Chullin Daf 32 (חולין דף ל״ב)
Daf: 32 | Amudim: 32a – 32b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (32a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The continuation of Rava’s red heifer ruling, applying the Rabbi Natan–Rabbis dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ, לְרַבִּי נָתָן – פָּרָה פְּסוּלָה בְּהֵמָה כְּשֵׁרָה, לְרַבָּנַן – פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּהֵמָה פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
But if another animal was inadvertently slaughtered together with the red heifer in the same action, according to Rabbi Natan, who holds that the slaughter of non-sacred animals without intent is valid, the red heifer is disqualified, because an additional labor was performed with its slaughter, and the other animal is fit for consumption, as its slaughter was valid. According to the Rabbis, who hold that slaughter of non-sacred animals without intent is not considered slaughter, the red heifer is fit for use in the purification rite because no other labor was performed with its slaughter, and the other animal is unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues Rava’s discussion from daf 31b. Where the previous daf ruled that deliberately slaughtering a second animal alongside the red heifer disqualifies the heifer, here Rava addresses the case where the second animal was slaughtered inadvertently. The outcome now splits along the daf 31 dispute about intent: Rabbi Natan, who validates slaughter without intent, considers the second slaughter a genuine “extra labor” (melakha) that disqualifies the heifer — while leaving the other animal kosher. The Rabbis, who require intent, hold the opposite — the inadvertent act is no melakha, so the heifer remains fit, but the other animal, slaughtered without intent, is unfit.
Key Terms:
- פָּרָה (para) = the red heifer (para aduma), whose preparation is disqualified by performing any other labor during it
- מְלָאכָה (melakha) = labor — any extraneous work performed alongside the heifer’s slaughter disqualifies it
- נְבֵלָה / כְּשֵׁרָה (neveila / kesheira) = unfit carcass / fit (valid)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Why Rava’s ruling is not self-evident — a possible verse-based exclusion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לְרַבִּי נָתָן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה דְּחוּלִּין אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why did Rava have to teach that? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rava to teach the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan in the case where another animal was inadvertently slaughtered in the same action with the red heifer. It may enter your mind to say: The Merciful One states with regard to the slaughter of the red heifer: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest…and he shall slaughter it before him” (Numbers 19:3), from which it is inferred: One may slaughter it, but not it and another animal simultaneously. And what are the circumstances of that prohibition? It is a case where one slaughtered two red heifers at the same time. But in a case where one slaughtered a red heifer together with a non-sacred animal, say no, that it does not disqualify the red heifer. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even slaughter with a non-sacred animal disqualifies the red heifer.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why Rava needed to state this ruling at all — it seems obvious. The answer: the ruling for Rabbi Natan’s view is genuinely novel. One might have argued from the verse “ve’shachat otah” (“and he shall slaughter it”) that the disqualification of a simultaneous slaughter applies only to slaughtering two red heifers together, since the verse speaks of the heifer specifically — but a non-sacred animal slaughtered alongside might not count. Rava teaches that this is wrong: even slaughtering a non-sacred animal together with the heifer disqualifies it, because for Rabbi Natan that slaughter is a real act and hence a disqualifying melakha.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא (peshita) = “it is obvious” — an objection that a teaching adds nothing new
- ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ״ (ve’shachat otah) = “and he shall slaughter it” (Numbers 19:3) — the verse governing the red heifer’s slaughter
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן (ka mashma lan) = “it teaches us” — identifying the novel point of the ruling
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rava extends the ruling to a non-slaughter act: cutting a gourd.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָתַךְ דַּלַּעַת עִמָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, נֶחְתְּכָה דַּלַּעַת עִמָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
Rava adds: If one slaughtered a red heifer and in the same action cut a gourd together with it, everyone agrees that the red heifer is disqualified. If one slaughtered a red heifer and a gourd was inadvertently cut together with it in the same action, everyone agrees that the red heifer is fit for use in the purification rite, as that is not labor that disqualifies a red heifer and it is also not excluded by the derivation from the verse “And he shall slaughter it.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava completes the picture with a non-animal case: cutting a gourd. Here, unlike the two-animal case, everyone agrees on both outcomes, because the intent dispute is irrelevant — a gourd is not subject to “slaughter.” If one deliberately cut a gourd while slaughtering the heifer, all agree the heifer is disqualified: deliberate cutting is unquestionably an extra labor. If the gourd was cut inadvertently, all agree the heifer is fit: an inadvertent gourd-cut is neither a melakha nor excluded by the verse. The gourd thus serves as the “clean” case that isolates the intent variable to slaughter alone.
Key Terms:
- דַּלַּעַת (dalaat) = a gourd — a non-animal item, not subject to the laws of slaughter
- חָתַךְ / נֶחְתְּכָה (chatach / nechtecha) = he cut (deliberately) / it was cut (inadvertently)
- דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל (divrei hakol) = “according to all opinions” — a point of unanimous agreement
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: an interruption (shehiya) in the middle of slaughter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ נָפְלָה סַכִּין וְהִגְבִּיהָהּ, נָפְלוּ כֵּלָיו וְהִגְבִּיהָן, הִשְׁחִיז אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְעָף, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁחַט, אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה – פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If, when one was in the middle of slaughtering an animal, the knife fell and he lifted it and then completed the slaughter, or if his garments fell and he lifted them and then completed the slaughter, or if he had honed the knife and grew weary before completing the slaughter and another came and slaughtered the animal, if he interrupted the slaughter in one of these ways or in a different way for an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna introduces the disqualification of shehiya — pausing in the middle of slaughter. Valid shechita must be a continuous act; if the slaughterer stops partway through (because the knife fell, his garments fell, he paused to sharpen the knife, or grew tired and a colleague took over) and the pause lasts “the duration of a slaughter,” the slaughter is invalid. Rabbi Shimon offers a shorter, stricter benchmark — the time it takes to examine the knife. The Gemara will spend the next segments debating exactly how long each of these measures is.
Key Terms:
- שְׁהִיָּה (shehiya) = an interruption or pause in the midst of slaughter, which can invalidate it
- כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה (kedei shechita) = “the duration of a slaughter” — the first tanna’s measure for a disqualifying pause
- כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר (kedei bikkur) = “the duration of an examination” — Rabbi Shimon’s shorter measure
- הִשְׁחִיז (hishchiz) = honed/sharpened the knife
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rav defines the mishna’s measure: the duration of slaughtering another animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter? Rav said: It means an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another animal, not the duration required to complete the act of slaughter that was interrupted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks how to measure “the duration of a slaughter.” Rav clarifies: it is not the time needed to finish this slaughter, but the time it would take to slaughter another animal from start to end. The distinction matters because the interrupted slaughter may be nearly complete, whereas the benchmark must be a fixed, standardized duration — the full slaughter of a fresh animal.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת (kedei shechitat beheima acheret) = the duration of slaughtering another animal — Rav’s fixed benchmark
Segment 6
TYPE: שאלה
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask Rav whether the measure differs for birds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְעוֹף לְעוֹף, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַף בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף?
English Translation:
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is the interruption that invalidates the slaughter an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another animal for an animal, i.e., in a case where an animal was being slaughtered, and an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another bird for a bird? Or perhaps it is an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of an animal even for a bird, and if the interruption is any shorter it does not invalidate the slaughter?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi press Rav on the details. Since a bird is smaller and faster to slaughter than an animal, does the benchmark scale with the creature being slaughtered — an animal’s-slaughter duration for an animal, a bird’s-slaughter duration for a bird? Or is the benchmark always the (longer) duration of an animal’s slaughter, even when a bird is involved — meaning a bird’s slaughter could tolerate a longer pause? The practical stakes are real: which measure is used directly determines whether a paused bird-slaughter is kosher.
Key Terms:
- עוֹף (of) = a bird — slaughtered faster than an animal, so its benchmark is potentially shorter
- בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף (beheima le’of) = “an animal[‘s duration] for a bird” — applying the longer animal-benchmark even to bird slaughter
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rav’s candid reply: he never resolved the question with Rabbi Ḥiyya.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא הֲוָה בְּדִיחְנָא בֵּיהּ בְּחַבִּיבִי, דֶּאֱישַׁיְּילֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav said to them: When we studied this topic I did not feel sufficiently intimate with my beloved uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, such that I could ask him that question. Rav was able only to transmit that which he heard from Rabbi Ḥiyya, but was unable to resolve their dilemma.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav gives a humanly candid answer: he simply does not know. He explains that he received this teaching from his uncle and teacher Rabbi Ḥiyya, but at the time he did not feel close enough — or relaxed enough — to ask him this follow-up question. Rav could faithfully transmit the tradition but could not resolve its ambiguity. The remark is a touching window into the master-disciple relationship and into the honest limits of transmitted tradition.
Key Terms:
- חַבִּיבִי (chavivi) = “my beloved one” — Rav’s affectionate term for his uncle and teacher Rabbi Ḥiyya
- לָא הֲוָה בְּדִיחְנָא (la hava bedichna) = “I was not [sufficiently] at ease/intimate” — i.e., he hadn’t the closeness to press the question
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
The dilemma becomes a recorded amoraic dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְעוֹף לְעוֹף, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף, וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף.
English Translation:
It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. Rav said: An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another animal for an animal, and an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another bird for a bird. And Shmuel said: An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of an animal even for a bird. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of an animal even for a bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
The question Rav left open is now resolved into a formal amoraic dispute. Rav himself holds the scaled view — an animal’s-slaughter duration for an animal, a bird’s for a bird. Shmuel rules the benchmark is always an animal’s-slaughter duration, even for a bird (the more lenient view for bird slaughter, since it tolerates a longer pause). Ravin reports that Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Shmuel. The convergence of Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan against Rav is significant for the practical halakha.
Key Terms:
- אִתְּמַר (itmar) = “it was stated” — introduces a recorded amoraic dispute
- כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין (ki ata Ravin) = “when Ravin came” — Ravin transmitted Eretz Yisrael teachings to Babylonia
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Ḥananya’s broader measure, and an objection that it is too variable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיא בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת וְיִשְׁחוֹט. יָבִיא אֲפִילּוּ מֵעָלְמָא? נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין!
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥananya said: An interval equivalent to the period in which one can bring another animal and slaughter it. The Gemara asks: Does that mean the time in which one can bring an animal even from anywhere else, regardless of the distance? Occasionally, there is no animal available in close proximity. If so, you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances; it does not apply uniformly to all cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ḥananya offers a longer benchmark: the duration of bringing another animal and then slaughtering it — including fetching time. The Gemara objects that this is too elastic: animals may be near or far, so the measure would vary by circumstance. A halakhic shiur (a defined measure) must be uniform and fixed, not “subject to circumstances” (latin lashiurin). This objection is resolved in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא (Rabbi Ḥananya) = the amora who measures the pause by the time to fetch and slaughter another animal
- נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין (natata devarecha lashiurin) = “you have made your words subject to varying measures” — a standard objection against an imprecise, circumstance-dependent benchmark
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Pappa clarifies the practical difference between the opinions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: עוֹמֶדֶת לְהַטִּיל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya and that of the other Sages is in a case where there is an animal standing before the slaughterer and it is necessary to cast it to the ground in order to slaughter it. Even Rabbi Ḥananya disregards the time required to bring the animal from elsewhere. But Rabbi Ḥananya holds that the slaughter is invalidated only if the interruption lasts an interval equivalent to the duration of the act of casting the animal to the ground and slaughtering it. The Rabbis invalidate the slaughter even if an interval has elapsed that is equivalent to the duration of the act of slaughtering the animal, without casting it to the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa rescues Rabbi Ḥananya from the objection. Rabbi Ḥananya did not mean fetching time from a distance — even he ignores that. The real point of difference (ikka beinaihu) is an animal already standing nearby that still needs to be cast down. Rabbi Ḥananya includes the time to throw it down plus slaughter; the other Sages count only the slaughter time itself. So Rabbi Ḥananya’s benchmark is somewhat longer, but it remains a fixed, uniform measure — answering the “subject to circumstances” objection.
Key Terms:
- עוֹמֶדֶת לְהַטִּיל (omedet lehatil) = an animal standing ready, requiring only to be cast to the ground
- אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ (ikka beinaihu) = “there is [a practical difference] between them” — identifying the concrete case in which two opinions diverge
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The Eretz Yisrael opinion of Rabbi Yosei b. Rabbi Ḥanina.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחוֹט, דַּקָּה לְדַקָּה וְגַסָּה לְגַסָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites an additional opinion with regard to the duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter. They said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: The duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter is equivalent to the period in which he can lift the animal from the ground and then lay it back on the ground and slaughter it. The interval is calculated based on the size of the animal in question. The duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter of a small animal is equivalent to the period necessary to lift, lay down, and slaughter a small animal. And the duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter of a large animal is equivalent to the period necessary to lift, lay down, and slaughter a large animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites a further opinion from Eretz Yisrael (“the West”) in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina. His benchmark is the time to lift, lay down, and slaughter the animal — and crucially, it scales with the animal’s size: a small animal’s measure for a small animal, a large animal’s measure for a large one. This is a third, calibrated approach to the same shiur, distinct from both Rav’s and Rabbi Ḥananya’s measures.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַעְרְבָא (bemaarava) = “in the West” — the Talmud’s term for Eretz Yisrael (relative to Babylonia)
- דַּקָּה / גַסָּה (daka / gasa) = a small animal (e.g., sheep or goat) / a large animal (e.g., cattle)
- יַרְבִּיצֶנָּה (yarbitzena) = he lays it down — the act of placing the animal on the ground for slaughter
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rava: a slow slaughter is valid as long as it is continuous.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
§ Rava said: In the case of one who slaughters with a blunt knife, even if the completion of the slaughter lasts the entire day, the slaughter is valid provided there is no interruption in the midst of the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava draws the key distinction underlying the entire shehiya discussion: the disqualification is about pausing, not about slowness. One who slaughters with a dull knife may take all day to finish, and the slaughter is still valid — provided the cutting motion is continuous, never interrupted. What invalidates is a genuine stop (shehiya), not a sluggish but unbroken cut. This principle frames the dilemmas that follow.
Key Terms:
- סַכִּין רָעָה (sakin ra’a) = a poor/blunt knife — one that cuts slowly
- כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ (kol hayom kulo) = “the entire day” — slowness, however extreme, does not disqualify if continuous
Segment 13
TYPE: בעיא
Rava’s dilemma: do multiple short pauses combine?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא: שְׁהִיּוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?
English Translation:
Rava raises a dilemma: If there were several short interruptions during a single act of slaughter, what is the halakha in terms of whether they join together to invalidate the slaughter if the sum of the durations of all the interruptions is greater than the maximum permitted interruption?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises a sharp dilemma about cumulative pauses. If a slaughter contained several short interruptions — each individually below the disqualifying threshold — do they combine (mitztarfin)? If their total exceeds one “duration of a slaughter,” is the slaughter invalid even though no single pause did? This is the classic talmudic question of tziruf: whether separate sub-threshold quantities aggregate into a disqualifying whole.
Key Terms:
- שְׁהִיּוֹת (shehiyot) = multiple interruptions, the plural of shehiya
- מִצְטָרְפוֹת / שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ (mitztarfot / sheyitztarfu) = combine / aggregate together to reach a halakhic threshold
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
An attempt to resolve the dilemma from Rava’s own earlier ruling, rebuffed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִפְשׁוֹט לַהּ מִדִּידֵיהּ! הָתָם בִּדְלָא שְׁהָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And let Rava resolve the dilemma from his own statement, as he permitted an act of slaughter that lasts the entire day, during which there were presumably brief interruptions throughout. Apparently, the interruptions do not join together. The Gemara responds: There, Rava was referring to a case where there was no interruption, as the slaughterer drew the knife back and forth throughout.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tries to resolve Rava’s dilemma from his own all-day-slaughter ruling: surely an all-day slaughter has many tiny pauses, yet Rava validated it — so pauses must not combine. The Gemara rejects this: Rava’s all-day case was specifically one of no interruption at all — the slaughterer kept the knife in continuous back-and-forth motion the whole time, just slowly. That case has no pauses to aggregate, so it cannot resolve the tziruf dilemma, which remains genuinely open.
Key Terms:
- תִּפְשׁוֹט מִדִּידֵיהּ (tifshot mididei) = “resolve it from his own [statement]” — attempting to settle a dilemma from the same sage’s other ruling
- בִּדְלָא שְׁהָה (bidela shaha) = “in a case where he did not pause” — continuous motion, not interrupted slowness
Segment 15
TYPE: בעיא
A further dilemma: pausing after cutting most of the simanim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: שָׁהָה בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִין, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, raises a dilemma: If one cut the majority of the simanim and then interrupted the slaughter before proceeding to cut the minority of the simanim, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna son of Rav Natan raises a related dilemma. Valid shechita requires cutting the majority (rov) of the simanim — once the majority is cut, the slaughter is essentially accomplished. So if the slaughterer paused after already cutting the majority, before completing the remaining minority, does the pause still invalidate? Perhaps once the decisive majority is cut, a later shehiya is harmless. The Gemara leaves this as teiku — unresolved.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט סִימָנִין (mi’ut simanin) = the minority of the simanim — the remaining portion after the majority is cut
- רוֹב (rov) = the majority — the cutting of the majority of the simanim accomplishes valid slaughter
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = the dilemma stands unresolved
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Defining Rabbi Shimon’s shorter measure, “the duration of an examination.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה [כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר]. מַאי כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי בִּיקֻּרוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם. אִם כֵּן, נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין! אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר טַבָּח חָכָם.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination. The Gemara asks: What is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination of the knife by a Sage prior to the slaughter of the animal. The Gemara objects: If so, you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances, as sometimes the Sage is near and sometimes the Sage is far, and the time required for examination varies accordingly. The Gemara responds: Rather, the reference is to an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination performed by a slaughterer who is a Sage. In that case, travel time is not factored in; only the time of the examination itself is considered, and this does not vary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to Rabbi Shimon’s measure in the mishna — “the duration of an examination.” Rabbi Yoḥanan first explains it as the time needed for a Sage to examine the slaughtering knife. The Gemara objects with the same “subject to circumstances” critique: a Sage may be near or far. The resolution: the measure is the time of a knife-examination by a slaughterer who is himself a Sage — so no travel time is involved, only the examination itself, which is a fixed duration. A knife must be checked for any nick before use, so this examination is a familiar, standard act.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר (kedei bikkur) = “the duration of an examination” — Rabbi Shimon’s measure for a disqualifying pause
- בְּדִיקַת הַסַּכִּין (bedikat hasakin) = the examination of the slaughtering knife for nicks before use
- טַבָּח חָכָם (tabach chacham) = a slaughterer who is a Sage — the fixed reference point for the examination’s duration
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: failed slaughters and the neveila/tereifa dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, אוֹ פָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט, אוֹ שָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהִמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ – רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר: נְבֵלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one cut the gullet in the standard manner of slaughter with a back-and-forth movement, and he severed the windpipe not in the standard manner, or if one severed the windpipe and thereafter cut the gullet, or if one cut one of the simanim and waited until the animal died, or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it from below, 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna lists four botched slaughters and asks not whether the animal is forbidden — it clearly is — but what kind of forbidden it is. Rabbi Yeshevav classifies all four as a neveila (an unslaughtered carcass), the more severe status, which imparts ritual impurity by contact and carrying. Rabbi Akiva classifies them as a tereifa, forbidden to eat but not a source of impurity. The four cases: severing the windpipe abnormally, reversing the order of the simanim, pausing until the animal dies, and “chalada” — burrowing the knife under a siman and cutting from beneath. The neveila/tereifa distinction carries major consequences for purity law.
Key Terms:
- וֶושֶׁט / גַּרְגֶּרֶת (veshet / gargeret) = the gullet (esophagus) / the windpipe (trachea) — the two simanim of slaughter
- נְבֵלָה (neveila) = an unslaughtered carcass — forbidden to eat and a source of ritual impurity by contact and carrying
- טְרֵפָה (tereifa) = an animal forbidden to eat but which does not impart ritual impurity
- הֶחְלִיד (hechlid) = chalada — burrowing the knife beneath a siman and cutting from below, an invalidating defect
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה
The mishna’s governing principle distinguishing neveila from tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ – נְבֵלָה, כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ כָּרָאוּי וְדָבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל – טְרֵפָה, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yeshevav stated a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Any animal that was rendered unfit during its slaughter because the slaughter was not performed properly is an unslaughtered carcass; any animal whose slaughter was performed properly and another matter caused it to become unfit is a tereifa. And Rabbi Akiva conceded to his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna concludes with the governing principle, stated by Rabbi Yeshevav in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. The dividing line between neveila and tereifa is the cause of the disqualification: if the slaughter act itself was botched (nifsela bishchitatah), the animal is a neveila — a defective slaughter is no slaughter, so the animal is as if it died unslaughtered. But if the slaughter was performed properly and some separate defect made the animal forbidden, it is a tereifa. The mishna records that Rabbi Akiva ultimately conceded to this principle — a concession the Gemara will probe at length.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל (kelal) = a governing principle
- נִפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ (nifsela bishchitatah) = disqualified by its [own faulty] slaughter — the criterion for neveila status
- דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ (davar acher garam lah) = “another matter caused it” — a defect independent of the slaughter, yielding tereifa status
- וְהוֹדָה לוֹ (vehoda lo) = “and he conceded to him” — Rabbi Akiva’s retraction in favor of Rabbi Yeshevav
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a later mishna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְכוּ׳. וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If one cut the gullet…and Rabbi Akiva conceded to his opinion. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (42a): These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with a contradiction (rema). Our mishna says Rabbi Akiva conceded that these botched-slaughter cases yield a neveila. But a mishna at the start of the next chapter (42a), in its list of tereifot, includes the case of a severed windpipe — classifying it as a tereifa, not a neveila. The two mishnayot appear to clash over the very same case. The continuation of this difficulty runs onto amud bet.
Key Terms:
- רְמִינְהִי (rema / rmineihu) = “they contrasted” — the Gemara juxtaposes two sources that appear to contradict
- אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת (eilu tereifot) = “these are the tereifot” — the opening of the tereifot list in the next chapter (42a)
Amud Bet (32b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The contradiction is sharpened: the next chapter calls a severed windpipe a tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת!
English Translation:
An animal that has a perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or one with a severed windpipe. According to this mishna, the severed windpipe renders the animal a tereifa and not an unslaughtered carcass. If Rabbi Akiva reconsidered his opinion and conceded to Rabbi Yeshevav, in accordance with the opinion of which tanna is that mishna?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the contradiction begun on 32a. The mishna on 42a lists a “severed windpipe” (pesukat hagargeret) among the tereifot. But our mishna, with Rabbi Akiva’s concession, classifies a botched slaughter that severs the windpipe as a neveila. If even Rabbi Akiva now agrees it is a neveila, then whose view does the 42a mishna represent? The contradiction demands resolution, which the amoraim supply over the next segments.
Key Terms:
- נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט (nekuvat haveshet) = a perforated gullet — one of the tereifa-causing wounds
- פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת (pesukat hagargeret) = a severed windpipe — listed as a tereifa on 42a, the crux of the contradiction
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s first resolution: it depends on the order of cutting.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁשָּׁחַט וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּסַק, כָּאן שֶׁפָּסַק וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁחַט. שָׁחַט וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּסַק – נִפְסֶלֶת בִּשְׁחִיטָה הִיא, פָּסַק וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁחַט – כִּי דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל דָּמְיָא.
English Translation:
Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a case where one cut the gullet and ultimately severed the windpipe not in the standard manner. There, the mishna in the next chapter is referring to a case where he severed the windpipe not in the standard manner, and ultimately cut the gullet. If he cut the gullet and ultimately severed the windpipe, the animal was rendered unfit during its slaughter; therefore, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass, according to the principle of Rabbi Yeshevav. But if he severed the windpipe and ultimately cut the gullet, it is as though another matter caused the animal to become unfit; therefore, it assumes the status of a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava resolves the contradiction by distinguishing the order of cutting. Our mishna (neveila) refers to where one first properly cut the gullet, then abnormally severed the windpipe — the botched windpipe-cut ruins the slaughter itself, so it is a neveila. The 42a mishna (tereifa) refers to where one first abnormally severed the windpipe, then cut the gullet — here the abnormal windpipe-severing happened before the real slaughter, so it functions like a pre-existing defect (“another matter”), making the animal merely a tereifa. The two mishnayot describe different sequences.
Key Terms:
- לָא קַשְׁיָא (la kashya) = “it is not difficult” — the formula introducing a resolution of an apparent contradiction
- שָׁחַט וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּסַק (shachat ulvasof pasak) = he [properly] cut, and ultimately severed [abnormally]
- פָּסַק וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁחַט (pasak ulvasof shachat) = he severed [abnormally] first, and ultimately [properly] cut
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Aḥa bar Huna objects to Rava from a baraita.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְרָבָא: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, פָּסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט – נְבֵלָה!
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If one cut the gullet and then severed the windpipe, or if one severed the windpipe and cut the gullet thereafter, the animal is an unslaughtered carcass. Apparently, contrary to Rava’s statement, the order is irrelevant, and even if the windpipe is severed first, the animal assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa bar Huna challenges Rava’s order-based resolution with a baraita. The baraita explicitly rules that both sequences — gullet-then-windpipe and windpipe-then-gullet — yield a neveila. If even the windpipe-first case produces a neveila, then Rava’s claim that order determines neveila versus tereifa collapses. The baraita treats the order as irrelevant.
Key Terms:
- אֵיתִיבֵיהּ (eitiveih) = “he raised an objection against him” — from a tannaitic source
- רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא (Rav Aḥa bar Huna) = the amora challenging Rava here
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava reinterprets the baraita’s second case.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: וּכְבָר שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט מֵעִיקָּרָא.
English Translation:
Rava said: Say that the latter case in the baraita means not that he cut the gullet thereafter; rather, it is a case where one severed the windpipe and had already cut the gullet at the outset.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava defends his position by re-reading the baraita’s second clause. “Severed the windpipe and cut the gullet” need not mean the gullet was cut afterward. Rather, it means the gullet was already properly cut at the start, and only then the windpipe was abnormally severed — which is really the same as his “shachat then pasak” case (proper slaughter ruined by a bad windpipe-cut), correctly yielding a neveila. On this reading the baraita poses no objection.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא (eima) = “say [rather]” — a reinterpretation of a source’s intended meaning
- מֵעִיקָּרָא (me’ikara) = “from the outset” / originally — the gullet was cut first, before the windpipe
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects Rava’s reinterpretation on two grounds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא דְּהַיְינוּ קַמַּיְיתָא, וְעוֹד הָא תְּנַן ״וְאַחַר כָּךְ״!
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa bar Huna said to him: There are two refutations of the statement, i.e., of your attempt to answer the difficulty from the baraita: One is that if the second case in the baraita is one where he initially cut the gullet, then that is identical to the first case in the baraita. And furthermore, didn’t we learn explicitly in the baraita: Or if one severed the windpipe and cut the gullet thereafter, the animal is an unslaughtered carcass?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa bar Huna rejects Rava’s reinterpretation with two objections (shtei teshuvot). First: if the baraita’s second clause means the gullet was cut first, it would be identical to the first clause — the baraita would be pointlessly repeating itself. Second, and more decisively: the baraita explicitly says “ve’achar kach” — “and thereafter he cut the gullet” — which plainly states the gullet was cut after the windpipe, the very opposite of Rava’s reading. Rava’s defense is untenable, forcing a new resolution.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר (shtei teshuvot badavar) = “there are two refutations in the matter” — a double objection
- הַיְינוּ קַמַּיְיתָא (haynu kamayta) = “this is the first [case]” — the objection that a clause would be redundant
- ״וְאַחַר כָּךְ״ (ve’achar kach) = “and thereafter” — the baraita’s explicit wording fixing the sequence
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s revised resolution: “tereifot” on 42a is a loose, general term.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת קָתָנֵי, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן נְבֵלוֹת, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן טְרֵפוֹת.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava said: The use of the term: Tereifot, in the mishna in the next chapter is not to the exclusion of unslaughtered carcasses; rather, the tanna teaches that term in a general sense, meaning: These wounds serve to render an animal forbidden; and there are some of them that are unslaughtered carcasses, e.g., an animal with a severed windpipe, and there are some of them that are tereifot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abandoning the order-based answer, Rava offers a new resolution. The word “tereifot” heading the 42a list is not being used in its strict technical sense (forbidden but not impure). It is a loose, umbrella term meaning simply “these are the forbidden animals” (eilu asurot). Within that broad list, some items are genuinely tereifot, and others — like the severed windpipe — are actually neveilot. So there is no contradiction: 42a never claimed the windpipe-case is technically a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת קָתָנֵי (eilu asurot katanei) = “it teaches: these are forbidden” — reading “tereifot” loosely as “forbidden animals”
- לָאו דַּוְקָא (lav davka) = “not precise” — the implicit principle that a term may be used non-technically
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
An objection: why does the 42a list omit other neveila cases?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי דְּחִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: עֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא – נְבֵלָה, וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִטְּלָה יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ – נְבֵלָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects to that interpretation: If the mishna is listing those circumstances that render the animal an unslaughtered carcass, let the tanna consider the circumstance of Ḥizkiyya as well, as Ḥizkiyya says: If one rendered the animal like a shard by cutting it into two widthwise, its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass even while it is convulsing before its death. And let the tanna consider the circumstance of Rabbi Elazar as well, as Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh, the hind leg of the animal, was removed and its recess is obvious (see 21a), it is an unslaughtered carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rava’s “umbrella term” resolution. If the 42a list really includes neveilot, it should be complete — yet it omits two well-known neveila cases: Ḥizkiyya’s ruling that an animal cut crosswise into two pieces (gistera) is a neveila even while still convulsing, and Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that an animal whose thigh was removed leaving an open cavity is a neveila. If the list is meant to be comprehensive, why are these absent?
Key Terms:
- גִּיסְטְרָא (gistera) = a shard — an animal cut crosswise into two pieces, a neveila per Ḥizkiyya
- נִטְּלָה יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ (nitla yarech vechalal shelah) = the thigh was removed along with its cavity — a neveila per Rabbi Elazar
- וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי (velichshov nami) = “let it also count/list” — an objection that a list is incomplete
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The list excludes neveilot that impart impurity while still alive.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי קָתָנֵי נְבֵלָה, דְּלָא מְטַמְּאָה מֵחַיִּים, אֲבָל נְבֵלָה דִּמְטַמְּאָה מֵחַיִּים – לָא קָתָנֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: When the mishna teaches the case of an unslaughtered carcass, it is a case where the animal does not assume that status and impart impurity while alive. But the tanna does not teach the case of an unslaughtered carcass where the animal assumes that status and imparts impurity while alive, e.g., the cases of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Elazar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defends Rava’s resolution. The 42a list includes only neveilot of the ordinary type — those that become impure once the animal dies. The cases of Ḥizkiyya (gistera) and Rabbi Elazar (removed thigh) are extreme: the animal is reckoned a neveila and imparts impurity while still alive and convulsing. The tanna deliberately did not list those anomalous cases, so their absence is no flaw in the list. The list remains coherent under Rava’s interpretation.
Key Terms:
- מְטַמְּאָה מֵחַיִּים (metam’a mechayim) = imparts impurity while [the animal is still] alive — an extreme neveila category
- כִּי קָתָנֵי (ki katanei) = “when it teaches” — clarifying the precise scope of what a mishna lists
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish offers an alternative resolution based on location of the cut.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כָּאן – שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ, כָּאן – שֶׁשָּׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ. שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ – נִפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה הִיא, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ – כִּי דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל דָּמְיָא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish resolved the apparent contradiction between the mishna here and the mishna on 42a, and said: Here, the tanna is referring to a case where one cut the gullet in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe. There, on 42a, the tanna is referring to a case where he cut the gullet not in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe. The reason for the distinction is that if one cut the gullet in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe, it is an animal that was rendered unfit during its slaughter and it assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass. By contrast, if he cut the gullet not in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe it is like a case where another matter caused the animal to become unfit. Therefore, cutting the gullet renders it a tereifa and prevents it from imparting ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish proposes a different resolution, based not on order but on location. Our mishna (neveila) is where the gullet was cut in the same place as the windpipe’s defective cut — the slaughter act itself is thereby ruined, so it is a neveila. The 42a mishna (tereifa) is where the gullet was cut in a different place from the windpipe’s cut — there the proper gullet-cut stands on its own and the windpipe defect is like an external cause, making it a tereifa. Both Rava and Reish Lakish thus salvage Rabbi Yeshevav’s principle by locating the difference in the slaughter’s mechanics.
Key Terms:
- בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ (bimkom chatach) = in the [same] place as the [windpipe’s defective] cut
- שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ (shelo bimkom chatach) = not in the same place as the cut — a separate spot
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
An internal contradiction is raised against Reish Lakish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שָׁחַט אֶת הַקָּנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיקְּבָה הָרֵיאָה כְּשֵׁרָה! אַלְמָא כְּמַאן דְּמַנְּחָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמְיָא, הָכָא נָמֵי כְּמַאן דְּמַנְּחָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמְיָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say this, that slaughter can be effective to prevent impurity after the windpipe was severed? But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: If one cut the windpipe and the lung was perforated thereafter before he cut the gullet, the animal is fit for consumption? Apparently, after cutting the windpipe, the status of the lungs, whose existence is dependent upon the windpipe, is like that of an item that is placed in a basket; they are irrelevant to the determination of the animal’s status. Here too, when the windpipe is severed at the beginning of the slaughter the windpipe should be considered like an item that is placed in a basket in the sense that the animal is considered to have only one siman, the gullet, and cutting of one siman does not affect the animal’s status.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a contradiction from another of Reish Lakish’s own rulings. He elsewhere holds that if one cut the windpipe and the lung was then perforated before the gullet was cut, the animal is kosher — because once the windpipe is cut, the lungs are halakhically “like an item placed in a basket” (irrelevant to the animal’s vitality). But by that logic, once the windpipe is severed, only one siman (the gullet) remains in play — and cutting one siman should not give the animal neveila status. This undermines Reish Lakish’s own location-based resolution here.
Key Terms:
- קָנֶה (kaneh) = the windpipe (another term for gargeret)
- כְּמַאן דְּמַנְּחָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא (keman demancha bedikula) = “like something placed in a basket” — halakhically detached and irrelevant
- רֵיאָה (rei’a) = the lung — its vitality depends on the windpipe
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yoḥanan’s resolution: before and after Rabbi Akiva’s retraction.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן קוֹדֶם חֲזָרָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר חֲזָרָה, וּמִשְׁנָה לֹא זָזָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The apparent contradiction is not difficult. There (42a), where it is stated that an animal with a severed windpipe is a tereifa, the mishna presents the opinion of Rabbi Akiva before retraction of his opinion. Here, the mishna presents the opinion of Rabbi Akiva after retraction of his opinion. And even though Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion, a mishna does not move from its place. Once this version of the mishna was learned in the study hall, it remained valuable, even though it is no longer current.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan (via Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba) resolves the contradiction historically. The 42a mishna, calling a severed windpipe a tereifa, preserves Rabbi Akiva’s view before he retracted (chazara). Our mishna records his view after he conceded to Rabbi Yeshevav that it is a neveila. The two mishnayot are simply two stages of one tanna’s thinking. The closing principle — “a mishna does not move from its place” — teaches that once a teaching enters the canon of the study hall, it is not deleted even after it is superseded; the older version is retained for the record.
Key Terms:
- חֲזָרָה (chazara) = retraction — a sage’s reversal of a previously held opinion
- מִשְׁנָה לֹא זָזָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ (mishna lo zaza mimkomah) = “a mishna does not move from its place” — superseded teachings remain in the canon
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara examines Reish Lakish’s lung ruling itself.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שָׁחַט אֶת הַקָּנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיקְּבָה הָרֵיאָה – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֶלָּא בְּרֵיאָה, הוֹאִיל וְחַיֵּי רֵיאָה תְּלוּיִן בַּקָּנֶה, אֲבָל בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים – לָא.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself that was cited previously. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: If one cut the windpipe and the lung was perforated thereafter before he cut the gullet, the animal is fit for consumption. Rava said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish states this principle only with regard to a lung, since the function of the lung is dependent upon the windpipe. Once the windpipe is severed it is as though the lungs were removed from the animal. But with regard to innards that were perforated after the windpipe was cut but before the slaughter was completed, no, the animal becomes a tereifa, because the function of the innards is not dependent on the windpipe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now examines the Reish Lakish ruling cited in segment 10 on its own terms (gufa). Rava qualifies it: Reish Lakish’s leniency applies only to the lung, because the lung’s function depends on the windpipe — once the windpipe is cut, the lung is effectively “removed.” But the innards (bnei me’ayim) do not depend on the windpipe; so if the innards were perforated after the windpipe-cut but before the slaughter finished, the animal does become a tereifa. Rava thus draws a line between lung and innards.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = “the matter itself” — the Gemara now analyzes a previously-cited statement in its own right
- בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים (bnei me’ayim) = the innards/intestines — their function is not dependent on the windpipe
- חַיֵּי רֵיאָה תְּלוּיִן בַּקָּנֶה (chayei rei’a teluyin bakaneh) = “the lung’s life depends on the windpipe”
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Zeira objects to Rava’s lung/innards distinction.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: מֵאַחַר שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בָּהּ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה הִתַּרְתָּ, מָה לִי בְּרֵיאָה, מָה לִי בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים!
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira objects to Rava’s distinction. Since when signs of being a tereifa developed in the animal after the slaughter began, you permitted the animal and deemed the slaughter valid, what difference is there to me if the perforation was in the lung, and what difference is there to me if the perforation was in the innards? In either case, the animal should not be deemed a tereifa if the signs developed once the slaughter began.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira objects to Rava’s lung/innards distinction. His logic: the deciding factor is timing, not anatomy. If tereifa-signs that appear after the slaughter has begun do not disqualify the animal — which is the principle behind permitting the perforated lung — then it should make no difference whether the post-slaughter perforation is in the lung or the innards. Either way, a defect that arose mid-slaughter should be disregarded. Rava’s anatomical line seems arbitrary.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף (matkif) = raises a strong objection
- סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה (simanei tereifa) = the signs/conditions of being a tereifa
- מָה לִי… מָה לִי (ma li… ma li) = “what difference to me… what difference to me” — an objection that two cases should be treated alike
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira retracts his objection and raises a dilemma instead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: נִיקְּבוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, מַהוּ? מִי מִצְטָרֵף סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְסִימָן שֵׁנִי לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אוֹ לָא?
English Translation:
But Rabbi Zeira retracted his objection, as Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If the innards were perforated between the cutting of the first siman and the second siman what is the halakha? Does the first siman join together with the second siman to purify the animal from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass or not?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira himself withdraws the objection he just raised, because he comes to see the matter as a genuine open question rather than a refutation. His dilemma: if the innards are perforated between the cutting of the first siman and the second, does the first (already-cut) siman combine with the second to give the animal valid-slaughter status — purifying it from neveila impurity — or not? The mid-slaughter perforation makes the status of the partial slaughter uncertain.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַר בֵּיהּ (hadar bei) = “he retracted” — withdrew his own earlier objection
- בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן (bein siman lesiman) = between [the cutting of] one siman and the other
- מִצְטָרֵף… לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה (mitztaref… letaharah midei neveila) = combines to purify it from neveila-impurity
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara links Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma to a parallel dilemma of Ilfa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמְרִינַן: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא: הוֹצִיא עוּבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, מַהוּ?
English Translation:
And we say: Isn’t this the dilemma that Ilfa raises: If a fetus extended its foreleg outside the womb while the mother was being slaughtered, between the cutting of the first siman, the windpipe, and the second siman, the gullet, thereby causing the foreleg to have the status of a tereifa, what is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara observes that Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma seems identical to an earlier dilemma raised by Ilfa. Ilfa asked: if a fetus extended its foreleg outside the womb between the cutting of the first and second simanim of the mother — an act that gives the protruding limb tereifa status — what is the halakha? Both dilemmas turn on the same unresolved point: the halakhic status of an event occurring in the gap between the two simanim. The daf ends pointing forward to this comparison, which continues on daf 33.
Key Terms:
- אִילְפָא (Ilfa) = an amora who raised the parallel “fetus’s foreleg” dilemma
- עוּבָּר (ubar) = a fetus — here, one that extends a limb out of the womb mid-slaughter
- לָאו הַיְינוּ (lav haynu) = “is this not the same as” — identifying two dilemmas as one and the same question