Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask on Rav Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas ('Ein Shechitah le'Of min ha'Torah) from a Beraisa, which rules that if a Kohen performs Melikah using a knife, the bird is Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah - because since the Melikah is Pasul, it has the Din of a Neveilah.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah - according to whom, after cutting the spinal cord and the neck (but without Rov Basar), rendering the bird a Tereifah, killing it by the neck ought to remove the Tum'as Neveilah.

(c) We answer that Rav Yehudah holds like the Tana of the following Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi, who asks on the Pasuk (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Ach Ka'asher Ye'achel es ha'Tzvi ve'ha'Ayal ... " - what we can possibly learn from "Tz'vi ve'Ayal" on to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin?

(d) So he inverts the Limud and learns - that like Pesulei ha'Mukdashin', Tzvi ve'Ayal (and other Kasher Chayos) require Shechitah.

(a) The Tana who argues with Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi is Rebbi, who learns from the Pasuk "Ve'zavachta Ka'asher Tzivisicha" - that Hilchos Shechitah were given to Moshe at Sinai.

(b) Besides the obligation to Shecht the Veshet and/or the Kaneh, he includes - 'Rov Echad be'Of' and 'Rov Shenayim bi'Beheimah' ...

(c) ... a proof that Shechitas ha'Of is (not just mi'de'Rabbanan, but) 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(a) According to Rav Nachman when Shechting a bird, the Shochet may Shecht whichever Si'man he pleases. Rav Ada bar Ahavah says - that he must Shecht the Veshet.

(b) Rav Nachman interprets 'Echad be'Of' to mean 'Echad Kol de'Hu' (any one), Rav Ada bar Ahavah as - 'Meyuchad' (the special Si'man.)

(c) We know that the Veshet is indeed 'special' - because the smallest hole renders the animal a Tereifah (a clear indication that the life of the animal depends on it), whereas the Kaneh only renders the animal a Tereifah if the majority is broken.

(a) We ask on Rav Nachman from a Beraisa. The Tana rules that if the Kaneh of a bird ...

1. ... became disconnected after the Veshet was Shechted - the bird is Kasher.
2. ... was found to have been disconnected before the Shechitah took place - it is Tereifah.
3. ... was found to be disconnected, but it could not be ascertained whether this took place before the Shechitah or after it - it is Tereifah. Such a case actually occurred, and they cited the principle that any Safek in the Shechitah is Pasul.

(b) According to Rav Nachman - why does the Tana only discuss a case where the Shochet Shechted the Veshet, and the Kaneh became disconnected, and not vice-versa?

(c) We answer - that the Tana confines himself to this case - because it is common for the Kaneh to slip out of place (but not the Veshet).

(a) Another Beraisa rules that if a Shochet Shechted two half-Simanim of a bird - the Shechitah is Pasul, and how much more so of an animal.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah requires him to Shecht the Veshet plus the Varidin. Rav Nachman will explain the fact that Rebbi Yehudah mentions specifically the Veshet and not the Kaneh - by pointing out that the Veshet lies between the Kaneh and the neck, close to the Varidin, so according to Rebbi Yehudah, it would be more natural for the Shochet to Shecht it (and not the Kaneh).

(a) Yet another Beraisa rules that if a Shochet Shechts half the Gargeres (alias the Kaneh), to complete it only after waiting the time it takes to Shecht - the Shechitah is Kasher ...

(b) ... (no less than if the Kanah had been half broken and he added only a Mashehu Shechitah) - because the first half of the Shechitas ha'Kaneh is not considered part of the Shechitah.

(c) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah (who specifically requires the Shechitah of the bird's Veshet) - this Beraisa is referring to the Shechitah of an animal, and when the Tana speaks about completing 'it', he means the Shechitah (i.e. a Mashehu of the Kaneh followed by Rov Veshet).

(d) And by the same token, when, with reference to a case where half the Kaneh has already been cut, the Beraisa adds 'Hosif Alav Kol-she'Hu ve'Gamro' - the Tana, who is referring to the Shechitah of an animal, means that he completes the Shechitah, by then Shechting Rov Veshet.

(a) We have already cited the Beraisa (in the previous Perek), which, regarding the Melikah of a Chatas ha'Of, requires breaking through the spinal cord and the neck (without Rov Basar), before cutting 'the Kaneh or the Veshet'. We are unable to reconcile Rav Ada bar Ahavah with this Beraisa - and remain with a 'Tiyuvta'.

(b) We nevertheless justify the question 'Mai Havi Alah?' (whether one is obligated to Shecht the Veshet of a bird or whether the Kaneh will do) - by suggesting that the Beraisa's ruling is restricted to Melikah, where one has already cut through the spinal cord and the neck, and very little is therefore required to finally kill the bird. But Shechting a Chulin bird perhaps, will require cutting the Veshet.

(a) We solve the problem by citing a case of a duck that was brought before Rava with its neck full of blood. The problem there was that perhaps the bird ...

1. ... was not Tereifah - because the blood was the result of the minority of the Kanah being broken.
2. ... have been Tereifah - because it was the result of the majority of the Kanah being broken, or of even a small hole in the Veshet.

(b) They could not simply ...

1. ... Shecht the duck and then inspect it - because of the possibility that the Shochet would cut precisely into the hole (in the Veshet) that caused the wound.
2. ... inspect it and then Shecht it - because of a statement by Rabah, invalidating any inspection of the Veshet during the lifetime of the bird (in case, due to the minute size of the hole, which is perhaps covered with a drop of blood, one overlooks it).

(c) Rav Yosef, Rava's son, came up with the solution - of inspecting the Kaneh immediately and Shechting it, and then, inspecting the Veshet. (d) Rava praised him - by comparing him to Rebbi Yochanan (either in the realm of Tereifus, where he was considered an expert [as we shall see in 'Gid'ha'Nasheh'] or in all matters).

(e) In any event, we have proved from this episode - that the Kaneh of a bird is eligible for Shechitah.

9)

(a) Rav Chisda confines Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'ad she'Yishchat es ha'Varidin' to the Shechitah of a bird - because it is roasted whole, unlike an animal, which one cuts into pieces first (in which case the blood will drain anyway).

(b) The problem with that is - that if Rebbi Yehudah's reason is in order to drain the blood, then why did he mention Shechitah?

(c) In reality, as Rav Chisda explains, he really meant 'ad she'Yinkov es ha'Varadin', and the reason that he said 'ad she'Yishchat ... ' is - because he requires the Varidin to be pierced whilst the Shechitah is being performed (and not later).

(d) And he amends the Beraisa 'Varidin bi'Shechitah' - 'Varidin Tzarich Lenakvosan be'Sha'as Shechitah'.

(a) In another Beraisa, the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Yehudah why, seeing as cutting the Varidin is meant to remove the blood, it needs to be performed through Shechitah - implying once again, that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, they do require Shechitah.

(b) Once again, Rebbi Yehudah amends the Beraisa to read - ' ... why the Varidin need to be pierced whilst the Shechitah is being performed'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah countered - that it is essential to bore the Varidin at the time of Shechitah, whilst they are still hot, and the blood flows out more easily.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Shehiyah or D'rasah, whilst Shechting the Varidin, will invalidate the Shechitah. He does not resolve his She'eilah from Rav Chisda (according to whom, Rebbi Yehudah does not require Shechitah to begin with) - simply because he was unaware of Rav Chisda's statement.

(b) That old man resolved Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah, quoting Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Yochanan) - who said that all one needs to do (according to Rebbi Yehudah) is pierce the Varidin with a sharp piece of wood.

(c) We cite a Beraisa (which we already quoted above) like Rav Chisda. The Tana Kama there invalidates a Shechitah which is 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah', to which Rebbi Yehudah adds - '*be'Of* ad she'Yishchatu es ha'Varidin' (by a bird, but not by an animal).

(a) We think that when Rav says 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov', he means - that if half the Si'man of either an animal or a bird has been Shechted, it is as if the entire Si'man had been Shechted.

(b) Rav Kahana holds - 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Eino ke'Rov'.

(c) The wording of the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (to Shecht Rov of the Si'man), according to ...

1. ... Rav was - not to leave the majority of the Si'man un-Shechted.
2. ... Rav Kahana was - to Shecht the majority of the Si'man.

(d) Rav reconciles his opinion with our Mishnah, which invalidates the Shechitah of half a Si'man by a bird and one and a half, by an animal - by establishing the Mishnah as a decree mi'de'Rabbanan (in case one Shechts less than half).

(a) An earthenware oven that is Tamei become Tahor - if it breaks into pieces, so that the majority does not remain intact.

(b) The Beraisa declares both halves of an oven that is broken into two 'equal' halves, still Tamei - because it is impossible for each piece to be exactly half ...

(c) ... from which we can extrapolate that, if it *would* be possible, the oven would be Tahor, a Kashya on Rav, says Rav Ketina - according to whom each half should have the Din of a Rov?

(d) Rav Papa answers - that even Rav will concede there that the two halves do not have the Din of a Rov, since how can one vessel comprise two halves that are both majorities?