Previous daf

1)

(a) We already quoted the Beraisa 'Shachat Chatzi Gargeres Ve'shahah Bah Kedei Shechitah Acheres Ve'gamrah, Shechitaso Kesheirah'. According to Rav - the Shechitah should be invalid the moment the Shochet stopped after Shechting half the Gargeres, and the animal should become a Neveilah. What point is there then in completing the Shechitah?

(b) We refute the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa by a bird - in which case 'Mah Nafshach', if Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov, once he has Shechted half the Gargeres, the Shechitah is complete, and if it is not, then he hasn't even begun the Shechitah.

(c) And we also quoted the Beraisa 'Harei she'Hayah Chatzi Kanah Pagum, Ve'hosif Alav Kol she'Hu ve'Gamro, Shechitaso Kesheirah'. Rava refutes the Kashya from here on Rav (according to whom, the animal ought to be a Tereifah, like we just asked on the previous Beraisa) - by differentiating between Shechitah, which requires a minimal Rov, and Tereifus, which, where Rov is required (such as a broken Kaneh, or a broken spinal cord) requires a discernible Rov.

(a) Abaye objects to Rava's distinction, by arguing that if anything - there is more reason to require a discernible Rov by Shechitah, which always requires a Rov, than Tereifus, which, in many cases (such as a hole in the Veshet, in the lungs and in the intestines), is effective with a Mashehu.

(b) We therefore conclude that with regard to Shechitah - 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Eino Eino ke'Rov'.

(c) In fact, Rav and Rav Kahana are arguing over Mechtzah and Mechtzah by the Korban Pesach - which requires the majority of people to be Tamei, in order to apply the principle 'Tum'ah Hutrah be'Tzibur'. Otherwise, those who are Tamei, have to bring the Korban Pesach Sheini.

(a) The ramifications of the Machlokes are - that if we hold 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ...

1. ... ke'Rov' (Rav) - the entire community bring the Korban Pesach Rishon, though the Tehorim and the Temei'im bring it independently.
2. ... Eino ke'Rov' (Rav Kahana) - the Tehorim bring the Korban Pesach Rishon, and the Temei'im, a Korban Pesach Sheini.

(b) Rav learns 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov' from the Pasuk "*Ish Ish* ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh" - because even though half the congregation is not a majority, it can no longer be considered an individual ("Ish") but a Tzibur (which is not rejected from bringing Pesach Rishon be'Tum'ah).

(a) Rav Hoshaya explains the Tana's need to repeat 'Rov Echad be'Of ve'Rov Shenayim bi'Veheimah', in spite of having already taught 'Rubo shel Echad Kamohu' - by establishing one by Chulin and the other, by Kodshim.

(b) Having taught the Din of Rov by ...

1. ... Chulin, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it by Kodshim - because, since in the latter case, the blood is required for Zerikah, we might have thought that one is obligated to Shecht the entire Si'man.
2. ... Kodshim, the Tana needs to repeat it by Chulin - to teach us that, despite the fact that the blood is not needed, it, like Kodshim, requires the majority of the Si'man to be Shechted, and not just half.

(c) Rav Kahana infers from the Lashon 'ha'Shochet, Echad be'Of ... ' that the Reisha must be speaking by Chulin (and the Seifa by Kodshim, and not vice-versa) - because otherwise, the Tana ought to have said 'ha'Molek, Echad be'Of ... '.

(d) We refute the counter proof from the Lashon in the Seifa 'Rov Echad be'Of u'Shenayim bi'Beheimah, Shechitaso Kesheirah' - by arguing that the Tana there, says 'Shechitaso Kesheirah', because it refers to 'u'Shenayim bi'Beheimah', which precedes it.

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi proves from 'Rov Echad be'Of' in the Reisha, that it must be talking about Chulin - because Kodshim incorporates the Olas ha'Of, which requires the Melikah of two Simanim.

(b) And to refute the counter proof from there that, by the same token, 'Rov Echad be'Of' in the Seifa must be talking about Chulin, because otherwise there is Olas ha'Of that requires two Simanim, we interpret the Seifa to mean - 'Rov Kol Echad ve'Echad be'Of' (one Si'man by a Chatas ha'Of, two, by an Olah).

(c) The reason that the Tana did not say 'Rov Shenayim' - because he also wanted to accommodate Chatas ha'Of.

(d) And Rav Papa proves from the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan regarding the Varidin, that the Reisha must be speaking about Chulin - because if it was speaking about Kodshim, where the blood is needed for Zerikah, the Rabbanan would concede to Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) And Rav Ashi proves from the following Mishnah 'ha'Shochet Sh'nei Roshin ke'Echad Shechitaso Kesheirah' (implying Bedi'eved) that the Seifa must be talking about Kodshim - because it is only by Kodshim that one is forbidden Lechatchilah, to Shecht two animals simultaneously (whereas by Chulin, it is permitted, even Lechatchilah).

(b) The basis for this is a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, where the Tana learns from the Pasuk "li'Retzonchem ...

1. ... Tizbach(uhu)" - that two people are forbidden to Shecht Kodshim together.
2. ... Tizbachuhu" - that one person is forbidden to Shecht two Korbanos simultaneously.

(c) Rav Kahana presents the Tana's first ruling to the fact - that "Tizbachuhu" is spelt without a 'Hey' (after the 'Ches'), as if it read 'Tizbecheihu' (in the singular).

(a) Resh Lakish too, deals with the repetition of 'Rov Si'man' in our Mishnah, to which end he cites the Mishnah in Yoma. With reference to the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, when the Tana writes 'Hevi'o Lo es ha'Tamid, Kartzo, u'Meirak Acher Shechitaso al Yado', he means - that when they brought the Kohen Gadol (on whose shoulders the entire Avodas ha'Yom fell), the Korban Tamid, he performed the beginning of the Shechitah (as much as was necessary), and somebody else completed it.

(b) Resh Lakish connects this with our Mishnah 'Rov Echad be'Of, Rov Shenayim bi'Veheimah' - in that, based on 'Rov Echad be'Of', there too, the Shechitah is Kasher Bedi'eved, even if nobody else completed the it.

(c) This proves - that Resh Lakish, like Rav Ashi, extrapolates from the Seifa itself, that it is speaking about Kodshim.

(a) The Beraisa we just cited, initially suggests that if nobody else completed the Shechitah, then it is Pasul. If that was the case, the problem with somebody else completing it, based on the Beraisa that all the Avodos on Yom Kipur had to be performed by the Kohen Gadol, is - that seeing as the Shechitah had to be completed, how could anybody else other than the Kohen Gadol do it?

(b) We answer that 'Yachol Yehei Pasul', in this instance, means Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan. In that case, seeing as we conclude that failing to complete the Shechitah is not even Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan, why does the Beraisa conclude 'u'Meirak Acher Shechitaso al Yado' (see Tosfos DH 'Lamah Li Lemarek')? Why should he?

(c) And we answer - that there is nonetheless a Mitzvah to complete the Shechitah.

(d) We reject the suggestion that the Mitzvah is that of 'be'Rov Am Hadras Melech (the more people involved in the Avodah, the more the King is honored) - because if that were so, the same stringency ought to extend to all the Avodos on Yom Kipur, yet we see that, to the contrary, the Torah is particular that nobody should be in the Ohel Mo'ed when the Kohen Gadol enters.

9)

(a) According to Resh Lakish in the name of Levi Saba, it is not called Shechitah until the end. Rebbi Yochanan holds - that the entire process is called Shechitah.

(b) According to Rava, even Resh Lakish will concede however, that if ...

1. ... a Nochri Shechts one Si'man and a Yisrael, the other, the Shechitah is Pasul - because even though the Shechitah itself was not performed by a Nochri, nevertheless part of the act that might disqualify the Shechitah was not performed by a Yisrael.
2. ... a Kohen performed Melikah on one Si'man of an Olas ha'Of below the Chut ha'Sikra and the other, above, it is Pasul - because he performed what would be a Kasher Melikah with regard to a Chatas ha'Of, on an Olas ha'Of.

(c) According to Rava, the ramifications of the Machlokes are - in a case where someone Shechted one Si'man outside the Azarah and the other one, inside, where he will be Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, according to Rebbi Yochanan, but Patur, according to Resh Lakish.

(a) According to Rabah bar Shimi quoting Rav Yosef, Resh Lakish will agree that in this latter case too, the Shochet is Chayav - because he performed a Ma'aseh Chatas ha'Of (which is Kasher bi'Fenim with the Melikah of one Si'man [even though we are talking Shechitah]).

(b) He agrees however, that the Machlokes concerns Shechutei Chutz - in a case where he Shechted a minority of the Simanim ba'Chutz, and the majority bi'Fenim (which will be Pasul according to Rebbi Yochanan, but Kasher, according to Resh Lakish).

(a) The Beraisa issues two rulings with regard to all those who deal with the burning and sprinkling of the Parah Adumah from beginning to end. One, that they render the clothes that they are wearing Tamei; the other - that someone who performs another task (such as cutting a melon) simultaneously with the Melachah on hand, invalidates the Parah.

(b) Besides the one who Shechts it, burns it, and throws the cedar wood, the hyssop and the crimson thread into the burning cow, this incorporates the one who gathers its ashes.

(c) If a P'sul occurred in the Shechitah, says the Tana, the clothes of those preparing it do not become Tamei, even those that dealt with it before the P'sul occurred; whereas if it occurred during the Haza'os of its blood (seven times towards the Ohel Mo'ed) - then the clothes of those who worked with it before it became Pasul are Tamei.

(d) Rava explains that, even according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana does not make the same distinction by the Shechitah as he makes by the Haza'ah - because once the Shechitah turns out to be Pasul, it is Pasul retroactively (in which all the Avodos were performed with an ordinary cow).

(a) Rava has a problem with the current Beraisa, which discusses a Parah that became Pasul in the course of its preparation. According to Resh Lakish ('Einah li'Shechitah Ela be'Sof'), he asks, why does the Tana not present the case where two people Shechted the Parah Adumah consecutively, where the first one will not be Tamei, and the second one will.

(b) The advantage of this case over the case that the Tana actually presents is - that it pertains even to a Parah that did not become Pasul.

(c) Rav Yosef tries to answer Rava's Kashya, based on the Beraisa that we cited on the previous Amud, where the Tana learn from the word "Tizbach(uhu)" - that one is forbidden to Shecht two animals of Kodshim at the same time.

(a) Abaye counters that this Beraisa is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon S'timta'ah, but the Chachamim disagree. 'S'timta'ah' means - that he is the author of many S'tam Mishnahs.

(b) Rava's Kashya therefore remains unanswered, according to the Chachamim. In fact, the problem with Rebbi Yochanan remains even according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, in a case where only one Kohen Shechted the Parah Adumah - and someone came and exchanged his Sudar (the headgear normally worn by a Talmid-Chacham), in which case the first Sudar ought to be Tahor, and the second one, Tamei.

(c) We conclude that the Tana is only concerned with the P'sul of the Parah, and not with its Hechsher, by which we mean - that the Tana's objective is to teach us what happens when the Parah Adumah becomes Pasul, and not the Dinim of Shechitah by a Kasher one.