Today’s daf concerns itself with an apparent repetition in the mishnah we’ve been examining. One part of the mishnah states:
If one cut one organ (either the trachea or esophagus) in the case of a bird, or both organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid. And the greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it.
Ideally, the trachea and esophagus are cut clean through. But, the mishnah rules, cutting the majority of either organ also suffices. Then, at the end of this first mishnah, we find this:
If one cut the greater part of one organ in the case of a bird, or the greater part of each organ in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid.
This statement, essentially the same as the previous one, presents an obvious problem for the rabbis of the Talmud. Why is it necessary to begin the mishnah by stating that cutting a majority of the organ suffices, and then return to the same subject and state the rule a second time? Shouldn’t it have been enough to mention this rule only once?
Just as the rabbis of the Mishnah read the Torah as if there is no extraneous word or phrase, the amoraim (post-mishnaic rabbis) feel compelled to explain repetition in the Mishnah. What, then, can we learn from these two seemingly identical laws in the same mishnah? Rav Hoshaya provides us with an answer:
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.
According to Rav Hoshaya, it was necessary for the mishnah to repeat itself in order to teach that the rule applies to both sacrificial slaughter and non-sacrificial slaughter. Had the mishnah only taught the rule once, we might have arrived at the incorrect conclusion that a complete cut is required in the case of either sacrificial or non-sacrificial meat, but not both.
On the one hand, we might have assumed that since blood from sacred animals must be sprinkled on the altar in the Temple, maybe we need a complete slaughter in order to sprinkle as much blood as possible. On the other hand, had the mishnah only taught the permission for a majority slaughter in the case of sacrifices, we might have thought that, since non-sacrificial slaughter does not include the sprinkling of blood, maybe cutting only half of the organ would have sufficed. Therefore, the mishnah states the rule twice: once to teach us that sacrificial slaughter requires only a simple majority of the organ, and a second time to teach us that even non-sacrificial slaughter requires a majority to be cut as well.
At the end of the day, we’re left with a clear ruling: If a person cuts through the majority of an animal’s organ, whether or not the animal is being sacrificed for the Temple or merely slaughtered for dinner, we treat it as if they cut through the entire organ.
This is not the only case in rabbinic law when we treat the majority of something as if it is complete. In Tractate Nazir, Rav Aha, the son of Rav Ika, claims that this principle applies even by biblical law.
It’s important to remember that the law about cutting organs only applies after the fact, and that in an ideal world, a person must cut the entire organ, not merely a majority of it. This could be an example of the rabbis instituting a leniency so that the animal in question can be eaten after a mistake is made. This leniency takes on even greater weight when you consider how great a loss it would be were an entire cow to be rendered unkosher by virtue of the incomplete slaughter. What a relief it would be for a family that needs dinner on their table to have the majority slaughter rendered kosher.
Read all of Chullin 29 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 29, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
