Chullin 18a — the Talmud in English

And what is the

measure of

a notch in the altar?

Enough for a fingernail to catch on it.

That is, if one passes a fingernail over the stone, it will catch on the notch.

They raise an objection from a source

that states:

How large must a notch in the altar be? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A handbreadth; Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says: The size of an olive.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the measure is enough for a fingernail to catch on it, which is smaller than the size of an olive and a handbreadth.

And we answer:

This

of the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, applies

to plaster

when the altar was damaged in a place covered by plaster [the altar was built from a mixture of plaster, stones, and other materials].

This

measure, that a fingernail catches on it, applies

to stone

when a stone in the altar was damaged, in which case any notch invalidates it, as it is written: “whole stones.”

Rav Huna said: In the case of this slaughterer

who slaughters

who does not pass

who does not show

his knife to a Sage

so that he can examine it,

we excommunicate him.

And Rava said: We remove him from his profession.

We remove him from his trade, so that he may no longer sell meat,

and we announce concerning his meat

that all meat he sells from now on

is from an animal with a condition that renders it non-kosher [in the time of the Gemara, the meat seller was himself the slaughterer].

And they do not disagree

Rav Huna and Rava:

Here,

Rav Huna, who says that we only excommunicate him and do not remove him from his profession, is speaking

when his knife was found to be proper

after the knife was examined and found to be valid. He did not cause the public to sin; rather, we excommunicate him because he insulted the Sage by failing to show him his knife, which was disrespectful to the Sage.

Here,

Rava, who says that we remove him from his profession, is speaking

when his knife was not found to be proper,

and therefore we remove him because he caused the public to eat unslaughtered carcasses.

Ravina said: Where his knife was not found to be proper, we smear him with a small amount.

In addition to the measures stated above, we penalize him by smearing the meat with excrement,

so that it cannot even be sold to a gentile,

so that he cannot sell it even to a gentile. But if his knife was found to be proper, we excommunicate him, remove him from his profession, and announce that the meat is from an animal with a condition that renders it non-kosher. All of this is a penalty because he insulted the Sage, but we allow him to sell the meat to a gentile.

There was a certain slaughterer who did not show his knife to Rava bar Ḥinnana,

and his knife was found to be proper.

Rava bar Ḥinnana excommunicated him,

Rava bar Ḥinnana

and removed him from his profession,

removed him,

and announced concerning his meat that it was from an animal with a condition that renders it non-kosher,

because he followed the opinion of Ravina.

Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi arrived

they arrived

at the home of

Rava bar Ḥinnana.

He said to them

Rava bar Ḥinnana:

Let the Sages examine his case,

examine the case of that slaughterer who was removed from his profession; perhaps you will find grounds to restore him to his profession,

because dependents are attached to him,

since his young children depend on him, as he is responsible for supporting them.

Rav Ashi examined his knife and found it to be proper, and declared him fit

to return to his profession. Rav Ashi held that when a slaughterer's knife is found to be proper, he is not removed from his profession.

Mar Zutra said to him

to Rav Ashi:

Should you not be concerned for the elder?

Are you not concerned for the honor of Rava bar Ḥinnana, who removed him, while you are restoring him?

He said to him

Rav Ashi

we are carrying out the agency of

Rava bar Ḥinnana

by doing this,

for he asked us to find grounds in his favor, and once we found such grounds, it is as though we acted with his approval.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A detached tooth,

meaning that the jaw in which the tooth was located had become detached from the body of a person or animal,

and a detached fingernail

may be used for slaughter from the outset, since they do not have the defect of being attached to a body.

And we challenge this:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

Except for a sickle used for harvesting, a saw, teeth, and a fingernail, because they strangle.

And we answer:

The distinction between one tooth and two teeth is not difficult.

For

this

statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, that a tooth is valid for slaughter, applies

to one,

when one slaughters with a single tooth, whereas

this

statement in the Mishna, that a tooth is invalid, applies

to two,

when one slaughters with two teeth [as implied by the wording “and teeth”], since the gap between one tooth and the other makes them like a notched knife.

The distinction between one fingernail and another fingernail is not difficult.

This

which is valid applies

to a

fingernail

that is detached.

This

which is invalid applies

to a

fingernail

that is attached

to a person or an animal, because an attached object is invalid for slaughter [in accordance with Rabbi's view in the discussion above, on page 14b].

Mishna:

One who slaughters with a sickle used for harvesting,

whose notches are very curved and point in one direction,

in the direction in which it moves,

that is, the curve points toward the handle of the knife; when he slaughters by moving the knife along the neck without drawing it back toward himself, the notches do not tear the slaughtering סימנים but cut like a knife—

Beit Shammai deem the slaughter invalid

the slaughter

and Beit Hillel deem it valid.

But if he smoothed

its

teeth,

making its blade smooth,

it is like a knife,

and one may slaughter with it; we do not issue a decree lest people come to slaughter with a sickle without smoothing it.

Gemara:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even when Beit Hillel declared it valid

when one slaughters with a short sickle by moving it in its direction of movement,

they declared it valid only to remove it from the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

With regard to ritual impurity, it is considered properly slaughtered and not as though it had been slaughtered invalidly, in which case it would impart impurity like an unslaughtered carcass.

But with regard to eating, it is forbidden

by rabbinic decree, as they decreed lest one slaughter by also drawing the sickle back; in that case, the notches would face the opposite direction and tear the slaughtering סימנים, invalidating the slaughter. [According to Beit Shammai, they issued this decree even with regard to ritual impurity.]

Rav Ashi said: This is also indicated precisely

by our Mishna, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan's view,

as it teaches, “Beit Shammai deem it invalid and Beit Hillel deem it valid,” rather than, “Beit Shammai forbid and Beit Hillel permit,”

because the language of forbidding and permitting applies to eating. This implies that with regard to eating, everyone agrees that it is forbidden, and therefore the Mishna does not use the language of forbidding and permitting.

And we challenge Rav Ashi:

According to your reasoning,

that their entire dispute concerns only ritual impurity,

let it teach

in the Mishna: “

Beit Shammai render it impure, and Beit Hillel render it pure”?

Rather,

it is certainly possible to say that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree even with regard to eating, because the wording

“deem invalid and deem valid” and

the wording

“forbid and permit” are one and the same matter.

The wording “deem invalid and deem valid” can also be understood as referring to eating, since if the slaughter is valid, the animal is also permitted for consumption. Therefore, it is possible to say that according to Beit Shammai the slaughter is invalid and the animal imparts impurity like an unslaughtered carcass, whereas according to Beit Hillel the slaughter is valid even to the extent that the animal is permitted for consumption.

Mishna:

The windpipe of an animal is made of rings along its entire length. The rings do not encircle the entire windpipe, but only most of it, and the ends of the rings are connected to one another by the flesh of the windpipe. The exception is the uppermost ring, next to the head, which encircles the entire windpipe and is called the large ring. According to the Mishna before us, the area above the large ring is not a valid place for slaughtering the windpipe.

One who slaughters within the ring

the uppermost one—that is, he slaughtered within that ring—

and leaves a hair's breadth within it

by not angling the knife toward the head so that it would leave the ring, but keeping it within the ring and leaving uncut a hair's breadth across the width of the ring near the head,

along its entire circumference,

so that the entire circumference of the ring has that small uncut section,

his slaughter is valid.

But if he angled the knife toward the head, even after slaughtering most of the windpipe within the ring, and left the ring and completed the slaughter there, the slaughter is invalid, because he completed the slaughter in a place that is not valid for slaughter. This is hagramah, an improper diversion of the cut, one of the matters transmitted to Moses at Sinai that invalidate slaughter; its nature is that one slaughters in a place unsuitable for slaughter.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if

he leaves

a hair's breadth along most of it

of the ring alone—that is, after slaughtering most of the windpipe within the ring, he leaves the ring and completes the slaughter there—the slaughter is nevertheless valid, since it was already made valid by cutting through most of the windpipe. What he then continued to cut outside the valid place of slaughter is merely like cutting ordinary flesh.

Gemara:

Rav and Shmuel both said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that once one has properly slaughtered most of the windpipe, that is sufficient, because most is considered like all of it.

And they further said:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, stated

that the ring is valid as a place for slaughter

only in the case of the large ring,

which is the uppermost one,

since

it

encircles the entire windpipe,

and therefore it has the status of “windpipe.”

But with regard to the other rings, no,

slaughter is not valid within them at all; it is valid only between one ring and the next, because these rings do not have the status of “windpipe,” since they encircle only most of the windpipe rather than all of it.

And we challenge this:

But

if

with regard to the other rings, no,

is slaughter not valid there according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: