Chullin 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

In any event, it is difficult:

the difficulty raised by Rava against Ze'iri is: “Does he stand and perform melika once it has died?!”

And we answer:

Rava said: Say instead: This is how he performs it

in every melika of a bird-offering:

he cuts the spine and the neck without cutting through most

of the

flesh

that is upon it, so that it is still not considered dead—for Ze'iri said specifically that it is considered dead when most of the flesh is cut as well—and afterward he performs melika on the simanim, so that the melika is not performed on a bird that is already dead [and after the melika of the simanim, he cuts through most of the flesh, as follows].

When

Rabbi Zeira

ascended

to Eretz Yisrael,

he found Rabbi Ami sitting and reciting this teaching

of Ze'iri: If an animal's neck was broken and most of the flesh with it, it is a neveila.

Rabbi Zeira said to him

Rabbi Ami:

“Does he stand and perform melika once it has died?”

This was the same difficulty raised by Rava.

Rabbi Ami was astonished

for

one hour,

as he considered what to answer him.

Rabbi Ami said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

“Say instead: This is how he performs it: He cuts the spine and the neck without cutting through most of the flesh.”

This was like Rava's resolution.

This was also taught

in a beraita, that he cuts without cutting through most of the flesh, as it was taught:

“How is the melika of a bird sin-offering performed? He cuts the spine and the neck without cutting through most of the flesh, until he reaches the esophagus or the trachea. Once he reaches the esophagus or the trachea, he cuts

one siman or most of it. For this is the law of a bird sin-offering: Its melika is performed on only one siman, as it is stated concerning it, ‘And he shall not divide’.”

And most

of the width of the

flesh

that is upon the neck, he cuts

with it,

together with the siman—that is, after performing melika on the siman.

But for a burnt-offering

he cuts

two,

the two simanim,

or most of two.

It is therefore explicit that he does not cut through most of the flesh together with the spine and neck, but only after performing melika on the simanim.

The Gemara asks: This beraita, which teaches concerning the bird burnt-offering, “two or most of two,”

whose

opinion is it?

If

it is according to

the Sages, they say: “Two” specifically,

so one must perform melika on both simanim of the bird burnt-offering; cutting through most of the two is not sufficient.

If it is according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

whose opinion

is that “most of two”

is specifically required for the melika of the bird burnt-offering, and not both entire simanim? [The dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is cited later in the sugya.]

And we answer:

Say

that this is the meaning of the beraita:

“Two,” according to the Sages; “most of two,” according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

—both the statement in the beraita that says “two” and the statement that says “most of two”—

are the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that most of two is sufficient.

And what is the meaning of “two”?

Most of two,

which resembles two.

Ideally, one must perform melika on a substantial majority, so that it appears as though the entire two have been cut; and the statement “or most of two” means that if he cut only a precise majority, it is also valid.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

A person whose

neck was broken

and

most of the flesh with it

is considered dead and

transmits impurity through a tent.

And if you say: What of that incident involving Eli,

where it is written that his neck was broken and as a result he died?

It was a neck broken without most of the flesh,

so how did he die?

And we answer:

Old age is different.

Eli was old, and therefore he died through the breaking of his neck alone,

as it is written

[I Samuel 4]: “

And it came to pass, when he mentioned the Ark of God, that he fell backward from beside the gate, and his neck broke, and he died, for the man was old and heavy, and so on.”

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A person whose

body was torn

him

like a fish,

even if he is still convulsing, is already considered dead and

transmits impurity through a tent.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And from his back,

he becomes considered dead specifically when his body is torn from the back.

Shmuel said:

An animal whose body

has been made into a gistera—

that is, it was cut across its width, whether at the neck, where the entire neck was cut, or at the spine, where it was cut across and the cut reached the body cavity [anything cut into two is called a “gistera”]—this animal is

a neveila.

Rabbi Elazar said:

An animal from which

the thigh was removed

at the place where it is attached to the body,

and its cavity,

meaning that not only the bone but also all the flesh and skin upon it were removed, leaving a cavity there, is

a neveila.

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of “its cavity”?

Rava said: Any case in which it is crouching

and the animal's thigh

is visible as

being

missing.

Even while it is crouching, when the thigh is generally concealed, the absence of the thigh is nevertheless discernible.

We learned there

in tractate Oholot [1:6]: The eight creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, which transmit impurity after their death, if

their heads have been severed,

then

even though

they are still

convulsing, they are impure.

For the convulsion does not indicate that they are still alive; rather, this is

like the tail of a lizard

that has been severed from the lizard,

which convulses,

as the tail still convulses even after it has been cut off.

The Gemara asks:

What is the meaning of “their heads have been severed”?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said: They have literally been severed,

meaning that their entire heads were cut off.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Mani: Like the dividing of a bird burnt-offering.

He said to him,

asking

Rabbi Asi

about what he had said, “Like the dividing of a bird burnt-offering”: Do you mean

like the dividing of a bird burnt-offering according to the Sages,

who hold that both simanim of a bird burnt-offering must be cut completely? Is this the meaning of “their heads have been severed” in the Mishna,

and you do not disagree

with Reish Lakish, since according to your view as well, they are considered dead only when they have literally been severed, that is, when both simanim have been cut?

Or perhaps

you mean

like the dividing of a bird burnt-offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that most of the two simanim is sufficient for a bird burnt-offering.

And you do disagree

with Reish Lakish, since according to your view, even if they have not been literally severed, but only most of the simanim have been cut, they are already considered dead?

Rabbi Asi said to him

Rabbi Yirmeya:

Like the dividing of a bird burnt-offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

Thus, Reish Lakish and I disagree.

Some say: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They have literally been severed,

and Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Mani: Like the dividing of a bird burnt-offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

that is,

through most of the two.

According to this version, Rabbi Yirmeya did not ask Rabbi Asi anything, since he explicitly explained his opinion to him.

The Gemara asks:

What are “the Sages,” and what is “Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon”?

Where do we find that they disagree about the measure required for the melika of a bird burnt-offering?

And we answer:

As it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 5], in the passage concerning the “ascending and descending” offering, that a poor person brings two birds for his sin, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering. After the order of the offering of the sin-offering is written, it is written: “

And he shall make the second a burnt-offering according to the law.”

This implies: according to the law of another offering. That is,

according to the law of an animal sin-offering

stated in the passage before the law of the poor person's offering, where a wealthy person brings an animal sin-offering. Since the poor person's offering takes the place of the wealthy person's animal sin-offering, the law of the bird burnt-offering that he brings is therefore like the law of an animal sin-offering. The Gemara will explain below the particular laws to which they are equated.

You say: “According to the law of an animal sin-offering”; or perhaps it is only according to the law of a bird sin-offering,

which is written before the bird burnt-offering, and thus he should perform the bird burnt-offering accordingly—that is, he should perform melika on only one siman, as with the bird sin-offering concerning which it is written: “And he shall not divide”?

When it says

with regard to the voluntary bird burnt-offering, “

And he shall bring it

to the altar, and he shall perform melika on its head,” we learn from the fact that it does not say “and he shall bring” but “and he shall bring it,” indicating that its offering differs from that of another offering, that

the verse distinguished between the bird sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering

so that the manner of their melika should not be the same; rather, the bird burnt-offering requires melika on both simanim.

If so, it is impossible to say that “according to the law” means according to the law of a bird sin-offering. Rather,

how do I understand “according to the law”?

It must be

according to the law of an animal sin-offering: