## Chullin Daf 30a

###### Chullin 30a:1
[Chullin 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:1)

סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹחֲטִים זֶבַח אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 30a:2
[Chullin 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:2)

וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נָמֵי לִפְלוֹג כְּגוֹן דִּשְׁחַט חַד גַּבְרָא בִּשְׁנֵי סוּדָרִים, דְּסוּדָר קַמָּא לָא מְטַמֵּא, וְסוּדָר בָּתְרָא מְטַמֵּא. אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּלָא דְּפָרָה קָא מַיְירֵי, בְּהֶכְשֵׁרַהּ לָא קָא מַיְירֵי.

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


###### Chullin 30a:3
[Chullin 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:3)

מֵתִיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: וּבַמּוֹעֵד לִשְׁמוֹ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – חַיָּיב.

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


###### Chullin 30a:4
[Chullin 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:4)

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: טַעְמָא דְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הָא סְתָמָא – פָּטוּר.

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


###### Chullin 30a:5
[Chullin 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:5)

וְאַמַּאי פָּטוּר? פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שְׁלָמִים הוּא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 30a:6
[Chullin 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:6)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא, נִזְרְקָה מִפִּי חֲבוּרָה וְאָמְרוּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעָלִים טְמֵאֵי מֵתִים, דְּנִדְחִין לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי, דִּסְתָמָא לִשְׁמוֹ קָאֵי, וְהַאי הוּא דְּבָעֵי עֲקִירָה, הָא אַחֵר לָא בָּעֵי עֲקִירָה.

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


###### Chullin 30a:7
[Chullin 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:7)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף – אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ מִתְּחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף – כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, אִידַּךְ כִּי קָא שָׁחֵיט שְׁלָמִים קָא שָׁחֵיט!

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


###### Chullin 30a:8
[Chullin 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: נְהִי דְּאִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִפֶּסַח, מִדְּמֵי פֶסַח מִי אִידְּחִי?

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


###### Chullin 30a:9
[Chullin 30a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, וְהָתְנַן: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַיָּה לְכׇל דְּבָרֶיהָ.

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


###### Chullin 30a:10
[Chullin 30a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:10)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: One who cuts** a *siman* **in two or three places** on the neck, and together the cuts constitute the requisite measure of slaughter, **his slaughter is valid.** Rav Yehuda adds: **When I stated this** *halakha* **before Shmuel he said to me: We require a clear** and obvious **slaughter and** in the case of cuts in two or three places **there is no** obvious slaughter.


###### Chullin 30a:11
[Chullin 30a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:11)

וְאַף רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סָבַר: בָּעֵינַן שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מִנַּיִן לַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא מְפוֹרַעַת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם מִרְמָה דִבֵּר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish also holds** that **we require a clear** and obvious **slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: From where** is it derived **that slaughter must be clear** and obvious? **As it is stated: “Their tongue is a sharpened [*shaḥut*] arrow, it speaks deceit;** one speaks peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, but in his heart he lays wait for him” (Jeremiah 9:7). Just as an arrow clearly enters one part of the body, so too, the slaughter [*sheḥita*] must be clear and obvious.


###### Chullin 30a:12
[Chullin 30a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:12)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לֵיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְפוֹרַעַת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar raises an objection** from a mishna (30b): If **two** people **are grasping a knife and slaughtering** one animal, **even** if each is holding a knife and slaughtering **one above and one below,** with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their **slaughter is valid. But why** is the slaughter valid according to the opinions of Shmuel and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? **There is no clear** and obvious **slaughter,** as each is cutting a different part of the neck.


###### Chullin 30a:13
[Chullin 30a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ בְּסַכִּין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said to** Rabbi Elazar: **The mishna** is referring to a case **with one knife and two people,** each holding one end of the knife, resulting in a single diagonal incision from above to below.


###### Chullin 30a:14
[Chullin 30a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתָנֵי עֲלַהּ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּשְׁתֵּי סַכִּינִין וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – שַׁפִּיר, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא סָמְכִי אַהֲדָדֵי, וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא וְהַאי לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוּבָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: **If so, is this** what **is taught in that regard** in a *baraita* commenting **on** that mishna: One need **not be concerned** that **perhaps each** will **render** the animal **a *tereifa*** due **to the other? Granted, if you say** that the mishna is referring to a case **of two knives and two people** it works out **well, lest you say: Let us be concerned** that **perhaps each will rely on the other** that he will perform the slaughter properly, **and neither will this** one **come to execute** the cut on **the majority** of the *simanim*, **nor will that** one **come to execute** the cut on **the majority** of the *simanim*. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us that** one need **not be concerned.**


###### Chullin 30a:15
[Chullin 30a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:15)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּסַכִּין אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, הַאי ״אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִטְרְפוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ – ״שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that the mishna is referring to a case **of one knife and two people, that** statement in the *baraita* should not have said: One need **not be concerned** that **perhaps each** will **render** the animal **a *tereifa*** due **to the other;** it **should have** said: One need not be concerned that because one is pulling in one direction and one is pulling in the other, **perhaps each will** cause **the other** to **press** the knife and thereby invalidate the slaughter.


###### Chullin 30a:16
[Chullin 30a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/30a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אָבִין, תְּנִי: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin said to him: Teach:** One need **not be concerned**