Chullin 21a — the Talmud in English

In any event, this is difficult:

Rava’s objection to Zeiri, that “when it has died, he stands and performs melika”!?

And we answer:

Rava said: Say: And this is how he performs it

in every melika of a consecrated bird:

he cuts the spine and the neck vertebrae without the majority

of

the flesh

that is upon them, so that because of this it is still not considered dead [for Zeiri said specifically together with the majority of the flesh], 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 the majority of the flesh, as follows].

When he went up

when

Rabbi Zeira

went up

he found Rabbi Ami sitting and stating this teaching

of Zeiri: that if the neck vertebrae were broken and the majority of the flesh with them, it is a nevela.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Ami:

“But when it has died, does he stand and perform melika?”

Like Rava’s objection.

Rabbi Ami was stunned

Rabbi Ami

for one hour,

he considered what to answer him,

he said to him

Rabbi Ami to Rabbi Zeira:

“Say: This is how he performs it: he cuts the spine and the neck vertebrae without the majority of the flesh.”

Like Rava’s resolution.

It was also taught so

that he cuts without the majority of the flesh, for it was taught:

“How does one perform melika on the bird sin-offering? He cuts the spine and the neck vertebrae without the majority of the flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. When he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts

one siman or the majority of it. For this is the law of the bird sin-offering, that its melika is with only one siman, since it is said concerning it, ‘and he shall not divide it.’”

And the majority

of the width of

the flesh

that is upon the neck vertebrae, he cuts

with it,

with the siman, that is, after the melika of the siman.

And with the bird burnt-offering

he cuts

two

the two simanim

or the majority of two.

It is explicit, then, that he cuts the majority of the flesh not together with the spine and the neck vertebrae, but only after the melika of the simanim.

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

whose

is it?

If

it is like

the Rabbis, they say: “Two” specifically,

it is necessary to perform melika on both in the bird burnt-offering, and the majority of the two is not sufficient.

If it is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

it

he says: “The majority of two”

specifically is what he performs melika on in the bird burnt-offering, and not both of the two? [The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon is brought later in the sugya.]

And we answer:

Say

this is the explanation of the beraita:

“Two” according to the Rabbis; “the majority of two” according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

And if you wish, say: Both,

both what is said in the beraita, “two,” and what is said, “the majority of two,”

are Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

who holds that the majority of two is sufficient,

and what is “two”?

The majority of two

that resembles two.

For initially one must perform melika on a generous majority, through which it appears as though both have been cut, whereas what is said, “or the majority 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 vertebrae were broken

his

and the majority of the flesh with them

he is considered dead, and he

conveys impurity through a tent.

And if you will say, that incident involving Eli

which is written about him—that his neck vertebrae were broken and through this he died—then

it was the neck vertebrae without the majority of the flesh

there; and how did he die?

And we answer:

Old age is different.

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

as it is written [I Samuel 4], “

When he mentioned the Ark of God, he fell from upon the chair backward beside the gate, his neck vertebrae broke, and he died, for the man was old and heavy, and so on.”

“And when he mentioned the Ark of God, he fell backward from his chair beside the gate, 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 twitching, he is already considered dead, and he

conveys impurity through a tent.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And from his back,

specifically when he was torn from the side of the back does he become like a dead person.

Shmuel said:

An animal that

he made into a gistera

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

a nevela.

Rabbi Elazar said:

An animal from which

the thigh was removed

from the place where it is attached to the body,

and its cavity,

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

a nevela.

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of “its cavity”?

Rava said: Any one that is crouching

the animal

and it appears

that the thigh is

missing.

For even while it is crouching, when ordinarily the thigh is covered, nevertheless the absence of the thigh is discernible.

We learned there

in tractate Oholot [1:6]: The eight creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, whose law is that they convey impurity after their death, if

their heads were severed,

then

even though

they are still

twitching, they are impure.

For the twitching does not indicate that life still remains in them; rather, it is

like the tail of a lizard

that was cut from the lizard,

which twitches,

for the tail still twitches even after it has been cut off.

And the Gemara asks:

What is “their heads were severed”?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said: They were actually severed

such that the entire head was cut off from them.

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

He said to him,

he asked

Rabbi Yirmeya of Rabbi Asi:

What you said, “like the division of the bird burnt-offering”—did you mean

like the division of the bird burnt-offering according to the Rabbis,

who hold that it is necessary to cut both of the simanim entirely in the bird burnt-offering, and this is the explanation of “their heads were severed” in the Mishna,

and you do not disagree

you and Reish Lakish, for according to your view as well, only when they were actually severed, that is, when both simanim were cut, are they considered dead?

Or perhaps

you meant

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

who holds that the majority of the two is sufficient in the bird burnt-offering.

And you do disagree

you and Reish Lakish, for according to your view, even if they were not actually severed, but only the majority of the simanim was cut, they are already considered dead?

He said to him

Rabbi Asi to Rabbi Yirmeya:

Like the division of the bird burnt-offering according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

And I and Reish Lakish disagree.

Some say: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They were actually severed,

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

that is,

with the majority of two.

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

And the Gemara asks:

What are the Rabbis, and what is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

Where do we find that they disagreed concerning the measure of the melika of the bird burnt-offering?

And we answer:

For it was taught,

it is said in the Torah [Leviticus 5], in the section of 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. And after the order of offering the sin-offering was written, it is written, “

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

And it implies, according to the law of another offering. That is,

according to the law of an animal sin-offering

stated in the section before the law of the poor person’s offering, where the wealthy person brings an animal sin-offering. And since the poor person’s offering takes the place of the wealthy person’s animal sin-offering, therefore the law of the bird burnt-offering in his offering is like the law of an animal sin-offering. Later it will be explained with regard to which laws they are equated.

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

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

When it says

in the voluntary bird burnt-offering, “

And he shall bring it

the priest to the altar and perform melika on its head,” we can learn from this that it did not say “and he shall bring” but “and he shall bring it”: its bringing is different from the bringing of another offering. We learn that

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

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

And 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 establish “according to the law”?

Necessarily,

according to the law of an animal sin-offering: