Chullin 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

And if you should conclude that he returns the signs specifically,

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

why specifically does it mention pinching

which is valid from the nape? Surely

even slaughter

from the nape

also

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

Rather, must one not conclude

that the sons of Rabbi Hiyya

also say that he returns

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

And our Mishna

is speaking

without returning

the signs; rather, he cut the spinal column and the neck vertebrae before pinching the signs. Therefore, only melika is valid in this manner, whereas slaughter performed in this manner is invalid, since the bird had already become a tereifa through the breaking of the neck vertebrae.

Rabbi Yannai said: Let the young men accept their answer,

the sons of Rabbi Hiyya,

to their refutation.

For they can be challenged from our Mishna,

which teaches: “It follows that what is valid for slaughter is invalid for melika, and what is valid for melika is invalid for slaughter.” What does this exclude?

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

Is it not

necessarily the case that the Mishna said this

to exclude returning

the

signs behind the nape, which is not permitted,

as it is not valid for melika; rather, one must specifically cut the neck vertebrae before the signs. Although in slaughter it is valid if he returns the signs, this is what the Mishna comes to teach us: There is an additional case not previously mentioned, one that is valid for slaughter and invalid for melika [and, by virtue of the first clause, the latter clause was also taught: what is valid for melika is invalid for slaughter]. This presents a difficulty for the sons of Rabbi Hiyya, who validate melika when the signs are returned behind the nape?

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

attached to a person’s body, which are invalid for slaughter, even though the mitzva of melika is specifically performed with a fingernail attached to the kohen’s body. This is the meaning of the Mishna’s statement that “what is valid for melika”—namely, with an attached fingernail—“is invalid for slaughter.”

Just as an attached fingernail is invalid for slaughter, so too an attached tooth is invalid; it is not that the tooth is valid for melika. And, by virtue of the latter clause, the first clause was also taught: “What is valid for slaughter is invalid for melika.”

And we challenge this:

A tooth and a fingernail—

is

it not explicitly taught concerning them

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

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Our Mishna’s statement that “it follows that what is valid for slaughter is invalid for melika” comes

to exclude moving back and forth,

which is valid in slaughter, to move the knife back and forth across the animal’s neck, whereas the mitzva of melika is specifically to press the fingernail against the nape and descend deeply until the signs. If he moved the fingernail back and forth across the nape, the melika is invalid.

And we challenge this:

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

But according to the one who says

that moving back and forth in melika is

valid,

as the amoraim will later disagree about this,

what can be said?

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.

If so, according to their view, the Mishna can be understood as coming to exclude moving back and forth in melika.

Rav Kahana said: The mitzva of melika

is as follows:

He cuts and descends

with the fingernail into the signs, and he does not move it back and forth;

and this is its mitzva.

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

But

moving back and forth—not.

Moving back and forth invalidates melika.

Rabbi Yirmeya said

to Rav Avin: That is not so. Rather,

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

Apart from those things that the Torah invalidated if one performed melika as slaughter, such as using a knife and the neck, anything he does in the manner of slaughter is preferable, including moving back and forth.

And what does “and this is its mitzva”

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

Say instead: “This too is its mitzva.”

Even if he did not move it back and forth, the melika is valid, and certainly if he did move it back and forth.

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: Every

place on the neck

that is valid for slaughter,

the place that is

opposite it on the nape,

that is, “opposite the nape,” corresponding to the neck,

is valid for melika.

The Gemara analyzes: What did Shmuel come to teach? If he came to teach that the entire area opposite the nape is valid for melika, we explicitly learned this in our Mishna. Rather, certainly the principal novelty of his statement is what can be inferred from it: Only a place that is valid for slaughter is valid opposite it for melika;

but

the place that is

invalid for slaughter is invalid

opposite it

for melika.

What does this exclude?

Certainly, it does not come to exclude the area above the neck, which is invalid for slaughter, so that the corresponding area would be invalid for melika. For that area is the nape itself, and it is obvious that it is invalid, since the Torah said “opposite the nape.”

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

where the signs were torn loose and displaced from their places, thereby rendering the neck unfit for slaughter, and Shmuel came to say that the nape opposite it is likewise invalid for melika if the signs were dislocated, this cannot be said, since

Rami bar Yehezkel taught: The dislocation of the signs

does not invalidate

the

slaughter of

a bird!

Thus, in the case of a bird, even with regard to slaughter, the dislocation of the signs does not invalidate it.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: It comes to exclude the head

of the bird, where slaughter is invalid. Shmuel came to teach that melika is likewise invalid if it was performed on the bird’s head.

And we wonder:

Its head—

is it not

obvious

that it is invalid for melika, since

“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 toward the area opposite the nape.

For example, where he took hold beginning at the slope of its head,

and began the melika there, pinching a minority of the signs,

and he sloped downward until he reached the lower area.

He continued along the slope downward until he reached the area opposite the nape, and there he pinched the majority of the signs. Although the majority was in the appropriate place for melika, the melika is nevertheless invalid, because the initial minority was in a place unfit for melika.

We find this law with regard to slaughter as well,

as in the statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav Asi.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Asi: If he sloped through one-third,

slaughtering the first third of the sign in a place unfit for slaughter,

and

afterward

slaughtered two-thirds

in a place fit for slaughter—

it is invalid!

Shmuel teaches us that just as slaughter is invalidated because of the initial minority, which was not in a fit place, even though the majority was in a fit place, so too melika is invalidated in this manner.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This statement taught by Rami bar Yehezkel, that the dislocation of the signs does not invalidate

invalidate

the

slaughter of

a bird, was stated only according to the one who says that there is no Torah obligation of slaughter for a bird.

The tanna’im disagreed about this, and there is a tanna who says that a bird is not obligated by the Torah to undergo slaughter, but only by rabbinic law, since the Torah stated only, “And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks.” According to Torah law, it is permitted to eat a bird even if it was killed by stabbing or by tearing out the signs. And since all slaughter of a bird is only rabbinic, Rabbi bar Yehezkel said that the dislocation of the signs does not invalidate its slaughter.