The Gemara asks: And why do I need the first mention of fat that the Merciful One writes: “The pieces, the head, and the fat” (Leviticus 1:8)? Wasn’t the derivation from that verse restricted to the head? The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: How does the priest who elevates the sacrificial portions of the animal to the altar perform that task? He uses the fat to cover the place of slaughter, i.e., to conceal the bloody neck, and elevates the head to the top of the altar, and that is a deferential manner toward the Most High.

And this tanna cites proof that slaughter is from the neck from here: As it is taught in a baraita that the Torah writes with regard to the impurity of carcasses: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal imparts impurity by contact and by carrying, whereas a bird does not impart impurity by contact or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render one’s garments impure when it is in the throat.

The baraita continues: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as an animal avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter, so too, a bird avoids the impurity of being an unslaughtered carcass through slaughter. The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of an animal, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, so too here, in the case of a bird, it avoids the impurity through the cutting of the majority of two simanim. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “This is the law,” to restrict the scope of the juxtaposition in the sense that not all of the halakhot of birds and animals are equal.

The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to what law is an animal equal to a bird and a bird to an animal? The verse comes to say to you: Just as in the case of a bird, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through pinching and slaughter from the neck, as the Torah states with regard to bird offerings that one pinches off its head from the neck, so too, in the case of an animal, its fitness for sacrifice and for consumption is accomplished through slaughter from the neck.

The Gemara objects: If so, say, based on the same juxtaposition: Just as there, in the case of a bird, the pinching is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck, so too here, with regard to an animal, the slaughter is performed adjacent to the nape of the neck and not from the throat. The Gemara explains that therefore, the verse states with regard to a bird: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its nape, but shall not divide it asunder” (Leviticus 5:8), from which it is derived: Its head, i.e., the bird’s head, is pinched adjacent to the nape, but the head of another, the animal, is not cut adjacent to the nape.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this term: “This is the law,” from which the first tanna restricted the scope of the juxtaposition between animals and birds? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from the term “This is the law,” I would say: Just as the fitness of a bird is accomplished by cutting one of the simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet, so too, the fitness of an animal is accomplished by cutting one siman. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “This is the law,” to restrict the juxtaposition.

§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: “If flocks and herds be slaughtered for them…or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them” (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof.

The Gemara clarifies: But if that is so, with regard to quail as well, concerning which it is written: “And the people rose up…and gathered the quail” (Numbers 11:32), so too, would one say with regard to birds that, like fish, their fitness is not accomplished with slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question. But didn’t you say: To exempt birds from slaughter altogether with nothing is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal? The Gemara answers: There, gathering of quail is not written in the context of the slaughter of others; therefore, gathering is not to be understood as an alternative to slaughtering the birds. Here, gathering of fish is written in the context of the slaughter of others, i.e., the flocks and herds, which indicates that gathering is an alternative to slaughter.

The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.

The Gemara relates an excerpt of an exchange between a Roman government official and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. And furthermore, the official asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: One verse states: “And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creeping animals, and birds will fly” (Genesis 1:20); apparently birds were created from the water. And it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them” (Genesis 2:19); apparently birds were created from the land.

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: They were created from the mud. He saw his students looking at each other, wondering. He said to them: Does it trouble you that I dismissed my enemy with a flimsy pretext? Actually, it is from water that birds were created. And why does the verse state that they were formed from the ground and that God brought them to Adam? In other words, why are they mentioned in the second verse? It is not because they were actually formed from the ground, but only because they were brought to Adam so that he would call them names.

And some say that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai spoke to that officer with a different formulation, i.e., he said to him that the birds were created from the water. And he stated the first formulation, that the birds were created from the mud, to his students, because it is written: “And from the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). According to this explanation, the birds are mentioned there not only because Adam called them names, but also because they too were created from the ground.

On the matter of slaughtering birds, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas: Slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, as it is stated: “And whatever man there be of the children of Israel…who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood, and cover it in earth” (Leviticus 17:13). This indicates that mere spilling of its blood is sufficient.

The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to an undomesticated animal, which is mentioned in the same verse, spilling should be sufficient also. The Gemara explains: An undomesticated animal is juxtaposed to disqualified consecrated animals, for which slaughter is required, as explained later in the Gemara (28a). The Gemara asks: Birds too are juxtaposed to animals, and therefore slaughter should be required, as it is written: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird” (Leviticus 11:46). The Gemara answers: But isn’t it written: “He shall spill its blood,” indicating that slaughter is not required?

The Gemara asks: And concerning the derivation that slaughter is not required, based on the phrase in the verse “He shall spill,” what did you see that led you to cast it upon, i.e., apply it to, the case of a bird? Why not cast it upon the case of an undomesticated animal? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to cast the derivation upon the case of a bird due to the fact that the verse concluded with the bird, i.e., the bird is mentioned just prior to the directive to spill and cover the blood, as it is written: “Who traps any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall spill its blood.”

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited in the Gemara with regard to the slaughter of birds: Became a carcass, blood, through pinching.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas from a mishna (85a): One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand because the slaughter was not valid, or one who stabbed the animal by slicing the length of the simanim, or one who ripped the gullet or windpipe of the animal, rendering the slaughter not valid, is exempt from covering the blood because his slaughter was ineffective in permitting consumption of the animal, and it is written that the requirement of covering the blood applies only to “any undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten.” And if you say that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, the halakhic status of its stabbing is like that of its slaughter; let its blood require covering. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that this mishna is referring to a bird? No, it is referring exclusively to an undomesticated animal.

The Gemara cites another challenge: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and requires the blood and not the animal is obligated to cover the blood. Rather, how does he act if he seeks to make use of the blood rather than cover it? He either stabs the animal or rips the simanim, and then he is exempt from covering the blood.