Chullin 17a — the Talmud in English

And all the more so now,

after they were exiled from the Land of Israel,

for they were distanced from it even more,

that is, since there is no possibility whatsoever of offering sacrifices, certainly they should be permitted to slaughter an ordinary animal; so why does the Mishna need to teach us this?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna, which teaches, “They always slaughter,”

is Rabbi Akiva’s.

For it was taught:

It is written:

“When the place that the Lord your God will choose to place His Name there is far from you, and you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flock”—

Rabbi Akiva says: This verse came

this

only to prohibit for them

when they would come to the Land of Israel the eating of

throat-cut meat,

from an animal that was not slaughtered but was killed [and the expression “throat-cutting” means that the customary way of killing the animal is by tearing it from the nostrils to the chest].

At first,

before they came to the Land,

they were permitted

to eat

throat-cut meat,

as is demonstrated by this verse: only when the place would be far from them, from the time they would come to the Land of Israel, were they commanded, “And you shall slaughter from your cattle”; implying that until then they were permitted to eat meat without slaughter, but now,

once they entered the Land

of Israel, they were commanded concerning slaughter, and

throat-cut meat was prohibited for them.

And Rav Yosef concludes in explaining our Mishna according to Rabbi Akiva:

And now,

that they were exiled from the Land of Israel,

one might think that they return to their original permission,

as it was before their entry into the Land, and would be permitted to eat throat-cut meat?

Therefore we learned

in our Mishna

“They always slaughter,”

for even after they were exiled, throat-cut meat is prohibited to them.

And the Gemara asks:

Over what do

Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva

and answer:

Rabbi Akiva holds: desire-meat was never prohibited at all,

and even when they were in the wilderness they were permitted to slaughter an animal [and what is written, “And they did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting ... and it shall be cut off,” refers to an animal that they consecrated as a sacrifice and slaughtered outside the Tabernacle]. Therefore, one cannot say, as Rabbi Ishmael does, that the verse “When He enlarges” came to permit desire-meat for them after they entered the Land of Israel; rather, it came to command them concerning slaughter and to prohibit throat-cut meat for them.

Rabbi Ishmael holds: throat-cut meat was never permitted,

and even before they came to the Land of Israel they were commanded concerning slaughter. Therefore, one cannot say that the verse, “When it is far, and you shall slaughter,” came to prohibit throat-cut meat for them when they entered the Land of Israel; rather, it came to permit desire-meat for them.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Rabbi Ishmael, this is why it is written, “And he shall slaughter the young bull,”

for this passage was said concerning the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness; thus, they too were commanded concerning slaughter in the wilderness.

But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of “And he shall slaughter”?

For according to him, they had not yet been commanded concerning slaughter in the wilderness.

And we answer:

Sacrifices are different.

For “And he shall slaughter the young bull” was said concerning sacrifices, which even according to Rabbi Akiva they were obligated to slaughter in the wilderness.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Rabbi Ishmael, this is why it is written, “Will sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them?” But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of “Will sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them”?

For in the wilderness they slaughtered only by throat-cutting; therefore,

“they should throat-cut them” would have been required

to be written?

And we answer: The verse does not refer to actual slaughter, but rather:

Their throat-cutting is their slaughter!

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Rabbi Ishmael, this is why we learned: “One who slaughters”

a wild animal or a bird, whose slaughtered blood must be covered,

and it became an unslaughtered carcass in his hand,

for the slaughter was invalidated unintentionally,

and one who throat-cuts

who killed the animal,

and one who tears out

the signs in the animal’s neck deliberately—

is exempt from covering

the blood! For it is stated, “And any man ... who hunts a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth”; and we derive from “that may be eaten” that specifically if it was properly slaughtered and is fit to eat, its blood requires covering, but if the slaughter was invalid, he is exempt from covering the blood.

And all this is understandable according to Rabbi Ishmael, for according to him, even in the wilderness, where the commandment of covering the blood was stated, they were obligated to slaughter. And that which was not slaughtered was not fit to eat.

But according to Rabbi Akiva, why is he exempt from covering

if the slaughter was not valid? Surely in the wilderness they were certainly obligated to cover even the blood of invalid slaughter, since every slaughter there was valid; and if so, now too, when they are obligated to slaughter, why should they be exempt from covering?

And we answer:

Once it became prohibited, it became prohibited.

Since, after they entered the Land of Israel, they were prohibited from eating without slaughter, the law changed. From then on, whatever was not properly slaughtered was not fit to eat, and consequently was exempt from covering the blood, since it is not included in “that may be eaten.”

And we challenge:

Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, who says: Desire-meat was never prohibited at all

before they entered the Land,

this is why it is written

in that passage, after the verse “When the place that is far from you ... and you shall slaughter from your cattle,”

“But just as one eats the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it,

the impure and the pure shall eat it together”; for this is its explanation: even though, after you enter the Land of Israel, you will be commanded to slaughter ordinary animals, just as you are obligated today to slaughter sacrifices, nevertheless you will not be obligated to eat them in purity as sacrifices, but you may eat them even in impurity, just as you presently eat gazelle and deer in the wilderness—that the impure and the pure eat from them together, even from one bowl. That is, it is permitted to eat them even in impurity.

But according to Rabbi Ishmael,

the following difficulty arises:

Was the gazelle and the deer themselves permitted

to be eaten in the wilderness? Surely they were permitted to eat only sacrificial meat, and a gazelle and a deer are not offered as sacrifices.

And we answer:

When the Merciful One prohibited

eating in the wilderness meat that was not sacrificial meat, it was specifically

an animal,

because

it is fit for offering;

therefore the Torah required that it be brought as a sacrifice if one wished to eat from its meat.

But a wild animal,

including a gazelle and a deer,

which is not fit for offering—the Merciful One did not prohibit it.

Rabbi Jeremiah inquired:

According to Rabbi Akiva, for whom in the wilderness they were permitted to eat throat-cut meat,

the pieces of throat-cut meat

that were throat-cut in the wilderness,

which they brought

them

with them into the Land

of Israel—

what is

their status? Are they prohibited for eating, since from now on throat-cut meat became prohibited to them, or perhaps the prohibition applies only to an animal that they throat-cut from then onward, but that which was throat-cut in the wilderness is permitted, since it was done with permission?

And the Gemara asks:

When

does this uncertainty arise as to whether it was possible to eat those pieces at that time?

If you say during the seven

initial years

that they conquered

the Land of Israel, then there is a difficulty:

Now, a forbidden thing was permitted to them,

for eating during those years,

as it is written

concerning their entry into the Land, that they would find there

“houses filled with every good thing ...

and you shall eat and be satisfied”;

and Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of Rav: the walls of pigs,

pieces of pig fat were also permitted to them upon their entry into the Land;

is throat-cut meat not obvious

that it was permitted?

And we answer:

Rather,

the uncertainty is

after that.

If throat-cut meat remained after the first seven years had passed, is it permitted for eating?

And if you wish, say: Actually,

the uncertainty as to whether throat-cut meat may be eaten is

during the seven

years

that they conquered.

And is it not difficult, since even a forbidden thing was permitted then? For

when it was permitted to them

for eating during those years, it was specifically

the spoils of the idolaters

that they found in the cities they conquered; but a prohibited thing

belonging to them,

belonging to Israel themselves,

was not permitted.

Therefore, the status of throat-cut meat remains uncertain, whether it is prohibited or not.

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rabba said: You have explained,

in the earlier discussion, what is stated in the Mishna,

“Everyone slaughters, and they always slaughter.”

But

“With everything they slaughter,”

which is stated in the Mishna,

what have you explained to him,

what is its meaning?

And if you say

that this is its meaning:

“With everything they slaughter”—with a stone, with glass, or with a reed splinter.

It is impossible to say this, for

this must resemble those clauses.

For “With everything they slaughter” must resemble “Everyone slaughters and they always slaughter,” meaning that all of them must be of one type: either all refer to something with which one slaughters, or all refer to something that is slaughtered.

If these

of “Everyone slaughters and they always slaughter”

refer to those who slaughter, then

this

of “With everything they slaughter”

also refers to those who slaughter

and is speaking of them.

And if those refer to what is slaughtered, this too refers to what is slaughtered.

But according to what we said, they are not all alike: “Everyone slaughters” comes to include a bird, which is something slaughtered, and “They always slaughter” also comes to include something slaughtered, namely desire-meat or throat-cut meat, whereas “With everything they slaughter” comes to include a stone and glass, which are things with which one slaughters. And we answer:

Rather, Rava said:

All of them refer to those who slaughter!

“Everyone slaughters”

which is taught twice, in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter and in our Mishna:

one

of them

comes to include a Samaritan, and one comes to include an apostate Israelite,

who are valid to slaughter, in accordance with the view of Abaye and Rav Ashi above [3a].

“They always slaughter”

means: They always slaughter

both by day and by night, both at the top of a roof and at the top of a ship [

explained above, 13b].

“With everything they slaughter”

means: With everything they slaughter,

both with a stone, with glass, and with a reed splinter.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Except for a reaping sickle and a saw.”

Samuel’s father made notches and sent them, and made notches and sent them,

he made various notches in a knife and sent the knife to the Land of Israel to ask which notches were valid and which were invalid, and he did this several times.

They sent to him:

This sign shall be in your hand for knowing which notch invalidates, for

“we learned: like a saw”

in the Mishna. For the knife becomes invalid only if its notches are like a saw, that is, the notch has two points at its two ends, as it descends on a slope into the depth of the knife and rises again on a slope, and at the head of each slope there is a point.