Chullin 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And the halakha is:

if he slaughtered

from the lower edge of the cap and below

, meaning before it begins to slope upward,

the slaughter is valid

.

But above

that point, the slaughter

is invalid. And this is the case of one who left the cartilage.

That is, it follows the view of the one who says that if he left the cartilage the slaughter is valid, since even when he left the cartilage, slaughtering within the cartilage, he is still from the lower edge of the cap and below.

Rav Naḥman declared valid slaughter performed from the lower edge of the cap and below.

And we challenge this:

Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ketina said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose opinion!?

In accordance with whose view do you declare it valid? For your words are

neither in accordance with the Rabbis nor in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

who dispute the matter in our Mishna!? According to both of them, the place of slaughter is specifically within the upper ring, which is below the cap; they disagree only in a case where, after slaughtering the majority of the windpipe within the ring, he moves out of the ring upward, as to whether the slaughter is valid.

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

I know neither “divided,”

I do not hold that the halakha follows the Rabbis, according to whom the slaughterer must divide the ring through its entire circumference,

nor do I know “destroyed,”

nor do I follow Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the slaughter even if he destroyed the organ [the expression “destroyed” is related to the term mevulaka, meaning destruction] by cutting part of it within the ring and the remainder outside the ring.

Rather,

I know the teaching

of the amoraim

!

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said—and some say that Rav Abba bar Zavda said that Rabbi Ḥanina said—and some say that Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From the lower edge of the cap and below, the slaughter is valid.

These amoraim follow the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who disputes the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The case of leaving the ring according to the Rabbis,

where he moved out of the large ring after slaughtering the majority within it, which the Rabbis deem invalid,

is valid according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

And

the case of leaving the ring

according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

where he slaughtered all or most of it above the large ring, which even Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda deems invalid,

is valid according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,

who declares it valid even above the rings, as long as it is from the lower edge of the cap and below.

And we challenge this: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teach us? For

it is obvious

!

And we answer:

Lest you say that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,

who testified that a case of leaving the ring is valid,

was

referring only to the case of leaving the ring

according to the Rabbis,

which is valid, but that he too agrees that the case of leaving the ring according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda is invalid,

he teaches us

that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus declares valid even the case of leaving the ring according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

And we challenge this:

But say that this is indeed so,

that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus refers only to the opinion of the Rabbis?

And we answer:

If so,

if he referred only to the opinion of the Rabbis, the opinion of the Rabbis was stated in the beraita before the testimony of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. Therefore, the tanna of the beraita should have said:

“He testified concerning it

that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus declared it valid,”

it would have been necessary for him to say

this. Why, then, did he say, “He testified concerning a case of leaving the ring that it is valid,” implying that he testified that both cases of leaving the ring mentioned in that beraita—the case of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda—are valid?

And the halakha follows Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,

who declares valid slaughter performed from the lower edge of the cap and below, because

Rav Naḥman stands in agreement with him.

Rav Huna said that Rav Asi said: The dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna applies only

when he slaughtered two-thirds

properly within the large ring, leaving within it the thickness of a strand of a hair,

and

afterward

he left the ring while slaughtering the final third.

During the final third, he angled the knife upward toward the head and left the large ring, completing the slaughter there.

And this is the basis of their dispute:

The Rabbis maintain:

The slaughter is invalid because

we require the entire slaughter to take place within the large ring.

[And not above it. But below it, all the more so it is possible to slaughter.]

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda maintains

that the slaughter is valid because

the majority is equivalent to the whole.

Once he slaughtered the majority in the proper place, the slaughter was completed, and from that point onward it is as though he were merely cutting ordinary flesh.

But

if

he left the ring while slaughtering the final third,

meaning that he slaughtered the first third in the windpipe above the large ring

and

afterward

slaughtered two-thirds

within the ring,

everyone agrees that it is invalid.

This is because

when the animal’s life departs,

meaning when the animal’s vitality departs upon the cutting of the first majority of the organ,

we require the majority to have been cut through slaughter,

so that the entire portion constituting that majority was cut by valid slaughter and not by leaving the ring,

and this is absent.

For the first majority was not entirely cut through slaughter, since he left the ring while cutting the first third.

Rav Ḥisda said to

Rav Huna:

On the contrary, let the Master say the opposite: The dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda applies

when he left the ring while slaughtering the first third and

afterward

slaughtered two-thirds.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda maintains

that the slaughter is valid,

just as is the case with half a windpipe that was defective.

Just as, when half the windpipe was severed across its width on its own [so that the animal remains fit as long as the majority of the windpipe has not yet been severed], the halakha is that one adds to it and slaughters any amount to complete the majority, and the slaughter is valid through this, so too it is unnecessary for the entire first majority of the organ to be cut by valid slaughter. Therefore, when he left the ring while cutting the first third, it is as though a defect had been made in the windpipe, and he may add to it by slaughtering another two-thirds, through which the slaughter is valid.

And the Rabbis

maintain that the slaughter is invalid, since the case cannot be compared to half a windpipe that was defective. For

there,

although the defective half was not slaughtered properly, nevertheless it was in

the place of slaughter,

and in any event the animal’s vitality departed through the cutting of the first majority in the place of slaughter.

But

here,

in the case where he left the ring while cutting the first third, the place where he left the ring

is not the place of slaughter

at all. It follows that the animal’s vitality departed through cutting outside the place of slaughter.

But if he slaughtered two-thirds and

afterward

left the ring while cutting the final third, everyone agrees that it is valid.

For we learned in the Mishna:

The slaughter of

the majority of

one

organ is equivalent to slaughtering the entire organ.

It is as though the entire organ had been slaughtered. Consequently, once he slaughtered two-thirds, the slaughter was already rendered valid, and what difference does it make that he subsequently left the ring?

Rav Yosef said to

Rav Ḥisda:

Who can tell us that the majority mentioned there,

in the Mishna you cited, which states that the majority of one organ is equivalent to the whole,

was not taught by Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda taught it.

But the Rabbis in fact also dispute this Mishna and maintain that slaughtering the majority of the organ is insufficient; rather, the entire organ must be slaughtered. Therefore, they would deem it invalid even when he slaughtered two-thirds and left the ring while cutting the final third.

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

Is it so that every instance of majority in the world,

every law of “the majority is equivalent to the whole,”

was taught by Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

while the Rabbis do not agree with them?

Rav Yosef said

to Abaye:

I am speaking

only

of a majority in slaughter,

namely, that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda was the one who stated it, and not the Rabbis, for according to them one does not follow the majority in slaughter. Since

we have heard them,

the Rabbis,

dispute

in matters of slaughter—for they disputed in our Mishna and said that the entire slaughter must take place within the large ring, and the majority alone is insufficient.

There is another version of this discussion:

Rav Huna said that Rav Asi said: The dispute

is

when he left the ring while cutting the first third and slaughtered two-thirds: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is just as is the case with half a windpipe that was defective. And the Rabbis

maintain:

There, it is the place of slaughter; here, it is not the place of slaughter.

But if he slaughtered two-thirds and left the ring while cutting the final third, everyone agrees that it is valid. For we learned in the Mishna: The majority of one organ is equivalent to the whole.

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection to this: Who can tell us that the majority mentioned there was not taught by Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda taught it!?

But the Rabbis would also dispute the case where he slaughtered two-thirds and left the ring while cutting the final third.

Rav Yosef said

to Rav Ḥisda:

Is it so that every instance of majority in the world was taught by Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda?

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda to Rav Yosef:

I am speaking

only

of a majority in slaughter, for we have heard them dispute.

If he left the ring while cutting

the first

third

,

and

afterward

slaughtered a third

in the proper place for slaughter,

and again left the ring while cutting

the final

third

:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The slaughter is valid,

the slaughter.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is a tereifa.

That is, the slaughter is invalid.

And we explain their reasons:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav that it is valid,

since

when the animal’s vitality departs,

namely, in the middle third, when the cutting of the majority of the organ is completed and the animal’s vitality departs,

it departs through slaughter.

For the middle third was cut through slaughter; it follows that the animal’s vitality departed through slaughter, and therefore the slaughter is valid.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is a tereifa,

because

we require the majority to be cut through slaughter.

The majority of the organ [not specifically the first majority] must be cut through slaughter,

and this is absent,

since two-thirds of the windpipe were cut through leaving the ring.

If he slaughtered a third, left the ring while cutting a third, and slaughtered a third, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is valid,

since, in total, a majority of the windpipe was cut through slaughter.

They came and asked Rav Huna; he said to them: It is a tereifa

[he did not say this in the name of Rav, but from his own reasoning].

Rav Yehuda heard

what Rav Huna had ruled,

and was angry. He said: When I declared it a tereifa

—in the earlier case, where he left the ring while cutting the first third, slaughtered a third, and again left the ring while cutting the final third—

he declares it valid.

And

when I declare it valid,

now that I have declared it valid,

he declares it a tereifa.

He is a tereifa.

Rav Huna said: Rav Yehuda is right to be angry

—

first,

because

he heard it from Rav himself,

that he declared valid the case where he slaughtered a third, left the ring while cutting a third, and slaughtered a third, whereas

I did not hear it from Rav

; rather, I said from my own reasoning that it was a tereifa.

And furthermore,

even according to reasoning, it should be declared valid, because

there is a majority through slaughter,

as the majority of the organ was cut through slaughter.

Rav Ḥisda said to

Rav Huna:

Do not retract your position!