OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when the Shochet cuts one Siman of a bird or two Simanim of an animal, the Shechitah is valid. The wording of the Mishnah implies that the Shechitah is valid only b'Di'eved. The Gemara asks why cutting two Simanim of an animal is valid only b'Di'eved; what else is one supposed to cut?

The Gemara gives two answers. When the Mishnah implies that the Shechitah is valid only b'Di'eved, it refers only to its case of cutting one Siman of a bird, but not to its case of cutting two Simanim of an animal (which is the proper way to perform the Shechitah of an animal l'Chatchilah). In its second answer, the Gemara says that the Mishnah refers to its case of cutting a "Rov" (majority) of the two Simanim of an animal, and it is teaching that l'Chatchilah one should cut the entire widths of the Simanim, and not just a majority of their widths. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 21:1) rules that l'Chatchilah one must cut both Simanim of a bird, and one must cut the entirety of the Simanim.

Are these requirements (cutting both Simanim of a bird, and cutting all of the Simanim of an animal) necessary l'Chatchilah according to Torah law, or are they only mid'Rabanan?

(a) The RAN maintains that both of these requirements are enactments of the Rabanan. TOSFOS (29b, DH Lamah Li; 21b, DH she'Eino; Yoma 33a, DH Lamah) seems to agree. The Ran proves that these requirements are only mid'Rabanan by pointing out that one never finds a requirement of the Torah (for laws regarding non-Kodshim things) that is necessary only l'Chatchilah.

(b) RASHI (DH a'Echad b'Of) explains that the requirement to cut both Simanim of a bird is an enactment of the Rabanan. The Rabanan were concerned that the Shochet might not slaughter through the majority of one Siman, and therefore they required that he cut both of the Simanim, l'Chatchilah. However, with regard to the requirement to cut the entire width of each Siman of an animal, Rashi earlier (21b, DH v'Eino Mavdil) writes that this opinion maintains that mid'Oraisa the entire width of the Siman must be cut.

(The RIF quotes the Gemara's statement that the entire width of the Siman of an animal should be cut l'Chatchilah, but he omits the requirement to slaughter both Simanim of a bird l'Chatchilah.) (Z. Wainstein)

QUESTION: Rav Kahana suggests that the requirement to perform Shechitah at the neck of the animal is derived from the word, "v'Shachat" (Vayikra 1:5). The word "v'Shachat" implies "from the place that it bends (Shach) you shall purify it [to be eaten] (Chatehu, spelled with a 'Tes')."

Rav Yeimar suggests that the requirement to perform Shechitah at the neck of the animal is derived from the word, "v'Zavachta" (Devarim 12:21). The word "v'Zavachta" implies "from the place that its blood flows (Zav) you shall cut it (Chasehu, spelled with a 'Tav')."

The Torah clearly uses two different words for the act of slaughtering an animal, "Shachat" and "Zavach." What is the difference in meaning between these two words?

(a) The words of the Gemara here imply that the word "Shachat" connotes "Chatehu" -- "purification [through slaughtering]," since it is spelled with the letter "Tes," and the word "Zavach" connotes "Chasehu" -- "cutting [the Simanim]," since it is spelled with the letter "Tav."

(b) HAGA'ON RAV YISRAEL ZEV GUSTMAN zt'l has been quoted as saying that "Shachat" means passing the knife over the Simanim in only one direction, while "Zavach" means using a back and forth sawing motion. (See end of Chulin 30b, "Ein v'Shachat Ela u'Mashach.")

(c) The MALBIM (in YA'IR OR and HA'KARMEL) asserts that "Shachat" refers to cutting the Simanim, and "Zavach" has the added connotation of preparing for a feast, as the word is used in a number of other verses in the Torah (see, for example, Shemos 18:12). (M. KORNFELD)

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Halachos of Shehiyah, Derasah, Chaladah, Hagramah, and Ikur are all Halachos l'Moshe mi'Sinai. However, the Gemara then derives from the word, "v'Shachat" (Vayikra 1:5), that one may not make the animal a "Gistera" when performing Shechitah. According to the second explanation of RASHI (DH d'Lo l'Shavyei Gistera), this teaches that Derasah (making the animal into a "Gistera" by pressing the knife into the neck and cutting it into two, instead of using a sliding, cutting motion) invalidates the Shechitah. If Derasah is derived from the word "v'Shachat," then why does the Gemara say that it is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai? (RASHI, TOSFOS)

Moreover, the Gemara later (30b) gives a source in the Torah for the law of Derasah. Why, then, even according to the first explanation of Rashi here (that making the animal a "Gistera" is not the same as Derasah) does the Gemara say that Derasah is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai?

(a) RASHI and others explain that Derasah indeed is not a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, but rather it is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara mentions Derasah together with the other laws of Shechitah only because all five of these laws are the primary ways that invalidate a Shechitah.

(b) The RAMBAN, RASHBA, and others explain that Derasah is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, and there is no explicitly written source in the Torah for Derasah. The verse quoted as a source for Derasah (on 30b) is only an Asmachta for the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai of Derasah. (See also REBBI AKIVA EIGER in GILYON HA'SHAS to Chulin 4a.)

QUESTION: Rav Kahana suggests that the requirement to perform Shechitah at the neck of the animal is derived from the word, "v'Shachat" (Vayikra 1:5). The word "v'Shachat" implies "from the place that it bends (Shach) you shall purify it [to be eaten] (Chatehu, spelled with a 'Tes')."

Rav Yeimar suggests that the requirement to perform Shechitah at the neck of the animal is derived from the word, "v'Zavachta" (Devarim 12:21). The word "v'Zavachta" implies "from the place that its blood flows (Zav) you shall cut it (Chasehu, spelled with a 'Tav')."

The Gemara (according to Rashi) asks that if the laws of Shechitah are a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, then why does the Torah need to write "v'Shachat" (Vayikra 1:5) to teach that the animal should be slaughtered "from the place that it bends"?

What is the Gemara's question? The word "v'Shachat" is certainly not an extra word in the verse. The verse is discussing an animal that is slaughtered as a Korban, and thus it must use the word "v'Shachat." The same question applies to the Gemara later, which questions why the word "v'Zavachta" is necessary according to Rav Yeimar. How could the Torah leave out that word, when it is essential for the literal meaning of the verse?

ANSWER: The Gemara is asking why the Torah uses an unusual verb. Rav Kahana, who derives the laws of Shechitah from "v'Shachat," understands that the word that is usually used for slaughtering is "v'Zavach." He derives that Shechitah is done to the neck of the animal from the fact that the Torah uses the word "v'Shachat" instead of the normal word "v'Zavach." The Gemara is asking that once we know that the laws of Shechitah are learned from a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, there is no reason for the Torah to use the word "v'Shachat" instead of "v'Zavach." According to Rav Yeimar (who derives laws of Shechitah from "v'Zavachta"), the opposite question applies: the Torah should have said "v'Shachateta" instead of "v'Zavachta." (TORAS CHAIM; see, however, TOSFOS DH v'Su, whose approach to the Sugya precludes the question.)

QUESTION: The Beraisa (in Toras Kohanim) quotes Rebbi Chiya who derives the Halachah that Shechitah must be performed at the neck from the verse (Vayikra 1:8) that says that the head of an animal offered as a Korban must be burned upon the Mizbe'ach with the other parts of the animal. The verse says that "the sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall arrange the body parts and the head" on the Mizbe'ach. Why does the verse add "the head' when it already mentions "the body parts"? The Beraisa explains that one might have thought that the only parts that must be placed on the Mizbe'ach are the parts that are included in the Mitzvah of Hafshatah (skinning the animal). The Mitzvah of Hafshatah (Vayikra 1:6) applies only to the parts that were cut up when the animal was sectioned, and not to the head (which was cut off at Shechitah). Therefore, the verse needs to state specifically that the head is also placed on the Mizbe'ach.

The fact that the verse teaches that the head is burned on the Mizbe'ach even though it was severed from the animal before the rest of the animal was sectioned clearly implies that Shechitah is done at the neck. This is the proof of the Beraisa.

What is the source that the Mitzvah of Hafshatah applies only to the parts of the body that were sectioned and not to the head?

(a) RASHI (DH Minayin l'Rabos) quotes the Gemara in Zevachim (85b) that derives from the verse, "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol" -- "and the Kohen shall burn all of it" (Vayikra 1:9), that even the hair attached to the head is to be burned on the Mizbe'ach. If the head was skinned, however, there would be no hair for this Derashah to include.

The Rishonim (RAMBAN, RASHBA) question Rashi's words. Rashi says that the source that Hafshatah is not done to the head is the fact that the verse includes the hair that is attached to the head in the requirement of burning the Korban on the Mizbe'ach. According to Rashi's explanation, the Gemara has no proof that the head is cut off at Shechitah; perhaps Shechitah is not done at the neck, and the head remains attached to the animal, and the only reason why Hafshatah is not done to the head is because a different verse (1:9) teaches that the hair attached to the head must be burned on the Mizbe'ach (implying that the hair is supposed to remain attached to the head)!

Moreover, according to Rashi's explanation that a Derashah teaches that the hair attached to the head must be burned on the Mizbe'ach, why does the verse (1:8) specifically state that the head is to be burned on the Mizbe'ach? If the other verse teaches that the hair attached to the head must be burned on the Mizbe'ach, then certainly the head must be placed on the Mizbe'ach!

The RAN explains the words of Rashi as follows. The verse of "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol" (1:9), which teaches that the hair attached to the head is to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, does not explicitly mention the hair. That verse does not necessarily need to include hair; if there would be a reason not to include the hair, the verse would include the horns and hooves. Accordingly, whether or not that verse includes the hair on the head depends on whether or not the verse of "v'Hifshit Es ha'Olah" (1:6) includes the head in the requirement of Hafshatah. If the head remains attached at the Shechitah, then it presumably is included in the words "Es ha'Olah" and it requires Hafshatah (because "Es ha'Olah" refers to the entire Olah), and, consequently, the verse of "v'Hiktir... Es ha'Kol" includes only the horns and hooves, but not the hair on the head (since the hair is removed at Hafshatah). If, on the other hand, the head is supposed to be detached at Shechitah, then the head is not included in the verse of "v'Hifshit Es ha'Olah" (since it is separated from the bulk of the Olah), and, consequently, the verse of "v'Hiktir... Es ha'Kol" can be including the hair on the head.

This is the intention of Rashi. Since "v'Hiktir... Es ha'Kol" teaches that the hair on the head is also burned, it must be that the head is detached at Shechitah and is not included in the verse of "v'Hifshit Es ha'Olah." Consequently, since the law of Hafshatah does not apply to the head, the verse of "v'Archu Bnei Aharon... Es ha'Rosh" (1:8) is needed to teach that the head must be burned on the Mizbe'ach.

This answers both questions of the Rishonim. The verse (1:9) that includes hair in the law of Haktarah cannot teach that the head is also burned, because if the Torah had written only that verse, it would have included only the horns and hooves in the law of Haktarah, and not the hair. The hair would not have been included, because the verse of "v'Hifshit Es ha'Olah" would have included the head in the law of Hafshatah. Since the Derashah teaches that hair is included in Haktarah, it must be that the head is not included in the law of Hafshatah, because it is severed from the body at the neck.

The Rishonim also ask that according to Rashi, why does the verse (1:8) specifically state that the head is to be burned on the Mizbe'ach? If "v'Hiktir Es ha'Kol" (1:9) teaches that the hair attached to the head must be burned on the Mizbe'ach, then certainly the head must be placed on the Mizbe'ach as well! The answer is that if there would have been no separate verse (1:8) teaching that the head is burned on the Mizbe'ach, then "v'Hiktir Es ha'Kol" would not have taught that the hair is burned on the Mizbe'ach (but only that the horns and hooves are burned on the Mizbe'ach). Only once there is a source that the head is burned on the Mizbe'ach (from 1:8) can the verse of "v'Hiktir Es ha'Kol" include the hair as well.

(b) The RAMBAN and RASHBA learn the Gemara differently. They explain that when the Gemara says that the reason why a verse (1:8) is needed to teach that the head is included in Haktarah is that the head is not included in the law of Hafshatah, it means as follows. The head is not included in Hafshatah because the verse (1:6) commands, "v'Hifshit Es ha'Olah v'Nitach Osah li'Nesacheha" -- "And he shall skin the Olah and cut it into its pieces." This implies that first the animal is skinned, and then its various parts are cut off. This cannot refer to the head, because the head was cut off earlier, during Shechitah, before the Hafshatah. Hence, the verse of "v'Hifshit" cannot be including the head in the law of Hafshatah.

Accordingly, the verse later (1:8) that says, "The sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall arrange the body parts," also does not include the head. That is why the verse must mention the head separately in order to include it in the law of Haktarah.

If Shechitah is not performed at the neck, then the head would be included in the law of Hafshatah (since it is not cut off until the rest of the parts are cut). Consequently, the head would also be included in the verse, "The sons of Aharon, the Kohanim, shall arrange the body parts," and it would not be necessary to mention the head separately. It must be that Shechitah is performed at the neck, and therefore Hafshatah does not apply to it, and the law of Haktarah also would not apply to it without a special inclusion in the verse. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that unlike the Neveilah flesh of a Kosher bird, the Neveilah of an animal is not Metamei while in the throat of the person eating it (through "Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah"). RASHI (DH Behemah) explains that the Gemara refers to a case in which one person places a piece of Neveilah meat into the second person's mouth. Rashi is addressing an obvious question. Since a Neveilah is Metamei a person who touches or carries it, when one picks it up to put it in his mouth he is already Tamei because he has touched and carried a Neveilah! Rashi answers that the Gemara refers to a case in which another person touched and carried the Neveilah and placed it in this person's mouth.

However, the question still remains. The person who has the Neveilah in his mouth is now touching and carrying a Neveilah with his mouth, and thus he (and his clothing) should become Tamei because he has touched a Neveilah.

ANSWER: RASHI earlier (20b, DH Malak) answers this question. Rashi explains that one does not become Tamei when he touches a Neveilah in an "inner part" of his body (such as his mouth). He does not become Tamei for carrying the Neveilah in his throat, because carrying does not make a person Tamei unless he moves a Neveilah with a part of his body.

The requirement that one move Neveilah in order to become Tamei for carrying it is not mentioned explicitly in the Gemara, but the RASH (Kelim 1:3) proves it from the Gemara here.

(The RAMBAM's view (in Hilchos Tum'as Mes 1:6), however, seems to be that even without moving, one who carries a Neveilah is Tamei, and thus it is not clear how he learns the Gemara here.) (M. KORNFELD)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the source in the Torah that the requirement of Shechitah for fowl is mid'Oraisa, according to those Tana'im that maintain that it is mid'Oraisa. One Tana derives Shechitah for a bird from the verse, "Zos Toras ha'Behemah veha'Of" (Vayikra 11:46), which compares a bird to an animal, teaching that just as an animal may be eaten only when it has been properly slaughtered with Shechitah, a bird may be eaten only when it has been properly slaughtered with Shechitah.

Bar Kapara teaches that the source is the verse (ibid.) which mentions birds between animals and fish. The placement of birds between animals and fish teaches that birds are like animals in that they require Shechitah, and that they are like fish in that they do not require the same Shechitah as animals (in order for the Shechitah to be valid, only one Siman needs to be cut for a bird, while two Simanim need to be cut for an animal).

Rebbi maintains that the Shechitah of a bird is one of the Halachos l'Moshe mi'Sinai that were given with regard to Shechitah.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 1:1) writes, "It is a positive commandment to perform Shechitah in order to eat a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird.... With regard to a bird the verse states, 'v'Ish Ish... Asher Yatzud Tzeid Chayah O Of Asher Ye'achel, v'Shafach Es Damo' -- 'When any person... catches a wild animal or bird that he wants to eat, he shall spill its blood...' (Vayikra 17:13). The verse compares the spilling of the blood of a bird to that of a wild animal (which is done through Shechitah)."

Why does the Rambam give an entirely new source for the Shechitah of a bird, and entirely omit the sources that the Gemara gives?

Moreover, the Gemara (end of 27b) learns the exact opposite from the verse that the Rambam quotes! The Gemara learns from the words, "v"Shafach Es Damo," that a bird may be killed without Shechitah. How, then, can the RAMBAM use this verse as a source for the Halachah that a bird requires Shechitah?

ANSWER: The Gemara later in Chulin (84a) quotes Mar bar Rav Ashi who learns from the verse of "v'Shafach" that just as a Chayah (wild animal) cannot become sanctified as a Korban and requires Kisuy ha'Dam, only a bird that is not being brought as a Korban requires Kisuy ha'Dam. Mar bar Rav Ashi clearly learns that the verse contains a Hekesh which compares a bird to a Chayah.

The opinion in the Gemara here that derives from "v'Shafach" that a bird does not require Shechitah understands that the verse has two separate parts. The first part teaches that what applies to a Chayah does not apply to a bird, in the second part of the verse. It is as if "v'Shafach" is written only with regard to the bird, which is mentioned in the second part of the verse.

According to Mar bar Rav Ashi, who maintains that there is a Hekesh from one part of the verse to the other, and that what applies to a Chayah also applies to a bird, the word "v'Shafach" cannot mean simply killing the bird in any way one wants, because the word also applies to a Chayah, which certainly requires Shechitah. (CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER)

QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that Hash-m brought all of the animals and birds to Adam to name, but He did not bring him the fish. Why did Hash-m not bring the fish to Adam to name?

(a) The verse concludes, "but Adam did not find a helpmate for himself" (Bereishis 2:20). Clearly, one of the reasons why the animals were brought to Adam was in order for him to look for a wife (that is, in order for him to realize that no animal was possibly fit for him, and thus he would appreciate the perfect match that Hash-m would give him in Chavah). Obviously, it was not feasible for Adam to entertain the possibility of having a fish as his helpmate, because, among other reason, fish live in water, where man cannot live. Therefore, the fish were not brought to him.

(b) In a similar vein, since fish live in water, Adam was not well acquainted with the details of the life of a fish, since he could not observe them well, and thus he was unable to give them a name (since the names that Adam gave represent the essence of the animal). (M. KORNFELD)

(c) TOSFOS later in Chulin (66b, DH Kol) raises the possibility that perhaps Adam indeed named the fish as well. (Rav E. Chrysler)