מפת הסוגיא — חולין כ״טSugya map — Chullin 29

המשנה אומרת ״רוב אחד בעוף... שחיטתו כשרה״ — והרי כבר שנינו פעם אחת ״רובו של אחד כמוהו״, אם כן הדבר כפול ומיותר.

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

סימן לזיכרון שמות האמוראים שדנים להלן: ה׳ — רב הושעיא, כ׳ — רב כהנא, ש׳ — רב שימי, פ׳ — רב פפא, ש׳ — רב אשי, ח׳.

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

רב הושעיא: אחת מן הבבות עוסקת בחולין ואחת בקדשים, וצריך את שתיהן. שאילו שנה רק חולין — שם די ברוב הסימן, כי אינו צריך את הדם; אבל בקדשים שצריך את הדם לזריקה, הייתי אומר שלא יספיק רוב עד שייחתך כל הסימן.

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

ולהפך: אילו שנה רק קדשים — הייתי תולה שצריך רוב מפני שצריך את הדם, אבל בחולין שאינו צריך דם הייתי אומר שדי בחצי; לכן שנה שתי הבבות.

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

הגמרא שואלת: איזו בבא עוסקת בחולין ואיזו בקדשים?

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

רב כהנא: מסתבר שהרישא בחולין והסיפא בקדשים. מנין? מכך ששנה ״השוחט״; ואילו הרישא היתה בקדשים, היה לו לשנות ״המולק״ (שעוף קדשים נמלק ולא נשחט).

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

קושיא על רב כהנא: אם הסיפא בקדשים, היה לו לומר ״מליקתו כשרה״ ולא ״שחיטתו״! מתרצים: אין קושיא — מאחר שסיים בבהמה (שנשחטת) שנה גם בעוף ״שחיטתו״. אבל ברישא, שעוסקת בעוף, אם תעלה על דעתך שהיא בקדשים — היה לו לומר ״המולק״.

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

רב שימי בר אשי: הרישא בחולין — ראיה אחרת, מכך ששנה ״אחד בעוף״ (סימן אחד); ואילו היתה בקדשים, הרי יש עולת העוף שצריך בה שני סימנים.

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

קושיא ותירוץ: אם תאמר שהסיפא בקדשים, הרי ״רוב אחד בעוף״ קשה — שעולת העוף בעי שני סימנים. ומתרצים: ״רוב אחד״ פירושו רוב כל אחד ואחד מן השניים; ובדין היה לשנות ״רוב שניים״, אלא שמפני חטאת העוף שדי בה בסימן אחד — לא נקט לשון פסוקה.

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

רב פפא: הרישא בחולין — מכך ששנה ר׳ יהודה ״עד שישחוט את הוורידין״, ורבנן חולקים. אם בחולין — מובן; אבל אם בקדשים, מדוע יחלקו רבנן? הרי בקדשים צריכים את הדם, ויש טעם לדרוש חיתוך הוורידין.

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

רב אשי: הסיפא בקדשים — מכך ששנה ״השוחט שני ראשים כאחד שחיטתו כשרה״. הדיוק: ״השוחט״ — דיעבד כן, לכתחילה לא.

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

אם הסיפא בקדשים, מובן מדוע ״לכתחילה לא״: מדרשת רב יוסף — ״תזבח״ שלא יהיו שניים שוחטים זבח אחד, ״תזבחהו״ שלא יהא אחד שוחט שני זבחים.

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

ורב כהנא מוסיף: ״תזבחהו״ כתוב חסר (בלי וי״ו), ומכאן שאין שניים שוחטים. אבל אם הסיפא בחולין — מותר לשחוט שניים אף לכתחילה, וקשה הדיוק.

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

אף ר׳ שמעון בן לקיש סובר רישא בחולין וסיפא בקדשים, שכן הוא שאל: מאחר ששנינו ״רובו של אחד כמוהו״, למה שנינו שוב ״רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שניים בבהמה״?

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

תשובת ריש לקיש: מפני ששנינו (יומא) שהביאו לכהן הגדול את התמיד, קרצו (חתך רוב הסימנים) ואחר גמר השחיטה במקומו — שמא נחשוב שאם לא מירק (גמר) השחיטה פסולה; לכן שנינו ״רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שניים בבהמה״, להכשיר ברוב.

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

הגמרא מדייקת בדברי ריש לקיש: ״יכול לא מירק יהא פסול?״ — וכי עלה על הדעת שיהא פסול?

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

קושיא: אם תאמר שבלא מירוק היה פסול — נמצא שגמר העבודה נעשה באחֵר; והרי שנינו שכל עבודת יום הכיפורים כשרה רק בכהן הגדול עצמו, ולא יתכן שהמירוק מעכב.

How could that possibility enter one’s mind? If that is so, the completion of that slaughter is a Temple service performed by another on Yom Kippur. And it is taught in a baraita: The entire Yom Kippur Temple service is valid only if performed by the High Priest.

תירוץ: כוונת ריש לקיש — שמא יהא פסול מדרבנן; לכך שנינו ״רוב אחד בעוף״ ללמד שאף פסול דרבנן ליכא. ואם כן למה צריך למרק (לגמור)? — מצוה למרק לכתחילה, להוצאת הדם.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish is saying: One might have thought that if the slaughter was not completed by the other priest it would be not valid by rabbinic law, as it might enter your mind to say that there is an invalidation by rabbinic law. Therefore, we learned in the mishna: The majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal. The Gemara asks: And since there is not even an invalidation by rabbinic law, why do I need the other priest to complete the cutting of the simanim? The Gemara answers: There is a mitzva to complete the slaughter ab initio to facilitate the free flow of the blood.

ר׳ שמעון בן לקיש בשם לוי הזקן: השחיטה נחשבת רק ברגע סיומה (״אינה לשחיטה אלא בסוף״). ור׳ יוחנן: השחיטה חלה לכל אורכה — ״מתחילתה ועד סופה״.

§ Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Levi the Elder: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act.

רבא תוחם את המחלוקת: הכל מודים שאם גוי שחט סימן אחד וישראל סימן אחד — פסולה, שכבר נעשה בה מעשה טריפה ביד הגוי (ששחיטתו פוסלת).

Rava said in establishing the parameters of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everyone concedes in a case where a gentile slaughtered, i.e., cut, one siman and a Jew slaughtered one siman, that the slaughter is not valid even if slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, as an action rendering the animal a tereifa was performed at the hand of a gentile. Since slaughter by a gentile is not valid, the gentile renders the animal a tereifa.

וכן בעולת העוף: אם מלק סימן אחד למטה (כדרך חטאת העוף) וסימן אחד למעלה — פסולה, שכבר עשה בה מעשה חטאת העוף למטה, ופסל אותה כעולה.

In the case of a bird burnt offering as well, where one siman was pinched by a priest below the red line marking half the height of the altar, in accordance with the procedure of the sin offering, and one siman was pinched above the red line, in accordance with the procedure of the burnt offering, the pinching is not valid, as the priest performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering below the red line, disqualifying it from being sacrificed as a burnt offering.

לדעת רבא נחלקו רק בכגון ששחט סימן אחד בחוץ (מחוץ לעזרה) וסימן אחד בפנים: למ״ד ״ישנה מתחילה ועד סוף״ — חייב משום שחוטי חוץ; ולמ״ד ״אינה אלא בסוף״ — פטור, שגמר השחיטה בפנים.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree only in a case where an individual cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as the conclusion of the slaughter, which is the determining factor, is performed inside the Temple courtyard.

רבה בר שימי לרבא: ״מר״ (=רב יוסף) לא הגדיר כך; אף בסימן אחד בחוץ וסימן אחד בפנים הכל מודים שפסול, שכבר עשה בה מעשה חטאת העוף בחוץ — אין זו נקודת המחלוקת.

Rabba bar Shimi said to Rava: The Master did not say that this was the crux of the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. And who is the Master? It is Rav Yosef, who says that in a case where one cut one siman outside the Temple courtyard and one siman inside the Temple courtyard, all agree that the slaughter is not valid and the priest is liable to receive punishment, because he performed an action appropriate for a bird sin offering outside the Temple courtyard.

לפי רב יוסף נחלקו רק בכגון ששחט מיעוט הסימנים בחוץ וגמרם בפנים: למ״ד ״ישנה מתחילה ועד סוף״ — חייב; ולמ״ד ״אינה אלא בסוף״ — פטור, שגמר במקום הכשר.

They disagree only in a case where one slaughtered the minority of each of the simanim outside the Temple courtyard and completed the slaughter inside the Temple courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, one who begins the slaughter outside the Temple courtyard is liable for slaughter of a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard. According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one who does so is not liable, as he concludes the slaughter in an appropriate place.

ר׳ זירא מקשה ממשנת פרה אדומה: כל העוסקים בפרה מתחילה ועד סוף מטמאים בגדים, ופוסלים אותה אם עשו מלאכה אחרת בשעת עיסוקם.

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from a mishna (Para 4:4): Anyone who is engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer continuously from beginning to end transmits ritual impurity to the garments that he is wearing. And they disqualify the red heifer for use in the rite if they perform any other labor while engaged in any part of the rite of the red heifer.

המשנה ממשיכה: אם אירע פסול בשחיטתה — בין לפני הפסול בין אחריו אינה מטמאה בגדים; אבל בהזאתה — לפני הפסול מטמאה, ולאחריו אינה מטמאה. (כלומר בשחיטה לא חילקה בין לפני לאחר.)

If a disqualification befell the heifer during its slaughter, with regard to all those engaged in the rite of the red heifer, whether they engaged in the rite before the heifer was disqualified or after the heifer was disqualified, the heifer does not render garments that they are wearing impure. Since its slaughter was not valid it is disqualified from being used as a red heifer and therefore does not impart impurity. If it became disqualified at the time of sprinkling the blood of the heifer toward the opening of the Temple, with regard to those who engaged in the rite of the red heifer before it was disqualified, the heifer renders the garments that they are wearing impure. By contrast, with regard to those who handled the animal after it was disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that they are wearing impure.

ר׳ זירא ממשיך: אם השחיטה חלה מתחילה ועד סוף, היה למשנה לחלק גם בשחיטתה — שלפני הפסול תטמא ולאחריו לא; ומדלא חילקה, משמע ״אינה אלא בסוף״.

Rabbi Zeira elaborates: And if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, let the mishna also distinguish between disqualification at the beginning and at the end of the slaughter: If it became disqualified during slaughter, with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite before it became disqualified, the heifer renders garments that he is wearing impure, and with regard to one who engaged in any part of the rite after it became disqualified, the heifer does not render the garments that he is wearing impure.

רבא דוחה: אתה מדבר במקרה שנתקלקלה השחיטה (נפסלה)? שם שונה — שהתגלה למפרע שלא היתה כאן שחיטה כלל, ולכן בשחיטה לא חילקו; אין מכאן ראיה.

Rava said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case where the slaughter was invalidated? There it is different, because the matter was revealed retroactively, i.e., it was revealed that it was not a valid slaughter at all. Since at no stage of the slaughter was it valid, the heifer does not render the garments impure at all.

רבא: אם משהו קשה לי, זה הקשה לי — למ״ד ״אינה אלא בסוף״, היה למשנה לחלק בפרה כשרה ששחטוה שני אנשים: את הראשון (שלא בסוף) אינה מטמאה, ואת האחרון (שבסופו) מטמאה.

Rava said: If any aspect of that mishna is difficult for me it is this that is difficult for me: According to the one who says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, let the mishna distinguish between two individuals in the preparation of a fit red heifer, even when the heifer was not disqualified. Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.

רב יוסף דוחה: אתה שואל על שני אנשים בזבח אחד? הנח קושיא זו — שהרי שנינו ״תזבח״ שלא יהיו שניים שוחטים זבח אחד; ממילא אין מציאות של שני גברי בפרה.

Rav Yosef said: Are you saying that the discussion concerns a case of two men slaughtering one offering? Raise difficulties except for that, as we learn in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And when you sacrifice a peace offering to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥuhu] that you may be accepted” (Leviticus 19:5), that the term “tizbaḥuhu” can be divided into two terms: You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ] and it [hu]. From the term “You shall sacrifice [tizbaḥ],” it is derived that there will not be two people slaughtering one offering. From the full term “You shall offer it [tizbaḥuhu],” it is derived that one person may not slaughter two offerings simultaneously.

ורב כהנא: ״תזבחהו״ כתוב חסר וי״ו, ולכן נדרש בלשון יחיד — שאין שניים שוחטים זבח אחד.

And Rav Kahana said, to explain the derivation of the first halakha in the baraita: Although the term “tizbaḥuhu” is vocalized in the plural, leading to the conclusion that two people may slaughter an animal together, nevertheless, because the word is written without a vav, it emerges that the phrase “You shall sacrifice it [tizbaḥehu],” in the singular, is written, indicating that two individuals may not slaughter the offering.

אביי משיב לרב יוסף: והרי נאמר על דרשה זו — רבה בר בר חנה בשם ר׳ יוחנן — שזו דעת ר׳ אלעזר ברבי שמעון.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this halakha that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

המשך דברי אביי: דעת ר׳ אלעזר בר״ש נשנית סתם, אבל חכמים אומרים ששניים שוחטים זבח אחד — ולפיהם קושיית רבא (שני גברי) חוזרת.

which is cited unattributed, i.e., it is one of his many opinions that are cited in the Mishna and baraitot without attribution. But the Rabbis say: Two people may slaughter one offering. According to the Rabbis, Rava’s difficulty remains: Let the mishna teach a case where they slaughtered it with two men, as the heifer does not render the first man who slaughters impure, as the slaughter did not yet begin, and the heifer renders the latter man impure.

ואף לר׳ אלעזר בר״ש קשה: היה למשנה לחלק בכגון שאדם אחד שחט בשני סודרים (בגדים) — שהראשון אינו מיטמא והאחרון מיטמא. אלא מסקנה: המשנה עוסקת רק בפסולי פרה ולא בפרה כשרה, ואין מכאן ראיה כלל.

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that two people may not slaughter one offering, let the tanna of the mishna also distinguish and teach a case where one man slaughtered with two cloths on his head, starting the slaughter with one and replacing it with the other midway through the slaughter, as in that case, since halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, the first cloth is not rendered impure but the latter cloth is rendered impure. Rather, one must say that the tanna is speaking only in reference to cases involving the disqualification of the red heifer itself, but he is not speaking in reference to cases involving a fit red heifer, and no proof may be cited from here.

רב אידי בר אבין מקשה ממשנת פסחים: השוחט קרבן פסח בחג עם חמץ — אם שחטו לשמו, פטור (שהפסח פסול לאחר זמנו); ואם שלא לשמו (כשלמים), חייב.

Rav Idi bar Avin raises an objection from a mishna (Pesaḥim 63a) to the opinion that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. If one slaughters an animal for the sake of the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan after noon while he has leaven in his possession, he is flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread” (Exodus 23:18). If he slaughtered the animal not for the sake of the Paschal offering, he is exempt from receiving lashes. And if he slaughtered the animal during the festival of Passover for the sake of the Paschal offering with leaven in his possession, he is exempt, because it is a disqualified Paschal offering, as it was slaughtered beyond its appointed time. But if he slaughtered the animal during the Festival not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but rather as a peace offering, he is liable for slaughtering the animal with leaven in his possession.

ודנו בכך: הטעם שחייב הוא דווקא משום ש״שלא לשמו״; אבל אילו שחטו סתם (בלי כוונה אחרת) — פטור, שהפסח שלא בזמנו פסול.

And we discussed this matter: The reason he is liable is due to the fact that his intent was to slaughter it not for the sake of the Paschal offering, but had he slaughtered it with unspecified intent he would be exempt, because the offering would be disqualified. Unless he specifically intends otherwise, the animal retains its status as a Paschal offering and is disqualified when sacrificed beyond its appointed time.

ולמה פטור? הרי פסח בשאר ימות השנה דינו כשלמים, וגם שלמים חייב על שחיטתם עם חמץ! שמע מינה: פסח בשאר ימות השנה צריך ״עקירה״ (עקירת שם פסח) כדי שייעשה שלמים.

The Gemara asks: And why is he exempt? Doesn’t a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year assume the status of a peace offering, and doesn’t one who slaughters a peace offering during the time when it is prohibited to possess leaven with leaven in his possession also violate the prohibition? Conclude from it that a Paschal offering sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year requires explicit revocation of its status; otherwise, it does not assume the status of a peace offering and it remains a disqualified Paschal offering.

ר׳ חייא בר גמדא בשם החבורה: כאן מדובר כשהבעלים היו טמאי מתים ונדחו לפסח שני — שאז סתם שחיטה עומדת לשם הפסח (השני), ודווקא זה צריך עקירה; אבל פסח אחר שעבר זמנו אינו צריך עקירה ונעשה שלמים מאליו.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said: A response emerged from the group of scholars that discussed this matter, and they said: What are we dealing with here? It is with a case where the owners of the Paschal offering were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan with impurity imparted by a corpse. In that case, the Torah commands (Numbers 9:10–11) that since they were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the appointed time, the fourteenth of Nisan, they were deferred to the second Pesaḥ, the fourteenth of Iyyar. Since presumably the owner plans to use his Paschal offering on the second Pesaḥ, its unspecified slaughter in the interim stands to be offered for the sake of the Paschal offering, and it is that Paschal offering that requires revocation of its status. But other situations of a Paschal offering that is slaughtered beyond its designated time do not require revocation of the animal’s status, and it assumes the status of a peace offering.

כעת הקושיא: למ״ד ״ישנה מתחילה ועד סוף״ — הפסח (השני) נפסל כבר מתחילת השחיטה, ולכן פטור. אבל למ״ד ״אינה אלא בסוף״ — כיוון ששחט מעט נדחה מן הפסח, ונמצא ששאר השחיטה כבר שחיטת שלמים, וצריך היה להתחייב!

Returning to the matter at hand, if a Paschal offering that is designated for use on the second Pesaḥ is slaughtered on Passover while one has leaven in his possession, he is exempt from receiving lashes because it is a disqualified Paschal offering. Granted, if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act, the offering is disqualified from the beginning of the slaughter as a Paschal offering slaughtered beyond its appointed time. Therefore, one is exempt from receiving lashes. But if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, why is one exempt if he slaughtered the animal with leaven in his possession? Once he began and cut a bit of the siman, it is rejected from its status as a Paschal offering and can no longer be offered on the second Pesaḥ. Therefore, when he slaughters the other, remaining, portion of the simanim without specification, it is a peace offering that he is slaughtering.

אביי מתרץ: אף שנדחה מהקרבה כפסח שני, וכי נדחה גם מ״דמי פסח״? — כל עוד לא נגמרה השחיטה הוא בר־פדיון, ועדיין סתם שחיטתו עומדת לשם פסח; לכן פטור.

Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Even if you say that halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion, although it was rejected from the possibility of being sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ, was it rejected from the possibility of being redeemed and from the possibility of the monetary value of a Paschal offering being used to purchase an animal to be sacrificed on the second Pesaḥ? As long as the slaughter is not yet complete, redemption of the animal remains possible. Therefore, unspecified slaughter at that time is for the sake of a Paschal offering and one should be exempt from receiving lashes.

ואם תאמר שאי אפשר לפדות כי צריך ״העמדה והערכה״ והבהמה כבר שחוטה — והרי שנינו: שחט בה שניים או רוב שניים והיא עדיין מפרכסת, הרי היא כחיה לכל דבריה (וניתנת לפדיון).

And if you would say that in order to redeem a consecrated item one requires that the animal be placed standing before the priest and it requires valuation (see Leviticus 27:11–12), and once it is slaughtered it is unable to stand, but didn’t we learn in a baraita: If one slaughtered, i.e., cut, two simanim in the animal or a majority of two simanim, and the animal is still convulsing, its halakhic status is like a living animal in every respect, and it may be redeemed until the convulsing ceases?