Chullin 19a — the Talmud in English

And the halakha is:

if he slaughtered

from the flattening of the cap and below,

that is, before it begins to slope upward,

valid

is the slaughter.

And above

that point, the slaughter

is invalid. And this is the case of leaving [the slaughter] at the cartilage.

That is, according to the view of the one who says that if he left [a portion] at the cartilage it is valid, since even when he left [a portion] at the cartilage, having slaughtered within the cartilage, he is still from the flattening of the cap and below.

Rav Naḥman declared valid [slaughter performed] from the flattening of the cap and below.

And we raise a difficulty:

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

According to whose view do you declare it valid? For your words are

neither in accordance with the Rabbis nor in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who dispute in our Mishna!? For according to both of them, the place of slaughter is specifically within the upper ring, which is below the cap; rather, they dispute when he emerges from the ring upward after having slaughtered the majority of the windpipe within the ring, whether the slaughter is valid.

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

I do not know “divided,”

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

and I do not know “destroyed,”

nor do I follow Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits it even if he destroyed the sign [“destroyed” derives from mevulaka, meaning destruction], by cutting a little within the ring and the remainder outside the ring.

Rather,

I know the teaching

of the amoraim

[and] I know!

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan—and some say: Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina; and some say: Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From the flattening of the cap and below, it is valid.

And these amoraim hold in accordance with Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who disputes the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The slanted slaughter of the Rabbis,

that he emerged from the large ring after slaughtering the majority within it, which the Rabbis declare invalid,

is valid according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And

the slanted slaughter

of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

where he slaughtered all of it or its majority above the large ring, which even according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is invalid,

is valid according to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,

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

And we raise a difficulty: What does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teach us? For

it is obvious

to him.

And we answer:

Lest you say, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,

who testified concerning slanted slaughter that it is valid,

[that]

slanted slaughter

of the Rabbis stands

as valid, but as for the slanted slaughter of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he too concedes that it is invalid,

he teaches us

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus also declares the slanted slaughter of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, valid.

And we raise a difficulty:

But say so as well,

that in truth Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus applies only to [the case of] the Rabbis?

And we answer:

If so,

if he applies to the Rabbis, the opinion of the Rabbis was stated in the beraita before the testimony of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, and if so,

“he testified concerning it

that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus declared it valid”

would have been required

for the tanna of the beraita to say. And why did he say, “He testified concerning slanted slaughter that it is valid,” implying that he testifies concerning the two slanted slaughters stated in that beraita, both that of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that they are valid?

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus,

who declares valid [slaughter performed] from the flattening of the cap and below, because

Rav Naḥman stands in agreement with him.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Asi: The dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in our Mishna is only

when he slaughtered two-thirds

properly within the large ring, leaving in it a hair’s breadth,

and

afterward

slaughtered obliquely the final third.

For in the final third he tilted the knife upward toward the head, emerged from the large ring, and completed the slaughter there.

And in this they dispute:

For the Rabbis hold:

the slaughter is invalid because

we require the entire slaughter to be in the large ring.

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

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds

that the slaughter is valid because

the majority is like the whole.

And once he slaughtered the majority in the appropriate place, the slaughter was completed, and from this point onward it is as though he is merely cutting ordinary flesh.

But

if

he slaughtered obliquely 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.

Because

when the animal’s life departs,

with the departure of the animal’s life, which occurs when the first majority of the sign is cut,

we require a majority through slaughter,

so that the cutting of that entire majority be by means of slaughter and not by means of slanted slaughter,

and there is none.

For the first majority was not entirely through slaughter, since he slaughtered obliquely in the first third.

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Huna:

to Rav Huna:

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

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is

when he slaughtered obliquely the first third and

afterward

slaughtered two-thirds.

For Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds

that the slaughter is valid,

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

Just as when half of the windpipe was cut across its width on its own [so that the animal is still valid in this respect so long as the majority of the windpipe has not been cut], the law is that one adds and slaughters in it any amount to complete the majority, and the slaughter is valid thereby, so too it is not necessary that the entire first majority of the sign be cut through valid slaughter. If so, the same applies when he slaughtered obliquely the first third: it is as though a defect was made in the windpipe, and he may add and slaughter another two-thirds, and the slaughter is valid thereby.

And the Rabbis

hold: The slaughter is invalid, since one cannot compare it to half of the windpipe that was defective. For

there,

the defective half, even though it was not slaughtered properly, nevertheless is in the

place of slaughter,

and in any event the departure of the animal’s life, which occurs through cutting the first majority, took place in the place of slaughter.

But

here,

in the case where he slaughtered obliquely the first third, the place of the slanted slaughter

is not the place of slaughter

at all. It follows that the departure of the animal’s life was caused by cutting outside the place of slaughter.

But when he slaughtered two-thirds and

afterward

slaughtered obliquely the final third, everyone agrees that it is valid.

For we learned:

the slaughter of

the majority of one

sign

is like it.

It is as though it was entirely slaughtered. And consequently, since he slaughtered two-thirds, the slaughter had already become valid, and what difference does it make to us that afterward he slaughtered obliquely?

Rav Yosef said

to Rav Ḥisda:

Who tells us that that majority there,

the Mishna you brought, which says that the majority of one is like it,

was not taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it.

But the Rabbis in truth also dispute this Mishna, and hold that slaughtering the majority of the sign is not effective; rather, one must slaughter all of it. Therefore they declare invalid even when he slaughtered two-thirds and slaughtered obliquely the final third.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Is that to say that all majorities in the world,

all the laws of “the majority is like the whole,”

were taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,

whereas the Rabbis do not agree with them?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

I am speaking

only

of the majority of slaughter:

that it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who stated it and not the Rabbis, for according to their view, in slaughter one does not follow the majority. Since

we heard them,

the Rabbis,

dispute

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

There is another version of the matter:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Asi: The dispute

is

when he slaughtered obliquely the first third and slaughtered two-thirds: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds, “just as is the case with a half of the windpipe that was defective.” And the Rabbis

hold:

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

But when he slaughtered two-thirds and slaughtered obliquely the final third, everyone agrees that it is valid. For we learned: The majority of one is like it.

Rav Ḥisda challenged this: Who tells us that that majority there was not taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, taught it!?

But the Rabbis would also dispute [the case] when he slaughtered two-thirds and slaughtered obliquely the final third.

Rav Yosef said

to Rav Ḥisda:

Is that to say that every majority in the world was taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda to Rav Yosef:

I am speaking only

of

the majority of slaughter, for we heard them dispute.

He slaughtered obliquely

the

first third

of the first part,

and

afterward

slaughtered a third

in the place appropriate for slaughter,

and slaughtered obliquely

again the

final third:

of the final part:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: It is valid

the slaughter.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is an animal with a fatal defect.

That is, the slaughter is invalid.

And we explain their reasons:

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

for

when the animal’s life departs,

that is, in the middle third, at which point the cutting of the majority of the sign is completed and the animal’s life departs,

it departs through slaughter.

For the middle third was by means of slaughter; it follows that the animal’s life departed through slaughter. Therefore the slaughter is valid.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is an animal with a fatal defect,

because

we require a majority through slaughter.

The majority of the sign [not specifically the first majority] must be cut by means of slaughter,

and there is none,

for two-thirds of the windpipe were cut by means of slanted slaughter.

When he slaughtered a third, slaughtered obliquely a third, and slaughtered a third, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: It is valid,

for in total a majority of the windpipe was cut by means of slaughter.

They came and asked Rav Huna; he said to them, “It is an animal with a fatal defect”

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

Rav Yehuda heard

what Rav Huna had ruled,

and became angry! He said: “I declare an animal with a fatal defect,”

when I declared an animal with a fatal defect in the earlier case, where he slaughtered obliquely a third, slaughtered a third, and slaughtered obliquely a third,

and he declares valid

this case.

And when I declare valid,

now that I have declared valid,

he declares an animal with a fatal defect

it.

Rav Huna said: Rav Yehuda is right to be angry

at Rav Yehuda!

First,

because

he heard it from Rav

that he declared valid when he slaughtered a third, slaughtered obliquely a third, and slaughtered a third,

whereas I did not hear it

from Rav; rather, I said from my own reasoning that it is an animal with a fatal defect.

And furthermore,

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

there is a majority through slaughter,

since the majority of the sign was cut by means of slaughter.

Rav Ḥisda said

to Rav Huna:

Do not retract from your words!