מפת הסוגיא — חולין כ״זSugya map — Chullin 27

השוחט סימן אחד בעוף (קנה או ושט) ושני סימנים בבהמה — שחיטתו כשרה, ורוב של סימן נחשב כסימן שלם. ר׳ יהודה אומר: אינו כשר עד שישחט גם את הוורידים (כלי הדם הגדולים שבצוואר). שחט חצי סימן בעוף או סימן וחצי בבהמה — פסולה; רוב סימן אחד בעוף ורוב שני סימנים בבהמה — כשרה.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters by cutting one siman, i.e., the windpipe or the gullet, in a bird, and two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid, and the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins [haveridin], i.e., the major blood vessels in the neck. If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

הגמרא מדייקת מהלשון "השוחט": בדיעבד כן, אבל לכתחילה לא. ומקשה: וכי שני הסימנים בבהמה — לכתחילה אסור? הרי עד כמה אפשר להמשיך ולשחוט (אין יותר משני סימנים)? תשובה: אם תרצה — הדיוק מוסב על סימן אחד בעוף (שלכתחילה צריך לשחוט את שניהם); ואם תרצה — מוסב על "רובו של אחד כמוהו" (שלכתחילה צריך לשחוט את הסימן כולו).

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the term: One who slaughters, that if one slaughtered, then after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid; but ab initio, no, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Is the ruling with regard to the cutting of two simanim in an animal that ab initio, no, it is prohibited? If so, how much is one expected to continue and cut the simanim, ab initio? There are only two relevant simanim to be cut. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the reference is to the cutting of one siman in a bird, as one is required to cut both simanim in a bird ab initio. And if you wish, say instead that the reference is to the passage in the mishna that states that the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman, as one is required to cut the entire siman ab initio.

סימן (ראשי תיבות) לזכירת מקורות הדרשות הבאות: כ׳ — רב כהנא, מ׳ — רב יימר, ש׳ — דבי רבי ישמעאל.

§ Kaf, mem, shin is a mnemonic for the sources of the statements cited in the discussion that follows: Rav Kahana, Rav Yeimar, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

רב כהנא: מניין שהשחיטה מן הצוואר? "ושחט את בן הבקר" — מן המקום שהבהמה כופפת ("שׁח") — חַטהו (טהר אותו). ומניין ש"חַטהו" לשון טהרה? "וחִטֵּא את הבית", או "תחטאני באזוב ואטהר".

Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat] the young bull before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal bends [shaḥ], purify it [ḥattehu] through slaughter. The Gemara asks: From where does one ascertain that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of purification? The Gemara answers: It is ascertained from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall purify [veḥitte] the house” (Leviticus 14:52). And if you wish, say instead that it is ascertained from here: “Purge me [teḥatte’eni] with hyssop and I will be pure” (Psalms 51:9).

קושיא: ואולי שוחטים מהזנב (שגם הוא כפוף)? תירוץ: "שׁח" מלמד שצריך אבר שדרכו להיות זקוף ולהתכופף, והזנב כפוף תמיד. קושיא: ואולי מהאוזן (שזקופה)? תירוץ: צריך מקום שיוצא ממנו דם הנפש, ובאוזן אין.

The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its tail, which is also a place in the animal’s body that is bent. The Gemara responds: From the term: Bends [shaḥ], one can conclude by inference that we require a part of the animal’s body that can stand erect and that bends; and this, the tail, is bent perpetually and is never erect. The Gemara challenges: And say that slaughter is from its ear, which is erect and bends. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animal’s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the ear there is no blood of the soul spilled.

קושיא: ואולי קורע מהאוזן וממשיך עד דם הנפש? ועוד — מניין הפסולים שהייה (הפסקה), דרסה, חלדה (הסתרת הסכין), הגרמה ועיקור? אלא: כל אלו הלכה למשה מסיני; וגם השחיטה מן הצוואר היא הלכה למשה מסיני (לא דרשה).

The Gemara asks: And say that one rends the animal starting from the ear and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition, i.e., a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition, and has no biblical source.

אם כן, לְמה בא הפסוק "ושחט"? ללמד שלא יחתוך את כל הראש ויעשנה "גיסטרא" (חתיכה כרותה) — שוחטים רק את הקנה והוושט.

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the verse: “And you shall slaughter,” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The verse serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet, which are adjacent to the major blood vessels.

רב יימר: "וזבחת" — מן המקום שהדם זָב (זורם), חַתהו (חתוך). ומניין ש"חַתהו" לשון שבירה/חיתוך? "אל תירא ואל תֵּחָת" (שלא תישבר רוחך).

Rav Yeimar says: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And you shall slaughter [vezavaḥta] of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the blood flows [shezav], break it [ḥattehu], i.e., cut it. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term, ḥattehu, is an expression of breaking? The Gemara answers: It is inferred from a verse, as it is written: “Neither fear nor be dismayed [teḥat]” (Deuteronomy 1:21); ensure that your spirit will not be broken.

קושיא: ואולי מהחוטם (שזב ממנו ליחה)? תירוץ: צריך זיבה הבאה על ידי חיתוך, וזו זבה מאליה. קושיא: ואולי מהלב (בדקירה)? ועוד מניין הפסולים? אלא: הלכה למשה מסיני; וגם השחיטה מן הצוואר הלכה למשה מסיני.

The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its nose, from which mucus flows, as the verse did not mention blood. The Gemara responds: We require a fluid that flows by means of breaking, and this mucus flows on its own. The Gemara challenges: And say that an animal is slaughtered from its heart by means of stabbing. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife during slaughter, concealing the knife in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

אם כן, למה בא הפסוק "וזבחת"? ללמד שלא יחתוך את כל הראש ויעשנה גיסטרא — שוחטים רק קנה וושט.

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: “And you shall slaughter” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.

דבי רבי ישמעאל: "ושחט" — אל תקרא "וְשָׁחַט" אלא "וְסָחַט", מן המקום שהבהמה "סָחָה" (מוציאה קול) — חַטהו; הקול יוצא מן הגרון, לכן שוחטים מן הצוואר.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter [veshaḥat]” (Leviticus 1:5). Do not read it as: Veshaḥat; rather, read it as: Vesaḥat, which literally means: And he shall squeeze, which is interpreted homiletically: From the place where the animal speaks [saḥ], purify it [ḥattehu]. The animal’s voice emanates from its throat; therefore, it is slaughtered from the neck.

קושיא: ואולי מלשונו (שגם בה סָח)? תירוץ: צריך דם הנפש ובלשון אין. קושיא: ואולי קורע מהלשון עד דם הנפש? ועוד מניין הפסולים? אלא: הלכה למשה מסיני; וגם השחיטה מן הצוואר הלכה למשה מסיני.

The Gemara objects: And say that slaughter is from its tongue. The Gemara explains: We require that slaughter be performed on a part of the animal’s body from which blood of the soul is spilled, and when one cuts the tongue there is no blood of the soul spilled. The Gemara objects: And say that one rends the animal starting from the tongue and continues until the blood of the soul is spilled. And furthermore, with regard to those actions that invalidate slaughter, i.e., interrupting, pressing the knife, concealing the knife, diverting the knife, and ripping, from where do we derive them? Rather, these disqualifications are learned through tradition. The requirement of slaughter from the neck is also learned through tradition.

אם כן, למה בא הפסוק? ללמד שלא יעשנה גיסטרא — שוחטים רק קנה וושט.

The Gemara asks: And if the halakha is derived through tradition, what halakha does the phrase in the verse: “And you shall slaughter,” come to teach? The Gemara answers: The phrase serves to teach that one should not sever the head completely from the animal’s body and render it a broken animal. He cuts only the windpipe and the gullet.

והתנא (שׁשׁונה ברייתות) מביא זאת ממקור אחר. ברייתא: ר׳ חייא — מניין לשחיטה מן הצוואר? "וערכו בני אהרן הכהנים את הנתחים".

And a tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall cites the source for the halakha that slaughter is performed from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: From where is it derived with regard to slaughter that it is performed from the neck? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat…upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8).

מדוע נכתב בנפרד "את הראש ואת הפדר", הרי הם בכלל הנתחים? מכיוון שנאמר "והפשיט את העֹלה ונתח", היה ניתן להעלות רק נתחים שבכלל הפשטה; מניין לרבות את הראש שכבר הותז (בשעת השחיטה ואינו מופשט)? תלמוד לומר "את ראשו ואת פדרו וערך".

Rabbi Ḥiyya explains: As there is no need for the verse to state: “The head, and the fat.” What is the meaning when the verse states: “The head, and the fat”? Weren’t the head and the fat included in the category of all the pieces, mentioned earlier in the verse? For what purpose did they emerge from the category and warrant individual mention? This is due to the fact that it is stated: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6). One might have thought that I have derived that only the pieces that are included in the category of flaying must be arranged on the altar. From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed when the animal was slaughtered, and is not flayed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “With its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them” (Leviticus 1:12).

מכך שאמר "הראש שכבר הותז" (בשעת השחיטה) — משמע שהשחיטה היא מן הצוואר, המחבר את הראש לגוף.

The tanna concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: The head, which was already partially severed, one learns by inference that slaughter is from the neck, as the neck connects the head to the body.

קושיא: התנא פתח בפסוק "ראש ופדר" (פר, ויקרא א׳:ח׳) וסיים בפסוק "ראשו ופדרו" (כבש, ויקרא א׳:י״ב)? תירוץ: כך כוונתו — לרבות את הראש שכבר הותז, תלמוד לומר "את הראש ואת הפדר".

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita. And the tanna of the baraita opened with a question about the extraneous phrase written with regard to a bull burnt offering: “The head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8), and concludes with an explanation of the phrase written with regard to a sheep burnt offering: “Its head and its fat” (Leviticus 1:12). The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: From where is it derived to include the head, which was already partially severed? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “The head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8).

ואם כן, למה צריך את הפסוק "ראשו ופדרו"? הוא נצרך לברייתא אחרת: מניין שהראש והפדר קודמים לכל הנתחים בהעלאה על המזבח? תלמוד לומר "את ראשו ואת פדרו וערך".

The Gemara asks: And if so, why do I need the verse cited at the end of the baraita: “Its head and its fat”? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the head and the fat precede all the other pieceswhen the sacrificial portions are sacrificed on the altar? The verse states: “With its head and its fat, and the priest shall arrange them” (Leviticus 1:12).

ולמה צריך את אזכור "פדר" הראשון? הוא נצרך לברייתא: כיצד עושה? מכסה את הפדר (החֵלב) על מקום השחיטה ומעלהו על המזבח — וזהו דרך כבוד כלפי מעלה.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need the first mention of fat that the Merciful One writes: “The pieces, the head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8)? Wasn’t the derivation from that verse restricted to the head? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: How does the priest who elevates the sacrificial portions of the animal to the altar perform that task? He uses the fat to cover the place of slaughter, i.e., to conceal the bloody neck, and elevates the head to the top of the altar, and that is a deferential manner toward the Most High.

ותנא זה מביא ראיה ממקור אחר. ברייתא: "זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף" — באיזה דין הושוו בהמה ועוף? הרי בטומאה אינם שווים: בהמה מטמאה במגע ובמשא ועוף לא; ועוף מטמא בגדים בבית הבליעה ובהמה לא.

And this tanna cites proof that slaughter is from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that the Torah writes with regard to the impurity of carcasses: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, whereas a bird does not impart impurity by contact or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render one’s garments impure when it is in the throat.

באיזה דין הושוו? לומר לך: מה בהמה ניצלת מטומאת נבלה בשחיטה — אף עוף בשחיטה. קושיא: אם כן, כמו שבבהמה ברוב שני סימנים — גם בעוף ברוב שניים? תירוץ: תלמוד לומר "זאת" — למעט, שלא כל הדינים שווים.

The baraita continues: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as an animal avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter, so too, a bird avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter. The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of an animal, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, in the case of a bird, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “This is the law,” to restrict the scope of the juxtaposition in the sense that not all of the halakhot of birds and animals are equal.

ר׳ אליעזר: באיזה דין הושוו? לומר לך: מה עוף הכשרו (במליקת קודשים) מן הצוואר — אף בהמה הכשרה מן הצוואר. (כלומר ההיקש מלמד את עצם השחיטה מן הצוואר.)

The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as in the case of a bird, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through pinching and slaughter from the neck, as the Torah states with regard to bird offerings that one pinches off its head from the neck, so too, in the case of an animal, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through slaughter from the neck.

קושיא: אם כן, כמו שבעוף מולקים ממול העורף — אף בהמה ממול העורף? תירוץ: "ומלק את ראשו ממול ערפו ולא יבדיל" — דווקא ראשו של העוף ממול העורף, ולא ראש האחר (הבהמה).

The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of a bird, the pinching is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck, so too here, with regard to an animal, the slaughter is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck and not from the throat. The Gemara explains that therefore, the verse states with regard to a bird: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its nape, but shall not divide it asunder” (Leviticus 5:8), from which it is derived: Its head, i.e., the bird’s head, is pinched adjacent to the nape, but the head of another, the animal, is not cut adjacent to the nape.

ולר׳ אליעזר, מה הוא דורש מ"זאת"? אלמלא "זאת" הייתי אומר: מה עוף בסימן אחד אף בהמה בסימן אחד; לכן כתבה התורה "זאת" — למעט, שבהמה צריכה שני סימנים.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: “This is the law,” from which the first tanna restricted the scope of the juxtaposition between animals and birds? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from the term “This is the law,” I would say: Just as the fitness of a bird is accomplished by cutting one of the simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet, so too, the fitness of an animal is accomplished by cutting one siman. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “This is the law,” to restrict the juxtaposition.

בר קפרא: "זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף" (ויקרא י״א:מ״ו, שממשיך "ולכל נפש החיה … במים") — הכתוב הציב את העוף בין הבהמה לדגים. לחייבו בשני סימנים אי אפשר, שהרי הוקש לדגים (שאינם טעונים שחיטה כלל); לפוטרו לגמרי אי אפשר, שהרי הוקש לבהמה. אם כן — הכשרו בסימן אחד.

§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman.

ומניין שדגים אינם טעונים שחיטה? אם נאמר מהפסוק "הצאן ובקר יִשָּׁחֵט להם אם את כל דגי הים יֵאָסֵף להם" — שדי להם באסיפה בלבד (ולא נאמרה בהם שחיטה).

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: “If flocks and herds be slaughtered for them…or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them” (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof.

דחייה: אם כך, גם בשׂלָו (עוף) נאמר "ויאספו את השׂלָו" — וכי גם הוא אינו טעון שחיטה? והרי אמרת שאי אפשר לפוטרו לגמרי כי הוקש לבהמה! תירוץ: שם (בשׂלָו) לא נכתבה האסיפה ליד שחיטת אחרים, וכאן (בדגים) נכתבה האסיפה במקום שחיטת אחרים (צאן ובקר) — ולכן רק בדגים האסיפה באה במקום שחיטה.

The Gemara clarifies: But if that is so, with regard to quail as well, concerning which it is written: “And the people rose up…and gathered the quail” (Numbers 11:32), so too, would one say with regard to birds that, like fish, their fitness is not accomplished with slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question. But didn’t you say: To exempt birds from slaughter altogether with nothing is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal? The Gemara answers: There, gathering of quail is not written in the context of the slaughter of others; therefore, gathering is not to be understood as an alternative to slaughtering the birds. Here, gathering of fish is written in the context of the slaughter of others, i.e., the flocks and herds, which indicates that gathering is an alternative to slaughter.

עובר (=עובר אורח) גלילי דרש: בהמה שנבראת מן היבשה — הכשרה בשני סימנים; דגים שנבראו מן המים — הכשרם בלא כלום; עוף שנברא מן הרקק (תערובת מים ועפר) — הכשרו בסימן אחד. רב שמואל קפוטקאה: סימן לדבר — לעופות יש קשקשת ברגליהם כדגים.

The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.

ועוד שאל (ההגמון את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי): כתוב אחד אומר "ישרצו המים … ועוף יעופף" — משמע שהעוף נברא מן המים; וכתוב אחר "ויצר ה׳ אלהים מן האדמה … ואת כל עוף השמים" — משמע שנברא מן הארץ. (סתירה.)

The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: “And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will fly” (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them” (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.

השיב לו (להגמון): מן הרקק נבראו (יישוב הסתירה). ראה תלמידיו תמהים, אמר להם: קשה בעיניכם שדחיתי את אויבי בקש (תשובה בעלמא)? באמת מן המים נבראו, ומדוע נאמר שהובאו אל האדם? כדי לקרוא להם שמות.

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.

ויש אומרים להפך: להגמון אמר שנבראו מן המים, ולתלמידיו אמר שנבראו מן הרקק — משום שכתוב "ויצר … מן האדמה", ולכן גם נבראו מן הארץ.

And some say that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.

רב יהודה בשם ר׳ יצחק בן פנחס: אין חיוב שחיטה לעוף מן התורה, שנאמר "ושפך את דמו וכסהו" — די בשפיכת הדם בלבד (ולא נאמרה שחיטה).

On the matter of slaughtering birds, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas: Slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is stated: “And whatever man there be of the children of Israel…who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood, and cover it in earth” (Leviticus 17:13). This indicates that mere spilling of its blood is sufficient.

קושיא: אם כן, גם חיה (הנזכרת באותו פסוק) תהיה די בשפיכה? תירוץ: חיה הוקשה לפסולי המוקדשין הטעונים שחיטה. קושיא: והרי גם עוף הוקש לבהמה — "זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף"? תירוץ: בכל זאת נאמר בעוף "ושפך את דמו" (ולא שחיטה).

The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to an undomesticated animal, which is mentioned in the same verse, spilling should be sufficient also. The Gemara explains: An undomesticated animal is juxtaposed to disqualified consecrated animals, for which slaughter is required, as explained later in the Gemara (28a). The Gemara asks: Birds too are juxtaposed to animals, and therefore slaughter should be required, as it is written: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46). The Gemara answers: But isn’t it written: “He shall spill its blood,” indicating that slaughter is not required?

קושיא: ומה ראית לתלות את הדרשה ("ושפך" — בלא שחיטה) דווקא בעוף? תלה אותה בחיה! תירוץ: מסתבר לתלותה בעוף, משום שהפסוק מסיים בו ("חיה או עוף … ושפך את דמו").

The Gemara asks: And concerning the derivation that slaughter is not required, based on the phrase in the verse “He shall spill,” what did you see that led you to cast it upon, i.e., apply it to, the case of a bird? Why not cast it upon the case of an undomesticated animal? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to cast the derivation upon the case of a bird due to the fact that the verse concluded with the bird, i.e., the bird is mentioned just prior to the directive to spill and cover the blood, as it is written: “Who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood.”

סימן לזכירת שלוש ההשגות הבאות על דברי ר׳ יצחק בן פנחס: "נתנבל" (השוחט ונתנבלה), "דם" (השוחט וצריך לדם), "במליקה" (מלק בסכין).

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited in the Gemara with regard to the slaughter of birds: Became a carcass, blood, through pinching.

מיתיבי (קושיא ממשנה): השוחט ונתנבלה בידו (שחיטה פסולה), הנוחר (דוקר) והמעקר (עוקר הסימנים) — פטור מלכסות את הדם. ואם אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה, הרי נחירתו כשחיטתו וצריך לכסות! תירוץ: וכי סוברת שמדובר בעוף? לא, מדובר בחיה.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas from a mishna (85a): One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand because the slaughter was not valid, or one who stabbed the animal by slicing the length of the simanim, or one who ripped the gullet or windpipe of the animal, rendering the slaughter not valid, is exempt from covering the blood because his slaughter was ineffective in permitting consumption of the animal, and it is written that the requirement of covering the blood applies only to “any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten.” And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, the halakhic status of its stabbing is like that of its slaughter; let its blood require covering. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that this mishna is referring to a bird? No, it is referring exclusively to an undomesticated animal.

תא שמע (ראיה מברייתא): השוחט וצריך לדם (רוצה להשתמש בדם) — חייב לכסות. כיצד יעשה כדי להיפטר? או נוחרו (דוקר) או עוקרו (עוקר הסימנים).

The Gemara cites another challenge: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and requires the blood and not the animal is obligated to cover the blood. Rather, how does he act if he seeks to make use of the blood rather than cover it? He either stabs the animal or rips the simanim, and then he is exempt from covering the blood.

ראיה: וכי לא מדובר בעוף, שצריך את דמו להעביר עש מבגדיו? (ואם נחירה מועילה כשחיטה — משמע שעוף טעון שחיטה מן התורה.) דחייה: לא, מדובר בחיה, שצריך את דמה לצביעה ("לכא" — צבע אדום).

What, is it not referring to a bird, as he requires its blood to remove a moth from his garments? If so, apparently birds require slaughter by Torah law, as, if that were not the case, then even if a bird were stabbed, covering of the blood would be required. The Gemara rejects that proof: No, the baraita is referring to an undomesticated animal, as he requires its blood to use as a red dye [lelakka] Therefore, no proof may be cited from this baraita that birds require slaughter by Torah law.

תא שמע (ממשנה בזבחים): מלק עוף בסכין (במקום בציפורן) — מטמא בגדים בבית הבליעה (דין נבלה). ואם אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה — אף שנעשה טרפה משבירת השדרה והמפרקת, מכל מקום תועיל הסכין לטהרו מידי נבלה! (משמע ששחיטה דווקא מטהרת — וזו מן התורה.)

The Gemara cites proof from a mishna (Zevaḥim 68a): Come and hear: If one cut the nape of the neck of a sacrificial bird with a knife instead of pinching it with his fingernail, this bird carcass renders the garments of one who eats the bird ritually impure when the meat is in his throat. The Gemara explains the proof: And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, then although when cutting the bird from the nape, he breaks the spine and the neck bone with the knife before severing the gullet and windpipe, and it indeed becomes a tereifa and may not be eaten, cutting the simanim with the knife should be effective to purify it, i.e., to prevent it from assuming the status of an unslaughtered carcass. The fact that the garments of one who swallows the meat of the bird become ritually impure indicates that slaughter is the only method effective in permitting the consumption of a bird and for preventing it from assuming the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

תירוץ: ר׳ יצחק בן פנחס סובר כתנא הבא. ברייתא: ר׳ אלעזר הקפר (ברבי) — מה תלמוד לומר "אך כאשר יֵאכל את הצבי ואת האיל כן תאכלנו"? וכי מה למדנו מצבי ואיל (שהם ממילא מותרים)?

The Gemara rejects that proof: Although it is clear from that mishna that slaughter of birds is obligatory by Torah law, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna who holds that it is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the distinguished Sage, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “However, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it” (Deuteronomy 12:22)? And what now have we derived from the gazelle and the deer with regard to disqualified consecrated animals?

הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד: הכתוב מקיש צבי ואיל לפסולי המוקדשין — מה פסולי המוקדשין בשחיטה אף צבי ואיל בשחיטה; אבל עוף — אין לו שחיטה מן התורה אלא מדברי סופרים (מדרבנן). (זו שיטת ר׳ יצחק בן פנחס.)

These two undomesticated animals come in the verse to teach a halakha with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, and it is found that a halakha is derived from the case of disqualified consecrated animals in their regard. The Torah juxtaposes a gazelle and a deer to disqualified consecrated animals to teach: Just as disqualified consecrated animals are rendered fit for consumption through slaughter, so too, a gazelle and a deer are rendered fit for consumption only through slaughter. But for a bird, slaughter is not obligatory by Torah law; rather, the obligation is by rabbinic law.

מי החולק על ר׳ אלעזר הקפר (וסובר שעוף טעון שחיטה מן התורה)? רבי (יהודה הנשיא). ברייתא: רבי אומר — "וזבחת … כאשר צויתך" מלמד שנצטווה משה על הלכות שחיטה (אף שלא נכתבו): על הושט ועל הקנה, ועל רוב סימן אחד בעוף, ועל רוב שני סימנים בבהמה.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar and holds that the slaughter of a bird is obligatory by Torah law? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse teaches that Moses was previously commanded about the halakhot of slaughter, even though they are not written explicitly in the Torah. He was commanded about cutting the gullet and about cutting the windpipe, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman for a bird, and the majority of two simanim for an animal.