Chullin 18b — the Talmud in English

One who slaughters in the other

the

rings, even though they do not

surround

the entire windpipe, since they surround most of the windpipe, his slaughter is valid.

And a mugremet,

this is the case discussed by the Mishna: that he slaughtered in the large ring, and after he had slaughtered most of the windpipe, he inclined the knife toward the head and it left the ring,

it is invalid,

in accordance with the view of the Rabbis in the Mishna [and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda did not say this].

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus testified concerning a mugremet,

that he slaughtered the entire windpipe above the large ring,

that it is valid.

For he disagrees with the Mishna, and in his view the place of slaughtering extends even above the rings, until the place called “the slope of the hat,” which is the flesh upon the windpipe that from its middle proceeds in an upward slope and appears like a hat.

And this is difficult for Rav and Shmuel from this beraita, in which Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda explicitly said that the slaughter is valid even in the other rings?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

Indeed,

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said two things,

that the law “the majority is like the whole” applies also with regard to the slaughter itself: if he slaughtered most of the windpipe in the proper place for slaughtering, that is sufficient, and we are not concerned that afterward he left the place of slaughtering; and also with regard to the place of slaughtering, that the other rings should be considered a place of slaughtering because they surround most of the windpipe.

But

Rav and Shmuel agree with him in one matter,

with regard to the slaughter itself,

and disagree with him in one matter,

with regard to the place of slaughtering, concerning which we do not say “the majority is like the whole”; therefore, the slaughter is invalid in the other rings.

And we object:

But

Rav and Shmuel, “and even Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

did not say

except with regard to the large ring,”

they say,

which implies that in their view Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda himself did not validate [slaughter] in the other rings. If so, once again it will be difficult for them from the beraita?

And we answer:

This is what

Rav and Shmuel

say: the halakha follows him with regard to the large ring,

for if he slaughtered most of it in it, even though afterward he left it, it is valid.

And the halakha does not follow him with regard to the other rings,

for the slaughter is not valid in them at all; and what they said, that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda “did not say,” means that he “said nothing at all,” since the halakha does not follow him with regard to the other rings.

When

when

Rabbi Zeira

went up to the Land of Israel from Babylonia,

he ate a mugremet according to Rav and Shmuel,

that is, meat slaughtered in the other rings, which according to Rav and Shmuel is not valid [the expression “mugremet” includes every slaughter that is not in the proper place for slaughtering].

They said to him: Are you not from the place of Rav and Shmuel!?

And why do you not act stringently like them?

Rabbi Zeira said to them:

Rabbi Zeira:

Who said

that Rav and Shmuel invalidate the slaughter in the other rings? For

Yosef son of Hiyya,

he is the one who explained above the words of Rav and Shmuel [for an unnamed Rav Yosef is Rav Yosef son of Hiyya].

Yosef son of Hiyya

his words cannot be relied upon, since he

learned from everyone.

His teachers are many, from whose mouths he learns, and perhaps one of his teachers was not precise in stating in the name of Rav and Shmuel the words as they said them.

Rav Yosef heard this and took offense! He said:

And is it that

I learned from everyone?! I learned from Rav Yehuda,

who is exceedingly precise,

for he even learns the uncertainties concerning men.

When someone would tell him a matter of halakha, and the speaker had forgotten from whom he had heard it, when Rav Yehuda repeated the matter he would say: I heard from so-and-so, who was uncertain from whom he had heard it.

For Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said to me: It is uncertain

to me whether

in the name of Rav, uncertain

whether

in the name of Shmuel

I heard the following matter:

Three

laymen

permit a firstborn animal

in which there is a blemish visible to everyone, in order to slaughter it outside the Temple,

in a place where there is no expert

a sage authorized to examine blemishes.

And we object:

But Rabbi Zeira,

how did he eat the mugremet of Rav and Shmuel? For even according to his view that Rav and Shmuel never prohibited it, nevertheless in their places they would practice not eating the mugremet; and in his view, they did so not as a matter of law, but as a stringency that they imposed upon themselves. If so, he too should have acted in this manner, since he came from that place where they practiced stringency. And is it that

he does not have

what is stated in the Mishna in tractate Pesaḥim concerning one who went from place to place, that

they impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he departed and the stringencies of the place to which he went.

And we answer:

Abaye said: These words

that he must observe all the stringencies of the place from which he departed,

apply when going from Babylonia to Babylonia,

or

from the Land of Israel to the Land of Israel.

That is, when he went from place to place within the same country.

Alternatively,

when he went

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia.

But

one who goes

from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, since we

in Babylonia

are subordinate to them,

we are subordinate to the sages of the Land of Israel, who intercalate the years and sanctify the new month, and who have the authority to adjudicate cases of fines,

we act like them.

Since the entire law that one must observe the stringencies of the place from which he departed is on account of the honor of the sages of that place. But when he goes from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, he need not show honor to the sages of Babylonia, since the sages of the Land of Israel are more important than they; and since in the Land of Israel they did not prohibit the mugremet, it was permitted for Rabbi Zeira to eat it there.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say

that one who also goes

from Babylonia to the Land of Israel

must observe all the stringencies of Babylonia, nevertheless it is not difficult for Rabbi Zeira. For

these words apply where his intention is to return

to the place from which he departed. But

Rabbi Zeira had no intention of returning

to Babylonia

[that was his situation].

And therefore he did not have to observe the stringencies of Babylonia.

And we object:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But the Rabbis who came from Meḥoza,

a city in Babylonia,

said

in the name of Rav Naḥman: A mugremet

of Rav and Shmuel

is valid!

But we in Babylonia practice prohibiting it? And we answer:

Rav Yosef said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Each river follows its own course.

Every river flows in the place where it normally flows. That is, each place follows its practice: there are places in Babylonia that practice prohibiting the mugremet, and there are places that practice permitting it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish validated

slaughtering

at the point of the hat,

at the upper edge of the flesh upon the windpipe that appears like a hat [and this is because from the middle of that flesh it proceeds and becomes narrow in an upward slope], and he validated slaughtering even at the point of the hat.

Rabbi Yoḥanan applied to him: “An edge, an edge!”

That is, you have validated far too much, for even according to the testimony of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus above, that it is permitted to slaughter in that hat, one should validate only up to the place from which it proceeds and becomes narrow.

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: If he encountered the wheat-kernels —

it is tereifa.

For above, on the windpipe near the hat, before it begins to slope upward, there are two small pieces of flesh that appear like wheat kernels; and if he encountered them when he slaughtered, the slaughter is invalid.

They raised a question before them:

What is Rava’s intention when he says, “If he encountered the wheat-kernels, it is tereifa”? Does he intend to say that

he encountered and touched them,

the wheat-kernels, with the knife, that is, he slaughtered through them,

as it is written [מלכים א ב]

in I Kings 2:

“and he encountered him, and he died,”

which implies an expression of touching?

Or perhaps he encountered but did not touch,

but rather he slaughtered beneath them, very close to them,

as it is written [בראשית לב]

in Genesis 32:

“and angels of God encountered him,”

which implies an expression of meeting?

It was stated: Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: If he left some of the wheat-kernels.

That is, he slaughtered within the wheat-kernels, and as a result part of them remained on the upper side, toward the head, and part of them on the lower side, toward the windpipe,

it is valid.

And according to him, even if he encountered and touched them, it is likewise valid.

Rav Amemar bar Mar Yanuka said: I was standing before Rabbi Hiyya, son of Rav Avya, and he said to me: If he left some of the wheat-kernels, it is valid.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Shemen of Sevorai said to me: Mar Zutra happened to come to our place,

he happened to come to our place,

and he expounded: If he left some of the wheat-kernels, it is valid.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: If he encountered the wheat-kernels, it is valid.

That is, he encountered but did not touch.

If he left some of the wheat-kernels,

that is, he encountered and touched,

it is tereifa.