Chullin 16b — the Talmud in English

Rava raised a problem:

a matter that was detached

and afterward attached

to the ground,

with regard to slaughtering, what is the law? Is the slaughter performed by means of it invalid, like slaughter performed by means of something attached to the ground [according to the one who says that something attached invalidates slaughter], or perhaps it is considered something detached, and the slaughter performed by means of it is valid?

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

If a rock

a sharp stone

protruded from a wall, or if a reed was growing by itself,

which a person had not planted but which grew by itself,

and one slaughtered with it—

his slaughter is invalid.

The wall from which the rock protrudes is something detached and afterward attached; it follows that something detached and afterward attached is like something attached, and the slaughter performed by means of it is invalid.

And we reject this:

With what are we dealing here? With a cave wall,

which is attached from the outset. But an ordinary wall, which was detached and afterward attached, may have the law of something detached.

This is also precise

that the beraita is speaking of a cave wall:

for it teaches

“If a rock protruded from the wall”

analogous to “a reed growing by itself.”

Just as a reed that grows by itself is attached from the outset, so too, the wall is speaking of a wall attached from the outset—that is, a cave wall;

conclude from it.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

One drove a knife into

the inside of the

wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid!

Even though the knife is now attached to the wall, nevertheless the slaughter performed with it is valid, because previously it was detached. Thus it is proven that something detached and afterward attached is considered detached.

And we reject this:

A knife is different, for one does not nullify it.

He does not intend to leave it permanently inside the wall; therefore it is not considered attached. But with something detached that one attached and intends to leave that way permanently, one may say that its law is like that of something attached.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita: One slaughtered

with something attached to the ground—his slaughter is valid!

And in the earlier discussion [15b] we established that here it is speaking of something detached and afterward attached, and therefore the slaughter performed with it is valid.

And we reject this:

Perhaps it is explaining it

that the beraita itself explains afterward which attached-to-the-ground object it is speaking of. For afterward the beraita states the law of one who drove a knife into a wall, and this is what the beraita is saying:

What is “attached to the ground”

that we said slaughter performed with it is valid?

A knife

driven into a wall, because

one does not nullify it.

But an attached object that one nullified to the ground is like something attached, even if it had initially been detached, and slaughter performed with it is invalid.

The Master said: One drove a knife into a wall and slaughtered with it; his slaughter is valid.

Rav Anan said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

that slaughter is valid by means of a knife driven into a wall

only when the knife

is found

above

the neck of the animal,

and the neck

of the

animal

is

below

beneath the knife, and the slaughterer moves the neck of the animal back and forth beneath the knife driven into the wall.

But

if the

knife

is

below, and the neck

of the

animal

is found

above

the knife, the slaughter is invalid, because

we are concerned perhaps

because of the weight of the neck upon the knife it will

press down

on the סימנים, that is, the neck will be cut all at once before the slaughterer has time to move the neck back and forth upon the knife, whereby the slaughter is invalid because of “pressing.”

And we challenge this:

But it teaches

in the beraita brought above [15b], “All slaughter, whether with a detached object or with an attached object, is valid,”

whether the knife is below and the neck

of the

animal is above, or whether the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below!

This apparently means that what is stated at the end, “whether the knife is below,” applies to both cases written previously at the beginning: namely, that both with something detached and with something attached, in each of them it is valid whether the knife is below or whether the knife is above. But this is difficult for Rav Anan, who invalidates slaughter with an attached object when the knife is below.

And we answer:

Rav Zevid said:

The interpretation of the beraita is not so; rather,

it teaches by way of alternatives,

that is, each of the cases at the end is valid with a different case at the beginning.

And this is what the tanna is saying in the beraita:

When the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above,

it is valid only

with a

knife

that is detached,

for then there is no concern of pressing, since the slaughterer can hold the knife from below and move it back and forth across the neck of the animal suspended in the air, and the neck does not weigh upon the knife.

But with an attached object it is not valid when the knife is below, lest he press down; and this is in accordance with Rav Anan.

And if the

knife is above and the neck of the animal is below,

it is valid even

with an attached object.

Rav Pappa said:

The beraita should indeed be understood simply, so that the end speaks of both cases at the beginning, and according to this the slaughter is valid with an attached object even when the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above. Nevertheless, this is not difficult for Rav Anan, because the beraita is speaking

of a bird, which is light,

in the slaughter of a bird [and the animal taught in the beraita is not specifically meant]. It is light, and there is no concern that the neck will weigh upon the knife and the slaughter will become invalid because of “pressing”; therefore it is valid for it even when the knife is below. Whereas Rav Anan is speaking of an animal, concerning which there is concern that its neck may weigh upon the knife, and therefore he invalidates it when the knife is below.

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav Yitzḥak, and some say: A tanna taught in a beraita: Five things were said concerning the bark of a reed,

a strip of a reed cut lengthwise:

One may not slaughter with it—

because when the reed is cut by pressing upon it, it releases thin splinters from within it, and they may pierce the סימנים in the neck of the animal.

And one may not circumcise with it—

because the splinters may pierce the organ.

And one may not cut meat with it.

And one may not clean

clean

one’s teeth with it,

because the splinters may enter the flesh and pierce the flesh between the teeth.

And one may not wipe with it,

lest the splinters pierce the intestines.

And we challenge this: It teaches

“One may not slaughter with it,” but it was taught: One may slaughter with anything, whether with a rock, whether with glass, or whether with the bark of a reed?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

This beraita, which permits slaughtering with the bark of a reed, is speaking

of a marsh reed,

a reed that grows in water marshes and does not release splinters.

We learned further:

And one may not cut meat with it.

Rav Pappa

would

cut fish entrails with it

because they are

clear,

and if a splinter entered them, it would be visible to the eye.

Rabba bar Rav Huna

would

cut a bird with it

because

it is soft,

for the flesh is soft, and there is no need to press upon the reed at the time of cutting; in this manner it does not release splinters.

We learned further:

And one may not wipe with it.

And we challenge: Why is it necessary to prohibit wiping with a reed because of the concern for splinters?

Let it be derived

that it is prohibited

because the Master said: One who wipes with something over which fire

the fire

has control,

for it has the power to burn it,

his teeth,

the teeth of the mouth and the teeth of the lower intestine,

fall out!

But the reed is something over which fire has control.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: We said the wiping of the mouth of a wound

which is prohibited because of concern for splinters, lest they pierce the wound.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Everyone slaughters, and one always slaughters.”

And we explain: “

Everyone slaughters”

this is its meaning:

Everything requires slaughter.

That is, everything must be slaughtered,

even a bird

which is not explicitly written in the Torah, for only “and you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flock” is stated.

And that which it teaches in the Mishna

“one always slaughters,”

means that it is always permitted to slaughter with the intention of eating from the meat.

And the Gemara asks:

Who

is the

tanna

who taught this? That is, who is the tanna according to whose view there is a novel teaching here, since apparently the matter is obvious?

And we answer:

Rabba said:

It is Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught: It is written,

“When the Lord your God enlarges your boundary, as He spoke to you, and you say, ‘I shall eat meat,’

because your soul desires to eat meat. And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flock.”

Rabbi Yishmael says: This verse did not come

itself

except to permit them

when they enter the Land of Israel, the eating of

meat of desire.

That is, non-sacred meat, without first offering the animal as a peace-offering.

At the beginning,

when they were in the wilderness,

meat of desire was prohibited to them,

rather, anyone who wished to eat meat could eat it only by bringing an animal to the Tabernacle and offering it as a peace-offering, and he would eat from its meat after the blood had been sprinkled and the fats burned, according to the law of peace-offerings that are eaten by their owners. And if he slaughtered an animal that was not a sacrifice outside the Tabernacle, he would transgress that which is stated: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it ... and that man shall be cut off.” And now,

once they entered the Land,

it was permitted to them from this verse to eat

meat of desire

through slaughter alone.

And Rabba concludes his explanation of our Mishna according to Rabbi Yishmael:

And now that they have been exiled

from the Land of Israel,

can they perhaps return to their initial prohibition,

as it was before they entered the Land of Israel, and not be permitted to slaughter an animal for non-sacred purposes?

Therefore we learned

in our Mishna,

“one always slaughters,”

that even after they were exiled, it is permitted to slaughter an animal for non-sacred purposes and eat its meat.

Rav Yosef raised an objection against this:

If so, that the Mishna did not come to teach us a novel point in the laws of slaughter but to permit eating non-sacred meat outside the Land,

this “one always slaughters”

that it teaches in the Mishna is imprecise. For

it should have taught, “one always slaughters and eats,”

since the principal novel point is that it is permitted for eating.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty. How could we err and say that it is prohibited to slaughter an animal for non-sacred purposes after they were exiled? On the contrary,

initially,

when they were in the wilderness,

what was the reason it was prohibited

an animal for non-sacred purposes?

Because they were near the Tabernacle,

and each person could easily bring his animal to the Tabernacle, offer it as a peace-offering, and eat its meat.

And ultimately,

when they entered the Land of Israel,

what was the reason it was permitted

to slaughter an animal without bringing it as an offering? Because

they were far from the Tabernacle,

for the land is broad, and it was difficult for those who were far away to come to the Tabernacle or to Jerusalem whenever they wished to eat meat in order to offer a sacrifice there.