Chullin 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

And all the more so now,

after they were exiled from Eretz Yisrael,

as they have been distanced from it even further,

that is, since there is no possibility whatsoever of offering sacrifices, they certainly should be permitted to slaughter non-sacred animals. Why, then, does the Mishna need to teach us this?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna, which teaches: “One slaughters at all times,”

is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

As it was taught:

It is written: “

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

Rabbi Akiva says: This verse came

not

to prohibit them

when they would enter Eretz Yisrael from eating

nechira meat,

from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered but merely killed [and the term “nechira” indicates that the customary way of killing the animal was by tearing it from the nostrils to the chest].

Initially,

before they entered Eretz Yisrael,

they were permitted

to eat

nechira meat,

as is demonstrated by this verse: Only when “the place shall be far from you,” from the time they would enter Eretz Yisrael, were they commanded: “You shall slaughter from your cattle,” implying that until then they were permitted to eat meat without ritual slaughter. But now,

once they entered Eretz

Yisrael, they were commanded to perform ritual slaughter, and

nechira meat was prohibited to them.

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

And now,

that they have been exiled from Eretz Yisrael,

one might have thought that they would return to their original permission,

as it was before they entered the Land, and would be permitted to eat nechira meat.

Therefore we learned

in our Mishna:

“One slaughters at all times,”

meaning that even after they were exiled, they are prohibited from eating nechira meat.

And the Gemara asks:

With regard to what do

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree?

And we answer:

Rabbi Akiva holds that the meat of desire was never prohibited at all,

even when they were in the wilderness they were permitted to slaughter an animal [and the verse “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting they did not bring it ... and he shall be cut off” refers to an animal that one had consecrated as an offering and slaughtered outside the Tabernacle]. Therefore, one cannot say, as Rabbi Yishmael does, that the verse “When He expands” came to permit them to eat the meat of desire after they entered Eretz Yisrael. Rather, it came to command them to slaughter and to prohibit nechira meat to them.

Rabbi Yishmael holds that nechira meat was never permitted,

even before they entered Eretz Yisrael they were commanded to perform ritual slaughter. Therefore, one cannot say that the verse “When the place shall be far ... and you shall slaughter” came to prohibit nechira meat to them when they entered Eretz Yisrael. Rather, it came to permit them to eat the meat of desire.

And we raise an objection:

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

as this passage was stated with regard to the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness; therefore, they too were commanded to slaughter in the wilderness.

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

After all, according to him, they had not yet been commanded to slaughter in the wilderness.

And we answer:

Sacrifices are different.

The phrase “And he shall slaughter the young bull” was stated with regard to sacrifices, which even according to Rabbi Akiva they were required to slaughter in the wilderness.

And we raise an objection:

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

In the wilderness they slaughtered only by tearing the animal apart, and if so,

“Will they tear them apart for them” should have been written

instead.

And we answer: The verse does not refer to ritual slaughter literally. Rather,

“Their tearing apart is their ritual slaughter”!

And we raise an objection:

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

a wild animal or a bird, whose slaughtered blood one is obligated to cover,

“and it became an animal carcass in his hand,”

meaning that the slaughter was invalidated unintentionally,

“and one who tears apart”

the animal,

“and one who severs”

the signs in the animal’s neck intentionally—

is exempt from covering

the blood. This is because it is stated: “And any man of the children of Israel ... who traps an animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” And we derive from the words “that may be eaten” that only if it was properly slaughtered and is fit to eat is one obligated to cover its blood; but if the slaughter was invalid, one is exempt from covering the blood.

All this is understandable according to Rabbi Yishmael, who maintains that even in the wilderness, where the command concerning covering the blood was given, they were required to slaughter. Consequently, an animal that was not slaughtered was unfit to eat.

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

the blood if the slaughter was not valid? In the wilderness, they were certainly required to cover even the blood of an invalid slaughter, since every slaughter there was valid. If so, now too, when they are obligated to slaughter, why should they be exempt from covering the blood?

And we answer:

Once it became prohibited, it became prohibited.

Since, after they entered Eretz Yisrael, they were prohibited from eating an animal without slaughtering it, the law changed. From that point onward, anything not properly slaughtered is unfit to eat and is therefore exempt from having its blood covered, since it is not included in the phrase “that may be eaten.”

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, who says: “The meat of desire 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 the Lord your God shall choose ... and you shall slaughter from your cattle”: “

But just as one eats the gazelle and the deer, so may you eat it;

the impure and the pure together may eat it.” This is its explanation: Although after you enter Eretz Yisrael you will be commanded to slaughter non-sacred animals, just as you are currently required to slaughter sacrifices, nevertheless, you will not be required to eat them in a state of ritual purity, as with sacrifices. Rather, you may eat them even in a state of ritual impurity, just as you now eat gazelle and deer in the wilderness, where the impure and the pure eat from them together, even from one bowl. That is, it is permitted to eat them in a state of ritual impurity.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael,

the following difficulty arises:

Was the gazelle and the deer themselves permitted

to be eaten in the wilderness? They were permitted to eat only sacrificial meat, and gazelle and deer cannot be offered as sacrifices.

And we answer:

When the Merciful One prohibited

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

a domesticated animal,

because

it is fit to be offered as a sacrifice;

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

But a wild animal,

including a gazelle and a deer,

which is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice, the Merciful One did not prohibit.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

According to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that in the wilderness they were permitted to eat nechira meat, what is the status of

pieces of nechira meat

that were torn apart in the wilderness,

which they brought

with them,

the Israelites, into the Land of

Israel—

what is

the law? Are they prohibited to eat because from that point onward nechira meat became prohibited to them, or perhaps the prohibition applies only to an animal that they tear apart from then on, whereas what was torn apart in the wilderness remains permitted, since it was done permissibly?

And the Gemara asks:

When

does this uncertainty arise—when would it have been possible to eat from these pieces?

If we say it was during the seven

first years,

when they conquered

the Land of Israel, then there is a difficulty:

Now, if an impure thing was permitted to them,

to eat during those years,

as it is written

regarding their entry into the Land, that they would find there: “

And houses filled with every good thing ...

and you shall eat and be satisfied,”

and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: Walls of swine,

even pieces of swine fat were permitted to them when they entered the Land,

is it necessary to ask about nechira meat,

which is permitted?

And we answer:

Rather,

the uncertainty concerns

after that.

If some nechira meat remained after the first seven years had passed, is it permitted to eat it?

And if you wish, say: Actually,

the uncertainty whether it is permitted to eat nechira meat concerns

the seven

years

of conquest.

But is this not difficult, since even an impure thing was permitted then? The answer is that

when it was permitted to them

to eat during those years, it was specifically

the spoils of the gentiles

that they found in the cities they conquered. But a prohibited object

belonging to them,

to the Israelites themselves,

was not permitted.

Therefore, the question remains whether nechira meat 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 one slaughters at all times.”

But the phrase

“With anything one slaughters,”

which is stated in the Mishna,

what have you explained it to mean,

what is its meaning?

And if you say

that this is its meaning: “With anything one slaughters,”

whether with a stone, whether with glass, or whether with a reed leaf,

this cannot be said, because

this is analogous to those small phrases.

The phrase “With anything one slaughters” must correspond to “Everyone slaughters” and “One slaughters at all times”; that is, all three must refer to the same type of matter—either all refer to things with which one slaughters, or all refer to things that are slaughtered.

If those

phrases, “Everyone slaughters and one slaughters at all times,”

refer to those who slaughter, then

this

phrase, “With anything one slaughters,”

must also refer to those who slaughter,

and so on.

And if those refer to things that are slaughtered, this one too refers to things that are slaughtered.

But according to what we have said, they are not all equivalent. “Everyone slaughters” comes to include a bird, which is a thing that is slaughtered, and “One slaughters at all times” likewise comes to include a thing that is slaughtered, namely, the meat of desire or nechira meat, whereas “With anything one slaughters” 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 things with which one slaughters! “

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 fit to slaughter, in accordance with the opinions of Abaye and Rav Ashi above [3a]. “

One slaughters at all times”

means: One slaughters at all times,

whether by day or by night, whether at the top of a roof or at the top of a ship [as explained above, 13b]. “

[as explained earlier, 13b].

With anything one slaughters”

means: With anything one slaughters,

whether with a stone, whether with glass, or whether with a reed leaf.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Except for a sickle and a saw.”

Shmuel’s father would make a nick and send it, make a nick and send it,

he would make various nicks in a knife and send the knife to Eretz Yisrael to ask which nicks were valid and which were invalid, and he did so several times.

They sent him

the following sign by which you can identify which nick invalidates the knife:

“We learned: Like a saw,”

in the Mishna. The knife is invalidated only when its nicks resemble those of a saw; that is, when each nick has two points on its two ends, formed by descending on a slope into the depth of the knife and then ascending on a slope, with a point at the top of each slope.