Chullin 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

In the other

and

rings, even though they do not

surround

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

And slaughter performed beyond the permitted area,

that is, the case discussed in the Mishna, where one slaughtered within the large ring and, after slaughtering most of the windpipe, angled the knife toward the head and exited the ring,

is invalid,

in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the Mishna [and not Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda who said this].

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified concerning slaughter performed beyond the permitted area,

where one slaughtered the entire windpipe above the large ring,

that it is valid.

For he disagrees with the Mishna, and in his opinion the permitted slaughtering area extends above the rings as well, up to the place called “the smoothing of the hat” (shipui kova), which is the flesh upon the windpipe that from its midpoint slopes upward and resembles a hat.

But this baraita poses a difficulty to Rav and Shmuel, as Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda explicitly said in it that the slaughter is valid even in the other rings?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

Indeed,

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda stated two rulings:

the principle “the majority is equivalent to the whole” applies both to the slaughter itself—that if one slaughtered most of the windpipe in the place where slaughter is permitted, that is sufficient, and we are not concerned that he subsequently exited the permitted area—and also to the slaughtering area itself, such that the other rings are considered a slaughtering area because they surround most of the windpipe.

However,

Rav and Shmuel agree with him in one matter,

with regard to the slaughter itself,

but disagree with him in one matter,

with regard to the slaughtering area, concerning which we do not say “the majority is equivalent to the whole.” Therefore, slaughter in the other rings is invalid.

And we challenge this:

But

Rav and Shmuel say, “And even Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda

said

only with regard to the large ring,”

they said;

this indicates that in their opinion Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda himself did not validate slaughter in the other rings. If so, the difficulty from the baraita once again applies to them?

And we answer:

This is what

Rav and Shmuel

said: The halakha follows him with regard to the large ring,

so that if one slaughtered most of the windpipe within it, even though he subsequently exited it, the slaughter is valid.

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

as slaughter in them is entirely invalid. And what they said, that Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda “did not say,” means that “he did not say anything” of consequence, since the halakha does not follow him with regard to the other rings.

When

he ascended

Rabbi Zeira

from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael,

he ate slaughter performed beyond the permitted area according to Rav and Shmuel,

that is, meat from an animal slaughtered in the other rings, which according to Rav and Shmuel is not valid [the term “slaughter performed beyond the permitted area” includes any slaughter not performed in the proper place].

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

Why are you not stringent in accordance with their opinion?

Rabbi Zeira said to them:

Who said

that Rav and Shmuel invalidate slaughter in the other rings?

After all,

Yosef bar Ḥiyya

was the one who explained above the words of Rav and Shmuel [as a rule, when Rav Yosef is mentioned without further identification, he is Rav Yosef bar Ḥiyya].

Yosef bar Ḥiyya

cannot be relied upon, since he

learned it from everyone.

He had many teachers from whom he learned, and perhaps one of his teachers was not precise in transmitting Rav and Shmuel’s words as they had stated them.

Rav Yosef heard this and took offense. He said:

What,

did I learn it from everyone?! I learned it from Rav Yehuda,

who was exceptionally precise,

as he even memorized uncertainties concerning people.

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

As Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said to me: I am uncertain

whether

it was transmitted in the name of Rav; I am uncertain

whether

it was transmitted in the name of Shmuel

that I heard the following teaching:

Three

laymen

may permit the firstborn animal

that has a blemish plainly visible to all, so that it may be slaughtered outside the Temple,

in a place where there is no expert

scholar authorized to examine blemishes.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Zeira,

how could he eat slaughter performed beyond the permitted area according to Rav and Shmuel? Even according to his view that Rav and Shmuel never prohibited it, nevertheless, in their locales people practiced not eating such meat; in his opinion, they did so not as a matter of law but as a stringency they had adopted upon themselves. If so, he too should have practiced that stringency, since he came from the same place where people were stringent. Does he not accept

the

teaching stated in the Mishna in tractate Pesaḥim concerning one who traveled from one place to another, 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: This applies

when one must practice all the stringencies of the place from which he departed

when traveling from Babylonia to Babylonia,

or

from Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael.

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

Alternatively,

when he travels

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.

But

one who travels

from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, since we

in Babylonia

submit to them,

we are subordinate to the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, who intercalate the years, sanctify the new moons, and possess the authority to adjudicate cases involving fines,

we act in accordance with them.

The requirement to practice the stringencies of the place from which one departed is out of respect for the scholars of that place. But when one travels from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he need not show such respect to the Sages of Babylonia, since the Sages of Eretz Yisrael are more important than they are. And since in Eretz Yisrael they did not prohibit slaughter performed beyond the permitted area, Rabbi Zeira was permitted to eat it there.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say

that one who travels

from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael

must practice all the stringencies of Babylonia, nevertheless, there is no difficulty concerning Rabbi Zeira.

This applies when he intends to return

to the place from which he departed. But

Rabbi Zeira did not intend to return

to Babylonia; he

was

therefore not required to practice the stringencies of Babylonia.

And we challenge this:

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

a city in Babylonia,

said

in the name of Rav Naḥman: Slaughter performed beyond the permitted area

according to Rav and Shmuel

is valid!

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

Rav Yosef said

to Abaye:

Each river follows its own course.

Every river flows where it customarily flows. That is, each place follows its own custom: in some places in Babylonia people practice prohibiting slaughter performed beyond the permitted area, while in other places people practice permitting it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish validated

slaughter

at the tip of the hat,

at the upper edge of the flesh upon the windpipe that resembles a hat [because from the midpoint of that flesh it narrows as it slopes upward]. He therefore validated slaughter even at the very tip of the hat.

Rabbi Yoḥanan exclaimed about him: “You have gone to an extreme, an extreme!”

That is, he had validated far too much. Even according to the testimony of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus above, that it is permitted to slaughter within that hat, one may validate slaughter only up to the point from which it begins to narrow.

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

the animal is tereifa.

Above, on the windpipe near the hat, before it begins to slope upward, there are two small pieces of flesh that resemble wheat kernels. If one encountered them while slaughtering, the slaughter is invalid.

The Sages raised a dilemma:

What did Rava mean when he said, “If one encountered the wheat kernels, the animal is tereifa”? Did he mean that

he encountered and touched them,

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

as it is written

in I Kings 2:

“And he encountered him, and he died,”

which indicates an expression of touching;

or perhaps he encountered but did not touch,

but slaughtered immediately beneath them, very close to them,

as it is written

in Genesis 32:

“And the angels of God encountered him,”

which indicates an expression of meeting?

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

that is, he slaughtered through the wheat kernels, thereby leaving part of them on the upper side, toward the head, and part of them on the lower side, toward the windpipe,

the slaughter is valid.

Thus, in his opinion, even if he encountered and touched them, the slaughter is valid.

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

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Shaman of Savora said to me: Mar Zutra happened to come to our place

and arrived in our locale,

and he taught: If he left some of the wheat kernels intact, the slaughter is valid.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: If he encountered the wheat kernels but did not touch them, the slaughter is valid.

That is, he encountered but did not touch them.

If he left some of the wheat kernels intact,

that is, he encountered and touched them,

the animal is tereifa.