Chullin 20a — the Talmud in English

And if it enters your mind that “returning” specifically

they said: behold, our Mishna, which validates melika from the nape, also speaks of a case in which he returned the signs; if so, this is difficult:

why specifically melika

which is valid from the nape? But

even slaughtering

from the nape

also

should be valid? For he returns the signs to behind the nape and slaughters only them, and the bird did not become tereifa before slaughtering through the breaking of the spine.

Rather, is it not that one may conclude from it

that the sons of Rabbi Hiyya

also “returning”

say? And if he performed melika without returning them, it is certainly valid.

And our Mishna

speaks

without returning

the signs, but rather he cut the spine and the vertebrae before melika of the signs. Therefore, only melika is valid in this manner, but slaughtering in this manner is invalid, for the bird had already become tereifa beforehand through the breaking of the vertebrae.

Rabbi Yannai said: Let the young men accept

the young men, the sons of Rabbi Hiyya,

their answer.

For it is possible to raise an objection against them from our Mishna,

for it teaches: “It is found: valid with slaughtering, invalid with melika; valid with melika, invalid with slaughtering”—to exclude what?

What does the Mishna come to teach us? If it is to say that the neck is valid for slaughtering and invalid for melika, and the nape is valid for melika and invalid for slaughtering, all this was already taught earlier in the Mishna.

Is it not

necessarily the case that this is what the Mishna said

to exclude returning

the

signs to behind the nape, which is not so,

that it is not valid for melika, but rather he must specifically cut the vertebrae before the signs. Even though with slaughtering it is valid when he returned the signs. And this is what the Mishna comes to teach us: that there is an additional manner not mentioned earlier, which is valid with slaughtering and invalid with melika [and incidentally, because of the first clause, the latter clause was also taught, that which is valid with melika is invalid with slaughtering]. And this is difficult for the sons of Rabbi Hiyya, who validate melika when he returned the signs to behind the nape?

And we answer on behalf of the sons of Rabbi Hiyya:

Rabba bar bar Hana said: No,

the Mishna does not come to exclude this, but rather

to exclude a tooth and a fingernail

which are attached to a person’s body, which are invalid for slaughtering, even though the commandment of melika is specifically with a fingernail attached to the body of the kohen. And this is the meaning of the Mishna’s statement that “valid with melika,” namely, with an attached fingernail, “invalid with slaughtering.”

And just as an attached fingernail is invalid for slaughtering, so too an attached tooth; it is not that the tooth is valid for melika. And incidentally, because of the latter clause, the first clause was also taught: “valid with slaughtering, invalid with melika.”

And we raise an objection:

A tooth and a fingernail,

is

it explicitly taught them

in the Mishna in our chapter, that they are invalid for slaughtering. For thus we learned: “Except for a harvest sickle, a saw, the teeth, and the fingernail”? And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Our Mishna, which says “it is found valid with slaughtering, invalid with melika,”

comes to exclude moving back and forth,

which is valid with slaughtering, to move the knife back and forth upon the neck of the animal, whereas the commandment of melika is specifically to press with the fingernail upon the nape and descend deeply until the signs. And if he moved the fingernail back and forth upon the nape, the melika is invalid.

And we raise an objection:

This works well according to the one who says that moving back and forth in melika is invalid.

But according to the one who says

moving back and forth in melika is

valid,

as the amoraim dispute below,

what is there to say?

And we answer:

The sons of Rabbi Hiyya hold in accordance with the one who says that moving back and forth in melika is invalid.

And if so, according to their view, it is possible to establish the Mishna as coming to exclude moving back and forth in melika.

Rav Kahana said: The commandment of melika

is as follows:

he chops and descends

with the fingernail into the signs, and he does not perform moving back and forth,

and this is its commandment.

Rabbi Avin thought to say: “He chops and descends”—yes.

But

“he moves back and forth”—no.

For moving back and forth disqualifies melika.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him

to Rav Avin: Not so; rather,

all the more so, moving back and forth in melika is valid.

For aside from those matters that the Torah disqualified if he performed melika like slaughtering, such as a knife and the neck, everything that he does as with slaughtering is preferable, including moving back and forth.

And what is the meaning of “and this is its commandment,”

which Rav Kahana said, implying that melika is valid only in this manner?

Say instead: “This too is its commandment.”

For even if he did not move back and forth, the melika is valid, and all the more so if he moved back and forth.

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: Every

place on the neck

that is valid for slaughtering,

the place that is

opposite it on the nape,

namely, “opposite the nape,” which is opposite the neck,

is valid for melika.

And the Gemara analyzes: What does Shmuel come to teach? If he comes to teach us that all of “opposite the nape” is valid for melika, this was explicitly taught in our Mishna. Rather, certainly the essential novelty in his words is what may be inferred from them: that specifically the place that is valid for slaughtering is valid opposite it for melika;

but

the place that is

invalid for slaughtering is invalid

opposite it

for melika.

To exclude what?

It certainly does not come to exclude the area above the neck, which is invalid for slaughtering, so that opposite it is invalid for melika. For this place is the nape itself, and it is obvious that it is invalid, since “opposite the nape” is stated in the Torah.

If you say it comes to exclude uprooting of the signs,

where the signs were uprooted and displaced from their place, whereby the neck becomes invalid for slaughtering, and Shmuel came to say that the nape opposite it is likewise invalid for melika if the signs were uprooted, this cannot be said, for

Rami bar Ezekiel taught: The uprooting of the signs does not

disqualify

in

slaughtering of

a bird!

It follows that in the case of a bird, even with regard to slaughtering, the uprooting of the signs does not disqualify.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: To exclude its head

of the bird, where slaughtering is invalid. And Shmuel comes to teach us that melika is likewise invalid if he performed it on the bird’s head.

And we are astonished:

Its head,

behold, it is

obvious

that it is invalid for melika, for

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

And we answer:

What is meant by “its head”? —

the slope of its head,

at the end of the head, where it begins to slope there toward opposite the nape.

For example, he grasped from the slope of its head,

where he began the melika, and pinched a minority of the signs,

and drew along and went until he reached the lower ones.

He continued along the slope downward until he reached opposite the nape, and there he pinched the majority of the signs. And even though the majority was in the place fit for melika, nevertheless the melika is invalid, because the initial minority was in a place not fit for melika.

And we find this law also with regard to slaughtering.

And this is like what Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Asi.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Asi: If he drew along for one-third,

where he slaughtered the first third of the sign in a place not fit for slaughtering,

and

afterward

slaughtered two-thirds

in a place fit for slaughtering—

it is invalid!

And Shmuel teaches us that just as slaughtering becomes invalid because of the initial minority, which was not in a valid place, even though the majority was in a valid place, so too, the melika becomes invalid through this.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: As for that which Rami bar Ezekiel taught, “The uprooting of the signs does not

disqualify

in

slaughtering of

a bird”—we said this only according to the one who says: “There is no slaughtering of a bird from the Torah.”

For the tannaim disputed this, and there is a tanna who says that a bird is not obligated in slaughtering by Torah law, but only by rabbinic law, because only “And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks” was stated in the Torah; and by Torah law it is permitted to eat a bird even if they killed it by stabbing or by uprooting the signs. And since all slaughtering in the case of a bird is only rabbinic, Rabbi Rami bar Ezekiel said that uprooting the signs does not disqualify its slaughtering.