Chullin 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

If so, it impairs the first case.

You cannot explain why you declared valid, in Rav’s name, the first case, when one cut a third, deviated a third, and cut a third.

But

there, for what reason did you declare it valid

even though, overall, most of the siman was not severed there through valid shechita? Because

when the animal’s life departs,

which occurs in the middle third, when the majority is completed and the animal’s life departs,

it departs through a valid act

since that third was severed through shechita. Thus, the matter does not depend on whether the majority of the siman was severed through shechita; rather, everything depends on the middle third, the moment when the animal’s life departs.

And if so,

here too,

in the case where one cut a third, deviated a third, and cut a third, even though overall the majority of the siman was severed through shechita, it should be deemed non-kosher,

because when the animal’s life departs, it departs through the deviation,

since the middle third was severed through deviation.

Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura. They asked him: What is the ruling if one cut a third, deviated a third, and cut a third?

He said to them: Is this not the same as

is it not like

the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi? For Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi said: Shechita performed like a comb,

meaning that the cut was not straight, but went out from the place of shechita and returned to it,

is valid.

Thus, he declared valid the case of cutting, deviating, and cutting.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

what Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi declared valid applies specifically when he cut everything

in the place of shechita,

but the cut was not straight: it veered to the side from the place where he began cutting and then returned to it. But if he left the place fit for shechita, Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi did not declare it valid.

And we challenge this:

“In the place of shechita”—what is the point of stating this?!

What novelty did Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi teach by saying that the shechita is valid?

And we answer:

Lest you say that we require an exposed shechita,

so that the cut be open and clearly discernible,

but here there is none,

since, because the cut was not straight, it is not clearly discernible,

he teaches us

that nevertheless it is valid.

Rabbi Abba sat behind Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana sat before Rav Yehuda, and

Rav Kahana

said,

asking Rav Yehuda:

What is the ruling if one cut a third, deviated a third, and cut a third?

He said to him: His shechita is valid.

He asked him again:

What is the ruling if one deviated a third, cut a third, and deviated a third?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

His shechita is invalid,

in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s position in the two preceding questions.

He asked him again:

If one cut at the site of a perforation,

meaning that half the windpipe had been severed on its outer side, toward the neck—although this does not render it non-kosher so long as most of the windpipe has not been severed—and he continued cutting within that cut, completing the majority,

what is the ruling?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

His shechita is valid.

He asked him again:

If one cut and encountered a perforation,

meaning that half the windpipe had been severed on its inner side, toward the back, and he began cutting on the intact outer side; when he had cut through the half, he encountered the existing cut,

what is the ruling?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

His shechita is invalid.

Rabbi Abba went and reported it

the two answers of Rav Yehuda concerning shechita of a windpipe containing a perforation

before Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Elazar went and reported it before Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him,

Rabbi Elazar:

What is the difference

between a perforation on its outer side, concerning which Rav Yehuda said it is valid, and a perforation on its inner side, concerning which he said it is invalid?

Rabbi Elazar said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

If one cut at the site of a perforation, it is as though an idolater cut

the first half of the windpipe,

and a Jew completed

the shechita. The ruling is that it is valid, because the animal’s life departed at the time the majority of the siman was severed, and that was done by a Jew; it is therefore as though the entire shechita was performed by him. Similarly, in this case, where the perforation was on the outer side of the windpipe and he continued cutting within it, the animal’s life departed through a valid shechita.

But if

one cut and encountered a perforation, it is as though a Jew cut

the first half

and an idolater completed

the shechita. The shechita is invalid, since the animal’s life departed through the act of the idolater, as though he had performed the entire shechita. The same applies when one cuts half the windpipe and then encounters the severed half: the animal’s life departed through the cut that had occurred on its own, not through a valid shechita.

Rabbi Yoḥanan applied to him

Rabbi Elazar

the verse: “Idolater! Idolater!”

He mocked his comparison of the matter to shechita by an idolater, saying: Even if you say “idolater, idolater” all day, the cases are not comparable, as follows.

Rava said: He properly applied to him “idolater

—idolater,”

for a distinction must be made between the cases.

Granted, there,

where a Jew cut and an idolater completed the shechita,

since the Jew was required to cut the majority but did not cut it,

but only half, the Jew accomplished nothing through his shechita, while the idolater completed the majority; consequently,

when the animal’s life departs, it departs through the hand of the idolater,

as though he had performed the entire shechita, and therefore the shechita is invalid.

But here,

where one cut and encountered a perforation,

after all, he did perform shechita.

That is, when he cuts the half, the shechita of the siman is completed at that moment. If so,

what difference is there whether he cut at the site of a perforation or encountered a perforation?!

Even if the perforation was on the inner side, it preceded his shechita. It follows that the cut that had occurred on its own did not complete the shechita; rather, on the contrary, through his shechita on the outer side he completed the severing of the siman, and through him the majority of the siman was severed and the animal’s life departed. Therefore, it should be said that it is valid.

Mishna:

One who performs shechita from the sides,

on the sides of the neck,

his shechita is valid.

It is permitted even initially to perform shechita from the side. The Mishna uses the wording “one who performs shechita,” which implies a ruling after the fact, because of the latter clause, “one who performs melika from the sides,” which teaches that even after the fact it is invalid.

One who performs melika

of a bird sin-offering or bird burnt-offering

from the sides, his melika is invalid.

For concerning melika it is written that it must be “opposite its nape,” which is the back of the neck, and not the sides of the neck.

One who performs shechita from the nape,

from the back of the neck,

his shechita is invalid.

For he severs the spinal column before reaching the simanim, and it becomes a tereifa before the shechita.

One who performs melika from the nape—

that is, opposite the nape, below the nape,

his melika is valid

even initially.

The Mishna uses wording implying a ruling after the fact because of the clause “one who performs shechita from the nape,” which is invalid even after the fact. Although he severs the spinal column before the simanim, this is not a deficiency, because this is the form of the mitzva of melika: he severs the spinal column and then the simanim. This is comparable to any shechita of the esophagus. We do not say that at the beginning of the shechita it has already become a tereifa because the knife perforated the esophagus, and how can it become valid afterward? Rather, the shechita is valid because this is its prescribed form; the same applies to melika.

One who performs shechita from the neck

in the manner of all shechitot

his shechita is valid

even initially.

One who performs melika from the neck—

his melika is invalid,

because melika must be performed opposite the nape.

For the entire nape,

that is, opposite the nape,

is fit for melika, and the entire neck is fit for shechita.

It follows

that the place that is

fit for shechita is invalid for melika.

And the place that is

fit for melika is invalid for shechita.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

What is meant by “nape”

as stated in the Mishna?

If you say it means the actual nape,

which is behind the head, opposite the face, this is difficult:

Why specifically does it say “one who performs shechita,”

which is invalid at the nape?

Even one who performs melika as well

would be invalid, since

“Opposite its nape,” the Merciful One said, and not its nape itself.

And we answer:

Rather, what is meant by “nape”? Opposite the nape!

Below the nape, the place opposite the neck.

As the latter clause teaches,

of the Mishna:

“The entire nape is fit for melika.”

This proves that the intention is not the actual nape, since the nape is a small area and it would not be appropriate to say “the entire nape” concerning it. Rather, the intention is the area opposite the nape, which is larger.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived,

that “opposite its nape” does not mean the actual nape?

The Sages taught:

“Opposite its nape,”

that is

“opposite” that which sees the nape,

the place adjacent to the nape, below it, which “sees” the nape.

And similarly it says

concerning Balak, who said about the Israelites:

“And he sits opposite me.”

Certainly, he did not mean that they sat literally upon him; rather, he saw them. It is therefore demonstrated that “opposite” refers to the place adjacent to something, within its field of vision.

And it says: “For they have turned their backs to Me and not their faces.”

And we inquire concerning this:

What is the purpose of “and it says”?

What do we learn from the additional verse concerning the meaning of “opposite the nape”? After all, this verse speaks only of the nape.

And we answer: We require this verse because

if you would say that we do not know where the actual nape is,

so that through this

we would know where its opposite is,

therefore the beraita says:

“Come and hear: ‘For they have turned their backs to Me and not their faces.’”

It follows that the nape is opposite the face.

The nape is opposite the face, not opposite the neck. For if it were opposite the neck, the verse should have said, “For they have turned their backs to Me and not their necks.” Now that we know that the nape is opposite the face, “opposite the nape” is opposite the neck.

The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The mitzva of melika

is as follows:

He brings out the simanim,

turning them around and bringing the simanim

to the back of the nape, and performs melika

there, with his fingernail, severing only the simanim. He does not sever the spine or spinal column at all. And there is a dispute concerning the intention of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya:

Some say

that the position of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya is that the mitzva of melika is to sever the spine and spinal column first, and afterward the simanim.

Even when he

brings

brings out the simanim to the back of the nape and performs melika only on them, this too fulfills the mitzva.

to the back of the neck and pinches only them, this too fulfills the mitzva.

And some say

that this is what the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The mitzva of melika is that he

specifically brings out

the simanim and severs only them. But if he severed the spine first, the melika is invalid.

And it is reasonable to say that the view according to which

the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya said

“even brings out” is correct.

From where? Since it teaches

in the Mishna:

“One who performs shechita from the nape, his shechita is invalid; one who performs melika from the nape, his melika is valid.”