Chullin 29aחולין כ״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 29a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
29aכ״ט א

כדי שחיטה אחרת וגמרה שחיטתו כשרה ואי אמרת מחצה על מחצה כרוב איטרפא לה

for an interval equivalent to the duration of the slaughter of another animal, and then completed his slaughter, his slaughter is valid. But if you say the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, then by cutting half the windpipe he rendered it a tereifa because it is as though the majority of the windpipe is severed.

מי סברת בבהמה לא בעוף ממה נפשך אי מחצה על מחצה כרוב הא עביד ליה רובא אי מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב לא עבד ולא כלום

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this baraita is referring to the slaughter of an animal? No, it is referring to the slaughter of a bird, which requires the cutting of only one siman. Whichever way you look at it, the slaughter should be valid. If the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, he has performed the cutting of the majority and the slaughter is valid. And if the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of the majority, then in cutting half the siman he did not perform any action that would render the animal a tereifa.

ת"ש הרי שהיה חצי קנה פגום והוסיף עליו כל שהוא וגמרו שחיטתו כשרה ואי אמרת מחצה על מחצה כרוב טרפה הויא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: In a case where half of the windpipe was deficient prior to the slaughter and the slaughterer added to that deficiency an incision of any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. And if you say that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is like that of the majority, the animal is a tereifa, as half its windpipe was deficient before the slaughter.

אמר רבא שאני לענין טרפה דבעינן רוב הנראה לעינים

Rava said: The matter of tereifa is different, as we require a majority that is clearly visible. If precisely half the windpipe is deficient it does not appear to be a majority. By contrast, with regard to slaughter, the status of half is like that of the majority.

א"ל אביי ולא כל דכן הוא ומה טרפה דבמשהו מיטרפא היכא דבעינן רובא בעינן רוב הנראה לעינים שחיטה דעד דאיכא רובא לא מיתכשרא לא כ"ש דבעינן רוב הנראה לעינים

Abaye said to Rava: And is it not derived through an a fortiori inference that all the more so, a conspicuous majority is required for slaughter? And just as with regard to tereifa, where the animal is rendered a tereifa by a deficiency of any size, e.g., by a minuscule perforation of the gullet, in cases where we require a majority, we require a majority that is clearly visible, with regard to slaughter, where until there is a majority of the simanim cut, the slaughter is not valid, all the more so is it not clear that we require a majority that is clearly visible?

אלא דכולי עלמא מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב וכי איתמר דרב ודרב כהנא לענין פסח אתמר

Rather, the Gemara revises its understanding of the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. Everyone agrees that the halakhic status of a siman of which precisely half was cut and half remained uncut is not like that of a siman of which the majority was cut. And when the dispute of Rav and Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of the Paschal offering. If a majority of the Jewish people were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Paschal offering is sacrificed that day and eaten in a state of impurity. If only a minority of the Jewish people were impure, the ritually pure majority brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the impure minority brings the Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ one month later.

הרי שהיו ישראל מחצה טהורים ומחצה טמאים רב אמר מחצה על מחצה כרוב ורב כהנא אמר מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב

In a case where the Jewish people were equally divided on the fourteenth of Nisan, with half of them pure and half of them impure, Rav said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is like that of a case where the majority was impure, and the entire people brings the Paschal offering in Nisan. And Rav Kahana said: The halakha in the case where half the people were impure and half were pure is not like that of a case where the majority was impure. Therefore, those who are pure bring the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and those who are impure bring the Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ.

והתם מ"ט דרב דכתיב (במדבר ט, י) איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש איש נדחה ואין ציבור נדחין:

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the Paschal offering, what is the reason that Rav accords half the people the status of a majority? It is as it is written: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse…shall observe the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall observe it” (Numbers 9:10–11), from which it is derived: A ritually impure person is deferred to observe the second Pesaḥ, but a ritually impure congregation is not deferred to observe the second Pesaḥ. The status of half the people is that of a congregation, not that of a collection of individuals.

רוב אחד בעוף: תנינא חדא זימנא רובו של אחד כמוהו

§ The mishna teaches: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal,his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: We already learn this on another occasion, in the first clause of the mishna: The halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Why is the redundancy necessary?

(הכש פשח סימן)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who participate in the discussion that ensues: Heh, Rav Hoshaya; kaf, Rabbi Kahana; shin, Rabbi Shimi; peh, Rav Pappa; shin, Rav Ashi; ḥet.

אמר רב הושעיא חדא בחולין וחדא בקדשים וצריכא דאי אשמועינן חולין התם הוא דסגי ליה ברובא משום דלאו לדם הוא צריך אבל קדשים דלדם הוא צריך אימא לא תיסגי ליה ברובא עד דאיכא כוליה

Rav Hoshaya said: One mention of the equivalence between majority and whole is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and one is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. And it is necessary for the tanna to teach both cases, as, if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, one might think that it is there that one suffices with the majority of the siman, because he does not require the blood; he seeks merely to slaughter the animal. But in the case of sacrificial birds and animals, where he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar, say that it will not suffice for him to cut the majority, and the slaughter is not valid until there is a cutting of the entire windpipe or gullet.

ואי אשמועינן קדשים משום דלדם הוא צריך אבל חולין דלדם לא צריך אימא בפלגא סגי ליה קמ"ל

And if the tanna taught us only the case of slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, one might think that one must cut a majority of the siman because he requires the blood for sprinkling on the altar; but with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals, where he does not require the blood, say that cutting half the siman is sufficient, and there is no need to cut a majority. Therefore, the tanna teaches us the principle twice, once to teach that a majority suffices in the case of sacrificial animals, and once to teach that a majority is required in the case of non-sacred animals.

הי בחולין והי בקדשים

The Gemara asks which clause of the mishna is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in non-sacred birds and animals, and which is referring to cutting a majority of the simanim in sacrificial birds and animals?

אמר רב כהנא מיסתברא רישא בחולין וסיפא בקדשים ממאי מדקתני השוחט ואי סלקא דעתך רישא בקדשים המולק מיבעי ליה

Rav Kahana said: It stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Kahana arrive at that conclusion? The Gemara answers: It is from the fact that the first clause of the mishna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird and two simanim in an animal. And if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring to the case of sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it as: One who pinches the nape of the neck of a bird, as sacrificial birds are not slaughtered with a knife, but pinched with a fingernail.

אלא מאי סיפא בקדשים שחיטתו כשרה מליקתו כשרה מיבעי ליה הא ל"ק איידי דסליק מבהמה תנא נמי שחיטתו כשרה אלא רישא מכדי על עוף קאי אי ס"ד בקדשים המולק מיבעי ליה

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds and animals, the tanna should have formulated it: His pinching is valid. The Gemara answers: That is not difficult; since the tanna concluded with mention of the slaughter of an animal, he also taught: His slaughter is valid, which is referring to the sacrificial animal. But in the first clause, since the tanna stands to begin with the case of a bird, if it enters your mind that the reference is to sacrificial birds, the tanna should have formulated it: One who pinches the nape of the neck of the bird.

רב שימי בר אשי אמר רישא בחולין מהכא דקתני אחד בעוף ואי ס"ד בקדשים הא איכא עולת העוף דבעי שני סימנים

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches: One who slaughters by cutting one siman in a bird. And if it enters your mind that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, isn’t there the bird burnt offering, which requires that two simanim be cut?

אלא מאי סיפא בקדשים רוב אחד בעוף הא איכא עולת העוף דבעי שני סימנין מאי רוב אחד רוב כל אחד ואחד ובדין הוא דליתני רוב שנים כיון דאיכא חטאת דסגי ליה בחד סימן מש"ה לא פסיקא ליה

The Gemara asks: Rather, what do you say? That the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals? But the tanna teaches in the latter clause: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid. If the reference is to sacrificial birds, isn’t there the bird burnt offering, which requires the pinching of two simanim? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of: The majority of one siman? It means the majority of each and every one of the two. And by right the tanna should have taught: The majority of two. But since there is the bird sin offering, which suffices with the cutting of one siman, due to that reason the matter is not clear-cut for him. Therefore, the tanna formulated the halakha in a manner that could apply to one siman, i.e., in the case of a sin offering, and to two simanim, i.e., in the case of a burnt offering and of animal offerings.

רב פפא אמר רישא בחולין מהכא דקתני רבי יהודה אומר עד שישחוט את הורידין ופליגי רבנן עליה אי אמרת בשלמא בחולין שפיר אלא אי אמרת בקדשים אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה הוא עצמו לדם הוא צריך

Rav Pappa said that one arrives at the conclusion that the first clause is referring to slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins in the neck. And the Rabbis disagree with him, and do not require that one cut the veins in the neck. Granted, if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it works out well. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of sacrificial birds, why do the Rabbis disagree with him? He himself, i.e., the one slaughtering, requires the blood in order to sprinkle it on the altar, which would warrant cutting the veins.

רב אשי אמר סיפא בקדשים מהכא דקתני השוחט שני ראשין כאחד שחיטתו כשרה השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

Rav Ashi said that one arrives at the conclusion that the latter clause is referring to slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals from here: As the tanna teaches in the mishna (30b): One who slaughters by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara infers from the precise language of the mishna: One who slaughters, indicating that after the fact, yes, his slaughter is valid; but one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio.

אי אמרת בשלמא בקדשים היינו דלכתחלה לא משום דתני רב יוסף תזבח שלא יהא שנים שוחטים זבח אחד (ויקרא יט, ה) תזבחהו שלא יהא אחד שוחט שני זבחים

Granted, if you say that the reference is to sacrificial birds or animals, this is the reason that one may not slaughter two animals simultaneously ab initio: It is due to that which Rav Yosef teaches in a baraita: “And when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥuhu] that you may be accepted” (Leviticus 19:5). The term “tizbaḥuhu” can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ] and it [hu]. From the term “You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ],” it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term “You shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥuhu]” it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.

ואמר רב כהנא תזבחהו כתיב אלא אי אמרת בחולין אפילו לכתחלה נמי

And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term “tizbaḥuhu” is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, the term tizbaḥehu is written, in the singular, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering. But if you say that the reference is to the slaughter of non-sacred birds, it should be permitted even ab initio.

ואף רשב"ל סבר רישא בחולין וסיפא בקדשים דאמר רשב"ל מאחר ששנינו רובו של אחד כמוהו למה שנינו רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, too, holds that the first clause of the mishna is referring to the slaughter of non-sacred birds and animals and the latter clause is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial birds and animals, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Since we learned in the mishna that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, why did we also need to learn later in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal? The latter clause is obvious based on the principle articulated in the first clause.

לפי ששנינו הביאו לו את התמיד קרצו ומירק אחר שחיטתו על ידו יכול לא מירק יהא פסול לכך שנינו רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains: Since we learned in a mishna (Yoma 31b): They brought him the sheep for the daily morning offering, and he slaughtered it [keratzo] by cutting most of the way through the gullet and the windpipe, and a different priest completed the slaughter on his behalf so that the High Priest could receive the blood in a vessel and proceed with the order of the Yom Kippur service, one might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

אמר מר יכול לא מירק יהא פסול

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. The Master said: One might have thought that if the other priest did not complete the cutting of the two simanim, the slaughter would not be valid.