnt-offering (both).
Key Terms:
- חַטַּאת הָעוֹף = chatat ha-of — the bird sin-offering, performed by melika of one siman only
- רוֹב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד = rov kol echad ve’echad — ‘the majority of each and every one,’ the rereading of ‘rov echad’ to cover both simanim
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav Pappa: the machloket about veridin shows the first clause is chullin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין מֵהָכָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוְּרִידִין, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּחוּלִּין – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּקָדָשִׁים, אַמַּאי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ? הוּא עַצְמוֹ לְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ!
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. And the Rabbis disagree with him, and do not require that one cut the veins in the neck. Granted, if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it works out well. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, why do the Rabbis disagree with him? He himself, i.e., the one slaughtering, requires the blood in order to sprinkle it on the altar, which would warrant cutting the veins.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa points to a feature later in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must cut the veridin (jugular/neck veins) for valid slaughter, and the Rabbis disagree. If the first clause were about kodashim — where blood is genuinely needed for sprinkling on the altar — why would the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? They themselves would need the veridin cut to extract the blood properly. Their disagreement makes sense only if the discussion concerns chullin, where blood-extraction is not a halachic requirement.
Key Terms:
- וְרִידִין = veridin — the jugular or neck veins; Rabbi Yehuda requires their cutting for valid shechita, the Rabbis do not
- רַב פָּפָּא = Rav Pappa — fifth-generation Babylonian amora, founder of the academy at Naresh
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה = Rabbi Yehuda — Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, third-generation tanna
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav Ashi: ‘one who slaughters two as one’ (di’avad yes, lechatchila no) shows the latter clause is kodashim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: סֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים מֵהָכָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches in the mishna (30b): One who slaughters by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara infers from the precise language of the mishna: One who slaughters, indicating that after the fact, yes, his slaughter is valid; but one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi reads the mishna on the next folio (30b): ‘One who slaughters two heads simultaneously — his slaughter is valid.’ The wording ‘one who slaughters’ (a past participial form) signals di’avad — after the fact yes, lechatchila no, one may not slaughter two simultaneously at the outset.
Key Terms:
- דִּיעֲבַד = di’avad — after the fact; a status whereby an act, though improper to perform, is nonetheless valid once done
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה = lechatchila — at the outset, ab initio; the proper way to perform the mitzvah from the start
- רַב אָשֵׁי = Rav Ashi — sixth-generation Babylonian amora, traditional redactor of the Bavli
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
Rav Yosef’s derashah on ‘tizbach/tizbachuhu’ and Rav Kahana’s defense
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּקָדָשִׁים – הַיְינוּ דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״תִּזְבַּח״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִים זֶבַח אֶחָד, ״תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד שׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי זְבָחִים.
English Translation:
Granted, if you say that the reference is to sacrificial birds or animals, this is the reason that one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio: It is due to that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita: “And when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥuhu] that you may be accepted” (Leviticus 19:5). The term “tizbaḥuhu” can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ] and it [hu]. From the term “You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ],” it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term “You shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥuhu]” it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.
קלאוד על הדף:
Why is two-at-once forbidden lechatchila? Rav Yosef derives it from the verse ‘וְכִי תִזְבְּחוּ זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים’ (Vayikra 19:5): ‘tizbach’ (singular) — no two people may slaughter one offering; ‘tizbachuhu’ (with the plural suffix) — no one person may slaughter two offerings. Rav Kahana clarifies a textual subtlety: although vocalized ‘tizbachuhu,’ the consonantal text reads ‘tizbachehu’ (without a vav), supporting the derashah. This derashah only applies to kodashim — so the latter clause, which carries the implicit prohibition, must concern kodashim. For chullin, two-at-once would be permitted even lechatchila.
Key Terms:
- תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ / תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ = tizbachuhu / tizbachehu — the written-vs-vocalized form of the verb at Vayikra 19:5, exploited for two-derived rules
- רַב יוֹסֵף = Rav Yosef — third-generation Babylonian amora, head of the Pumbedita academy, called ‘Sinai’ for his command of tradition
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה ומסקנא
Rav Kahana’s textual addendum and the conclusion: for chullin, two-at-once would be permitted even lechatchila
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּחוּלִּין – אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי.
English Translation:
And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term “tizbaḥuhu” is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, the term tizbaḥehu is written, in the singular, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it should be permitted even ab initio.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana adds a textual subtlety: although the verse ‘תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ’ is vocalized in the plural, the consonantal text ‘תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ’ (without the vav) supports the singular reading and thus underpins the derashah that two cannot jointly slaughter one offering. Rav Ashi then completes the argument: this entire restriction makes sense only if the latter mishnaic clause concerns kodashim — for chullin, two-at-once would be permitted even לכתחילה, so the di’avad-yes-lechatchila-no inference would have no work to do. The latter clause must therefore be teaching the kodashim case.
Key Terms:
- תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ כְּתִיב = tizbachehu ketiv — ‘tizbachehu is what is written’; the appeal to the consonantal text to support a singular-form derashah
- אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה = afilu lechatchila — ‘even at the outset’; the permissive standard for chullin that would render the kodashim derashah moot if applied here
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא — דברי ריש לקיש
Reish Lakish also holds: first clause chullin, latter kodashim — but he asks the deeper question, why repeat the rule at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין, וְסֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מֵאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ ״רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ״, לָמָּה שָׁנִינוּ ״רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה״?
English Translation:
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, too, holds that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Since we learned in the mishna that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, why did we also need to learn later in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal? The latter clause is obvious based on the principle articulated in the first clause.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish endorses the chullin/kodashim distribution but reframes the question more sharply. Granted the mishna’s opening principle (rubo shel echad kamohu — the majority of one is like the whole), why does the mishna need to restate ‘rov echad ba’of, rov shenayim ba’behema’ later on? His answer, which follows in the next segment, points to a specific scenario in the Yom Kippur service that demanded explicit reaffirmation.
Key Terms:
- רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ = Reish Lakish — Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, second-generation amora of Eretz Yisrael, lifelong disputant and brother-in-law of Rabbi Yochanan
- רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ = rubo shel echad kamohu — ‘the majority of one is like the whole,’ the principle from the mishna’s opening clause
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא — מקור
Reish Lakish’s answer: the Yom Kippur Tamid (Yoma 31b) — keratzo by the Kohen Gadol, meirek by another priest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַתָּמִיד, קְרָצוֹ וּמֵירַק אַחֵר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ עַל יָדוֹ, יָכוֹל לֹא מֵירַק יְהֵא פָּסוּל? לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ: רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains: Since we learned in a mishna (Yoma 31b): They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, and he slaughtered it [keratzo] by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe, and a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel and proceed with the order of the Yom Kippur service, one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish cites the mishna in Yoma (31b): on Yom Kippur they brought the Tamid to the Kohen Gadol, and ‘kratzo’ — he cut the majority of the simanim — and ‘meirek acher shechitato al yado’ — another priest completed the slaughter on his behalf. This allowed the Kohen Gadol to proceed immediately to the avoda of receiving the blood without delaying for the full slaughter. One might have thought that absent meirek the slaughter would be invalid — so the mishna had to restate ‘rov echad ba’of, rov shenayim ba’behema’ precisely to validate the Yom Kippur Tamid practice for kodashim.
Key Terms:
- תָּמִיד = Tamid — the daily continual offering, brought morning and afternoon (and on Yom Kippur as well)
- קְרָצוֹ = kratzo — ‘he cut [the majority],’ the technical term for the Kohen Gadol’s partial cut
- מֵירַק = meirek — ‘completed’ (the slaughter); the action performed by the second priest
- כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל = Kohen Gadol — the High Priest, who personally performs the Yom Kippur avoda
- יוֹמָא לא: = Yoma 31b — the source mishna for this procedure
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא — שקלא וטריא
Setting up the next question: would absence of meirek really have invalidated the slaughter?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל לֹא מֵירַק יְהֵא פָּסוּל?
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The Master said: One might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to inspect Reish Lakish’s setup more closely. He had said ‘one might have thought that if meirek were not performed, the slaughter would be invalid.’ What exactly would that worry be? If the slaughter were biblically invalid without meirek, then meirek itself would be part of the avoda — and avoda performed by anyone other than the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur is disqualified. The Gemara needs to clarify what level of disqualification Reish Lakish was actually contemplating. The resolution will come on the next folio.
Key Terms:
- שַׁקְלָא וְטַרְיָא = shakla vetarya — the Gemara’s dialectical give-and-take
Amud Bet (29b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
Continuation: avoda b’acher could not have been the worry behind Reish Lakish’s framing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן הָוְיָא לֵיהּ עֲבוֹדָה בְּאַחֵר, וְתַנְיָא: כׇּל עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵינָן כְּשֵׁרוֹת אֶלָּא בּוֹ.
English Translation:
How could that possibility enter one’s mind? If that is so, the completion of that slaughter is a Temple service performed by another on Yom Kippur. And it is taught in a baraita: The entire Yom Kippur Temple service is valid only if performed by the High Priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara restates the difficulty crisply at the top of amud bet. If meirek were truly required for valid shechita of the Tamid, then the second priest would be performing avoda on Yom Kippur — and a baraita teaches ‘כׇּל עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵינָן כְּשֵׁרוֹת אֶלָּא בּוֹ’ — the entire Yom Kippur Temple service is valid only when performed by the Kohen Gadol. So the scenario Reish Lakish envisaged (meirek as a real validity requirement) cannot stand. A mishna that took for granted that another priest could complete the shechita cannot have been allowing him to perform a piece of essential avoda.
Key Terms:
- עֲבוֹדָה בְּאַחֵר = avoda b’acher — Temple service performed by a ‘different’ priest, invalid on Yom Kippur when the law restricts service to the Kohen Gadol
- יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים = Yom Kippurim — the Day of Atonement, when the entire Temple service is performed by the Kohen Gadol alone
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — מסקנא
Resolution: the worry was only a rabbinic-level disqualification; meirek is just a lechatchila mitzva
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי קָאָמַר: יָכוֹל יְהֵא פָּסוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא אִיכָּא פָּסוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן, לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ: ״רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה״, וּמֵאַחַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ פְּסוּלָא דְּרַבָּנַן לֵיכָּא, לְמָה לִי לְמָרֵק? מִצְוָה לְמָרֵק.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is saying: One might have thought that if the slaughter was not completed by the other priest it would be not valid by rabbinic law, as it might enter your mind to say that there is an invalidation by rabbinic law. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal. The Gemara asks: And since there is not even an invalidation by rabbinic law, why do I need the other priest to complete the cutting of the simanim? The Gemara answers: There is a mitzva to complete the slaughter ab initio to facilitate the free flow of the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves: Reish Lakish’s worry was the possibility of a rabbinic disqualification — one might have thought chazal added a derabbanan requirement to complete the cutting, since blood-flow benefits the avoda. The mishna’s restatement of ‘rov echad ba’of, rov shenayim ba’behema’ teaches that even a rabbinic disqualification does not apply. Then why is meirek done at all? Because there is a mitzva lechatchila to complete the cut — so the blood flows freely into the keli where the Kohen Gadol will receive it for sprinkling. The completion is a beautification of the avoda, not a halachic prerequisite.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּלָא דְּרַבָּנַן = pesula derabbanan — a rabbinic-level disqualification, weaker than a biblical one
- מִצְוָה לְמָרֵק = mitzva l’mareik — a precept (not a requirement) to complete the cut, to facilitate the flow of blood
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — מחלוקת
The big machloket: Reish Lakish (via Levi Sava) vs. Rabbi Yochanan on when shechita is ‘accomplished’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם לֵוִי סָבָא: אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Levi the Elder: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish, citing the elder Levi Sava, states: ‘אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף’ — halakhic shechita is constituted only at its conclusion. The act of cutting becomes legally a ‘shechita’ only when the requisite majority is reached. Rabbi Yochanan rules the opposite: ‘יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף’ — shechita is constituted continuously, from the moment cutting begins through its end. This deep machloket will be the framework for the rest of the daf.
Key Terms:
- אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף = einah lishchita ela basof — Reish Lakish’s view: shechita is accomplished only at the end
- יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף = yeshnah lishchita mitechila ad sof — Rabbi Yochanan’s view: shechita is accomplished throughout, from beginning to end
- לֵוִי סָבָא = Levi Sava — Levi ‘the elder,’ a transitional tanna-amora figure, transmitter of teachings from Rebbi
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = Rabbi Yochanan — Rabbi Yochanan bar Nappacha, second-generation amora of Eretz Yisrael, brother-in-law and constant disputant of Reish Lakish
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — דברי רבא
Rava brackets the dispute: gentile then Jew is invalid for all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים, הֵיכָא דְּשָׁחַט סִימָן אֶחָד גּוֹי, וְסִימָן אֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל – שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה טְרֵפָה בְּיַד גּוֹי.
English Translation:
Rava said in establishing the parameters of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everyone concedes in a case where a gentile slaughtered, i.e., cut, one siman and a Jew slaughtered one siman, that the slaughter is not valid even if slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, as an action rendering the animal a tereifa was performed at the hand of a gentile. Since slaughter by a gentile is not valid, the gentile renders the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava establishes the boundaries of the dispute. Even Reish Lakish, who holds shechita is fixed only at its end, concedes that if a gentile cut one siman and a Jew cut the other, the slaughter is invalid — because the gentile’s cut is by halacha a ‘maaseh tereifa,’ a tereifa-creating act. Once the gentile has cut, the animal is rendered a tereifa, and the Jew’s subsequent cut cannot redeem it. This case is conceded; the machloket does not reach here.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂה טְרֵפָה = maaseh tereifa — an action that itself renders the animal a tereifa; the gentile’s cut qualifies as such
- גּוֹי = goy — a non-Jew; shechita by a non-Jew is invalid by Torah law
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא — דברי רבא
All agree: olat ha-of pinched partly below the chut hasikra is invalid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף נָמֵי, הֵיכָא דְּמָלַק סִימָן אֶחָד לְמַטָּה וְסִימָן אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְמַטָּה.
English Translation:
In the case of a bird burnt offering as well, where one siman was pinched by a priest below the red line marking half the height of the altar, in accordance with the procedure of the sin offering, and one siman was pinched above the red line, in accordance with the procedure of the burnt offering, the pinching is not valid, as the priest performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering below the red line, disqualifying it from being sacrificed as a burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s second concession: in a bird burnt-offering (olat ha-of), where melika must be performed above the red line (chut hasikra) on the altar, if one siman was pinched below the line and one above, the offering is invalid. The portion done below the line is the action of a chatat ha-of (sin-offering of a bird, which is performed below the line); having performed a ‘maaseh chatat ha-of’ on an olah disqualifies it. Again, this case is conceded for both Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan.
Key Terms:
- חוּט הַסִּקְרָא = chut hasikra — the red line painted around the middle of the altar’s height, dividing services done above from those done below
- עוֹלַת הָעוֹף = olat ha-of — bird burnt-offering, whose melika must be done above the chut hasikra
- מַעֲשֵׂה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף = maaseh chatat ha-of — an action belonging to a bird sin-offering; performing it on an olah disqualifies the offering
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — דברי רבא
Rava: the dispute is about cutting one siman outside the courtyard, one inside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט סִימָן אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְסִימָן אֶחָד בִּפְנִים, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – מִיחַיַּיב, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף – לָא מִיחַיַּיב.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree only in a case where an individual cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as the conclusion of the slaughter, which is the determining factor, is performed inside the Temple courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
Where then does the Reish Lakish/Rabbi Yochanan dispute actually live? Rava answers: only in the case where one siman of a sacrificial animal was cut outside the courtyard and the other siman was cut inside. According to Rabbi Yochanan (shechita is from beginning to end), even the outside cut counts as a piece of ‘shechita,’ and the person is liable for shechutei chutz — slaughter outside the courtyard. According to Reish Lakish (only at the end), the determining moment is the completion inside the courtyard, so no shechutei chutz violation occurred.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ = shochet bachutz — one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard, a karet-bearing transgression
- עֲזָרָה = azara — the Temple courtyard, the only valid location for kodashim shechita
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
Rabba bar Shimi: Rav Yosef framed the machloket differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי: מָר לָא אָמַר הָכִי, וּמַנּוּ רַב יוֹסֵף? הֵיכָא דְּשָׁחַט סִימָן אֶחָד בַּחוּץ וְסִימָן אֶחָד בִּפְנִים – נָמֵי פָּסוּל, שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֵׂה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף בַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
Rabba bar Shimi said to Rava: The Master did not say that this was the crux of the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. And who is the Master? It is Rav Yosef, who says that in a case where one cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard, all agree that the slaughter is not valid and the priest is liable to receive punishment, because he performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering outside the Temple courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar Shimi pushes back: ‘Mar’ — and ‘who is Mar? Rav Yosef’ — did not frame the dispute this way. According to Rav Yosef, even one-siman-outside-and-one-siman-inside is conceded invalid by all parties, since cutting outside is a ‘maaseh chatat ha-of bachutz’ — an act of sin-offering performed outside, which is unambiguously disqualifying. The Reish Lakish/Rabbi Yochanan machloket must therefore live in a tighter case.
Key Terms:
- רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי = Rabba bar Shimi — fifth-generation Babylonian amora, talmid of Rav Yosef
- מָר = Mar — ‘the Master,’ an honorific used here to refer to Rav Yosef
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — חילוק
Rav Yosef: the dispute is about a minority of simanim outside, completion inside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט מִיעוּט סִימָנִין בַּחוּץ וּגְמָרוֹ בִּפְנִים, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – מִיחַיַּיב, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף – לָא מִיחַיַּיב.
English Translation:
They disagree only in a case where one slaughtered the minority of each of the simanim outside the Temple courtyard and completed the slaughter inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as he concludes the slaughter in an appropriate place.
קלאוד על הדף:
Per Rav Yosef, the dispute concerns a more nuanced case: a minority of the simanim was cut outside (not yet a tereifa-creating act), and the slaughter was completed inside the courtyard. According to Rabbi Yochanan (beginning to end), the outside cut already belongs to the act of shechita, so the person is liable for shechutei chutz. According to Reish Lakish (only at the end), the slaughter’s halachic act is fixed at the completion inside, and the prior minority cut outside is halachically inert — so no shechutei chutz liability.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט סִימָנִין = mi’ut simanin — a minority of the simanim, i.e., less than enough to render the animal a tereifa
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — מתיב
Rabbi Zeira objects from Para 4:4 (the red heifer)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָעֲסוּקִין בַּפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וּפוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ בִּמְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from a mishna (Para 4:4): Anyone who is engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer continuously from beginning to end transmits ritual impurity to the garments that he is wearing. And they disqualify the red heifer for use in the rite if they perform any other labor while engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira opens a fresh front of attack. The mishna at Para 4:4 teaches that anyone engaged in the rite of the red heifer ‘from beginning to end’ transmits impurity to garments and can disqualify the heifer by extraneous labor. So far so good — but the mishna’s continuation will appear to favor one side of the Reish Lakish / Rabbi Yochanan dispute.
Key Terms:
- פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה = para aduma — the red heifer of Bamidbar 19, whose ashes purify those defiled by corpse-contact
- פָּרָה ד:ד = Para 4:4 — the mishna in tractate Para detailing who transmits impurity in the heifer’s rite
- רַבִּי זֵירָא = Rabbi Zeira — third-generation amora, native of Bavel who emigrated to Eretz Yisrael
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — ראיה
Para 4:4: disqualification during shechita renders no one impure; during hazaa, some yes, some no
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵירַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, בֵּין קוֹדֶם פְּסוּלָהּ בֵּין לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים; בְּהַזָּאָתָהּ: קוֹדֶם פְּסוּלָהּ – מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים, לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים.
English Translation:
If a disqualification befell the heifer during its slaughter, with regard to all those engaged in the rite of the red heifer, whether they engaged in the rite before the heifer was disqualified or after the heifer was disqualified, the heifer does not render garments that they are wearing impure. Since its slaughter was not valid it is disqualified from being used as a red heifer and therefore does not impart impurity. If it became disqualified at the time of sprinkling the blood of the heifer toward the opening of the Temple, with regard to those who engaged in the rite of the red heifer before it was disqualified, the heifer renders the garments that they are wearing impure. By contrast, with regard to those who handled the animal after it was disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that they are wearing impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Para mishna distinguishes: if disqualification befell the heifer during its shechita, no one who handled it — before or after the disqualification — becomes impure from it (because it was never a kosher para). But if disqualification befell it during the sprinkling (hazaa) of its blood, those who handled it before the disqualification do become impure, and those after do not. The asymmetry between shechita-stage and hazaa-stage will be Rabbi Zeira’s lever.
Key Terms:
- הַזָּאָה = haza’a — the sprinkling of the heifer’s blood toward the Sanctuary
- פְּסוּל = pesul — a disqualification, here, a defect that arose mid-rite
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
Rabbi Zeira: if shechita is ‘from beginning to end,’ the mishna should distinguish within shechita too
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, לִפְלוֹג נָמֵי בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ: אֵירַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה – קוֹדֶם פְּסוּלָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים, לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּגָדִים!
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira elaborates: And if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, let the mishna also distinguish between disqualification at the beginning and at the end of the slaughter: If it became disqualified during slaughter, with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite before it became disqualified, the heifer renders garments that he is wearing impure, and with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite after it became disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that he is wearing impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira’s challenge: if Rabbi Yochanan is right that shechita is accomplished from beginning to end, then within shechita itself, the moment of disqualification should split handlers into ‘before’ and ‘after.’ Those who handled the para before it became disqualified should be made impure by it; those after, not. But Para 4:4 treats shechita as an all-or-nothing affair — no one becomes impure either way. This seems to refute Rabbi Yochanan and support Reish Lakish.
Key Terms:
- (no new technical terms in this segment)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rava: nitkalkela shechita is retroactive nullification, not a mid-act disqualification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: נִתְקַלְקְלָה שְׁחִיטָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִגַּלַּאי מִלְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל.
English Translation:
Rava said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case where the slaughter was invalidated? There it is different, because the matter was revealed retroactively, i.e., it was revealed that it was not a valid slaughter at all. Since at no stage of the slaughter was it valid, the heifer does not render the garments impure at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava resolves: the Para mishna is talking about nitkalkela shechita — a slaughter that was ruined and retroactively revealed never to have been a valid shechita at all. There is no ‘before disqualification’ state to speak of, because once we know retroactively it was no shechita, there was never a moment at which the para was a kosher para. The all-or-nothing treatment doesn’t decide between beginning-to-end and only-at-the-end views; it reflects the special retroactive nature of nitkalkela.
Key Terms:
- נִתְקַלְקְלָה שְׁחִיטָה = nitkalkela shechita — a shechita that was ‘ruined,’ revealed retroactively to have been invalid throughout
- לְמַפְרֵעַ = lemafrea — retroactively; a halachic determination that reaches back to redefine the prior status
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — דברי רבא
Rava’s own challenge to Reish Lakish from a ‘kosher’ two-men case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף, לִפְלוֹג בְּהֶכְשֵׁרַהּ דְּפָרָה, כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁחְטוּהָ בִּתְרֵי גַּבְרֵי, דְּגַבְרָא קַמָּא לָא מְטַמְּאָה, וְגַבְרָא בָּתְרָא מְטַמְּאָה!
English Translation:
Rava said: If any aspect of that mishna is difficult for me it is this that is difficult for me: According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, let the mishna distinguish between two individuals in the preparation of a fit red heifer, even when the heifer was not disqualified. 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises a question of his own — not against the resolution of Para 4:4, but against Reish Lakish’s underlying position. If shechita is fixed only at its end, the Para mishna should distinguish within a valid slaughter performed by two men: the first man (whose cuts precede the ‘moment’ of shechita) should not be made impure by the para, while the second man (who actually completes the act) should be. The fact that the mishna does not draw such a distinction is curious — though it is a problem Rava himself acknowledges.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי גַּבְרֵי = trei gavrei — two men [slaughtering together]
- חַד זִיבְחָא = chad zivcha — one offering [shared between two slaughterers]
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav Yosef: two men slaughtering one offering is itself excluded by ‘tizbach’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תְּרֵי גַּבְרֵי בְּחַד זִיבְחָא קָאָמְרַתְּ? בַּר מִינֵּיהּ דְּהָהוּא דִּתְנֵינָא: ״תִּזְבַּח״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִין זֶבַח אֶחָד, ״תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד שׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי זְבָחִים.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case of two men slaughtering one offering? Raise difficulties except for that, as we learn in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥuhu] that you may be accepted” (Leviticus 19:5), that the term “tizbaḥuhu” can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ] and it [hu]. From the term “You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ],” it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term “You shall offer it [tizbaḥuhu],” it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef pre-empts Rava’s challenge: the two-men-one-offering case never gets off the ground halachically — it is excluded by the derashah of ‘תִּזְבַּח / תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ’ from Vayikra 19:5. ‘Tizbach’ (singular) teaches that two cannot slaughter one offering; ‘tizbachuhu’ teaches that one cannot slaughter two offerings. So Rava’s hypothetical is itself disqualified before any question about timing arises.
Key Terms:
- (no new technical terms in this segment)
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
Rav Kahana: ‘tizbachehu’ is what’s actually written, undercutting the plural reading
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב.
English Translation:
And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term “tizbaḥuhu” is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, it emerges that the phrase “You shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥehu],” in the singular, is written, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana adds the textual subtlety we saw earlier (on 29a): the consonantal text is ‘תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ’ (singular, without the second vav), so the plain reading already supports the one-slaughterer rule. The Masoretic vocalization ‘tizbachuhu’ is what generates the second derashah; the consonants generate the first. Two derashot from one word.
Key Terms:
- (no new technical terms in this segment)
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — תשובה
Abaye’s cliffhanger: Rabbi Yochanan said this derashah is only the view of R. Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָאו אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this halakha that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye delivers a final blow that the daf leaves unfinished. Rabba bar bar Chana cited Rabbi Yochanan: the ‘tizbach/tizbachuhu’ derashah excluding two-men-one-offering is only the view of Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon — not the consensus position. If so, Rav Yosef’s defense (which leaned on that derashah as universal) collapses, and Rava’s challenge re-emerges. The daf ends mid-thought; the resolution continues on 30a.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon — fourth-generation tanna, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai
- רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה = Rabba bar bar Chana — second-generation Babylonian-born amora who emigrated to Eretz Yisrael; major transmitter of Rabbi Yochanan’s teachings