Chullin 19b — the Talmud in English

If so, it invalidates it for the first one.

You cannot explain why you declared it fit in the name of Rav in the first case, when he performed hagrama on one-third, slaughtered one-third, and performed hagrama on one-third.

And behold,

there, for what reason do you declare it fit

even though, in all, the majority of the siman was not cut there by slaughter? Because

when the life departs,

in the middle third, in which the majority is completed and the life then departs from the animal,

it departs through its fitness,

for that third was cut through slaughter. Thus, the matter does not depend on whether the majority of the siman was cut through slaughter or not; rather, everything depends on the middle third, which is the time when the life departs from the animal.

And if so,

here too,

when he slaughtered one-third, performed hagrama on one-third, and slaughtered one-third, even though, in all, the majority of the siman was cut through slaughter, one must declare it tereifa,

because when the life departs, it departs through hagrama,

since the middle third was through hagrama.

Rav Naḥman happened to come to Sura. They asked him: When he slaughtered one-third, performed hagrama on one-third, and slaughtered one-third, what is the law?

He said to them: Is this not the same as

is it not like

that of Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi? For Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi said: Slaughtering made like a comb,

that is, the cut was not straight, but went out from the place of slaughter and returned,

is fit.

Thus, he declared fit a case in which he slaughtered, performed hagrama, and slaughtered.

And we reject this:

Perhaps

what Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi declared fit is specifically when he slaughtered everything

in the place of slaughter,

except that he did not cut straight, but inclined to the side from the place where he began to slaughter and returned to it. But if he went out from the place fit for slaughter, Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi did not declare it fit.

And we wonder:

In the place of slaughter, what is there to say!?

What novelty did Rabbi Elazar bar Minyomi teach us by saying that the slaughter is fit?

And we answer:

You might have said: We require exposed slaughter,

so that the cut be open and recognizable,

and it is not so,

since he did not cut straight, the cut is not clearly recognizable,

he teaches us

that nevertheless it is fit.

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

Rav Kahana

said,

asking Rav Yehuda:

When he slaughtered one-third, performed hagrama on one-third, and slaughtered one-third, what is the law?

He said to him: His slaughter is fit.

They asked him again:

When he performed hagrama on one-third, slaughtered one-third, and performed hagrama on one-third, what is the law?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

His slaughter is invalid,

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

They asked him again:

When he slaughtered at the place of a perforation,

that is, half of the windpipe had been cut on its outer side, toward the neck [which does not make it tereifa so long as the majority of the windpipe has not been cut], and he continued and cut within the cut, completing the majority,

what is the law?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

His slaughter is fit.

And they asked him again:

When he slaughtered and encountered a perforation,

that half the windpipe had been cut on its inner side, toward the back of the neck, and he began slaughtering on the intact outer side. And once he slaughtered the half, he met the cut,

what is the law?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

His slaughter is invalid.

Rabbi Abba went and told

the two answers of Rav Yehuda concerning slaughter of a windpipe that had a perforation

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan to Rabbi Elazar:

What is different

if the perforation was on its outer side, concerning which Rav Yehuda said it is fit, from when the perforation was on its inner side, concerning which he said it is invalid?

Rabbi Elazar said to him,

Rabbi Elazar to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

When he slaughtered at the place of a perforation, it is as though a gentile slaughtered

the first half of the windpipe

and a Jew completed

the slaughter. For the law is that it is fit, because the departure of the animal’s life, which occurs at the time of cutting the majority of the siman, was done by a Jew, and it is as though the entire slaughter was done by him. And likewise, in this perforation that was on the outer side of the windpipe, and he continued slaughtering within it, the animal’s life departed through fit slaughter.

But if

he slaughtered and encountered a perforation, it is as though a Jew slaughtered

the first half

and a gentile completed

the slaughter, for the slaughter is invalid, since through the gentile the animal’s life departed, and it is as though the entire slaughter was done by him. The same applies to one who slaughters half the windpipe and afterward encounters the cut half: the animal’s life departed through the cut that occurred by itself, and not through fit slaughter.

Rabbi Yoḥanan recited concerning him

Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning Rabbi Elazar:

“Gentile! Gentile!”

He mocked the comparison of the matter to the slaughter of a gentile, saying: Even if you say the whole day, “Gentile—gentile,” the matters are not similar, as follows.

Rava said: He properly recited concerning him, “Gentile -

gentile,”

for there is a distinction between the matters. For

granted, there

when a Jew slaughtered and a gentile completed,

since the Jew should have slaughtered the majority but did not slaughter

but only half, the Jew did nothing through his slaughter, and the gentile was the one who completed the majority; and consequently

when the life departs, it departs through the hand of the gentile,

and it is as though he performed the entire slaughter; therefore the slaughter is invalid.

But here,

when he slaughtered and encountered a perforation,

since he is slaughtering,

that is, when he slaughters the half, the slaughter of the siman is then completed, and if so,

what difference is it whether it was at the place of a perforation or whether he encountered a perforation!?

For even if the perforation was on the inner side, the perforation preceded his slaughter; it follows that it was not the cut that occurred by itself that completed the slaughter. Rather, on the contrary, he, through his slaughter on the outer side, completes the cutting of the siman, and through him the majority of the siman is cut and the animal’s life departs. Therefore, it should be said that it is fit.

Mishna:

One who slaughters from the sides,

on the sides of the neck,

his slaughter is fit.

It is even permitted initially to slaughter from the side. The Mishna stated “one who slaughters,” which implies after the fact, because of the final clause, “one who performs melika from the sides,” which teaches us that even after the fact it is invalid.

One who performs melika

of a bird-chatat or a bird-ola

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 slaughters from the nape,

from behind the neck,

his slaughter is invalid.

For he cuts the spinal column before he reaches the simanim, and it becomes tereifa before slaughter.

One who performs melika from the nape, that

that is, opposite the nape, which is below the nape,

his melika is fit

even initially.

And the Mishna used the language of after the fact because of “one who slaughters from the nape,” which is invalid even after the fact. And although he cuts the spinal column before the simanim, this is not a deficiency, because this is the form of the mitzva of melika: that he cut the spinal column and afterward the simanim. And this is similar to all slaughtering of the gullet: we do not say that at the beginning of the slaughter it already became tereifa, because the knife perforated the gullet, and how can it become fit afterward? Rather, the slaughter is fit, since this is the form of slaughter; and the same applies to melika.

One who slaughters from the neck

in the manner of all slaughterings

his slaughter is fit

even initially.

One who performs melika from the neck -

his melika is invalid,

for melika must be opposite the nape.

For the entire nape,

that is, opposite the nape,

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

It follows

that the place

that is fit for slaughter is invalid for melika.

And the place

that is fit for melika is invalid for slaughter.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

What is “nape”

that the Mishna teaches?

If you say it means the actual nape,

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

Why specifically say one who slaughters

that it is invalid at the nape

even one who performs melika also

is invalid, for

the Merciful One said “opposite its nape,” and not “its nape”?

And we answer:

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

Below the nape, which is the place opposite the neck.

As the final clause teaches

of the Mishna:

The entire nape is fit for melika.

And from here there is proof that the intention is not the actual nape, for the nape is a small place, and it is not appropriate to say of it “the entire nape.” Rather, certainly the intention is opposite the nape, which is a larger place.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that “opposite its nape” is not the actual nape?

For the Sages taught: “

opposite its nape,”

that is

“opposite,” which sees the nape,

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

And so it says

in the passage concerning Balak, who said about the Children of Israel: “

And he dwells opposite me.”

And certainly he did not mean that they were sitting literally upon him, but rather that he sees them. It is thus proven that “opposite” refers to a place adjacent to it within its field of vision.

And it says: “For they have turned their nape toward Me and not their face.”

And we ask concerning this:

What is the purpose of “and it says”?

What have we learned from the additional verse concerning the meaning of “opposite the nape”? For this verse speaks only about the nape!

And we answer: We require this verse because

if you would say: We do not ourselves know where the nape is,

that it is, so that through this

we will know where its opposite is,

that is why the beraita says,

come and hear: “For they have turned their nape toward Me and not their face.”

By inference, the nape is opposite the face.

For the nape is opposite the face, and not opposite the neck. If it were opposite the neck, it should have said, “For they have turned their nape toward Me and not their neck.” And now that we know that the nape is opposite the face, “opposite the nape” is opposite the neck.

The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: The mitzva of melika

is as follows:

he turns the simanim,

turning and bringing the simanim

to the back of the nape, and performs melika

there, with the fingernail, only the simanim. But he does not cut the spine and spinal column at all. And they differed concerning the intention of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya:

There are those who say:

the view of the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya is that the mitzva of melika is that he first cut the spine and spinal column, and afterward the simanim. And

even

when he

turns

the simanim to the back of the nape and performs melika only on them, this too is its mitzva.

And there are those who say:

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

specifically turns

the simanim and cuts only them. But if he cut the spine first, the melika is invalid.

And it is reasonable, according to the one who says

that the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya said:

he also turns.

From where? From that which it teaches

in the Mishna: “

One who slaughters from the nape—his slaughter is invalid; one who performs melika from the nape—his melika is fit.”