(a)We query Rav Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas ('Ein Shechitah le'Of min ha'Torah') from a Beraisa, which rules that if a Kohen performs Melikah using a knife, the bird is Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah. Why is that?
(b)What Kashya does this pose on Rav Yehudah?
(c)We answer that Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas holds like the Tana of the following Beraisa. What problem does Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi have with the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Ach ka'asher Ye'achel es ha'Tzevi ve'ha'Ayal ... "?
(d)So he inverts the Limud. In which regard does he learn Tz'vi ve'Ayal from Pesulei ha'Mukdashin'?
(e)In which regard does Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas hold like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar?
1)
(a)We query Rav Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas ('Ein Shechitah le'Of min ha'Torah') from a Beraisa, which rules that if a Kohen performs Melikah using a knife, the bird is Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah - because since the Melikah is Pasul, it has the Din of a Neveilah.
(b)This poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah - according to whom, after cutting the spinal cord and the neck (but without Rov Basar), rendering the bird a T'reifah, killing it by the neck ought to remove the Tum'as Neveilah.
(c)We answer that Rebbi Yitzchak ben Pinchas holds like the Tana of the following Beraisa where Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi asks on the Pasuk (in connection with Pesulei ha'Mukdashin) "Ach ka'asher Ye'achel es ha'Tzvi ve'ha'Ayal ... " - what we can possibly learn from "Tz'vi ve'Ayal" on to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin.
(d)So he inverts the Limud and learns that - like Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, Tzvi ve'Ayal (and other Kasher Chayos) require Shechitah ...
(e)... but that birds do not(like Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar.
2)
(a)The Tana who argues with Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi is Rebbi. What does Rebbi learn from the Pasuk there "Vezavachta ka'asher Tzivisicha"?
(b)What does he include in this, besides the obligation to Shecht the Veshet and the Kaneh?
(c)What does this prove?
2)
(a)The Tana who argues with Rebbi Elazar ha'Kapar b'Rivi is Rebbi, who learns from the Pasuk "Vezavachta ka'asher Tzivisicha" that - Hilchos Shechitah were given to Moshe at Sinai.
(b)Besides the obligation to Shecht the Veshet and the Kaneh, he includes - 'Rov Echad be'Of' and 'Rov Shenayim bi'Beheimah' ...
(c)... a proof that Shechitas ha'Of is (not just mi'de'Rabbanan, but) Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
3)
(a)According to Rav Nachman, when Shechting a bird, the Shochet may Shecht whichever Si'man he pleases. What does Rav Ada bar Ahavah say?
(b)If Rav Nachman interprets Echad be'Of to mean Echad Kol de'Hu (whichever one he pleases), how does Rav Ada bar Ahavah interpret it?
(c)How do we know that the Veshet is indeed special?
3)
(a)According to Rav Nachman when Shechting a bird, the Shochet may Shecht whichever Si'man he pleases. Rav Ada bar Ahavah says that - he must Shecht the Veshet.
(b)Rav Nachman interprets Echad be'Of to mean Echad Kol de'Hu (whichever one he pleases), Rav Ada bar Ahavah as - Meyuchad (the special Si'man.)
(c)We know that the Veshet is indeed special - because the smallest hole renders the animal a T'reifah (a clear indication that the life of the animal depends on it), whereas the Kaneh only renders the animal a T'reifah if the majority is broken.
4)
(a)We query Rav Nachman from a Beraisa. What does the Tana say about a case where the Kaneh of a bird ...
1. ... became disconnected after the Veshet was Shechted?
2. ... was found to have been disconnected before the Shechitah took place?
3. ... was found to be disconnected, but it could not be ascertained whether this took place before the Shechitah or after it?
(b)Which principle did they cite when such a case actually occurred?
(c)What is now the Kashya on Rav Nachman?
(d)How do we answer the Kashya? According to Rav Nachman, why indeed does the Tana only talk about the Shechitah of the Veshet?
4)
(a)We query Rav Nachman from a Beraisa. The Tana rules that if the Kaneh of a bird ...
1. ... became disconnected after the Veshet was Shechted - the bird is Kasher.
2. ... was found to have been disconnected before the Shechitah took place - it is T'reifah.
3. ... was found to be disconnected, but it could not be ascertained whether this took place before the Shechitah or after it - it is T'reifah.
(b)When such a case actually occurred, they cited the principle that - any Safek in the Shechitah is Pasul.
(c)We now ask on Rav Nachman - why the Tana only discusses a case where the Shochet Shechted the Veshet, and the Kaneh became disconnected, and not vice-versa.
(d)And we answer that - the Tana confines himself to this case - because it is common for the Kaneh to slip out of place (but not the Veshet).
5)
(a)What does another Beraisa say about a Shochet who Shechts two half-Simanim of a bird or of an animal?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah requires him to Shecht the Veshet plus the Varidim. How will Rav Nachman explain the fact that Rebbi Yehudah mentions specifically the Veshet and not the Kaneh?
5)
(a)Another Beraisa rules that if a Shochet Shechts two half-Simanim of a bird - the Shechitah is Pasul, and how much more so of an animal.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah requires him to Shecht the Veshet plus the Varidin. Rav Nachman will explain the fact that Rebbi Yehudah mentions specifically the Veshet and not the Kaneh - by pointing out that the Veshet lies between the Kaneh and the neck, close to the Varidin, so according to Rebbi Yehudah, it would be more natural for the Shochet to Shecht it (and not the Kaneh).
6)
(a)What does yet another Beraisa say about a Shochet who Shechts half the Gargeres (alias the Kaneh), to complete it only after waiting the time it takes to Shecht?
(b)What is the reason for this ruling?
(c)How will Rav Ada bar Ahavah (who requires the Shechitah of a bird's Veshet) explain this Beraisa? What does the Tana mean when he speaks about completing 'it'?
(d)And by the same token, how will he explain the Beraisa which, with reference to a case where half the Kaneh has already been cut, adds 'Hosif alav Kol-she'Hu ve'Gamro'? What does ve'Gamro mean, according to him?
6)
(a)Yet another Beraisa rules that if a Shochet Shechts half the Gargeres (alias the Kaneh), to complete it only after waiting the time it takes to Shecht - the Shechitah is Kasher ...
(b)... (no less than if the Kanah had been half broken and he added only a Mashehu Shechitah) - because the first half of the Shechitas ha'Kaneh is not considered part of the Shechitah.
(c)According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah (who specifically requires the Shechitah of the bird's Veshet) - this Beraisa is referring to the Shechitah of an animal, and when the Tana speaks about completing 'it', he means the Shechitah (a Mashehu of the Kaneh followed by Rov Veshet).
(d)And by the same token, when, with reference to a case where half the Kaneh has already been cut, the Beraisa adds 'Hosif alav Kol-she'Hu ve'Gamro' the Tana, who is referring to the Shechitah of an animal, means that - he completes the Shechitah, by then Shechting Rov Veshet.
7)
(a)We have already cited the Beraisa (in the previous Perek), which, regarding the Melikah of a Chatas ha'Of, requires breaking through the spinal cord and the neck without Rov Basar, before cutting the Kaneh or the Veshet. How will we reconcile Rav Ada bar Ahavah with this Beraisa?
(b)How do we then justify the question 'Mai Havi alah?' (whether one is obligated to Shecht the Veshet of a bird or whether the Kaneh will do)?
7)
(a)We have already cited the Beraisa (in the previous Perek), which, regarding the Melikah of a Chatas ha'Of, requires breaking through the spinal cord and the neck (without Rov Basar), before cutting the Kaneh or the Veshet. We are unable to reconcile Rav Ada bar Ahavah with this Beraisa - and remain with a Tiyuvta.
(b)We nevertheless justify the question 'Mai Havi alah?' (whether one is obligated to Shecht the Veshet of a bird or whether the Kaneh will do) - by suggesting that the Beraisa's ruling is restricted to Melikah, where one has already cut through the spinal cord and the neck, and very little is therefore required to finally kill the bird. But Shechting a Chulin bird perhaps, will require cutting the Veshet.
8)
(a)We solve the problem by citing a case of a duck that was brought before Rava with its neck full of blood. What was the problem there? Why might the bird ...
1. ... not have been T'reifah?
2. ... have been T'reifah?
(b)So why could they not simply ...
1. ... Shecht the duck and then inspect it?
2. ... inspect it and then Shecht it?
(c)What solution did Rav Yosef, Rava's son, come up with?
(d)How did Rava praise him? What might he have meant when he compared him to Rebbi Yochanan?
(e)What have we proved from this episode as well?
8)
(a)We solve the problem by citing a case of a duck that was brought before Rava with its neck full of blood. The problem there was that perhaps the bird ...
1. ... was not T'reifah - because the blood was the result of the minority of the Kanah being broken.
2. ... have been T'reifah - because it was the result of the majority of the Kanah being broken, or of even a small hole in the Veshet.
(b)They could not simply ...
1. ... Shecht the duck and then inspect it - because of the possibility that the Shochet would cut precisely into the hole (in the Veshet) that caused the wound.
2. ... inspect it and then Shecht it - because of a statement by Rabah, invalidating any inspection of the Veshet during the lifetime of the bird (in case, due to the minute size of the hole, which is perhaps covered with a drop of blood, one overlooks it).
(c)Rav Yosef, Rava's son, came up with the solution - of inspecting the Kaneh immediately and Shechting it, and then, inspecting the Veshet.
(d)Rava praised him - by comparing him to Rebbi Yochanan (either in the realm of T'reifus, where the latter was considered an expert [as we will see in the seventh Perek] or in all matters).
(e)In any event, we have proved from this episode as well that - the Kaneh of a bird is eligible for Shechitah.
28b----------------------------------------28b
9)
(a)What is Rav Chisda's reason for confining Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'ad she'Yishchat es ha'Varidin' to the Shechitah of a bird? Why is it not necessary when Shechting an animal?
(b)What problem do we have with this, based on the wording of Rebbi Yehudah's statement?
(c)If, as Rav Chisda explains, he really meant 'ad she'Yinkov es ha'Varadin', then why did he say 'ad she'Yishchat ... '?
(d)And how does he amend the Beraisa 'Varidin bi'Shechitah'?
9)
(a)Rav Chisda confines Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'ad she'Yishchat es ha'Varidin' to the Shechitah of a bird - because it is roasted whole, unlike an animal, which one cuts into pieces first (in which case the blood will drain anyway).
(b)The problem with this is that - if Rebbi Yehudah's reason is in order to drain the blood, then why did he mention 'Shechitah' ('ad she'Yishchot es ha'Varadin')?
(c)In reality, as Rav Chisda explains, he really meant 'ad she'Yinkov es ha'Varadin', and the reason that he said 'ad she'Yishchat ... ' is - because he requires the Varidin to be pierced whilst the Shechitah is being performed (and not later).
(d)And he amends the Beraisa 'Varidin bi'Shechitah' to - 'Varidin Tzarich Lenakvosan be'Sha'as Shechitah'.
10)
(a)In another Beraisa, the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Yehudah why, seeing as cutting the Varidin is meant to remove the blood, it needs to be performed through Shechitah. What Kashya does this pose on Rav Chisda?
(b)How does he amend this Beraisa, too?
(c)How did Rebbi Yehudah counter the Rabbanan's query? Why, according to him, is it essential to bore the Varidin at the time of Shechita?
10)
(a)In another Beraisa, the Rabbanan ask Rebbi Yehudah why, seeing as cutting the Varidin is meant to remove the blood, it needs to be performed through Shechitah - implying once more, that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, they do require Shechitah.
(b)Once again, Rebbi Yehudah amends the Beraisa to read - ' ... why the Varidin need to be pierced whilst the Shechitah is being performed'.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah countered that - it is essential to bore the Varidin at the time of Shechitah, whilst they are still hot, and the blood will flow out more easily.
11)
(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Shehiyah or D'rasah, whilst Shechting the Varidin, will invalidate the Shechitah. Why did he not resolve his She'eilah from Rav Chisda (according to whom, Rebbi Yehudah does not require Shechitah to begin with)?
(b)How did that old man quoting Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Yochanan), resolve Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah? How did he describe the cutting of the Varidin?
(c)We cite a Beraisa (which we already quoted above) like Rav Chisda. The Tana Kama there invalidates a Shechitah which is Mechtzah al Mechtzah. What does Rebbi Yehudah add to that concerning Shechitah, that supports Rav Chisda?
11)
(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Shehiyah or D'rasah, whilst Shechting the Varidin, will invalidate the Shechitah. He did not resolve his She'eilah from Rav Chisda (according to whom, Rebbi Yehudah does not require Shechitah to begin with) - simply because he was unaware of Rav Chisda's statement.
(b)That old man resolved Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah, quoting Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Yochanan) who said that - all one needs to do (according to Rebbi Yehudah) is to pierce the Varidin with a sharp piece of wood.
(c)We cite a Beraisa (which we already quoted above) like Rav Chisda. The Tana Kama there invalidates a Shechitah which is Mechtzah al Mechtzah, to which Rebbi Yehudah adds - '*be'Of* ad she'Yishchatu es ha'Varidin' (by a bird, but not by an animal).
12)
(a)What do we think Rav means when he says 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov'?
(b)What does Rav Kahana say?
(c)What is the exact meaning of the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (to Shecht Rov of the Si'man), according to ...
1. ... Rav?
2. ... Rav Kahana?
(d)How does Rav reconcile his opinion with our Mishnah, which invalidates the Shechitah of half a Si'man by a bird and one and a half by an animal?
12)
(a)We think that when Rav says 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah ke'Rov', he means that - if half the Si'man of either an animal or a bird has been Shechted, it is as if the entire Si'man had been Shechted.
(b)Rav Kahana holds - Mechtzah al Mechtzah Eino ke'Rov.
(c)The exact meaning of the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (to Shecht Rov of the Si'man), according to ...
1. ... Rav is - not to leave the majority of the Si'man un-Shechted.
2. ... Rav Kahana is - to Shecht the majority of the Si'man.
(d)Rav reconciles his opinion with our Mishnah, which invalidates the Shechitah of half a Si'man by a bird and one and a half, by an animal - by establishing the Mishnah as a Gezeirah mi'de'Rabbanan (in case one Shechts less than half).
13)
(a)Under what condition will an earthenware oven that is Tamei become Tahor?
(b)Why does the Beraisa declare both halves of an oven that is broken into two equal halves, still Tamei?
(c)What does Rav Ketina extrapolate from there that will pose a Kashya on Rav?
(d)How does Rav Papa answer the Kashya? What makes the case of two half-ovens worse than that of half a Si'man?
13)
(a)An earthenware oven that is Tamei will become Tahor - if it breaks into pieces, in a way that the majority does not remain intact.
(b)The Beraisa declares both halves of an oven that is broken into two equal halves, still Tamei - because it is impossible for each piece to be exactly half ...
(c)... from which Rav Ketina extrapolates that, if it would be possible, the oven would be Tahor, a Kashya on Rav - according to whom each half should have the Din of a Rov.
(d)Rav Papa answers that - even Rav will concede there that the two halves do not have the Din of a Rov, since one vessel cannot possibly comprise two halves that are both majorities.
