Towards the end of 50b, Rashi writes that breaking a stick is liable (for Avodah Zarah), since it is like slaughtering (Kodshim), in which the neckbone of the animal is broken.
I didn't find anyone who writes explicitly that we are supposed to break the neckbone when slaughtering Behemos Kodshim. To the contrary; elsewhere, Rashi says that we do not do so lest this cause blood to be absorbed in the limbs of the animal!
If not for Rashi, I would have thought that it is like Melikah, in which we break the Mafrekes. Any ideas?
Pesach Feldman
(a) That is a very good point. In fact, you should have noted it earlier, in Sanhedrin 62a (Rashi DH Shiber Makel), where Rashi first mentions the idea. The reasoning behind Rashi is clear; if no bone is broken then the neck of the animal is not "Mishtaberes", cracked, in the way that a stick is cracked. If so, why is "Mishtaberes" a necessary condition to make an act similar to Zevichah?
Your explanation of the Gemara (that the Gemara means Melikah) is not acceptable for a number of reasons:
1. To be considered "Avodah," it is sufficient if the act of Avodah Zarah is similar to any type of sacrifice. Why must it be similar to the Melikah of a bird? If Shechitah does not require Mishtaberes, then an act that is not Mishtaberes should still be considered an Avodah because it is similar to Shechitah (even though it is not similar to Melikah)!
(By the way, this underscores the problem with Rashi. According to the above reasoning, the Gemara would not require Mishtaberes unless every slaughter of Kodshim requires breaking the neckbone. Thus, Rashi is not telling us that sometimes the neckbone is broken, but that it is required to break the neckbone of Kodshim. Although the Gemara tells us (Chulin 29a) that one may slaughter Rov of the Simanim without cutting through them entirely, that is only b'Di'eved - as the Gemara there concludes, ibid 29b.)
2. The Gemara mentions "Zevichah", which means slaughtering animals, not birds.
(b) I found that the RITVA and TOSFOS RID here also mention breaking the neckbone of the animal. However, the YAD RAMAH in Sanhedrin only mentions cutting the flesh of the animal; he equates cutting flesh with breaking a stick. Apparently, he was bothered by your question and therefore he rejected Rashi's explanation, although his explanation is somewhat forced.
(c) After searching through the books, I found one Sefer who notes what you pointed out. Derech mi'Yakov on Avodah Zarah, (by Rav Yakov Wrechner, author of Seder Yakov on Avodah Zarah), asks your question and answers (b'Dochek) that when both Simanim are slaughtered, the animal is weakened and it is as though its neckbone has been cracked.
(d) Let us try to read Rashi literally. Is it prohibited or is it required to cut the neckbone during Shechitah of Kodshim?
The Gemara in Chulin 27a learns from the word "v'Shachat" (which is used by Kodshim and Chulin) that we do not make an animal "Gistera" through Shechitah. In his first explanation, Rashi explains that this means we do not cut the entire neckbone. This would seem to contradict what Rashi writes here.
Upon further analysis there is no contradiction. Rashi simply means that we are not required to break the neckbone, as the TAZ proves at length in YD 24:2 and 3:1 based on the words of many Rishonim. (Interestingly, nobody there notes our Rashi.) The Gemara then means that Shechitah is acceptable without breaking the neckbone - even if it is preferable to break it by Kodshim.
Even if this is no contradiction to Rashi here, where did Rashi see that one is supposed to cut the neckbone during Shechitas Kodshim?
Rashi's source may be from the Gemara later on that Daf in Chulin, which explains that the head of the Olah is not stripped of its skin together with the rest of the animal, since "it was already beheaded during Shechitah." This clearly implies that the head of the animal is completely removed during Shechitah and the neckbone is cut. Another source might be the Gemara in Chulin 29b which says "Mitzvah l'Marek" - i.e. by Kodshim it is a Mitzvah to do more than just cut the two Simanim, but one should "finish it." This might be interpreted to mean that the head should be cut off entirely (in order to provide more blood for Zerikah - Rashi 29b. Although blood may become absorbed in the limbs when the neckbone is broken, Chulin 113a, more blood will flow from the neck cut.).
(e) I must point out, however, that the Taz (YD ibid) cites a RASHBA in Toras ha'Bayis who learns Rashi in Chulin to mean it is not permitted to cut the neckbone (because breaking the neckbone causes the blood to be absorbed into the body, TORAS HA'BAYIS - and we must cause blood to flow by Kodshim, HAGAHOS HA'GRA YD ibid). The REMA there cites a RA'AVYAH who learns Rashi in a similar manner.
According to them it would seem that Rashi here is not consistent with his explanation in Chulin. (Rashi may be following his second explanation for the Gemara about Gistera in Chulin 27a, which does not relate to the neckbone.)
Possible support for their interpretation of Rashi in Chulin can be gleaned from what Rashi says (ibid.) about skinning the head apart from the body. Rashi writes that the head is not literally apart from the body of the Olah, but rather "since the Simanm have been cut, it is called "beheaded" since it is now lifeless and as though it were resting in a basket." (According to my explanation, above (d), Rashi should have said that it is literally apart from the animal.)
Perhaps this can be brought as support for the explanation of the Derech mi'Yakov (above (c)).
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Thank you for very enlightening insights to my question. However, I didn't understand the Dichuyim of my idea so well.
I don't understand point 1. The Gemara did not say that one is liable only for breaking a stick. It said that throwing is exempt, and breaking is liable. I suggested that breaking is liable because it is like Melikah. Indeed, something like shechitah would also be liable, just neither throwing or breaking resembles shechitah.
With regard to point 2., I assume that you mean '... not Melikah of birds.' It would be a big Chidush to say that Zivchei Mesim does not apply to birds. Would the Rambam, who disqualifies shechitas Nochri due to "v'Achalta mi'Zivcho", say that a Nochri can shecht birds?! Tosfos says that an animal before shechitah is Muchzak Asur due to "Eino Zavu'ach." Would he say that this does not apply to birds?!
I agree that the connotation of Zevichah suggests slaughtering animals more than (Melikah of) birds, but I think that it tolerates also Melikah. Kidushin 57b used one Ribuy to teach that Chulin b'Azarah (which it learns from 'b'Richuk Makom Atah Zove'ach...') applies to birds. It seems that the Rambam and most Meforshim hold that it applies not only to shechitah, rather, also to Melikah. (some say that RAshi in Krisus argues; Gitin 28b (just before the MIshnah) seems like a solid proof for the Rambam.) If Zevichah means only slaughtering, we should need one RIbuy to teach slaughter of birds (like we needed for Chayos), and another for Melikah!
Pesach
(a) The Gemara *requires* Zerikah Mishtaberes. According to your suggestion, if the stick does not break but just bends or cuts most of the way through it should also be Chayav since it is like Shechitah, even if it is not like Melikah. Therefore Rashi had to show that even Shechitah is "Mishtaberes."
(b) Yes, I meant Melikah. Zevichah certainly does not include Melikah; see Zevachim 10b and Rashi DH bi'Zevichah Lo Shayar.
Mordecai
This is a tough one, however I want to point out 2 points.
1) See Rashi D"H chtei'hu (Chulin 27a), which says cutting = breaking
2) With regard to whether the Gemara might be referring to Melikah, see the Girsa of the Mishnah la'Melech in Hilchos Avodah Zarah 3:3, in the words of Rashi Sanhedrin 60b D"H vLachsov Nami Zorek "u'Molek," and his emendation ("u'Molich," which is our Girsa in Rashi).
The Ran discusses Rashi based on the Girsa "Molek," and the Margoliyos ha'Yam there points out that the Aruch la'Ner holds Molek is Patur. He also brings others that discuss this issue. And see the Yad Ramah who asks about all 3 Avodos that Rashi mentions - Mekabel, Molek and Molich; it is worth seeing inside. (Having said all this, it is difficult to suggest according to Rashi that when the Gemara says breaking of the neck is like Zevichah, it refers to Melikah.)
bKavod
Yitzchok Zirkind
Would you please clarify for me what is done on the neck and what is done on the spine?
I agree that a spine and a stick have a similarity. The whole reason for my thought was that apparently the bird's spine has to be broken like a stick through a particular process involving how the Kohein holds its wings.
At the point the bird's spine is broken it is already dead from melikah. Still, isn't the whole process, all the steps of avodah for a Korban, from bringing the animal to the Beis HaMikdash through all the sprinkling and burning final steps, all considered slaughter?
Is there any place in the Gemara where the exact medical "time of death" is identified as slaughter, but all the other details of the avodah are specifically excluded from being considered slaughter? If not, then I am not understanding what you say about Melikah stage. And I am also not understanding exactly what is "like Zevichah" -- if there is an essential step of the avodah for the Korban, doesn't that make it part of, and thus like, Zevichah?
Chaim Chesler
Dear Chaim,
By Melikah of a bird the Rambam in Ma'aseh haKorbanos 6:23, based on Chulin 21a says that first the Kohen's thumb nail breaks the Mifrekes (at the neck level) and then the Simanim (1 for Chatas. 2 for Olah) He emphasizes that the Kohen is not allowed to cut Rov of the flesh so as not to be called dead before cutting the necessary Simanim. The Rambam 7:8 explains the position of the bird in the Kohen's hands during Melikah (...the wings held in between 2 fingers...) (see also in detail the Tiferes Yisrael's introduction to Mishnayos Kodshim -Chomer b'Kodesh 6:7)
Note- there is a later stage by the Olas ha Of in preparation for the Haktarah on the Mizbeach of tearing -slicing the body of the bird lengthwise into 2 (without a total separation) ,as the Torah says v'Shesa Oso Bichnafav (Vayikra 1:17, Rambam 6:8,Chomer b'Kodesh 6:8) However even though the back is sliced there is no mention of breaking the backbone!
Don't mix-up between the Melikah which involves holding the bird with its wings in special position and the later stage before the Haktara (even though the Torah mentions there wings.
Now Zevichah and Shechitah refer only the life-taking stage of slaughtering- see certain proof from Zevachim 4a,4b, 7b (...we know Zevicha, how do we know other Avodos...) The Gemara says Shavar Makel is Chayav because of it being Me'en Zevicha . Later stages of Avoda are not even Chayav for Avoda Zara! (except for Zerikah and Haktara)
All the best,
Reuven Weiner