Chullin Daf 30 (חולין דף ל׳)
Daf: 30 | Amudim: 30a – 30b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (30a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — מסקנת המחלוקת
Conclusion of 29b’s debate: the ‘tizbach/tizbachuhu’ derashah is only Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon — the Rabbis say two may slaughter together, so Rava’s challenge from Para revives
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִים זֶבַח אֶחָד.
English Translation:
which is cited unattributed, i.e., it is one of his many opinions that are cited in the Mishna and baraitot without attribution. But the Rabbis say: Two people may slaughter one offering. According to the Rabbis, Rava’s difficulty remains: Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Picking up directly from 29b’s cliffhanger: Abaye reports (via Rabba bar bar Chana / Rabbi Yochanan) that the ‘tizbach/tizbachuhu’ derashah forbidding two slaughterers is the unattributed (סְתִימְתָּאָה) view of Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon — but the Rabbis hold two may indeed slaughter one offering. On the Rabbis’ view, Rav Yosef’s parry from 29b collapses: Rava’s challenge against Reish Lakish (let the Para mishna distinguish a kosher slaughter performed by two men, the first not transmitting impurity and the second yes) returns in full force.
Key Terms:
- סְתִימְתָּאָה = stimta’a — an ‘unattributed’ opinion in the Mishna or baraita, often that of a single tanna whose voice the redactor preserved without naming
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן = Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon — fourth-generation tanna, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא ופירוקא
Parallel challenge against Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon (two sudarim case) — and the final resolution: the Para mishna only addresses disqualification, not validity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נָמֵי לִפְלוֹג כְּגוֹן דִּשְׁחַט חַד גַּבְרָא בִּשְׁנֵי סוּדָרִים, דְּסוּדָר קַמָּא לָא מְטַמֵּא, וְסוּדָר בָּתְרָא מְטַמֵּא. אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּלָא דְּפָרָה קָא מַיְירֵי, בְּהֶכְשֵׁרַהּ לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.
English Translation:
And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two people may not slaughter one offering, let the tanna of the mishna also distinguish and teach a case where one man slaughtered with two cloths on his head, starting the slaughter with one and replacing it with the other midway through the slaughter, as in that case, since halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, the first cloth is not rendered impure but the latter cloth is rendered impure. Rather, one must say that the tanna is speaking only in reference to cases involving the disqualification of the red heifer itself, but he is not speaking in reference to cases involving a fit red heifer, and no proof may be cited from here.
קלאוד על הדף:
A parallel jab is now leveled at Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon himself, who holds two may not jointly slaughter. Then let the Para mishna distinguish a single man slaughtering with two head-cloths (סוּדָרִים) — first cloth on, then swapped midway — so that, under Reish Lakish’s einah-lishchita-ela-basof view, only the second cloth contracts impurity. The fact that the Para mishna draws no such distinction would refute Reish Lakish here too. The Gemara concludes: the Para mishna simply isn’t concerned with hechsherah (validity) of the para — it speaks only of pesula (disqualification). All the challenges built on its silence dissolve at once.
Key Terms:
- סוּדָרִים = sudarim — head-cloths worn while engaging in the para rite; the question is whether the cloth itself contracts the heifer’s impurity
- פְּסוּלָא דְּפָרָה = pesula d’para — the disqualification of the red heifer; the Para mishna’s discussion is restricted to this, not to validity-by-two-people
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — מתיב
Rav Idi bar Avin’s new challenge from Pesachim 63a: chametz-with-pesach liability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: וּבַמּוֹעֵד לִשְׁמוֹ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 63a) to the opinion that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan after noon while he has leaven in his possession, he is flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 23:18). If he slaughtered the animal not for the sake of the Paschal offering, he is exempt from receiving lashes. And if he slaughtered the animal during the festival of Passover for the sake of the Paschal offering with leaven in his possession, he is exempt, because it is a disqualified Paschal offering, as it was slaughtered beyond its appointed time. But if he slaughtered the animal during the Festival not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but rather as a peace offering, he is liable for slaughtering the animal with leaven in his possession.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Idi bar Avin opens a fresh front of attack from the mishna in Pesachim 63a, which concerns ‘לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חָמֵץ דַּם זִבְחִי’ (Shemot 23:18). The mishna distinguishes four cases: on the fourteenth, lishmo with chametz he is flogged; shelo lishmo, exempt. On the festival itself (mo’ed), lishmo he is exempt (the pesach is already disqualified — beyond its time); shelo lishmo, he is liable. The challenge will hinge on the second mo’ed clause.
Key Terms:
- רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין = Rav Idi bar Avin — fourth-generation Babylonian amora
- פֶּסָחִים סג. = Pesachim 63a — the mishna distinguishing slaughter of a pesach ‘lishmo’ vs. ‘shelo lishmo’ on the fourteenth and during the festival
- לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חָמֵץ דַּם זִבְחִי = lo tishchat al chametz dam zivchi — Shemot 23:18, the prohibition against slaughtering a sacrifice while one possesses chametz
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — דיוקא
The Gemara’s reading of the mishna: stama (unspecified intent) yields exemption — meaning the animal retains pesach status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הָא סְתָמָא – פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
And we discussed this matter: The reason he is liable is due to the fact that his intent was to slaughter it not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but had he slaughtered it with unspecified intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically intends otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal offering and is disqualified when sacrificed beyond its appointed time.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara extracts a precise inference from the mishna. Why is the slaughterer exempt only when his intent was shelo lishmo? The implication: had he slaughtered with unspecified intent (סְתָמָא), he would also be exempt — because the animal would retain its status as a Pesach offering and be disqualified by being offered past its time. The shelo-lishmo specification is what shifts the offering to shelamim status, triggering liability.
Key Terms:
- סְתָמָא = stama — unspecified (without explicit declaration of intent); halachic acts performed without specification often default to the offering’s original consecration
- שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ = shelo lishmo — ‘not for its sake’; here, slaughtering the Pesach with explicit intent that it be a different offering
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא — שמע מינה
Conclusion drawn: a Pesach offered in the rest of the year requires explicit revocation (akirah) to become shelamim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמַּאי פָּטוּר? פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And why is he exempt? Doesn’t a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year assume the status of a peace offering, and doesn’t one who slaughters a peace offering during the time when it is prohibited to possess leaven with leaven in his possession also violate the prohibition? Conclude from it that a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year requires explicit revocation of its status; otherwise, it does not assume the status of a peace offering and it remains a disqualified Paschal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: but why is the slaughterer exempt when his intent is unspecified? After all, a Pesach sacrificed during the rest of the year automatically becomes a shelamim — and the chametz prohibition applies equally to shelamim! The only way to explain the mishna’s exemption: a Pesach sacrificed beyond its time does NOT automatically revert to shelamim — it requires explicit עֲקִירָה (uprooting / revocation of its pesach status). Without an explicit redesignation, the animal remains a ‘rejected pesach’ and the chametz prohibition does not attach.
Key Terms:
- עֲקִירָה = akirah — uprooting; an explicit declaration changing an offering’s designation from its original consecration
- פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הוּא = pesach beshe’ar yemot hashana shelamim hu — the principle that a leftover Pesach offering brought outside its time becomes a peace offering
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — חידוד
Rabbi Chiyya bar Gamda’s refinement: ‘requires akirah’ only when bealim were temei metim and pesach is awaiting Pesach Sheni
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא, נִזְרְקָה מִפִּי חֲבוּרָה וְאָמְרוּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעָלִים טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, דְּנִדְחִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, דִּסְתָמָא לִשְׁמוֹ קָאֵי, וְהַאי הוּא דְּבָעֵי עֲקִירָה, הָא אַחֵר לָא בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said: A response emerged from the group of scholars that discussed this matter, and they said: What are we dealing with here? It is with a case where the owners of the Paschal offering were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case, the Torah commands (Numbers 9:10–11) that since they were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the appointed time, the fourteenth of Nisan, they were deferred to the second Pesaḥ, the fourteenth of Iyyar. Since presumably the owner plans to use his Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ, its unspecified slaughter in the interim stands to be offered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and it is that Paschal offering that requires revocation of its status. But other situations of a Paschal offering that is slaughtered beyond its designated time do not require revocation of the animal’s status, and it assumes the status of a peace offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chiyya bar Gamda — citing a conclusion that emerged from a chavura of scholars — refines the principle. The ‘requires akirah’ rule applies only to a specific case: where the owners were ritually impure with corpse-impurity (טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים) on the fourteenth and were deferred to Pesach Sheni (Bamidbar 9:10-11). For such an animal — actively held in reserve as the owner’s future Pesach — stama slaughter still goes ‘leshem pesach’ and revocation is needed. In other cases of a passed-time Pesach, no akirah is needed and it reverts to shelamim automatically.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא = Rabbi Chiyya bar Gamda — a third-century amora of Eretz Yisrael, transmitter of conclusions from scholarly chavurot
- נִזְרְקָה מִפִּי חֲבוּרָה = nizreka mi-pi chavura — ‘cast forth from the mouth of the group’; a conclusion emerging collectively from a group of scholars in discussion
- טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים = temei metim — those ritually impure by reason of contact with a corpse; deferred from Pesach Rishon to Pesach Sheni
- פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי = Pesach Sheni — the ‘second Passover’ on 14 Iyar for those who missed the first
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
The pointed challenge to Reish Lakish: if shechita is only at the end, the start of the cut already ‘rejects’ the animal from Pesach status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ מִתְּחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף – כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, אִידַּךְ כִּי קָא שָׁחֵיט שְׁלָמִים קָא שָׁחֵיט!
English Translation:
Returning to the matter at hand, if a Paschal offering that is designated for use on the second Pesaḥ is slaughtered on Passover while one has leaven in his possession, he is exempt from receiving lashes because it is a disqualified Paschal offering. Granted, if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, the offering is disqualified from the beginning of the slaughter as a Paschal offering slaughtered beyond its appointed time. Therefore, one is exempt from receiving lashes. But if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, why is one exempt if he slaughtered the animal with leaven in his possession? Once he began and cut a bit of the siman, it is rejected from its status as a Paschal offering and can no longer be offered on the second Pesaḥ. Therefore, when he slaughters the other, remaining, portion of the simanim without specification, it is a peace offering that he is slaughtering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Now Rav Idi’s challenge crystallizes. The exempt case is a Pesach Sheni animal slaughtered on Passover with chametz. Granted on Rabbi Yochanan’s view (yeshnah lishchita mi-techila ad sof) — the offering is disqualified as a ‘pesach past its time’ from the very first stroke, so no chametz violation attaches. But on Reish Lakish’s view (einah lishchita ela basof), the moment the slaughterer cuts even פּוּרְתָּא (a tiny bit), the animal is already רֹאשׁ נִדְחֶה (initially rejected) from being usable for Pesach Sheni. So when he then continues cutting without specification, that completion is functionally shelamim-slaughter — and he should be flogged for chametz. Why does the mishna exempt him?
Key Terms:
- פּוּרְתָּא = purta — ‘a little bit’; even a minimal initial cut on Reish Lakish’s view does not yet constitute shechita, yet it already affects the animal’s status
- אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח = idchi leih mi-pesach — ‘rejected from Pesach’; the animal can no longer be offered as the original Pesach designation
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — פירוקא
Abaye’s brilliant defense: even if rejected from being offered, the animal’s monetary value (d’mei pesach) is not rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: נְהִי דְּאִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, מִדְּמֵי פֶסַח מִי אִידְּחִי?
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Even if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, although it was rejected from the possibility of being sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, was it rejected from the possibility of being redeemed and from the possibility of the monetary value of a Paschal offering being used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ? As long as the slaughter is not yet complete, redemption of the animal remains possible. Therefore, unspecified slaughter at that time is for the sake of a Paschal offering and one should be exempt from receiving lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye saves Reish Lakish with an elegant move. Granted, on the einah-lishchita view, the first cut renders the animal unfit to be itself offered on Pesach Sheni. But — Abaye asks — is its monetary value also rejected? The animal can still be redeemed before the slaughter is halachically complete, and its money used to purchase a replacement animal for Pesach Sheni. So ‘pesach money’ (דְּמֵי פֶסַח) remains intact, and stama-slaughter in this interim is still ‘leshem pesach’ (for the sake of the pesach-equivalent purchase). The chametz prohibition therefore does not attach, and the slaughterer is properly exempt.
Key Terms:
- דְּמֵי פֶסַח = d’mei pesach — the monetary value of a Pesach offering; even when the animal itself is disqualified, its value can be redirected to a substitute
- אַבָּיֵי = Abaye — fourth-generation Babylonian amora, head of the Pumbedita academy
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא ופירוקא
Counter: redemption requires ha’amada veha’arakhah (the animal must stand and be appraised) — but a baraita shows that a still-convulsing animal is ‘like alive’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא, בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְהָתְנַן: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַיָּה לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ.
English Translation:
And if you would say that in order to redeem a consecrated item one requires that the animal be placed standing before the priest and it requires valuation (see Leviticus 27:11–12), and once it is slaughtered it is unable to stand, but didn’t we learn in a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, two simanim in the animal or a majority of two simanim, and the animal is still convulsing, its halakhic status is like a living animal in every respect, and it may be redeemed until the convulsing ceases?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a counter to Abaye: redemption of a consecrated animal halachically requires הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה (Vayikra 27:11-12) — the animal must be placed standing before the kohen and appraised. Once it is slaughtered, it cannot stand. So how can Abaye claim that mid-slaughter redemption is feasible? The Gemara answers from a baraita: an animal in which both simanim (or the majority thereof) have been cut but which is still convulsing (מְפַרְכֶּסֶת) is ‘like a living animal in every respect’ (כְּחַיָּה לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ) — and may therefore be redeemed. Abaye’s pesach-money argument stands.
Key Terms:
- הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = ha’amada veha’arakhah — ‘standing and appraisal’; the procedural requirement for redeeming a consecrated animal, derived from Vayikra 27:11-12
- מְפַרְכֶּסֶת = mefarkeset — convulsing; the still-twitching state of a slaughtered animal in which it retains the status of ‘alive’ for various halachic purposes
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא ומחלוקת
New sugya: Rav permits slaughter in two or three places; Shmuel objects — we require shechita meforaat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, וְלֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who cuts a siman in two or three places on the neck, and together the cuts constitute the requisite measure of slaughter, his slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda adds: When I stated this halakha before Shmuel he said to me: We require a clear and obvious slaughter and in the case of cuts in two or three places there is no obvious slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new sugya opens. Rav Yehuda reports in Rav’s name: one who cuts a siman in two or three separate places on the neck — the cuts together amounting to the requisite shiur — has a valid shechita. Rav Yehuda continues: when I repeated this halacha before Shmuel, Shmuel rejected it — בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, וְלֵיכָּא — we require a clearly drawn, obvious slaughter, and piecemeal cuts in multiple places fail that standard. This launches an extended debate about what ‘meforaat’ actually requires.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת = shechita meforaat — a clearly drawn, obvious slaughter; one continuous incision rather than fragments
- רַב יְהוּדָה = Rav Yehuda — second-generation Babylonian amora, founder of the Pumbedita academy and Rav’s foremost student
- שְׁמוּאֵל = Shmuel — second-generation Babylonian amora, Rav’s lifelong colleague-disputant, head of the Nehardea academy
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
Reish Lakish supports Shmuel from ‘chetz shachut leshonam’ (Yirmiyahu 9:7): just as an arrow flies clearly, shechita must be clearly drawn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מִנַּיִן לַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מְפוֹרַעַת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish also holds that we require a clear and obvious slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: From where is it derived that slaughter must be clear and obvious? As it is stated: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow, it speaks deceit; one speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lays wait for him” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow clearly enters one part of the body, so too, the slaughter [sheḥita] must be clear and obvious.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish independently arrives at Shmuel’s position and supplies a scriptural source. From where do we know shechita must be meforaat? ‘חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר’ (Yirmiyahu 9:7) — ‘their tongue is a sharpened/drawn arrow that speaks deceit.’ The word shachut shares a root with shechita. Just as an arrow makes one clear, deliberate entry, so too shechita must be one clear, drawn, deliberate cut. This will become the key derashah of the entire chapter.
Key Terms:
- חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר = chetz shachut leshonam mirma dibber — Yirmiyahu 9:7, ‘their tongue is a sharpened arrow, deceit it speaks’; the proof-text Reish Lakish (and later Shmuel and Bei R’ Yishmael) uses for shechita meforaat
- יִרְמְיָהוּ ט:ז = Yirmiyahu 9:7 — the verse whose word ‘shachut’ (sharpened/drawn) becomes the linguistic anchor for ‘shechita must be drawn’
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — מתיב
Rabbi Elazar objects from the mishna (30b): two grasping a knife, one above and one below — valid! Where is shechita meforaat?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar raises an objection from a mishna (30b): If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. But why is the slaughter valid according to the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? There is no clear and obvious slaughter, as each is cutting a different part of the neck.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar challenges Shmuel and Reish Lakish from the very mishna they are about to learn (on 30b): ‘שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה — שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה’ — even when one cuts at the top of the neck and the other at the bottom (i.e., in two different places), the slaughter is valid. But there’s manifestly no meforaat here — two distinct cuts in different locations!
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר = Rabbi Elazar — Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, third-generation amora of Eretz Yisrael, student and successor of Rabbi Yochanan
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — פירוקא
Rabbi Yirmeya: the mishna means one knife with two people holding its ends — a single diagonal cut
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בְּסַכִּין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Elazar: The mishna is referring to a case with one knife and two people, each holding one end of the knife, resulting in a single diagonal incision from above to below.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya answers: read the mishna as one knife and two people. Each person holds one end of a long blade; together they pull it across the neck, producing a single diagonal cut that runs from above to below. There is, in fact, one continuous incision — meforaat — just executed by two hands rather than one. The ‘one above, one below’ refers to where each person is positioned, not to two separate cuts.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה = Rabbi Yirmeya — fourth-generation amora of Eretz Yisrael, known for sharp dialectical questions
- סַכִּין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם = sakin echad u-shnei benei adam — ‘one knife and two people’; Rabbi Yirmeya’s reading of the mishna
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא
Rabbi Abba challenges from a baraita: ‘we do not worry yitrefu zeh al zeh’ fits two-knives, not one-knife
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּשְׁתֵּי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – שַׁפִּיר, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא סָמְכִי אַהֲדָדֵי, וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: If so, is this what is taught in that regard in a baraita commenting on that mishna: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other? Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of two knives and two people it works out well, lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps each will rely on the other that he will perform the slaughter properly, and neither will this one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim, nor will that one come to execute the cut on the majority of the simanim. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that one need not be concerned.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba objects: if Rabbi Yirmeya is right that the mishna means one knife and two people, why does an accompanying baraita say ‘אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה’ — we don’t worry that they will [each] render the animal a tereifa through the other? That phrasing fits a two-knives scenario: each person might rely on the other and neither would actually cut enough to constitute a majority, rendering the animal a tereifa from incomplete slaughter. But on Rabbi Yirmeya’s reading (one knife, two people), the operative concern would be entirely different.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אַבָּא = Rabbi Abba — fourth-generation Eretz Yisrael amora, pupil of Rav Huna
- יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה = yitrefu zeh al zeh — ‘each will render it a tereifa through the other’; the baraita’s phrasing favors a two-knives-two-people scenario
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — שקלא וטריא
Rabbi Abba’s continuation: if the mishna meant one knife, the baraita should have said ‘yidresu’ (press), not ‘yitrefu’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּסַכִּין אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, הַאי ״אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ – ״שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
But if you say that the mishna is referring to a case of one knife and two people, that statement in the baraita should not have said: One need not be concerned that perhaps each will render the animal a tereifa due to the other; it should have said: One need not be concerned that because one is pulling in one direction and one is pulling in the other, perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife and thereby invalidate the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba sharpens his point. If the mishna is about one knife and two people, the real concern would be that one person, by pulling against the other’s grip, would cause the knife to press (דְּרִיסָה) rather than draw — which would itself invalidate the shechita. The baraita should have warned ‘אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה’ (we don’t worry that they will press through each other), not ‘yitrefu zeh al zeh’ (render a tereifa through each other). The baraita’s actual wording presupposes two knives.
Key Terms:
- דְּרִיסָה = derisa — pressing the knife (instead of drawing it); one of the five fundamental disqualifications of shechita
- יִדְרוֹסוּ = yidresu — ‘they will press [together]’; the verb that would fit a one-knife-two-people concern
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — תני
Rabbi Avin’s textual emendation: read the baraita as ‘shema yidresu zeh al zeh’ (continues to 30b)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אָבִין, תְּנִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין
English Translation:
Rabbi Avin said to him: Teach: One need not be concerned
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Avin resolves the standoff with a textual emendation. Read the baraita not as ‘yitrefu’ but as ‘יִדְרוֹסוּ’ — emend the wording. The clause we should be reading is ‘אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה’ — ‘we don’t worry that each will cause the other to press the knife.’ On that reading, Rabbi Yirmeya’s one-knife-two-people reconstruction stands. The completion of the phrase appears on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אָבִין = Rabbi Avin — fourth-generation Eretz Yisrael amora, often involved in textual-emendation moves
- תְּנִי = teni — ‘teach’ (emend); a technical term for proposing a textual emendation to a tannaitic source
Amud Bet (30b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — המשך
Completion of Rabbi Avin’s emendation: ‘shema yidresu zeh al zeh’ — that each will cause the other to press the knife
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה.
English Translation:
that perhaps each will cause the other to press the knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
Amud bet opens by completing the phrase Rabbi Avin began on 30a: ‘שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה’ — ‘lest they press the knife on each other.’ With the emended reading in place, the baraita coheres with Rabbi Yirmeya’s one-knife-two-people interpretation of the mishna. Shmuel and Reish Lakish’s meforaat principle stands; the mishna remains compatible with it.
Key Terms:
- (no new technical terms in this segment)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — מתיב
Rabbi Avin himself raises a new objection: the baraita validating cuts of veshet below and kaneh above (or vice versa) lacks meforaat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אָבִין: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט לְמַטָּה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה, אוֹ אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט לְמַעְלָה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!
English Translation:
Rabbi Avin raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, the gullet below on the neck and the windpipe above on the neck, or cut the gullet above on the neck and the windpipe below on the neck, his slaughter is valid. Based on this, Rabbi Avin asks: Why is the slaughter valid? But in that case there is no clear and obvious slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Avin now produces a second baraita that seems to threaten the meforaat principle: ‘שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט לְמַטָּה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה, אוֹ אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט לְמַעְלָה וְאֶת הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה — שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה’ — cutting the gullet lower on the neck and the windpipe higher (or vice versa) is valid. Two different vertical levels — no continuous, single-line cut. Why is this valid if we demand meforaat?
Key Terms:
- וֶשֶׁט = veshet — the gullet (esophagus), one of the two simanim of shechita
- קָנֶה = kaneh — the windpipe (trachea), the other siman
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — פירוקא
Rabbi Avin himself resolves: the baraita describes a diagonal cut shaped like a writing-reed (kekulmos)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ, וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: בִּשְׁחִיטָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה כְּקוּלְמוֹס.
English Translation:
He raises the objection and he resolves it. This baraita is not referring to cuts on two places on the neck; rather, it is referring to slaughter performed on a diagonal, like the point of a reed [kekulmos] fashioned into a writing utensil. The slaughterer begins cutting from the top of one siman and cuts diagonally downward so that when he reaches the second siman, the knife is lower down.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Avin answers his own question. The baraita is not describing two separate cuts at two different vertical levels — it is describing a single diagonal slash that begins at the top of the neck on one siman and travels diagonally downward across to the other siman at a lower point. The cut is shaped כְּקוּלְמוֹס (like the tip of a writing reed), tapering diagonally. That is fully meforaat — a single continuous draw — even though the gullet and windpipe were severed at different heights.
Key Terms:
- כְּקוּלְמוֹס = kekulmos — ‘like a [writing] reed’; the diagonal taper of a scribe’s quill, here describing the shape of a single diagonal cut
- הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ = hu motiv lah ve-hu mefarek lah — ‘he raises the objection and he resolves it’; a Talmudic formula for one sage offering both a challenge and its answer
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — מעשה
A practical case: a bull slaughtered in 2-3 places — Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta takes choice meat, demonstrating validity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דְּאִישְּׁחַט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, עָל רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא שְׁקַל מִשׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בִּשְׁנֵי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain bull that was slaughtered with cuts in two or three places in the simanim on its neck. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta entered the store and took a cut of meat from the highest quality parts of the animal, thereby demonstrating that the slaughter was valid. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Our rabbi, you have taught us through your actions that the mishna: If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even one above and one below, is referring even to a case of two knives and two people who are each cutting the simanim at a different part of the neck with their knives.
קלאוד על הדף:
A historical incident is brought. A bull was slaughtered with cuts in two or three separate places on its simanim. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta walked into the butcher shop and demonstratively took מִשּׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי — from the choicest cuts — eating from the meat publicly. Rabbi Zeira understood this as a halachic ruling-by-action: ‘You have taught us, our master, that our mishna (two grasping a knife, one above and one below) refers even to two knives and two people’ — overruling Rabbi Yirmeya’s restrictive reading and rejecting Shmuel/Reish Lakish’s meforaat strictness in this scenario.
Key Terms:
- רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא = Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta — third-generation Babylonian amora, student of Rav
- מִשּׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי = mi-shufrei shufrei — ‘from the choicest of the choice’; eating the best portions of an animal as a public demonstration of its kosher status
- רַבִּי זֵירָא = Rabbi Zeira — third-generation amora, born in Bavel, emigrated to Eretz Yisrael
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
New sugya: Rav on chalada (concealment of the knife) — between simanim invalid, under hide valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן וּפְסָקוֹ – פְּסוּלָה, תַּחַת הָעוֹר – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife in the neck between one siman and the other siman, i.e., he inserted the knife between the windpipe and the gullet, and he severed the gullet first and then removed the knife and cut the windpipe, the slaughter is not valid. If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim, the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda transmits another of Rav’s rulings. הֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין — if one concealed the knife inside the neck, slipping it between the two simanim and cutting the gullet from underneath (then withdrawing and cutting the windpipe) — the shechita is פְּסוּלָה (invalid). But if he concealed the knife under the hide (סוּב the עוֹר), the shechita is valid. This launches the sugya on chalada, one of the canonical five hilchot shechita (shehiya, derasa, chalada, hagrama, ikkur).
Key Terms:
- חֲלָדָה = chalada — concealment of the knife during shechita; one of the five fundamental defects that disqualify the slaughter
- בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן = bein siman le-siman — ‘between siman and siman’; inserting the knife between the gullet and windpipe and cutting one from underneath
- תַּחַת הָעוֹר = tachat ha’or — ‘beneath the hide’; concealing the knife under the skin but outside the simanim themselves
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — שאלה
What does Rav add? The mishna on 32a already teaches chalada (Rabbi Yeshevav: neveila; Rabbi Akiva: tereifa)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ – רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר: נְבֵלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is Rav teaching us? We already learn this halakha explicitly in a mishna (32a): Or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity. Both agree that the slaughter is not valid in the sense that it does not permit the consumption of the meat of the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: why does Rav need to teach the chalada rule? We already learn it explicitly in a mishna (32a): if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman, then cut it — Rabbi Yeshevav says נְבֵילָה (an unslaughtered carcass, transmitting impurity), Rabbi Akiva says טְרֵפָה (forbidden but non-impure). Both agree the slaughter is invalid. So what novelty does Rav contribute?
Key Terms:
- נְבֵילָה = neveila — an animal that died or was improperly slaughtered without valid shechita; conveys ritual impurity
- טְרֵפָה = tereifa — an animal with a Torah-prohibited defect; forbidden to eat but does not convey impurity
- רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב = Rabbi Yeshevav — second-generation tanna
- רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא = Rabbi Akiva — second-generation tanna, one of the central figures of the Mishnaic period
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ
Rav’s novelty: even when chalada is performed ‘from above to below’ (the standard direction of shechita), it is still invalid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, דְּלָא קָעָבֵיד כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה, דְּקָעָבֵיד כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה – אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If this halakha is learned from the mishna alone, I would say that this statement applies only in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the gullet and cuts it from below to above, i.e., from the nape to the front of the neck, because he did not perform the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter. But if he cut the gullet from above to below, i.e., from the front of the neck to the nape, since he performed the slaughter in the standard manner of slaughter, say that the slaughter is valid. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to any case where one conceals the knife during slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers: from the mishna alone we might have thought chalada is invalid only when performed מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה (from below upward — the unusual direction, against the standard manner of shechita). But if the slaughterer concealed the knife and yet cut from above to below — the standard direction — we might have permitted it as ‘derech shechita.’ Rav teaches us that chalada is invalid in all cases, regardless of cutting direction. The defect is the concealment itself, not the directionality.
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה = derech shechita — ‘the manner of slaughter’; cutting from the front of the neck downward, the standard halachic orientation
- מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה = mi-lematah le-ma’alah — ‘from below upward’; cutting from the nape toward the front, the non-standard direction
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — חילוק בגרסה
An alternate version: the school of Rav (Bei Rav) was uncertain about chalada under the hide — ‘eini yodea’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּחַת הָעוֹר – כְּשֵׁרָה, בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי: תַּחַת הָעוֹר – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the second part of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one concealed the knife beneath the hide of the neck and then he cut both simanim in the standard manner the slaughter is valid. The school of Rav say that Rav says that in a case where one conceals the knife beneath the hide and cuts the simanim of the animal, I do not know whether the slaughter is valid, or whether it is not valid because he concealed the knife during the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara registers a textual variant on the second half of Rav’s ruling. While Rav Yehuda quoted Rav as saying ‘תַּחַת הָעוֹר — כְּשֵׁרָה’ (under the hide is valid), בֵּי רַב — the school of Rav — preserve a different transmission: Rav actually said ‘תַּחַת הָעוֹר — אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ’ (under the hide — I do not know). On this version Rav was uncertain whether even sub-hide concealment qualifies as chalada or not. The status under the hide is thus contested.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי רַב = bei Rav — ‘the school of Rav’; the disciples of Rav who preserved variant traditions of his rulings
- אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ = eini yodea — ‘I do not know’; an acknowledgment of irreducible halachic uncertainty
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — איבעיא — תיקו
Two unresolved questions (teiku): chalada under a cloth (matlait) — under tangled wool (tzemer mesubach)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לְבֵי רַב, דְּאָמְרִי: תַּחַת הָעוֹר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, תַּחַת מַטְלֵית מַהוּ? תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסוּבָּךְ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of the school of Rav, who say: Beneath the hide, I do not know, if one concealed the knife beneath a cloth that is around the animal’s neck, what is the halakha? If one concealed the knife beneath tangled wool on the neck of a sheep, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Building on Bei Rav’s uncertainty, the Gemara raises two further dilemmas. If, according to Bei Rav, even sub-hide concealment is doubtful, what about other physical barriers? אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ — if one concealed the knife תַּחַת מַטְלֵית (beneath a cloth tied around the animal’s neck), is that chalada or not? תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסוּבָּךְ (beneath tangled wool on a sheep’s neck), is that chalada? The Gemara concludes both questions תֵּיקוּ — they remain unresolved.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = iyba’aya lehu — ‘it was asked of them’; the formula introducing a Talmudic dilemma
- מַטְלֵית = matlait — a cloth, here one tied around the animal’s neck obstructing visibility of the knife
- צֶמֶר מְסוּבָּךְ = tzemer mesubach — tangled wool, here on a sheep’s neck
- תֵּיקוּ = teiku — the Talmud’s marker for an unresolved dilemma (traditionally read as the acronym ‘Tishbi yetaretz kushyot uba’ayot’ — the prophet Elijah will resolve all difficulties)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — איבעיא — תיקו
Rav Pappa’s dilemma: chalada that affects only the minority of the simanim — unresolved (teiku)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: הֶחְלִיד בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one concealed the knife in cutting the minority of the simanim and cut the majority of the simanim in the standard manner, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa adds a sharper variation. הֶחְלִיד בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ — what is the status if the chalada (concealment) occurred only during the cutting of the minority of the simanim, while the majority — the halachically operative portion — was cut in the standard, open manner? Does the defect of chalada attach to any part of the shechita, even one not legally constitutive of the act? Or only when the operative majority is itself compromised? תֵּיקוּ.
Key Terms:
- רַב פָּפָּא = Rav Pappa — fifth-generation Babylonian amora, founder of the academy at Naresh
- מִיעוּט סִימָנִים = mi’ut simanim — the minority of the simanim; the portion of the cut that is not halachically constitutive of valid shechita
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה — פתיחה
New mishna opens: two heads simultaneously, two-people-one-knife, decapitation in one stroke (invalid), and the threshold case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִים, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד לְמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת – פְּסוּלָה. הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid. If one decapitated the animal in one motion and did not slaughter the animal in the standard manner of drawing the knife back and forth, the slaughter is not valid. In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal’s entire neck, the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna of perek ‘shenayim ochzin ba-sakin’ opens. הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד — slaughtering two animals’ heads at the same time is valid. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִים — two people holding a knife, even one above and one below, valid. הִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת — but if he decapitated the head in a single chopping motion (without the drawing of shechita), פְּסוּלָה. The marginal case: if he was performing standard shechita and then accidentally decapitated in mid-cut, the shechita is valid if the knife has the breadth of the entire neck (so the decapitation was achieved as part of a single drawn motion).
Key Terms:
- הִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ = hitiz et ha-rosh — ‘he chopped off the head’; decapitation in a single stroke without the drawing motion
- בְּבַת אַחַת = bevat achat — ‘all at once’; a single chopping motion as opposed to drawing back and forth
- מְלֹא צַוָּאר = melo tzavar — ‘a neck-width’; the minimum knife-length permitting decapitation-in-stroke to count as part of valid shechita
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה — המשך
Mishna continued: two-heads-one-stroke requires only one neck-width — but if holich-and-hevi (back-and-forth), any knife works, even a scalpel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא, אוֹ הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ, אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, אֲפִילּוּ בְּאִיזְמֵל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals, the slaughter is valid. In what case is this statement, that one must be concerned about the length of the knife, said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back; but if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel [be’izemel], the slaughter is valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s second clause extends the principle. If one was slaughtering two animals at once and accidentally decapitated both in one stroke, the slaughter is valid if the knife’s length equals the breadth of one neck — because the two animals are pressed together and a single neck-width suffices to draw across them as one. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — when does this knife-length concern apply? Only when the slaughterer performed הוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא, or הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ (one-direction motion). But if he performed הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא (back-and-forth drawing) — even with any-size knife, even an אִיזְמֵל (a small scalpel/lancet) — the shechita is valid. The decisive criterion is the drawing (umashach), not the size.
Key Terms:
- הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא = holich ve-hevi — ‘drew forward and drew back’; the back-and-forth motion that defines proper shechita-drawing
- אִיזְמֵל = izmel — a small scalpel or lancet, a tiny blade; valid even for shechita provided holich-vehevi is used
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
Gemara: from where do we derive that hitazat ha-rosh is invalid? Shmuel from ‘chetz shachut leshonam’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna stated: If one decapitated the animal in one motion, the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow, it speaks deceit” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow is propelled by drawing back the bowstring, so too, slaughter [sheḥita] must be performed by drawing the knife across the animal’s neck and not by pressing the knife or striking the neck with the knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s invalidation of decapitation-in-one-stroke. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי — from what source? Shmuel: from Yirmiyahu 9:7 — ‘חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר.’ Just as an arrow flies by being drawn back along the bowstring (its motion is one of drawing), so too shechita must be performed by drawing the knife — not by pressing or chopping. Decapitation in one stroke is precisely the kind of pressing-and-cleaving that the verse rules out. Shmuel here reuses the same proof-text Reish Lakish invoked earlier for shechita meforaat.
Key Terms:
- מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי = menahanei milei — ‘from where do these matters [derive]’; the standard formula introducing a search for scriptural source
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
School of Rabbi Yishmael: ‘veshachat’ = ‘umashach’ (drew); supported by ‘zahav shachut’ and ‘chetz shachut’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁחַט״ – אֵין ״וְשָׁחַט״ אֶלָּא וּמָשַׁךְ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״זָהָב שָׁחוּט״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.
English Translation:
Likewise, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat] the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5). The term “veshaḥat” means nothing other than: And he shall draw the knife across the neck of the animal. And similarly, the verse states: “And King Solomon made two hundred targets of drawn [shaḥut] gold” (I Kings 10:16), meaning gold that is smoothed in the manner of goldsmiths. And the verse states: “Their tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaks deceit” (Jeremiah 9:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael adds a parallel derashah. The Torah’s verb וְשָׁחַט (Vayikra 1:5) — ‘he shall slaughter’ — should be read as וּמָשַׁךְ — ‘and he drew.’ Two supporting verses are adduced: זָהָב שָׁחוּט (I Melachim 10:16) — the ‘drawn gold’ of Shlomo’s targets, gold smoothed by drawing in the goldsmith’s manner — and ‘חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם’ (the arrow verse again). Each verse uses shachut in the sense of ‘drawn,’ establishing that the lexical root of shechita means ‘to draw.’ The drawn motion is therefore intrinsic to the act of shechita, not merely a manner of performing it.
Key Terms:
- דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = d’vei Rabbi Yishmael — ‘the school of Rabbi Yishmael’; the tannaitic study circle producing many midrashic derivations
- וְשָׁחַט = ve-shachat — ‘and he shall slaughter,’ Vayikra 1:5; read as ‘and he drew’
- זָהָב שָׁחוּט = zahav shachut — ‘drawn gold,’ I Melachim 10:16; used as evidence that shachut means ‘drawn-smooth’
- וּמָשַׁךְ = u-mashach — ‘and he drew’; the substitute reading of ve-shachat establishing draw-motion as the act’s essence
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — שקלא וטריא
Why both verses? Because ‘zahav shachut’ might mean ‘spun like thread’ (keḥut), so the arrow verse confirms ‘drawn’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא ״זָהָב שָׁחוּט״ שֶׁנִּטְוֶוה כְּחוּט הוּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the term “drawn [shaḥut] gold” means that the gold was spun like soft thread [keḥut], come and hear: “Their tongue is a sharpened [shaḥut] arrow.” In this verse, shaḥut means drawn like the bowstring that propels an arrow, and is not a reference to thread.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why the school of Rabbi Yishmael needed to cite two supporting verses. The answer: one might have thought זָהָב שָׁחוּט means ‘spun thin like a thread’ (כְּחוּט — a soft-thread reading), not ‘drawn.’ So the second verse — חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם — is needed to nail down the meaning: an arrow propelled by a bowstring is unambiguously ‘drawn,’ not ‘spun.’ The composite derashah is therefore secure: shechita requires drawing.
Key Terms:
- כְּחוּט = ke-chut — ‘like a thread’; the rejected reading of zahav shachut that the arrow verse forecloses
- וְאוֹמֵר = ve-omer — ‘and the verse states’; the technical formula introducing a confirming proof-text in tannaitic midrash
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — מעשה
Rava examines arrows for Rabbi Yona bar Tachlifa, shoots a bird in flight, slaughtering it — but wasn’t there chalada? (Cliffhanger)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא הֲוָה בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ גִּירָא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, וְשָׁחַט בֵּהּ עוֹפָא בַּהֲדֵי דְּפָרַח. וְדִילְמָא עָבִיד חֲלָדָה? חֲזִינַן
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rava would examine the arrow for Rabbi Yona bar Taḥlifa to ensure that there were no notches in it. And Rava shot the arrow and slaughtered a bird with it as it was flying. The Gemara challenges: And perhaps when the arrow cut the bird’s neck it performed an inverted slaughter, with the arrow concealed in the neck, and cut the simanim from back to front. The Gemara responds: We see
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes with a striking narrative. Rava would inspect arrows (גִּירָא) for Rabbi Yona bar Tachlifa, ensuring they were free of nicks — i.e., kosher as a shechita instrument. Rava then shot one such arrow and slaughtered a flying bird mid-flight. The Gemara raises a sharp halachic problem: וְדִילְמָא עָבִיד חֲלָדָה — perhaps the arrow, as it pierced the bird’s neck, performed chalada? The flesh of the bird would have closed over the arrow as it passed, effectively concealing it inside the neck — the very disqualification we just discussed. The Gemara begins to answer: חֲזִינַן — ‘we see’… but the resolution is deferred to 31a. A vivid cliffhanger combining the chalada sugya with the new mishna’s drawing-not-pressing principle.
Key Terms:
- רָבָא = Rava — fourth-generation Babylonian amora, head of the Machoza academy; lifelong colleague-disputant of Abaye
- גִּירָא = gira — an arrow; here, an arrow examined as a kosher slaughter implement (sufficiently sharp, no nicks)
- רַבִּי יוֹנָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא = Rabbi Yona bar Tachlifa — fourth-generation Babylonian amora, contemporary of Rava
- עָבִיד חֲלָדָה = avid chalada — ‘performed chalada’; the worry that the arrow piercing the neck concealed itself in the flesh