Chullin 27a — the Talmud in English

The Mishna teaches the measure of slaughter, and the difference between an animal and a bird in this law.

Mishna:

One who slaughters

one

one in a bird, and

one who slaughters

two in an animal —

his slaughter is valid.

And the majority of

each

one

and one of these signs,

is like it,

for one who slaughters the majority of it is considered as one who slaughters all of it, and this is according to the principle that “the majority is like the whole”.

Rabbi Judah says:

Even though the slaughter itself is valid when he slaughters the signs, the slaughterer does not slaughter according to law

until he slaughters

also

the veins

through which the blood flows, in order to remove the blood.

One who slaughters

half

of one sign

in a bird,

and

likewise one who slaughters

one and a half in an animal,

that is, he slaughtered one sign in its entirety, and another half of the second sign —

his slaughter is invalid,

and we do not say that since in total he slaughtered the majority of the two signs, he is considered as one who slaughtered all of them, but he must slaughter the majority of each and every sign.

One who slaughters

the majority of one in a bird and the majority of two in an animal —

his slaughter is valid.

The Gemara explains what the Mishna adds here.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters one in a bird and two in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

And we infer: From the wording

“one who slaughters,”

it is implied

after the fact, yes,

but

initially, not

should he slaughter in this manner.

And we raise an objection:

Two in an animal, initially not? How far should he slaughter and continue?! [How much must he continue slaughtering?!]

After all, the law of slaughter concerns the signs, and he slaughtered them completely; certainly, even initially he need not cut the entire head.

And we answer:

If you wish, say:

The expression “after the fact” applies

to one in a bird,

for in its case the Sages required one initially to slaughter both signs, lest he fail to slaughter the majority of the first one.

And if you wish, say:

In truth, it is never necessary to slaughter two signs in a bird, even initially, and the expression “after the fact” refers to the continuation of the Mishna,

“the majority of one is like it,”

for initially one must slaughter the entire sign in a bird, and both entire signs in an animal.

Now the Gemara brings the words of tannaim and amoraim who expounded the laws of slaughter from the Torah, and in the course of the discussion the source for the law of the Mishna, that one must slaughter two signs in an animal and one sign in a bird, will be explained.

There are amoraim who learned the laws of slaughter from the slaughter mentioned with regard to consecrated offerings, because the slaughter of an animal is essentially identical in non-sacred and consecrated slaughter.

And the Gemara gives a mnemonic of the initial letters of their statements:

The mnemonic is: As is written.

Rav Kahana said: From where [do we know] that slaughter is from the neck

and not from another place on the animal’s body?

For it is stated

with regard to bringing an offering:

“And he shall slaughter the young bull” [

Leviticus 1:5], and the wording “he slaughtered” [shahat — shin-hetet] indicates the place of slaughter, for it implies:

From the place where

the young bull

bows,

bends down, there

purify it,

cleanse it, purify it; that is, make it fit for eating by removing its blood from there.

And the Gemara explains:

From where [do we know] that this “purify it” —

is an expression of cleansing

? [From where will we know that “purify it” is an expression of cleansing?]

[From where do we know that “purify it” means cleansing?]

For it is written

with regard to the afflictions of houses:

“And he shall purify the house” [

Leviticus 14:52]. That is, he shall clean the house and make it fit by removing its impurity.

And if you wish, say:

One can learn that “purifying” is an expression of making fit and purification

from here,

for it is written:

“You shall purify me with hyssop, and I shall be pure” [

Psalms 51:9].

And the Gemara asks: From where does Rav Kahana know that “from the place where it bows, purify it” refers to the neck?

And let us say:

Perhaps we should say that the place of slaughter is

from its tail,

which is always bent!

And we answer:

“Bows,”

its meaning is that it bends itself; therefore

from the implication

of this you learn

that upright

ordinarily

is required.

And this is the neck, which is upright when the ox walks, and the ox bends it when it stands and eats,

but

whereas

this,

the tail,

is bent and remains so

all the time.

But the Gemara still asks:

And let us say

that slaughter is

from its ear,

which the ox can bend whenever it wishes?!

And it explains: Since “and he shall slaughter” was stated with regard to the slaughter of consecrated offerings [“and he shall slaughter the young bull”], and with regard to consecrated offerings

the blood of the life

is required for sprinkling on the altar, as it is written: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives” [Leviticus 17:11] — thus, the blood through which the life departs is that which effects atonement —

and there is not

blood of the life when slaughtering at the ear.

But the Gemara still asks:

And let us say:

Perhaps we should indeed say that slaughter is at the ear, but it is in a manner

that he tears

its ear,

and goes until he reaches [

and goes until he reaches]

the blood of the life!

Furthermore

we object to Rav Kahana: The laws of slaughter, that five matters invalidate slaughter —

pausing, pressing, concealment, cutting beyond the proper area, and tearing out — from where [are they derived]? Rather,

it is necessarily

a tradition

[a received teaching], that they are “a law given to Moses at Sinai.” And if so,

slaughter from the neck is also a tradition

! For the entire nature of “cutting beyond the proper area” is that the slaughter is not performed in the neck, since this is what was said to Moses at Sinai. And it is proven that this is not in accordance with Rav Huna, who learns it from “and he shall slaughter the young bull.”

And for what does the verse “

and he shall slaughter the young bull”

come?

To say

that he should not make it a “gistera,”

that he should not cut the spinal column as well and thereby separate the head from the body entirely, for this is implied by the wording “purify it”: that he should remove its blood, and no more.

Rav Yemar said:

From where [do we know] that slaughter is from the neck?

The verse says

concerning the slaughter of non-sacred animals:

“And you shall slaughter

from your cattle and from your flocks, and you shall eat” [Deuteronomy 12:21]; the wording of slaughter indicates that

from the place

where its blood

flows —

purify it!

And when one cuts the neck, much more blood flows than from other places on the body.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the implication that this “purify it” —

is an expression of breaking? [From where will we know that “purify it” is an expression of breaking?]

[From where do we know that “slaughter it” means breaking?]

For it is written, “Do not fear and do not be broken” [

Deuteronomy 1:21], and the meaning of “do not be broken” is: do not break.

And we object:

And let us say:

Perhaps, you might say, the slaughter should be

from its snout,

which constantly discharges moisture, for the word “slaughter” does not specifically allude to the flowing of blood!

And we answer: There is an indication that the thing that flows

must flow through breaking,

that is, through slaughter, and this is blood,

whereas this

moisture

flows by itself.

And we object:

And let us say

that the slaughter should be

from its heart,

for if he cuts there, much blood will flow?

Furthermore

we object:

Pausing, pressing, concealment, cutting beyond the proper area, and tearing out — from where [do we know]

that they invalidate slaughter?

Rather,

necessarily,

a tradition,

a law given to Moses at Sinai, it is; if so,

slaughter from the neck is also a tradition,

a law given to Moses at Sinai!

And

perhaps you might say: If it is a law given to Moses at Sinai, then

the verse

“and you shall slaughter”

for what does it come?

To say

that he should not make it a gistera.

For this is implied by the wording “flows — purify it”: that he should cut only as far as the spinal column so that the blood will flow, and no more is necessary.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

From where [do we know] that slaughter is from the neck? For it is stated:

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull” [

Leviticus 1:5].

Do not read “and he shall slaughter” but “and he shall squeeze,”

and expound it:

From the place where it squeezes,

which produces sound, that is, the throat, from there

purify it,

cleanse it by removing its blood, and thereby make it fit for eating; and this is the neck.

And say:

perhaps you will say,

from its tongue

it is necessary to slaughter from it, for the tongue too assists in bringing out the voice!?

Your answer is:

we require

in the slaughter of sacrificial offerings, of which the verse speaks, the bringing out of

the blood of the life,

in order to sprinkle it upon the altar,

and it is not present.

For the blood of the tongue is not blood through which the life departs.

But it is still difficult:

and say

the slaughter should be with the tongue, in a manner

that he tears and proceeds,

so that he begins by cutting the tongue and continues and tears

until

he reaches the place of

the blood of the life?!

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

pausing, pressing, concealment, deviation, and uprooting—from where do we know

that they invalidate slaughter?

Rather,

necessarily,

Gemara

it is; they are learned from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and if so,

slaughter from the neck likewise is a Gemara,

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

and

if so,

for what purpose did the verse come?

That he should not make it a gistera!

So that he should not cut the spinal column, but should cut only at the place at which he cut, for this is the meaning of the verse: “Purify it”—its fitness for eating בלבד, and no more.

And the tanna

of Torat Kohanim,

brings it,

learning and bringing the law of slaughter from the neck from the laws of offering the sacrifice,

from here:

For it was taught: Rabbi Hiyya said: From where [do we know] that slaughter

that it is

from the neck?

For it is stated

with regard to the offering of a young bull as a burnt offering,

“And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall arrange the pieces,

the head and the peder upon the wood that is upon the fire that is upon the altar” [Leviticus 1:8].

For it does not need to say [that it is unnecessary to write]

in the verse

“the head and the peder,”

since there is no reason that they should not burn the head and the fats like all the limbs of the burnt offering, and if so,

what is the purpose of saying [what does it come to teach us]

what does it come to teach us

“the head and the peder”? But surely the head and the peder were included among all the pieces

mentioned in the verse

were,

and if so,

why were they singled out

and written separately by themselves?

Because it was stated

earlier in the passage

“And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut

it into its pieces” [Leviticus 1:7], and afterward it was stated with regard to burning it, “And the sons of Aaron shall arrange the pieces,” and it would have meant that the pieces mentioned with regard to burning are those same pieces concerning which it was stated, “And he shall flay and cut.”

And if so,

I have

among what is included in burning

only pieces that are included in flaying.

From where [do we know] to include

also for burning

the head, which has already been severed

in the slaughter. And this means that its life has already been taken from it at the time its signs were cut, and it is as though it were separated from the body [and it is not flayed, but is offered as it is]?

The verse therefore says

in the burnt offering of the flock, “And he shall cut it into its pieces

, and its head, and its peder. And the priest shall arrange

them upon the wood that is upon the fire” [Leviticus 1:12]. Thus the Torah specified the head, to say that it is included in the burning, like the pieces arranged upon the wood.

And from here there is proof that slaughter is from the neck, for

from the fact that

the tanna says that the Torah included [the head], so that

“the head, which has already been severed,” is burned, from this general principle

you learn

that slaughter is from the neck,

and it is as though the head were separated from the body.

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

And the tanna began with “head and peder

mentioned in the first passage concerning the offering of a young bull, where the Torah’s wording is “the head and the peder,”

and concluded with “its head” and “its peder

mentioned in the second passage concerning the offering of the flock, where the Torah’s wording is “and its head and its peder”!

And we answer: the wording of the beraita must be corrected and words must be added to it, and

this is what

the tanna says at the beginning of his words:

From where [do we know] to include the head, which has already been severed? The verse says

in the case of the young bull

“the head and the peder,”

in the first passage.

And the Gemara discusses:

And “its head” and “its peder

mentioned in the second passage, concerning the burnt offering of the flock,

what do I need them for?

It is needed for that which was taught

in another beraita, for it was taught:

From where [do we know] that the head and the peder precede

bringing them up onto the ramp

all the other pieces?

The verse says, “And its head and its peder, and he shall arrange.”

The Torah taught here that the head and the peder are brought up onto the ramp before the other pieces.