Chullin 19a

והלכתא משיפוי כובע ולמטה כשרה והיינו דשייר בחיטי The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: If one slaughters from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below in the direction of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid, and that is in accordance with the opinion that one who left part of the arytenoid cartilage has still performed a valid slaughter, as the arytenoids cartilage extends beyond this point.

רב נחמן אכשר משיפוי כובע ולמטה אמר ליה רב חנן בר רב קטינא לרב נחמן כמאן לא כרבנן ולא כרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one slaughtered from the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below. Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose opinion is that ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who both hold that if one cuts the windpipe above the large upper ring, the cricoid cartilage, the slaughter is not valid.

אמר ליה אנא לא חילק ידענא ולא בילק ידענא אנא שמעתא ידענא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה א"ר אבא בר זבדא א"ר חנינא ואמרי לה א"ר יעקב בר אידי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משיפוי כובע ולמטה כשרה Rav Naḥman said to him: Neither do I know Ḥillek nor do I know Billek, i.e., I know the reason neither for this one’s opinion nor for that one’s opinion. I know the halakha, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rabbi Ḥanina says, and some say that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From the incline of the thyroid cartilage and below, the slaughter is valid.

ואריב"ל מוגרמת דרבנן כשרה לרבי יוסי בר' יהודה § The Gemara returns to analyzing the baraita (18b): In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring that the slaughter is valid. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of the Rabbis cited in the mishna, the slaughter is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who ruled that the slaughter is valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut within the large, upper ring.

ודרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה כשרה לרבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס And with regard to a case where the knife was diverted according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it is valid according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that even if a majority of the windpipe was cut outside the large upper ring, the slaughter is valid.

פשיטא מהו דתימא ר"ח בן אנטיגנוס אדרבנן קאי קא משמע לן The Gemara objects: That is obvious. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who ruled that in a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring it is valid, addresses the statement of the Rabbis and he agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that the slaughter is not valid when the majority of the windpipe was cut above the large upper ring, therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches us that this is not the case.

ואימא ה"נ א"כ העיד עליה מיבעי ליה והלכתא כר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס דקאי רב נחמן כוותיה The Gemara objects: And say it is indeed so that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus agrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara responds: If so, the formulation of the baraita should have been: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about it. Since the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus was introduced merely with the term: Testified, apparently he disagrees with all of the other opinions. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, as Rav Naḥman holds in accordance with his opinion.

אמר רב הונא אמר רב אסי מחלוקת בששחט שני שליש והגרים שליש דרבנן סברי כולה שחיטה בעינן בטבעת גדולה ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סבר רובו ככולו § The mishna cited a dispute between the Rabbis, who hold that in a case where one slaughtered within the large upper ring and did not leave a thread breadth over the entire surface of the ring, the slaughter is not valid, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that even if one left a thread breadth over a majority of the surface of the ring, the slaughter is valid. Apropos to that, Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal and cut the remaining one-third, as the Rabbis hold that we require the entire slaughter to be performed within the large ring, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: The halakhic status of its majority is like that of its entirety.

אבל הגרים שליש ושחט שני שליש דברי הכל פסולה דכי נפקא חיותא בעינן רובא בשחיטה וליכא But if one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, everyone agrees that the slaughter is not valid, as when the life left the animal, i.e., when the majority of the windpipe was cut, we require that the entire majority be cut by means of slaughter, and that is not so in this case.

א"ל רב חסדא אדרבה לימא מר איפכא מחלוקת כשהגרים שליש ושחט שני שליש דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סבר מידי דהוה אחצי קנה פגום Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: On the contrary, let the Master say the opposite. The dispute is only in a case when one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient. In that case, once the slaughterer cuts any additional part of the windpipe, the slaughter is valid because the cut that rendered a majority of the windpipe slaughtered was performed properly. So too in this case, since the cut of the second third was performed properly, the slaughter is valid.

ורבנן התם מקום שחיטה הכא לאו מקום שחיטה And the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, and therefore most of the life of the animal left in the proper place. Here, the first third was cut while the knife was diverted, and therefore most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.

אבל שחט שני שליש והגרים שליש דברי הכל כשרה דהא תנן רובו של אחד כמוהו But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?

א"ל רב יוסף מאן נימא לן דההוא רובא דהתם לאו רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני לה דלמא רבי יוסי בר' יהודה קתני לה Rav Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree.

אמר ליה אביי אטו כל רובי דעלמא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני להו אמר ליה אנא רובא דשחיטה קאמינא דשמענא להו דפליגי Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Yosef said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.

לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב הונא אמר רב אסי מחלוקת שהגרים שליש ושחט שני שליש דרבי יוסי בר ר' יהודה סבר מידי דהוה אחצי קנה פגום ורבנן התם מקום שחיטה הכא לאו מקום שחיטה Some say that there is an alternative version of this discussion: Rav Huna said that Rav Asi says: The dispute is only in a case where one diverted the knife upward toward the head of the animal, cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut two-thirds within the ring, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the slaughter is valid just as it is in the case where half the windpipe is deficient, and the Rabbis hold that there, in the case of the deficient windpipe, the deficiency was in the place of proper slaughter, but here, most of the life of the animal did not leave in the place of proper slaughter.

אבל שחט שני שליש והגרים שליש דברי הכל כשרה דהא תנן רובו של אחד כמוהו But in a case where one cut two-thirds of the windpipe within the ring and then diverted the knife and cut the remaining one-third, everyone agrees that the slaughter is valid, as didn’t we learn in a mishna (27a): The halakhic status of the slaughter of the majority of one siman, the windpipe or the gullet, is like that of the slaughter of the entire siman itself?

מתקיף לה רב חסדא מאן לימא לן דההוא רובא דהתם לאו רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני לה דלמא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני לה א"ל רב יוסף אטו כל רובי דעלמא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני להו אמר ליה אנא רובא דשחיטה קאמינא דשמענא להו דפליגי Rav Ḥisda objects to this: Who will say to us that with regard to the mishna there concerning the majority of one siman, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not teach it? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it, and the Rabbis disagree. Rav Yosef said to Rav Ḥisda: Is that to say that with regard to all principles that address majorities in general, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught them? Rav Ḥisda said to him: I am speaking of the principle of majority with regard to slaughter, as we heard that the Rabbis disagree with him.

הגרים שליש ושחט שליש והגרים שליש רב הונא אמר רב כשרה רב יהודה אמר רב טרפה רב הונא אמר רב כשרה כי נפקא חיותא בשחיטה קא נפקא רב יהודה אמר רב טרפה בעינן רובא בשחיטה וליכא § If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, i.e., forbidden. Rav Huna says that Rav says: The slaughter is valid, as when the life left the animal, it was in the course of a valid slaughter that it left. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The animal is a tereifa, as we require a majority of the windpipe to be cut with valid slaughter,and that is not the case.

שחט שליש והגרים שליש ושחט שליש רב יהודה אמר רב כשרה אתו שיילוה לרב הונא אמר להו טרפה שמע רב יהודה איקפד אמר טריפנא ומכשר ומכשרנא טריף אמר רב הונא שפיר קא מיקפד חדא איהו שמיע ליה מיניה דרב ואנא לא שמיע לי ועוד האיכא רובא בשחיטה If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, Rav Yehuda says that Rav said: The slaughter is valid. When the Sages came and asked Rav Huna, he said to them: It is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda heard the ruling of Rav Huna, and he was angry. He said: I deem it a tereifa and he deems the slaughter valid, and I deem the slaughter valid and he deems it a tereifa. Rav Huna said: It is proper that he was angry. One reason is that he heard it from Rav and I did not hear it from Rav; and furthermore, isn’t there the majority of the siman that was cut with valid slaughter?

א"ל רב חסדא לא תהדר בך Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna: Do not retract your statement,

דא"כ מפסדת לה לקמייתא התם מ"ט קא מכשרת דכי נפקא חיותא בהכשירה קא נפקא הכא נמי כי נפקא חיותא בהגרמה קא נפקא as, if you retract your statement, you repudiate the first ruling that you stated with regard to a case where one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third. There, what is the reason that you deemed the slaughter valid? The reason is that when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of valid slaughter. Based on that reasoning, here too, when life left the animal with the cutting of the second third of the windpipe, it left the animal in the course of diverting the knife, and the slaughter is invalid.

איקלע רב נחמן לסורא בעו מיניה שחט שליש והגרים שליש ושחט שליש מהו אמר להו לאו היינו דר' אלעזר בר מניומי דא"ר אלעזר בר מניומי שחיטה העשויה כמסרק כשרה Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura, where they asked him: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? He said to them: Isn’t that the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi, as Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi says: Slaughter that is performed like the teeth of a comb, which are jagged, is valid.

ודלמא במקום שחיטה במקום שחיטה מאי למימרא מהו דתימא בעינן שחיטה מפורעת וליכא קמ"ל The Gemara objects: And perhaps Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi stated his halakha only when the slaughter goes up and down within the proper place of slaughter. The Gemara asks in response: Within the proper place of slaughter, what is the purpose of stating it? Clearly the slaughter is valid in that case. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that we require slaughter that is clear and straight, and slaughter that is jagged is not straight, therefore, Rabbi Elazar bar Minyumi teaches us that nevertheless, the slaughter is valid.

(סימן בכ"ד) The Gemara cites a mnemonic for the order of the Sages in the following discussion: Beit for Rabbi Abba; kaf for Rav Kahana; dalet for Rav Yehuda.

יתיב רבי אבא אחוריה דרב כהנא ויתיב רב כהנא קמיה דרב יהודה ויתיב וקאמר שחט שליש והגרים שליש ושחט שליש מהו א"ל שחיטתו כשרה Rabbi Abba sat behind Rav Kahana and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and he sat and said to Rav Yehuda: If one cut one-third of the windpipe properly, and then diverted the knife and cut one-third, and then cut the final one-third of the windpipe properly, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to Rav Kahana: His slaughter is valid.

הגרים שליש ושחט שליש והגרים שליש מהו א"ל שחיטתו פסולה Rav Kahana then asked: If one diverted the knife and cut one-third of the windpipe, and then cut one-third properly, and then diverted and cut the final one-third, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.

שחט במקום נקב מהו א"ל שחיטתו כשרה Rav Kahana then asked: If one cut in a place where there was a perforation in the front of the windpipe and continued cutting, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is valid.

שחט ופגע בו נקב מהו א"ל שחיטתו פסולה Rav Kahana further asked: If one cut the windpipe and after cutting half the windpipe encountered a perforation, after which point a majority of the windpipe had been cut, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda said to him: His slaughter is not valid.

אזל רבי אבא אמרה קמיה דר' אלעזר אזל ר"א אמרה קמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל מאי שנא Rabbi Abba went to Eretz Yisrael and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar went and stated these halakhot in the presence of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is different about a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation relative to a case where he encountered a perforation in the middle of the slaughter?

א"ל שחט במקום נקב נעשה כמי ששחט עובד כוכבים וגמר ישראל שחט ופגע בו נקב נעשה כמי ששחט ישראל וגמר עובד כוכבים קרי עליה עובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים Rabbi Elazar said to him: In a case where one cut in a place where there was a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a gentile began to slaughter and a Jew completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is valid. In a case where one cut the windpipe and encountered a perforation, it becomes like an animal that a Jew began to slaughter and a gentile completed its slaughter, in which case the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Yoḥanan mockingly proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile, i.e., you merely repeat something about gentiles. Rabbi Yoḥanan did not accept the distinction.

אמר רבא שפיר קרי עליה עובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בשלמא התם מדהוה ליה לישראל למשחט רובא ולא שחט כי נפקא חיותא בידא דעובד כוכבים קא נפקא אלא הכא מכדי משחט שחיט מה לי במקום נקב מה לי פגע בו נקב: Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan did well when he proclaimed about him: Gentile, gentile. Granted, there, in the case where the gentile completed the slaughter, since a Jew was supposed to cut a majority of the windpipe and he did not cut it, when life left the animal it left by the hand of a gentile. But here, after all, he was the one who slaughtered the entire animal, and the animal was not a tereifa until this point, and so what difference is there to me if one began to cut in a place where there was a perforation and what difference is there to me if he encountered a perforation?

מתני׳ השוחט מן הצדדין שחיטתו כשרה המולק מן הצדדין מליקתו פסולה השוחט מן העורף שחיטתו פסולה המולק מן העורף מליקתו כשירה השוחט מן הצואר שחיטתו כשרה המולק מן הצואר מליקתו פסולה שכל העורף כשר למליקה וכל הצואר כשר לשחיטה נמצא כשר בשחיטה פסול במליקה כשר במליקה פסול בשחיטה: MISHNA: One who slaughters from the sides of the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches the neck of a bird offering from the sides, his pinching is not valid.One who slaughters from the nape [oref] of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid. One who slaughters from the throat, his slaughter is valid. One who pinches a bird offering from the throat, his pinching is not valid, as the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter. It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.

גמ׳ מאי עורף אילימא עורף ממש מאי אריא שוחט אפילו מולק נמי (ויקרא ה, ח) ממול ערפו אמר רחמנא ולא ערפו אלא מאי עורף ממול עורף כדקתני סיפא כל העורף כשר למליקה GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna: One who slaughters an animal from the oref, its slaughter is not valid, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of oref? If we say that the reference is to the actual occipital bone at the rear of the skull, why does this halakha apply specifically to one who slaughters from the oref? Even if one pinches a bird offering from the oref it would also not be valid, as the Merciful One states: “Pinch off its head adjacent to its oref” (Leviticus 5:8), at the nape beneath the occipital bone, and not its oref. Rather, what is the oref mentioned in the mishna? It is adjacent to the oref, the back of the neck below the occipital bone, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: The entire nape is valid for pinching.

מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן ממול ערפו מול הרואה את העורף וכן הוא אומר (במדבר כב, ה) והוא יושב ממולי ואומר (ירמיהו ב, כז) כי פנו אלי עורף ולא פנים מאי ואומר וכי תימא עורף גופיה לא ידעינן היכא דנדע מול דידיה היכא תא שמע כי פנו אלי עורף ולא פנים מכלל דעורף להדי פנים The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: In the phrase “adjacent to [mimmul] its oref,” adjacent means a place that sees the oref and not the oref itself. And likewise, the verse states: “And they reside adjacent to me [mimmuli]” (Numbers 22:5); and the verse states: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face” (Jeremiah 2:27). The Gemara asks: What is added by the latter proof, introduced with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say, we do not know where the oref itself is, so that we will know where adjacent to it is, come and hear: “For they have turned their oref unto Me, and not their face,” from which it may be ascertained by inference that the oref is opposite the face, at the rear of the head.

אמרי בני ר' חייא מצות מליקה מחזיר סימנים לאחורי העורף ומולק איכא דאמרי אף מחזיר ואיכא דאמרי מחזיר דוקא § The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: How is the mitzva of pinching of a bird offering performed? One moves the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, behind the nape and pinches. There is a dispute among the Sages with regard to the meaning of the statement. There are those who say: The mitzva ab initio is to pinch through the spinal column first and then pinch the windpipe and the gullet, and one may even move the simanim to behind the nape and pinch. And there are those who say: The mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch.

ומסתברא כמאן דאמר אף מחזיר ממאי מדקתני השוחט מן העורף שחיטתו פסולה המולק מן העורף מליקתו כשרה The Gemara notes: And it is reasonable according to the one who says: One may even move the simanim behind the nape. From where does one draw that conclusion? It is from the fact that the mishna teaches: One who slaughters from the nape of the neck, his slaughter is not valid. One who pinches from the nape of the neck, his pinching is valid.

ואי ס"ד מחזיר דוקא מאי איריא מולק אפי' שוחט נמי אלא לאו שמע מינה אף מחזיר ומתני' בדלא אהדר And if it enters your mind that the mitzva is specifically to move the simanim behind the nape and pinch them, why did the tanna say specifically that if one pinches in this manner it is valid? Even if one slaughters from the nape in this manner the slaughter would be valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the proper understanding is: One may even move the simanim behind the nape and pinch, and the mishna is referring to a case where one did not move the simanim behind the nape.

א"ר ינאי יקבלו הרובין את תשובתן דקתני נמצא כשר בשחיטה פסול במליקה כשר במליקה פסול בשחיטה למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי מחזיר סימנין לאחורי העורף דלא Rabbi Yannai says: The young ones [rovin], the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, shall receive their response that rejects their statement from that which is taught in the mishna: It is found that that which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and that which is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter. What does this statement serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude the case where one moves the simanim behind the nape, teaching that it is valid only for slaughter and not for pinching?

אמר רבה בר בר חנה לא למעוטי שן וצפורן שן וצפורן בהדיא קתני להו Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: No, perhaps it serves to exclude one who uses a tooth or a fingernail that is not detached, which are valid for pinching and not valid for slaughter. The Gemara objects: That could not be, as the tanna teaches explicitly the case of a tooth and a fingernail in a mishna (15b), and there was no need to repeat it.

אלא א"ר ירמיה למעוטי מוליך ומביא הניחא למ"ד מוליך ומביא במליקה פסול אלא למ"ד כשר מאי איכא למימר בני ר' חייא סברי לה כמ"ד מוליך ומביא במליקה פסול Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said: The statement of the mishna: That which is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching, serves to exclude drawing back and forth. One who pinches may not cut the simanim by drawing his fingernail back and forth. Rather, he must press and cut them in one motion. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid, but according to the one who says: It is valid, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya hold in accordance with the one who says: Drawing back and forth for pinching is not valid.

אמר רב כהנא מצות מליקה קוצץ ויורד וזו היא מצותה סבר רבי אבין למימר קוצץ ויורד אין מוליך ומביא לא א"ל ר' ירמיה כ"ש דמוליך ומביא במליקה כשר ומאי זו היא מצותה אימא אף זו היא מצותה: Rav Kahana says: The mitzva of pinching is that one cuts with his fingernail from the nape and continues downward, and that is its mitzva. Rabbi Avin thought to say: Cuts and continues downward, yes; draws back and forth, no. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: All the more so that drawing back and forth for pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the phrase: That is its mitzva, which indicates that it is specifically in that manner? The Gemara answers: Say that it means: That too is its mitzva.

א"ר ירמיה אמר שמואל כל הכשר בשחיטה כנגדו בעורף כשר במליקה הא פסול בשחיטה פסול במליקה למעוטי מאי אילימא למעוטי עיקור סימנין והא תני רמי בר יחזקאל אין עיקור סימנין בעוף § Rabbi Yirmeya says that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape. By inference, any place on the throat that is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara asks: What does this statement serve to exclude? If we say that it serves to exclude ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, which is invalid with regard to pinching just as with regard to slaughter, but didn’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach: There is no disqualification of ripping the simanim in the case of a bird?

אמר רב פפא למעוטי ראשו ראשו פשיטא (ויקרא ה, ח) ממול ערפו אמר רחמנא ולא בראשו Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude pinching the occipital bone at the back of its head; just as it is not the place of slaughter, it is not the place of pinching. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that pinching at the back of its head is not valid? The Merciful One states: “Adjacent to its nape,” and not at its head.

מאי ראשו שיפוי ראשו כגון דנקט משיפוי ראשו והגרים ואזל עד דמטא תתאי וכדרב הונא אמר רב אסי דאמר רב הונא אמר רב אסי הגרים שליש ושחט שני שליש פסולה The Gemara answers: What is its head that is not the place for pinching? It is the incline of its head, e.g., in a case where one began at the incline of its head and diverted and continued until he reached below to the place of the simanim, where he completed the pinching. Since he began the process in the incorrect location, it is invalid, similar to slaughter. And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says, as Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: If one diverted the knife upward and cut one-third of the windpipe and then cut two-thirds within the ring, the slaughter is not valid.

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי הא דתני רמי בר יחזקאל אין עיקור סימנין בעוף לא אמרן אלא למ"ד אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel teaches: There is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah.

אבל למ"ד יש שחיטה לעוף מן התורה יש עיקור But according to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, there is disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird as well.

אמר ליה אדרבה איפכא מסתברא למאן דאמר יש שחיטה לעוף מן התורה איכא למימר דהכי אגמריה דאין עיקור ואפי' למאן דאמר כבהמה לענין עיקור לא ליהוי כבהמה Rav Ashi said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. According to the one who says: There is a source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, the halakhot of slaughter are not explicit and were transmitted to Moses orally, and it can be said that this is what God taught him, that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim. And even according to the one who says that the halakhic status of a bird is like that of an animal, as the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird are derived from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal, perhaps God taught Moses that with regard to the matter of ripping simanim it will not be like an animal.

אלא למ"ד אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה אלא מדברי סופרים מהיכא גמירי לה מבהמה כולה מילתא כבהמה But according to the one who says: There is no source for the slaughter of a bird in the Torah, but rather it is by rabbinic law, from where are the halakhot of the slaughter of a bird learned? They are learned from the halakhot of the slaughter of an animal; consequently, the entire matter of the slaughter of a bird is like that of an animal.

אמר רבינא אמר לי רבין בר קיסי הא דתני רמי בר יחזקאל אין עיקור סימנין בעוף לא אמרן אלא במליקה אבל בשחיטה יש עיקור והא"ר ירמיה אמר שמואל כל הכשר בשחיטה כנגדו בעורף כשר במליקה הא פסול פסול ההוא פליגא Ravina said: Ravin bar Kisi said to me: With regard to that which Rami bar Yeḥezkel teaches, i.e., that there is no disqualification for ripping simanim in a bird, we say it only with regard to pinching, but with regard to slaughter, there is disqualification for ripping simanim. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say that Shmuel says: Any place that is valid for slaughter on the throat is correspondingly valid for pinching on the nape, but that which is not valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching. The Gemara explains: That halakha disagrees with this statement of Shmuel.

אמר זעירי נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה נבלה § Ze’eiri says: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass. It is dead and can no longer be rendered fit by slaughter.

אמר רב חסדא אף אנן נמי תנינא מלק בסכין מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה ואי אמרת טרפה הויא מליקתה זו היא שחיטתה תהני לה סכין לטהרה מידי נבלה Rav Ḥisda said that we learn this in a mishna (Zevaḥim 68a) as well: If one pinched a bird offering with a knife and not with his thumbnail, the bird renders the garments of one who swallows it impure when it is in the throat, which is the halakha in the case of an unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird. And if you would say that if the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the bird is not an unslaughtered carcass but it is a tereifa, then since with regard to a bird offering its pinching is its slaughter, let pinching with a knife be effective to purify the bird from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, as a tereifa does not transmit impurity when slaughtered properly. From the halakha that pinching with a knife does not render the bird pure it is evident that when its neck bone is broken the bird is rendered an unslaughtered carcass.

אמרי התם משום דלאו שחיטה היא כלל מאי טעמא רב הונא אמר מפני שהוא מחליד רבא אמר מפני שהוא דורס The Sages say in response: There, pinching with a knife is ineffective in rendering it pure not because the breaking of the neck bone renders the bird an unslaughtered carcass. Rather, it is because it is not slaughter at all. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rav Huna says: It is because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, which invalidates the slaughter. Rava says: It is because he presses the knife.

מ"ד מפני שהוא מחליד מ"ט לא אמר מפני שהוא דורס קסבר מוליך ומביא במליקה כשר ומ"ד מפני שהוא דורס מאי טעמא לא אמר מפני שהוא מחליד אמר לך חלדה היכי דמי כחולדה הדרה בעיקרי בתים דמכסיא הכא הא מיגליא The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who says: Because he conceals the knife and performs an inverted slaughter, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he presses the knife? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that drawing back and forth in pinching is valid. The Gemara asks: And the one who says: Because he presses the knife, what is the reason that he does not say: Because he conceals [maḥlid] the knife? The Gemara answers that he could have said to you: What are the circumstances of concealing the knife? It is like a rat [ḥulda] that resides in the foundations of houses that are concealed. Here, when he begins cutting from the nape of the neck, that knife is exposed.

אמר רבא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי וכי מתה עומד ומולק Rava said: If that which Ze’eiri said: If the neck bone of an animal or a bird was broken and most of the surrounding flesh was cut with it, the status of the animal or the bird is that of an unslaughtered carcass, is difficult for me, this is difficult for me: How does pinching a bird offering prepare it for sacrifice? Since pinching involves breaking the neck bone and cutting most of the surrounding flesh with it before cutting the simanim, what significance is there to pinching the simanim? And does he stand and pinch a dead bird? If it is dead, of what use is the pinching?

א"ל אביי ותקשי לך עולת העוף דבעיא שני סימנין וכי מתה עומד ומולק אמר ליה התם כדי לקיים בה מצות הבדלה Abaye said to him: And even without the statement of Ze’eiri, let the case of a bird burnt offering be difficult for you, as it requires cutting of two simanim. Since slaughter of a non-sacred bird requires cutting of one siman, once one siman is cut the bird is considered dead for all intents and purposes, and does he stand and pinch a dead bird? Rava said to him: There, he continues pinching in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of separation between the head and the body in the bird burnt offering.

אי הכי עור נמי כל המעכב בשחיטה מעכב בהבדלה וכל שאינו מעכב בשחיטה אינו מעכב בהבדלה The Gemara asks: If so, there should be an obligation to cut the skin of the bird as well in order to fulfill the mitzva of separation. Abaye answers: Any element that invalidates slaughter invalidates separation, and any element that does not invalidate slaughter does not invalidate separation. Failure to cut the skin does not invalidate slaughter.

והא מיעוט סימנין לרבנן דלא מעכבי בשחיטה ומעכבי בהבדלה אלא אימא כל שישנו בשחיטה ישנו בהבדלה וכל שאינו בשחיטה אינו בהבדלה The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the minority of the simanim according to the Rabbis, which do not invalidate slaughter, as, if one slaughtered a majority of the simanim and a minority remained uncut, the slaughter is valid, and they hold that they invalidate separation? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, say: Any element that is in effect with regard to slaughter is in effect with regard to separation, and any element that is not in effect with regard to slaughter is not in effect with regard to separation. The two simanim, although they do not invalidate slaughter, are part of the mitzva of slaughter, while the skin is not part of the mitzva of slaughter.

מכל מקום קשיא אמר רבא אימא וכן הוא עושה חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר In any case, the statement of Ze’eiri remains difficult. What is the significance of pinching a dead bird? Rava said: Say in explanation: And likewise he does when he pinches, he cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh and then he pinches the simanim.

כי סליק רבי זירא אשכחיה לר' אמי דיתיב וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה וכי מתה עומד ומולק (דניאל ד, טז) אשתומם כשעה חדא אמר ליה אימא כך הוא עושה חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this halakha that Ze’eiri said, and Rabbi Zeira said to him: And does one stand and pinch a dead bird? Rabbi Ami was astonished [eshtomam] for a moment (see Daniel 4:16), and thought about it and said to Rabbi Ami: Say that this is what he does: He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh.

תניא נמי הכי כיצד מולקין חטאת העוף חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר עד שמגיע לוושט או לקנה הגיע לוושט או לקנה חותך סימן אחד או רובו ורוב בשר עמו ובעולה שנים או רוב שנים That is also taught in a baraita: How does one pinch the nape of a bird sin offering? He cuts the spinal column and the neck bone without a majority of the surrounding flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. Once he has reached the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one siman or its majority and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it; and in a burnt offering he cuts two simanim or the majority of two simanim.

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי שנים דוקא אי כר"א בר"ש האמר רוב שנים The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited in the baraita? If you say it is the Rabbis, don’t they say that one must cut specifically two simanim and not their majority? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that one must cut only a majority of the two simanim and no more, in which case why does the baraita specify two simanim or the majority of two simanim?

אימא שנים לרבנן רוב שנים לרבי אלעזר בר"ש ואיבעית אימא הא והא ר' אלעזר בר"ש ומאי שנים שדומין לשנים The Gemara answers: Say that when the baraita says two, it is according to the Rabbis; when it says a majority of two, it is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And if you wish, say instead: Both this, two, and that, a majority of two, are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and what is the meaning of two? It does not mean two simanim in their entirety; rather, it means that one must cut a significant majority of the simanim that is similar to two entire simanim.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה מטמא באהל § Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If the neck bone of a person was broken and a majority of the surrounding flesh with it was cut, that person imparts impurity in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with him he becomes impure, as his halakhic status is that of a corpse even though he is still twitching.

וא"ת אותו מעשה דעלי מפרקת בלא רוב בשר הואי זקנה שאני דכתיב (שמואל א ד, יח) ויהי כהזכירו את ארון האלהים ויפול מעל הכסא אחורנית בעד יד השער ותשבר מפרקתו וימת כי זקן האיש וכבד וגו' And if you say that the incident of the death of Eli, the High Priest, whose death is described: “And his neck bone broke, and he died” (I Samuel 4:18), was one where the neck bone broke without the majority of the surrounding flesh being cut, and nevertheless he died immediately, the Gemara responds: Old age is different, as it is written: “And it came to pass, when he made mention of the Ark of God, that he fell from off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died; for he was an old man, and heavy; and he had judged Israel forty years” (I Samuel 4:18).

אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן קרעו כדג מטמא באהל א"ר שמואל בר יצחק ומגבו Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ripped a person like one cuts a fish, lengthwise, the halakhic status of the ripped person is that of a corpse even though he is still convulsing, and he imparts impurity in a tent. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: And that is specifically if he was ripped from his back.

אמר שמואל עשאה גיסטרא נבלה א"ר אלעזר ניטל הירך וחלל שלה (ניכר) נבלה ה"ד חלל שלה (ניכר) אמר רבא כל שרבוצה ונראית חסרה § The Gemara resumes discussions of the halakhot of an animal. Shmuel says: If one rendered the animal like a shard [gistera] by cutting it in two widthwise, its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass even though it is still convulsing. Rabbi Elazar says: If the thigh, the hind leg of the animal, was removed and its recess is obvious, it is an unslaughtered carcass and it imparts impurity even if it remains alive. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of its recess being obvious? Rava said: It is any situation where the animal is collapsed and even so its hind leg is visibly lacking.

תנן התם הותזו ראשיהן אע"פ שמפרכסין טמאים כזנב הלטאה שמפרכסת We learned in a mishna there (Oholot 1:6) with regard to creeping animals whose carcasses are ritually impure: If their heads were removed, even if they are convulsing, they are impure like the tail of a lizard that was severed that convulses even though it is not alive.

מאי הותזו ר"ל אמר הותזו ממש ר' אסי אמר רבי מני כהבדלת עולת העוף The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Were removed? Reish Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering.

א"ל ר' ירמיה לרבי אסי כהבדלת עולת העוף לרבנן ולא פלגיתו או דלמא כהבדלת עולת העוף לר"א בר"ש ופלגיתו Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Asi: Do you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to the Rabbis, who hold that in addition to the neck bone and the surrounding flesh, one also completely severs the simanim, and then you and Reish Lakish do not disagree, as it is just like breaking the neck of the animal, since nothing remains other than the skin? Or perhaps you mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and you and Reish Lakish disagree, as Reish Lakish holds that the animal imparts impurity only when it is completely beheaded.

א"ל כהבדלת עולת העוף לר"א בר"ש ופליגינן Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yirmeya: I mean like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one cuts the majority of two simanim, and we disagree.

איכא דאמרי ר"ש בן לקיש אמר הותזו ממש ר' אסי א"ר מני כהבדלת עולת העוף לרבי אלעזר בר"ש ברוב שנים There are those who say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They were actually removed. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Mani said: It is like the separation of the head of the bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one suffices with cutting a majority of two simanim.

מאי רבנן ומאי רבי אלעזר בר"ש דתניא (ויקרא ה, י) ואת השני יעשה עולה כמשפט כמשפט חטאת בהמה § The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? The dispute is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a sliding-scale offering, in which a poor person who cannot afford an animal sin offering brings two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, it is written: “And he shall prepare the second as a burnt offering, according to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering in whose stead the offering was brought.

אתה אומר כמשפט חטאת בהמה או אינו אלא כמשפט חטאת העוף כשהוא אומר והקריבו חלק הכתוב בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף ומה אני מקיים כמשפט כמשפט חטאת בהמה מה חטאת בהמה אינה באה Do you say that it is according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering, or perhaps it is only according to the ordinance of a bird sin offering? The Gemara answers: When it says with regard to the bird burnt offering brought as a gift offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), meaning that it shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, the verse distinguished between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering. And if so, how do I realize the meaning of the term “according to the ordinance”? It means according to the ordinance of an animal sin offering; just as an animal sin offering comes only

אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית אף עולת העוף אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest, so too, a bird burnt offering comes only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed only during the day, and with the right hand of the priest.

אי מה להלן ברוב שנים אף כאן ברוב שנים ת"ל (ויקרא א, טו) ומלק והקטיר מה הקטרה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו אף מליקה הראש בעצמו והגוף בעצמו The baraita asks: If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to an animal sin offering, slaughter is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, with regard to a bird burnt offering, the pinching is valid with the cutting of the majority of two simanim. Therefore, the verse states: “And pinched off its head…and burned it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:15). This indicates that just as with regard to burning, the head is burned by itself and the body is burned by itself, so too with regard to pinching, the head remains by itself and the body remains by itself.

רבי ישמעאל אומר כמשפט כמשפט חטאת העוף מה חטאת העוף ממול עורף אף עולת העוף ממול עורף Rabbi Yishmael says: “According to the ordinance” (Leviticus 5:10), which is written with regard to the sliding-scale bird sin offering, means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in the previous verse. Just as a bird sin offering is pinched adjacent to its nape (Leviticus 5:8), beneath the occipital bone, so too a bird burnt offering is pinched adjacent to its nape, beneath the occipital bone.

אי מה להלן מולק ואינו מבדיל בסימן אחד אף כאן מולק ואינו מבדיל בסימן אחד תלמוד לומר (ויקרא א, ה) והקריבו If so, perhaps just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut, so too here, with regard to the burnt offering, he pinches and does not separate between the head and the body and leaves one siman uncut. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that a bird burnt offering shall be sacrificed in a unique manner, not like the sin offering.

רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר (ויקרא ה, י) כמשפט כמשפט חטאת העוף מה להלן Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: “According to the ordinance” means according to the ordinance that is written with regard to a bird sin offering. Just as there,

אוחז בראש ובגוף ומזה אף כאן אוחז בראש ובגוף ומזה after the pinching, the priest holds [oḥez] the head and the body of the bird and sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt offering, he holds the head and the body and sprinkles the blood on the altar.

מאי קאמר הכי קאמר מה להלן כשהוא אחוז הראש בגוף מזה אף כאן כשהוא אחוז הראש בגוף מזה The Gemara asks: What is he saying? There is no requirement with regard to a bird sin offering that the priest hold both the head and the body while sprinkling the blood. The Gemara answers that this is what he is saying: Just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, when the head is attached [aḥuz] to the body, the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt offering, when the head is attached to the body, the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar. This is what was cited above in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that one cuts a majority of two simanim in a burnt offering and not the two simanim in their entirety.

אי מה להלן בסימן אחד אף כאן בסימן אחד ת"ל והקריבו The baraita continues: If so, perhaps just as there, in the sin offering, the pinching is performed with the cutting of one siman, so too here, in the burnt offering, the pinching is performed with the cutting of one siman. To counter this, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that the burnt offering is sacrificed in a manner different from that of the sin offering, by cutting two simanim.

ות"ק וכי מאחר דנפקא לן מומלק והקטיר והקריבו למה לי The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, once we derive that both simanim of a bird burnt offering must be cut in their entirety from the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” why do I need the phrase: “And the priest shall bring it?”

אי לאו והקריבו הוה אמינא מאי כמשפט כמשפט חטאת העוף The Gemara answers: If not for the verse that states: “And the priest shall bring it,” I would say: What is the meaning of “according to the ordinance” that is stated with regard to the bird burnt offering? It means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in that same passage, in the sense that even in the burnt offering, the priest cuts only one siman.

ואי משום ומלק והקטיר הוה אמינא מה הקטרה בראשו של מזבח אף מליקה בראשו של מזבח And if you would say that one cannot suggest this interpretation due to the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” I would say that perhaps another halakha would be derived from that verse: Just as burning the offering is atop the altar, so too pinching is performed atop the altar.

השתא דכתב רחמנא והקריבו דרוש ביה נמי הא Now that the Merciful One writes: “And the priest shall bring it,” indicating the distinction between the pinching of a bird burnt offering and the pinching of a bird sin offering, derive this also from the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” i.e., that the body and the head of a bird burnt offering must be completely separated.

חטאת בהמה דאינה באה אלא מן החולין מנלן אמר רב חסדא דאמר קרא (ויקרא טז, ו) והקריב אהרן את פר החטאת אשר לו משלו ולא משל צבור ולא משל מעשר § The first tanna of the baraita derives from the analogy between the bird burnt offering and the animal sin offering that a bird burnt offering is brought only from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, that it is sacrificed only during the day, and that the priest sacrificing it must do so with his right hand. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the halakha that an animal sin offering comes only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said that the verse states: “And Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin offering that is his” (Leviticus 16:6, 11), from which it is derived: The animal must come from his cattle, but not from communal property, from his cattle, but not from second-tithe property.

ביום (ויקרא ז, לח) מביום צוותו נפקא כדי נסבה The Gemara objects: The halakha that the bird burnt offering is sacrificed only during the day is derived from the verse: “In the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38), not from the halakha of the animal sin offering. The Gemara explains: The requirement of sacrificing the bird burnt offering during the day is not derived from the halakha of the animal sin offering, and it was cited in that list incidentally, for no reason [kedi].

ידו הימנית מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אר"ש בן לקיש כל מקום שנאמר אצבע או כהונה אינה אלא ימין The Gemara objects: The halakha that the priest performs the service with his right hand is derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Any place where the terms finger or priesthood are stated with regard to offerings, the sacrificial rites of that offering are performed only with the right hand, and in the context of the bird burnt offering the term “priest” is employed. It is therefore unnecessary to derive this halakha from the analogy to the animal sin offering.

ואידך כהונה בעיא אצבע אצבע לא בעיא כהונה The Gemara responds: And the other tanna, the first tanna of the baraita, who derived that the right hand is used from the analogy to the animal sin offering based on the term “according to the ordinance,” did not derive it from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana because in his opinion, in order to derive that the right hand must be used, if the verse mentions only the priesthood, it requires mention of finger for the limitation to apply. If the verse mentions only the term finger, then it does not require a mention of the priesthood as well. With regard to the bird burnt offering, the priesthood is mentioned, but the word finger is not. Therefore, the halakha must be derived from the animal sin offering.

ותנא קמא ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון ממול העורף מנא להו גמרי מליקה ממליקה: It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yishmael derived from the term “according to the ordinance” that is written with regard to the bird burnt offering that the pinching of the bird burnt offering is performed at the nape of the neck, as it is in a bird sin offering. The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who derive other matters from that term, from where do they derive that pinching of the bird burnt offering is performed at the nape of the neck? The Gemara answers: They derive pinching that is written with regard to the burnt offering: “And pinch off its head” (Leviticus 1:15), from pinching that is written with regard to the sin offering: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its neck” (Leviticus 5:8).

מתני׳ כשר בתורין פסול בבני יונה כשר בבני יונה פסול בתורין תחלת הציהוב בזה ובזה פסול: MISHNA: It is written with regard to bird offerings: “He shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14). The age that is fit for sacrifice in doves, mature birds, is unfit for sacrifice in pigeons, immature birds;the age that is fit for sacrifice in pigeons is unfit for sacrifice in doves. At the intermediate stage of the beginning of the yellowing of its plumage (see 22b), a bird is unfit both as this, a pigeon, and as that, a dove, since it is no longer a fledgling but is not yet a mature bird.

גמ׳ ת"ר תורין גדולים כשרים קטנים פסולים בני יונה קטנים כשרים גדולים פסולין נמצא כשר בתורין פסול בבני יונה כשר בבני יונה פסול בתורין GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita in explaining the mishna: Doves, when they are older, are fit for sacrifice; when they are younger, they are unfit. Pigeons, when they are younger, are fit for sacrifice; when they are older, they are unfit. It is found that that which is fit for sacrifice in doves is unfit for sacrifice in pigeons; that which is fit for sacrifice in pigeons is unfit for sacrifice in doves.

תנו רבנן תורים גדולים ולא קטנים שיכול והלא דין הוא The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And he shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14), that doves are older and not younger. As one might have thought: And couldn’t this be derived through an a fortiori inference:

כי איצטריך קרא למעוטי נרבע ונעבד The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב (ויקרא כב, כה) כי משחתם בהם מום בם ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים דבר ערוה דכתיב (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: “Because their corruption [moshḥatam] is in them, there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashḥata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥit] their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.

עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם לכם פסל כל שהמום פוסל בו דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בו וכל שאין המום פוסל בו אין דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים פוסלין בו והני עופות הואיל ולא פסיל בהו מומא דאמר מר תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות אימא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים נמי לא לפסול בהו קא משמע לן Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [tashḥitun], and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.

בעי רבי זירא האומר הרי עלי עולת בהמה מן האיל או מן הכבש והביא פלגס מהו § Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?

אליבא דרבי יוחנן לא תבעי לך דאמר בריה הוי דתנן הקריבו מביא עליו נסכי איל ואין עולה לו מזבחו The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.

וא"ר יוחנן (במדבר טו, ו) או לאיל לרבות את הפלגס And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.

כי תבעי לך אליבא דבר פדא When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,

דאמר מייתי ומתני as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.

מי אמרינן איל וכבש מתנה בבריה לא מתנה או דלמא בבריה נמי מתנה דאמר אי בריה הוה ליהוי כוליה נדבה תיקו The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רבי זירא האומר הרי עלי לחמי תודה מן החמץ או מן המצה והביא שיאור מהו § The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?

שיאור דמאן אי שיאור דר"מ לרבי יהודה מצה מעלייתא היא The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.

אי דרבי יהודה לר"מ חמץ הוא If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.

ואי דר"מ לר' מאיר מדלקי עליה חמץ הוא And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.

אלא דרבי יהודה לרבי יהודה מאי ספיקא הויא ונפיק ממה נפשך או דלמא בריה הוא ולא נפיק Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.

והאמר רב הונא האומר הרי עלי לחמי תודה מביא תודה ולחמה וכיון דאיחייב ליה בתודה ולחמה הא לא ידע האי גברא אי חמץ הוא דליתי מצה אי מצה הוא דליתי חמץ The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.

לא צריכא דאמר הרי עלי חלה לפטור תודתו של פלוני The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.

סוף סוף הא לא ידע האי גברא אי חמץ הוא דליתי מצה אי מצה הוא דליתי חמץ לא צריכא דלא אמר לפטור מיפק גברא ידי נדרו נפיק או לא נפיק תיקו: The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the other’s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה כשר בעגלה פסול בפרה: MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן פרה בשחיטה כשרה בעריפה פסולה עגלה בעריפה כשרה בשחיטה פסולה נמצאת כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה כשר בעגלה פסול בפרה GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

ותהא פרה כשרה בעריפה מק"ו ומה עגלה שלא הוכשרה בשחיטה הוכשרה בעריפה פרה שהוכשרה בשחיטה אינה דין שהוכשרה בעריפה The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?

אמר קרא ושחט וחוקה בשחיטה אין בעריפה לא The Gemara answers that the verse states with regard to the red heifer: “And he shall slaughter it” (Numbers 19:3), and it mentions the term statute: “This is the statute of the Torah” (Numbers 19:2), indicating that with slaughter, yes, the red heifer is rendered fit; with breaking the neck, the red heifer is not rendered fit.

וכל היכא דכתיב ביה חוקה לא דרשינן ק"ו והא גבי יום הכפורים דכתיב ביה חוקה ותניא (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת The Gemara asks: And is it so that anywhere that statute is written with regard to a certain matter, we do not learn an a fortiori inference? But what about Yom Kippur, with regard to which statute is written: “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you” (Leviticus 16:34), and nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: “And Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin offering” (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin offering does not render it a sin offering.

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קדש הגורל קדש השם מקום שקדש הגורל אינו דין שקדש השם ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If in a case where the lottery does not sanctify the animal with a specific designation, such as in the case of two birds brought by a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless a verbal designation of that offering sanctifies it, in a case where the lottery sanctifies the animal on Yom Kippur, isn’t it logical that a verbal designation as a sin offering sanctifies it? Therefore, the verse states: “And render it a sin offering;” the lottery renders the goat a sin offering, but a verbal designation of a sin offering does not render the goat a sin offering.

טעמא דכתב רחמנא ועשהו חטאת הא לאו הכי דרשינן ק"ו The Gemara infers: The reason that the a fortiori inference is not learned is that the Merciful One writes: “And he shall offer it for a sin offering.” But otherwise we would learn an a fortiori inference, despite the fact that statute is written with regard to the Yom Kippur service.

מיעט רחמנא גבי עגלה הערופה זאת בעריפה ואין אחרת בעריפה The Gemara explains: Actually, one may learn an a fortiori inference even in a case where statute is written. Nevertheless, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, the Merciful One restricts the use of breaking the neck: “And all the Elders of that city…shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck is broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). From the relative pronoun “whose” it is derived: This heifer is killed by breaking the neck, but no other, i.e., the red heifer, is killed by breaking the neck.

ותהא עגלה כשרה בשחיטה מק"ו ומה פרה שלא הוכשרה בעריפה כשרה בשחיטה עגלה שכשרה בעריפה אינו דין שהוכשרה בשחיטה אמר קרא (דברים כא, ד) וערפו העגלה בעריפה אין בשחיטה לא: The Gemara challenges: And let it be derived that the heifer whose neck is broken is rendered fit with slaughter by means of an a fortiori inference: If a red heifer, which is not rendered fit with breaking the neck, is rendered fit with slaughter, then with regard to a heifer whose neck is broken, which is rendered fit with breaking the neck, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with slaughter? The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And shall break the neck of the heifer there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The doubled reference to breaking the neck in the two verses indicates that by breaking the neck, yes, the heifer may be killed; by slaughter, the heifer may not be killed.

מתני׳ כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים כשר בלוים פסול בכהנים: MISHNA: There is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is also an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

גמ׳ ת"ר כהנים במומין פסולים בשנים כשרים לוים במומין כשרים בשנים פסולים נמצא כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים כשר בלוים פסול בכהנים GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: Priests are rendered unfit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah (see Leviticus 21:16–23), but remain fit with the passage of years, as from the moment that they reach majority they are fit for service for the rest of their lives. Levites remain fit for Temple service with the blemishes enumerated in the Torah but are unfit with the passage of years, as they are fit for service only between the ages of thirty and fifty (see Numbers 4:47). It is found that there is an element with which priests remain fit and Levites are unfit, and there is an element with which Levites remain fit and priests are unfit.

מנה"מ דת"ר (במדבר ח, כד) זאת אשר ללוים מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר (במדבר ח, כה) ומבן חמשים שנה ישוב למדנו ללוים שהשנים פוסלין בהם יכול מומין פוסלין בהם ודין הוא ומה כהנים שאין השנים פוסלין בהן מומין פוסלין בהן לוים שהשנים פוסלין בהם אינו דין שיהו מומין פוסלין בהם ת"ל זאת אשר ללוים זאת ללוים ואין אחרת ללוים The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: “This is that which pertains to the Levites” (Numbers 8:24); why must the verse state this? Since it is stated: “And from the age of fifty years he shall return from the service” (Numbers 8:25), we learned with regard to the Levites that the passage of years disqualifies them. One might have thought that blemishes disqualify them too. And ostensibly, it could be learned through logical inference: If priests, with regard to whom the passage of years does not disqualify them, blemishes disqualify them, then in the case of Levites, with regard to whom the passage of years disqualifies them, isn’t it logical that blemishes disqualify them? Therefore, the verse states: “This is that which pertains to the Levites,” from which it is derived: “This,” the passage of years, is a disqualification that pertains to the Levites, and there is no other disqualification that pertains to the Levites.

יכול יהו הכהנים פסולין בשנים והלא דין הוא ומה לוים שאין מומין פוסלין בהם שנים פוסלין בהם כהנים שהמומין פוסלין בהם אינו דין שיהו שנים פוסלין בהם ת"ל אשר ללוים ולא אשר לכהנים One might have thought that priests would be disqualified with the passage of years. And ostensibly, could this not be derived through the following a fortiori inference: If Levites, with regard to whom blemishes do not disqualify them, the passage of years disqualifies them, then in the case of priests, with regard to whom blemishes disqualify them, isn’t it logical that the passage of years disqualifies them? Therefore, the verse states: “Which pertains to the Levites,” and not which pertains to the priests.

יכול אף בשילה ובבית עולמים כן ת"ל (במדבר ד, מז) לעבוד עבודת עבודה ועבודת משא לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שהעבודה בכתף One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “To perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens” (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.

כתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ח, כד) מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ד, ג) מבן שלשים אי אפשר לומר שלשים שכבר נאמר כ"ה ואי אפשר לומר כ"ה שכבר נאמר שלשים הא כיצד כ"ה ללמוד ושלשים לעבודה The baraita notes that one verse states: “From twenty-five years old and upward” (Numbers 8:24), and one verse states: “From thirty years old and upward” (Numbers 4:47). It is impossible to say thirty, as twenty-five is already stated, and it is impossible to say twenty-five, as thirty is already stated. How can these verses be reconciled? Twenty-five years old is the time for apprenticeship and thirty for service.

מכאן לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה במשנתו ה' שנים שוב אינו רואה ר' יוסי אומר ג' שנים שנאמר (דניאל א, ה) ולגדלם שנים שלש וללמדם ספר ולשון כשדים From here it is derived that a student who did not see a positive indication in his studies after five years will no longer see a productive result from those studies. Rabbi Yosei says that the period is three years, as it is stated with regard to Daniel and his cohort who instructed the king of Babylonia: “And they should be raised three years” (Daniel 1:5), “and he should teach them the books and the language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1:4).

ואידך שאני לשון כשדים דקליל ואידך שאני הלכות עבודה דתקיפין The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna explain the verses in Daniel? The Gemara answers: He holds that the verses in Daniel cannot be cited as a source for this principle because the language of the Chaldeans is different, as it is easy and can be learned in a shorter period. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei, explain the verses with regard to the Levites? The Gemara answers: He holds that the halakhot of Temple service are different, as they are difficult and require a longer period of study.

ת"ר כהן משיביא שתי שערות עד שיזקין כשר לעבודה ומומין פוסלין בו בן לוי מבן שלשים ועד בן חמשים כשר לעבודה ושנים פוסלין בו בד"א באהל מועד שבמדבר אבל בשילה ובבית עולמים אין נפסלין אלא בקול א"ר יוסי מאי קרא The Sages taught in a baraita: A priest, from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs until he ages, is fit for Temple service, and blemishes disqualify him. A Levite from the age of thirty until the age of fifty is fit for Temple service, and the passage of years disqualifies him. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. But with regard to Shiloh and in the eternal Temple, Levites are disqualified only due to a change in voice that renders them unable to recite the songs in the Temple with their brethren. Rabbi Yosei said: What is the verse from which this is derived?

(דברי הימים ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד: “It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.

עד שיזקין עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר ר' חנינא עד שירתת The baraita teaches that the priest is eligible for service until he ages. The Gemara asks: Until when, i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble.

תנן התם בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים לכשיטיל טמא ר' יוסי אומר בחולה ובזקן טמא בילד ובבריא טהור We learned in a mishna there (Mikvaot 8:4): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission who then immersed in a ritual bath and did not urinate before immersing, when he urinates he is ritually impure, because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of an ill person and an elderly person, he is ritually impure; in the case of a young person and a healthy person, he is ritually pure, as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset.

ילד עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי חנינא כל שעומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא שהיה בן שמונים שנה והיה עומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמר רבי חנינא חמין ושמן שסכתני אמי בילדותי הן עמדו לי בעת זקנותי Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who is able to stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe is considered young. They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age.

ת"ר נתמלא זקנו ראוי ליעשות שליח ציבור ולירד לפני התיבה ולישא את כפיו מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות רבי אומר אומר אני עד שיהא בן עשרים The Sages taught: If one’s beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction. From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age.

א"ר חסדא מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (עזרא ג, ח) ויעמידו [את] הלוים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה לנצח על מלאכת בית ה' ואידך לנצח שאני Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: “And appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest.

והא האי קרא בלוים כתיב כדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isn’t that verse written with regard to Levites? The Gemara answers: It is understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses.

ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יז) איש מזרעך לדורותם מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר קטן פסול לעבודה ואפי' תם מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות אבל אחיו הכהנים אין מניחין אותו לעבוד עד שיהא בן כ' The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Any man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God” (Leviticus 21:17); from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor priest is unfit for Temple service, even if he is unblemished, as he is not a man. From when is he fit for service? From the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty years of age.

איכא דאמרי הא רבי היא ואפי' פסול דרבנן לית ליה ואיכא דאמרי רבי אית ליה פסול מדרבנן והא רבנן היא ולכתחלה הוא דלא אבל דיעבד עבודתו כשרה: There are those who say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is of the opinion that there is no disqualification for one between puberty and twenty years of age even by rabbinic law. The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service ab initio. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that there is disqualification by rabbinic law in that case, and this statement in the baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, and they hold that it is ab initio that one may not perform the service, but after the fact, his service is valid.

מתני׳ טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש: MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other types of vessels; that which is ritually pure in all the other types of vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

גמ׳ ת"ר אויר כלי חרש טמא וגבו טהור אויר כל הכלים טהור וגבן טמא נמצא טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of an earthenware vessel the vessel is ritually impure, and if it fell on its outer side, the vessel is ritually pure. If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of all the other types of vessels, the vessels are ritually pure, and if it fell on their outer side, they are ritually impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other vessels, and that which is ritually pure in all the other vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel.

מנהני מילי דת"ר תוכו ואע"פ שלא נגע The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell “in it [tokho],” and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.

אתה אומר אע"פ שלא נגע או אינו אלא אם כן נגע רבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר נאמר (ויקרא יא, לג) תוכו לטמא ונאמר תוכו ליטמא מה תוכו האמור לטמא אע"פ שלא נגע אף תוכו האמור ליטמא אע"פ שלא נגע The baraita continues: Do you say that it is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, or perhaps it is impure only if it did come into contact with the vessel? Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: Tokho is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,” and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: “Into which [tokho] any of them falls”; just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, the food is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with it.

והתם מנלן אמר רבי יונתן התורה העידה על כלי חרס The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, from where do we derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel

ואפילו מלא חרדל that it renders impure everything within it, and this is the halakha even if it is full of mustard seeds, in which case most of the seeds do not come in contact with the sides of the vessel, and nevertheless all the mustard seeds become impure.

א"ל רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא ויהא כלי חרס מיטמא מגבו מק"ו ומה כל הכלים שאין מיטמאין מאוירן מיטמאין מגבן כלי חרס שמיטמא מאוירו אינו דין שיטמא מגבו Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And let it be derived that an earthenware vessel becomes impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side by means of an a fortiori inference: If all the other types of vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, then with regard to an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, isn’t it logical that it will become ritually impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side?

אמר קרא (במדבר יט, טו) וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו איזהו כלי שטומאתו קודמת לפתחו הוי אומר זה כלי חרס וכי אין צמיד פתיל עליו הוא דטמא הא יש צמיד פתיל עליו טהור The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), indicating that its impurity is dependent upon the mouth of the vessel. Which is the vessel whose impurity hastily takes effect just after the impure item enters into its mouth? You must say that is an earthenware vessel. And it is when there is no sealed cover on it that the vessel becomes impure. But when there is a sealed cover on it, the vessel is pure, as the earthenware vessel does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side.

ויהיו כל הכלים מיטמאין מאוירן מק"ו ומה כלי חרס שאין מיטמא מגבו מיטמא מאוירו כל הכלים שמיטמאין מגבן אינו דין שמיטמאין מאוירן The Gemara suggests: And let it be derived that all the other vessels become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, then with regard to all the other vessels, which become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side, isn’t it logical that they will become ritually impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace?

אמר קרא תוכו תוכו של זה ולא תוכו של אחר The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states with regard to the carcasses of creeping animals: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls” (Leviticus 11:33), from which it is inferred: Tokho, i.e., the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho, the airspace, of any other kind of vessel.

והני תוכו הא דרשינהו The Gemara objects: How can the halakha be derived from the term tokho in that verse? But didn’t the Sages interpret these instances of tokho that appear in that verse and derive: Just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity, the food is impure even though it did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even though the impure item did not come into contact with it.

ארבעה תוכו כתיבי (ויקרא יא, לג) תוכו תוך תוכו תוך The Gemara explains: Four instances of the term tokho from which halakhot can be derived are written: “Tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written; those are two instances. Then, later in that verse, once again “tokho” is written, and tokh could have been written.

חד לגופיה וחד לג"ש וחד תוכו של זה ולא תוכו של אחר וחד תוכו ולא תוך תוכו ואפילו כלי שטף One instance is to teach the halakha itself, that the vessel renders the food in its airspace ritually impure, and one instance is to teach the verbal analogy from which it is derived that the vessel becomes impure without contact with the impure item; and one source is to teach that tokho, the airspace, of this earthenware vessel renders the vessel impure, and not tokho of any other kind of vessel; and one source is to teach tokho, food in the airspace of an impure earthenware vessel becomes impure, but not tokh tokho, not food that is in the airspace of a vessel that is within an earthenware vessel, and even if that inner vessel is one of the other types of vessel purified through rinsing in the water of a ritual bath.

ולא יהו כל הכלים מיטמאין מגבן אלא מתוכן ובנגיעה מק"ו ומה כלי חרס שמיטמא מאוירו אינו מיטמא מגבו כל הכלים שאין מיטמאין מאוירן אינו דין שאין מיטמאין מגבן The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that all the other vessels do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer sides, but rather from the presence of an impure item inside them and with contact with their inner sides by means of an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure from the presence of an impure item in its airspace, does not become impure from contact of an impure item with its outer side, then with regard to all the other vessels, which do not become impure from the presence of an impure item in their airspace, isn’t it logical that they do not become impure from contact of an impure item with their outer side?

אמר קרא (במדבר יט, טו) וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הוא האי הוא דכי אין צמיד פתיל עליו טמא הא יש צמיד פתיל עליו טהור הא כל הכלים בין שיש צמיד פתיל עליהם בין שאין צמיד פתיל עליהם מיטמאין: The Gemara answers: Therefore, the verse states: “And every open vessel that has no sealed cover upon it is impure” (Numbers 19:15), from which it is derived: This earthenware vessel (see Leviticus 11:33) is the one that when there is not a sealed cover upon it, it is impure, but when there is a sealed cover upon it, it is pure. But with regard to all the other vessels, whether there is a sealed cover upon them or whether there is not a sealed cover upon them, they become impure.

מתני׳ טהור בכלי עץ טמא בכלי מתכות טהור בכלי מתכות טמא בכלי עץ: MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן גולמי כלי עץ טמאין פשוטיהן טהורין גולמי כלי מתכות טהורין פשוטיהן טמאין נמצא טהור בכלי עץ טמא בכלי מתכות טהור בכלי מתכות טמא בכלי עץ GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: Unfinished [golmei] wooden vessels that are receptacles and are fit for use but work remains to complete their crafting are susceptible to becoming impure. Flat wooden utensils are not susceptible to impurity. Unfinished metal vessels are not susceptible to impurity. Flat metal utensils are susceptible to becoming impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels; that which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.

ואלו הן גולמי כלי עץ כל שעתיד לשוף לשבץ לגרר לכרכב להטיח בטונס מחוסר כן או אוגן או אוזן טמא מחוסר חטיטה טהור And these are the unfinished wooden vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it with grooves and protuberances, to rub it and smooth it with the skin of a tuna [tunas], or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure. If the vessel is lacking the hollowing necessary to render it a receptacle, it is not susceptible to impurity.

מחוסר חטיטה פשיטא לא צריכא דחק קפיזא בקבא The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that if the vessel is lacking hollowing, it is not susceptible to becoming impure, as it is clearly not a vessel? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary only in a case where one hollowed three log [kefiza] in a receptacle that he intends to hold one kav, which contains six log. Even though it is a receptacle, since the receptacle is incomplete it is not susceptible to impurity.

ואלו הן גולמי כלי מתכות כל שעתיד And these are the unfinished metal vessels: Any vessel that one plans in the future

לשוף לשבץ לגרר לכרכר להקיש בקורנס מחוסר כן או אוגן או אוזן טהור מחוסר כסוי טמא to smooth, to set gems or ornaments in it, to plane it, to adorn it, to strike it with a hammer, or if it is lacking a base or a rim or a handle, the vessel is not susceptible to impurity. If the vessel was complete and was lacking a cover, the vessel is susceptible to becoming impure.

מאי שנא הני ומאי שנא הני רבי יוחנן אמר הואיל ולכבוד עשויין רב נחמן אמר הואיל ודמיהן יקרים The Gemara asks: What is different about these unfinished wooden vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that provided they are fit for use they are susceptible to impurity, and what is different about those unfinished metal vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that even if they are fit for use they are not susceptible to impurity until their crafting is complete? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference is that since metal vessels are crafted for uses of honor, they are not considered vessels until their completion. Rav Naḥman said: The difference is that since the worth of metal vessels is expensive, they cannot be sold at that price unless they are complete.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו כלי עצם ואזדא רב נחמן לטעמיה דאמר רב נחמן כלי עצם ככלי מתכות דמו The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between their opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to bone vessels crafted from horns, which are expensive but are not crafted for uses of honor. And Rav Naḥman follows his line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman says: The halakhic status of bone vessels with regard to impurity is like that of metal vessels.

מכלל דכלי עצם מקבלי טומאה אין דתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר מה תלמוד לומר (במדבר לא, כ) וכל מעשה עזים תתחטאו להביא דבר הבא מן העזים מן הקרנים ומן הטלפים שאר בהמה וחיה מנין תלמוד לומר וכל מעשה א"כ מה ת"ל עזים פרט לעופות: The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that bone vessels are susceptible to ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And all work of goats…you shall purify” (Numbers 31:20)? It is to include vessels that come from the goats, from the horns and from the hooves, and indicate that they are susceptible to impurity. And from where is it derived that vessels that come from the horns and the hooves of other domesticated animals and undomesticated animals are susceptible to impurity? It is derived from the verse, as the verse states: “And all work,” where the term “all” is an amplification. If so, why must the verse state: “Goats?” It serves to exclude birds, as vessels crafted from the bones of birds are not susceptible to impurity.

מתני׳ החייב בשקדים המרים פטור במתוקים החייב במתוקים פטור במרים: MISHNA: With regard to the obligation of separating teruma and tithes, the stage of development that is obligated in bitter almonds is exempt in sweet almonds; and the stage in development that is obligated in sweet almonds is exempt in bitter almonds.

גמ׳ ת"ר שקדים המרים קטנים חייבין גדולים פטורין מתוקים גדולים חייבין קטנים פטורין GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the mishna: In the case of bitter almonds, when they are small one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, as they are not yet bitter and are fit for consumption; when they are large one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are bitter and unfit for consumption. In the case of sweet almonds, when they are large one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes, because the almonds are ripe and fit for consumption; when they are small one is exempt from separating teruma and tithes, because they are not fit for consumption.

רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי אומר משום אביו זה וזה לפטור ואמרי לה זה וזה לחיוב אמר רבי אלעא הורה רבי חנינא בצפורי כדברי האומר זה וזה לפטור With regard to bitter almonds, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father to exempt both this small almond and that large almond. And some say to obligate both this small almond and that large almond. Rabbi Ela said: Rabbi Ḥanina issued a ruling in Tzippori in accordance with the statement of the one who says to exempt both this small almond and that large almond.

ולמאן דאמר זה וזה לחיוב גדולים למאי חזו א"ר יוחנן הואיל ויכול למתקן ע"י האור: The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says to obligate both this small almond and that large almond, for what use are the large almonds fit? They are bitter and unfit for consumption. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since one can sweeten them by means of roasting them on the fire, this renders them fit for consumption.

מתני׳ התמד עד שלא החמיץ אינו ניקח בכסף מעשר ופוסל את המקוה משהחמיץ ניקח בכסף מעשר ואינו פוסל את המקוה MISHNA: Temed, a beverage produced from grape residue soaked in water, until it fermented, may not be purchased with second-tithe money to be drunk in Jerusalem, because it is not wine. And if three log of it fall into a ritual bath, its halakhic status is that of drawn water and it invalidates the ritual bath. Once it fermented, it is wine, and therefore it may be purchased with second-tithe money and it does not invalidate the ritual bath.

האחין השותפין כשחייבין בקלבון פטורין ממעשר בהמה כשחייבין במעשר בהמה פטורין מן הקלבון: With regard to brothers who are partners in the inheritance of their father, when they are obligated to add the premium [kalbon] to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple, they are exempt from animal tithe; when they are obligated to separate animal tithe, they are exempt from adding the premium. Partners who pay the half-shekel are required to add the premium and are exempt from animal tithe. If they are not true partners, but their inheritance remains the property of the father, the sons are exempt from paying the premium, and they are obligated to separate animal tithe.

גמ׳ מני מתניתין לא רבי יהודה ולא רבנן דתניא המתמד ונתן מים במדה ומצא כדי מדתו פטור ור' יהודה מחייב GEMARA: With regard to temed, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Ostensibly, it is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a mishna (Ma’asrot 5:6): With regard to one who prepares temed by placing water over grape byproducts, and he placed a certain measure of water, and when measuring the finished product he found its measure equivalent to the measure of water that he placed, he is exempt from the obligation of tithing it, as although it tastes like wine, there is nothing in it but water. And Rabbi Yehuda obligates him to tithe it because the taste determines that it is wine.

מני אי רבנן אע"ג דהחמיץ אי ר' יהודה אע"ג דלא החמיץ אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of the Rabbis, then if there is no more than the initial measure of water that he placed, he should be exempt even if it fermented. If it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that one is obligated even if it did not ferment, as taste is his sole criterion. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: