## Chullin Daf 28a

###### Chullin 28a:1
[Chullin 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:1)

מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ לְיָנִיכָא? לָא, בְּחַיָּה דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ לְלַכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 28a:2
[Chullin 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מָלַק בְּסַכִּין, מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּכִי תָּבַר לֵיהּ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת הָוְיָא לַהּ טְרֵפָה, תַּהְנֵי לַהּ סַכִּין לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵּי נְבֵלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 28a:3
[Chullin 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:3)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֶת הַצְּבִי וְגוֹ׳״? וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִצְּבִי וְאַיָּל מֵעַתָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 28a:4
[Chullin 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:4)

הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד, מַקִּישׁ צְבִי וְאַיָּל לִפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין: מָה פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אַף צְבִי וְאַיָּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה; וְעוֹף אֵין לוֹ שְׁחִיטָה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 28a:5
[Chullin 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:5)

מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ … כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה מֹשֶׁה עַל הַוֶּושֶׁט וְעַל הַקָּנֶה, וְעַל רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְעַל רוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 28a:6
[Chullin 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:6)

אֶחָד בָּעוֹף אִיתְּמַר: רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹ וֶושֶׁט אוֹ קָנֶה, רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: וֶושֶׁט וְלֹא קָנֶה. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אוֹ וֶושֶׁט אוֹ קָנֶה – ״אֶחָד״ קָתָנֵי, ״אֶחָד״ כֹּל דְּהוּ. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: וֶושֶׁט וְלֹא קָנֶה – מַאי ״אֶחָד״? מְיוּחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that in the case of one who cuts **one** *siman* **in a bird,** his slaughter is valid. **It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. **Rav Naḥman said:** One may cut **either the gullet or the windpipe. Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** One must cut the **gullet** for the slaughter to be valid, **but** cutting **the windpipe** is **not** sufficient. The Gemara explains the formulation of the mishna according to the opinion of each *amora*. **Rav Naḥman said:** One may cut **either the gullet or the windpipe. One** *siman* **is taught** in the mishna, meaning that the slaughter is valid if he severs **one,** indicating that **either** *siman* is valid. **Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** One must cut the **gullet** for the slaughter to be valid, **but** cutting **the windpipe** is **not** sufficient. **What** is the meaning of: **One,** in the mishna? It means the **special** one, the gullet.


###### Chullin 28a:7
[Chullin 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:7)

(סִימָן: שָׁחַט, חֲצָאִין, גַּרְגֶּרֶת, פְּגִימָה, דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף.)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the proofs to be cited by the Gemara: **Slaughter, halves, windpipe, deficiency, of a bird sin offering.**


###### Chullin 28a:8
[Chullin 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה, נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט – פְּסוּלָה, שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְנִמְצֵאת גַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁמוּטָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה אִם לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: כׇּל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְאִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּגַרְגֶּרֶת לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a *baraita*: If **one cut the** bird’s **gullet and thereafter the windpipe was displaced,** the slaughter **is valid.** If **the windpipe was displaced and thereafter he cut the gullet,** the slaughter **is not valid.** With regard to a case where **one cut the gullet and the windpipe was found displaced and he does not know if it was displaced prior to the slaughter or if it was displaced after the slaughter, that was an incident** that transpired, **and** the Sages **said:** In **any** case of **uncertainty with regard to slaughter,** the slaughter **is not valid.** The *baraita* mentions only the case of cutting the gullet, **while cutting the windpipe is not taught.** The *baraita* supports the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava and is contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman.


###### Chullin 28a:9
[Chullin 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:9)

מִשּׁוּם דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עֲבִידָא לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: The *baraita* mentions only the cutting of the gullet and displacement of the windpipe not because slaughter may be performed only by cutting the gullet. Rather, those scenarios were mentioned **because the windpipe,** unlike the gullet, **is likely to be displaced.**


###### Chullin 28a:10
[Chullin 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי סִימָנִין בְּעוֹף – פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בָּעוֹף – עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְאֶת הַוְּרִידִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּוֶשֶׁט סָמוּךְ לִוְרִידִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof contrary to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a *baraita*. If one **cut two halves,** one half of each **of the *simanim*, in a bird,** the slaughter is **not valid,** as the requirement is that a majority of one *siman* is cut; **and needless to say** the slaughter performed in that manner is not valid **in** the case of **an animal,** where the requirement is that a majority of both *simanim* are cut. **Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird** the slaughter is not valid **until he cuts the gullet and the veins;** the veins must be cut so that the blood will drain from the body. The fact that Rabbi Yehuda mentions cutting only the gullet and not the windpipe indicates that slaughter is valid only when the gullet is cut. The Gemara rejects that proof: Rabbi Yehuda mentions only the gullet **because** the **gullet is adjacent to the veins.**


###### Chullin 28a:11
[Chullin 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:11)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁחַט חֲצִי גַרְגֶּרֶת, וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַחֶרֶת, וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, וּמַאי גְּמָרָהּ – גְּמָרָהּ לְגַרְגֶּרֶת? לָא, בִּבְהֵמָה, וּמַאי גְּמָרָהּ – גְּמָרָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה כּוּלַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a *baraita*. If one **cut half** the **windpipe and interrupted** the slaughter for an interval **equivalent** to the duration of the **slaughter** of **another** animal, **and** then **completed his slaughter,** the slaughter is **valid** and it is not invalidated due to an interrupted slaughter. **What, is** the *baraita* **not** referring to the slaughter **of a bird? And what** does the term: **Completed it,** mean in the *baraita*? Doesn’t it mean that he **completed** cutting **the windpipe,** which he had started cutting, indicating that with the cutting of the windpipe the slaughter is valid, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman as opposed to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava? The Gemara rejects that proof: **No,** the *baraita* is referring to slaughter **of an animal,** for which both *simanim* must be cut. **And what** does the term: **Completed it,** mean in the *baraita*? It means that he **completed the entire slaughter.**


###### Chullin 28a:12
[Chullin 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לָאו בְּעוֹף, וּמַאי גְּמָרוֹ – גְּמָרוֹ לְקָנֶה? לָא, בִּבְהֵמָה, וּמַאי גְּמָרוֹ – גְּמָרוֹ לְוֶושֶׁט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a *baraita*: In a case where **half of the windpipe was deficient,** i.e., somewhat cut, prior to the slaughter **and** the slaughterer **added to** that deficiency an incision of **any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. What, is it not** referring to the slaughter of **a bird? And what** does the term: **Completed it,** mean in the *baraita*? Doesn’t it mean that he **completed** cutting the majority of the **windpipe,** indicating that cutting the windpipe renders the bird fit for consumption? The Gemara rejects that proof: **No,** the *baraita* is referring to slaughter **of an animal,** for which both *simanim* must be cut. **And what** does the term: **Completed it,** mean in the *baraita*? It means that he **completed** the entire slaughter by cutting **the gullet.**


###### Chullin 28a:13
[Chullin 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף? חוֹתֵךְ שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא רוֹב בָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה; הִגִּיעַ לַוֶּושֶׁט אוֹ לַקָּנֶה – חוֹתֵךְ סִימָן אֶחָד וְרוֹב בָּשָׂר עִמּוֹ, וּבָעוֹלָה – שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof in support of the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a *baraita*: **How does one pinch** the nape of the neck of **a bird sin offering?** Using his thumbnail, the priest **cuts the spine and the neck bone, without** cutting through **the majority of** the surrounding **flesh until he reaches** either **the gullet or the windpipe. Once he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one *siman*** with his nail **and a majority of** the surrounding **flesh with it. And in** the case of a bird **burnt offering,** he cuts the **two** *simanim* **or the majority of the two** *simanim*. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rav Adda bar Ahava** from this *baraita* is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Chullin 28a:14
[Chullin 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:14)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?! כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא שִׁדְרָה וּמַפְרֶקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about the matter?** The Gemara asks in response: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about the matter?** It is **as you said,** that the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava was conclusively refuted. The Gemara says that there is not absolute proof from the *baraita*, as **perhaps it is different there** with regard to pinching, **as** in that case **there is** the **spine and** the **neck bone** that are cut initially, and therefore cutting the windpipe is sufficient. But in the case of slaughter of a non-sacred bird, perhaps only if one cuts the gullet the slaughter is valid.


###### Chullin 28a:15
[Chullin 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/28a:15)

מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא בַּר אֲוָוזָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רָבָא, אֲתָא כִּי מְמַסְמַס קוֹעֵיהּ דְּמָא. אָמַר רָבָא: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** then is the *halakha* in the case of slaughter? The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** proof from the following incident, **that** there was **a certain duck that was in the house of Rava,** which **came** for slaughter **with its neck filthy with blood** and they did not know whether the blood was the result of its windpipe having been severed or its gullet having been perforated, in which cases the duck is a *tereifa*. **Rava said: What should we do** with regard to this duck?