## Chullin Daf 29a

###### Chullin 29a:1
[Chullin 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:1)

כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַחֶרֶת וּגְמָרָהּ, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, אִיטָּרְפָא לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
for an interval **equivalent** to the duration of the **slaughter** of **another** animal, **and** then **completed** his slaughter, **his slaughter** is **valid. But if you say** the halakhic status of a *siman* of which precisely **half** was cut and **half** remained uncut **is like** that of the **majority,** then by cutting half the windpipe **he rendered it a *tereifa*** because it is as though the majority of the windpipe is severed.


###### Chullin 29a:2
[Chullin 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:2)

מִי סָבְרַתְּ בִּבְהֵמָה? לָא, בְּעוֹף! מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב – הָא עָבֵיד לֵיהּ רוּבָּא, אִי מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב – לָא עֲבַד וְלֹא כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Do you hold** that this *baraita* is referring to the slaughter **of an animal? No,** it is referring to the slaughter **of a bird,** which requires the cutting of only one *siman*. **Whichever** way **you** look at it, the slaughter should be valid. **If** the halakhic status of a *siman* of which precisely **half** was cut and **half** remained uncut **is like** that of the **majority, he has performed** the cutting of **the majority** and the slaughter is valid. And **if** the halakhic status of a *siman* of which precisely **half** was cut and **half** remained uncut **is not like** that of the **majority,** then in cutting half the *siman* **he did not perform any** action that would render the animal a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 29a:3
[Chullin 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם, וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא וּגְמָרוֹ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב – טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof contrary to Rav’s opinion from a *baraita*: In a case where **half of the windpipe was deficient** prior to the slaughter **and** the slaughterer **added to** that deficiency an incision of **any size, and completed it, his slaughter is valid. And if you say that** the halakhic status of a *siman* of which precisely **half** was cut and **half** remained uncut **is like** that of the **majority,** the animal **is a *tereifa*,** as half its windpipe was deficient before the slaughter.


###### Chullin 29a:4
[Chullin 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The matter of *tereifa* is different, as we require a majority that is clearly visible.** If precisely half the windpipe is deficient it does not appear to be a majority. By contrast, with regard to slaughter, the status of half is like that of the majority.


###### Chullin 29a:5
[Chullin 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָא כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? וּמָה טְרֵפָה, דִּבְמַשֶּׁהוּ מִיטָּרְפָא, הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵינַן רוּבָּא – בָּעֵינַן רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם; שְׁחִיטָה, דְּעַד דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא לָא מִיתַּכְשְׁרָא – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **And is it not** derived through an *a fortiori* inference that **all the more so,** a conspicuous majority is required for slaughter? **And just as** with regard to ***tereifa*, where** the animal **is rendered a *tereifa*** by a deficiency **of any size,** e.g., by a minuscule perforation of the gullet, in cases **where we require a majority, we require a majority that is clearly visible,** with regard to **slaughter, where until there is a majority** of the *simanim* cut, the slaughter **is not valid, all the more so** is it **not** clear **that we require a majority that is clearly visible?**


###### Chullin 29a:6
[Chullin 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:6)

אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב, וְכִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב וּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא – לְעִנְיַן פֶּסַח אִתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara revises its understanding of the dispute between Rav and Rav Kahana. **Everyone** agrees that the halakhic status of a *siman* of which precisely **half** was cut and **half** remained uncut **is not like** that of a *siman* of which the **majority** was cut. **And when** the dispute **of Rav and Rav Kahana was stated, it was stated with regard to** the **matter of the Paschal offering.** If a majority of the Jewish people were ritually impure on the fourteenth of Nisan, the Paschal offering is sacrificed that day and eaten in a state of impurity. If only a minority of the Jewish people were impure, the ritually pure majority brings the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the impure minority brings the Paschal offering on the second *Pesaḥ* one month later.


###### Chullin 29a:7
[Chullin 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:7)

הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֶחֱצָה טְהוֹרִים וּמֶחֱצָה טְמֵאִים – רַב אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה כְּרוֹב, וְרַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where **the Jewish people were** equally divided on the fourteenth of Nisan, with **half** of them **pure and half** of them **impure, Rav said:** The *halakha* in the case where **half** the people were impure and **half** were pure **is like** that of a case where the **majority** was impure, and the entire people brings the Paschal offering in Nisan. **And Rav Kahana said:** The *halakha* in the case where **half** the people were impure and **half** were pure is **not like** that of a case where the **majority** was impure. Therefore, those who are pure bring the Paschal offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and those who are impure bring the Paschal offering on the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Chullin 29a:8
[Chullin 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:8)

וְהָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא דְרַב, דִּכְתִיב ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ״, אִישׁ נִדְחֶה, וְאֵין צִיבּוּר נִדְחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And there,** with regard to the Paschal offering, **what is the reason that Rav** accords half the people the status of a majority? It is **as it is written: “Any man who shall be impure by reason of a corpse…**shall observe the Passover to the Lord. On the fourteenth day of the second month at evening they shall observe it” (Numbers 9:10–11), from which it is derived: A ritually impure **person** is **deferred** to observe the second *Pesaḥ*, **but** a ritually impure **congregation is not deferred** to observe the second *Pesaḥ*. The status of half the people is that of a congregation, not that of a collection of individuals.


###### Chullin 29a:9
[Chullin 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:9)

רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Chullin 29a:10
[Chullin 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:10)

(הכ״ש פש״ח סִימָן).

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


###### Chullin 29a:11
[Chullin 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:11)

אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: חֲדָא בְּחוּלִּין וַחֲדָא בְּקָדָשִׁים, וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן חוּלִּין – הָתָם הוּא דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּרוּבָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו לְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים דִּלְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ – אֵימָא לָא תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בְּרוּבָּא עַד דְּאִיכָּא כּוּלֵּיהּ.

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


###### Chullin 29a:12
[Chullin 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:12)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קָדָשִׁים, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ, אֲבָל חוּלִּין דִּלְדָם לָא צְרִיךְ – אֵימָא בְּפַלְגָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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


###### Chullin 29a:13
[Chullin 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:13)

הֵי בְּחוּלִּין, וְהֵי בְּקָדָשִׁים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chullin 29a:14
[Chullin 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:14)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִיסְתַּבְּרָא רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין וְסֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ רֵישָׁא בְּקָדָשִׁים, ״הַמּוֹלֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

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


###### Chullin 29a:15
[Chullin 29a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:15)

אֶלָּא מַאי, סֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים? ״שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״? ״מְלִיקָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, אַיְּידֵי דְּסָלֵיק מִבְּהֵמָה תְּנָא נָמֵי ״שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״. אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא, מִכְּדֵי עַל עוֹף קָאֵי, אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּקָדָשִׁים – ״הַמּוֹלֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 29a:16
[Chullin 29a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:16)

רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין מֵהָכָא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״אֶחָד בְּעוֹף״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּקָדָשִׁים – הָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף דְּבָעֵי שְׁנֵי סִימָנִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Chullin 29a:17
[Chullin 29a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:17)

אֶלָּא מַאי, סֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים? רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף – הָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף דְּבָעֵי שְׁנֵי סִימָנִין! מַאי ״רוֹב אֶחָד״? רוֹב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלִיתְנֵי רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חַטָּאת דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּחַד סִימָן – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 29a:18
[Chullin 29a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:18)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין מֵהָכָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט אֶת הַוְּרִידִין, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּחוּלִּין – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּקָדָשִׁים, אַמַּאי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ? הוּא עַצְמוֹ לְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ!

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


###### Chullin 29a:19
[Chullin 29a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:19)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: סֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים מֵהָכָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא.

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


###### Chullin 29a:20
[Chullin 29a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:20)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּקָדָשִׁים – הַיְינוּ דִּלְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״תִּזְבַּח״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִים זֶבַח אֶחָד, ״תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ״ – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד שׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי זְבָחִים.

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


###### Chullin 29a:21
[Chullin 29a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:21)

וְאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״תִּזְבָּחֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּחוּלִּין – אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי.

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


###### Chullin 29a:22
[Chullin 29a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:22)

וְאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: רֵישָׁא בְּחוּלִּין, וְסֵיפָא בְּקָדָשִׁים, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מֵאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ ״רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ״, לָמָּה שָׁנִינוּ ״רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה״?

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


###### Chullin 29a:23
[Chullin 29a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:23)

לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַתָּמִיד, קְרָצוֹ וּמֵירַק אַחֵר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ עַל יָדוֹ, יָכוֹל לֹא מֵירַק יְהֵא פָּסוּל? לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ: רוֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף וְרוֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 29a:24
[Chullin 29a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/29a:24)

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל לֹא מֵירַק יְהֵא פָּסוּל?

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