Chullin 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

The Mishna teaches the measure required for slaughter and the difference between an animal and a bird in this matter.

Mishna:

One who slaughters

one

sign in a bird, and

one who slaughters

two signs in an animal—

his slaughter is valid.

And the majority of

each

one

of each of these signs,

is equivalent to the whole,

for one who slaughters the majority is considered as one who slaughters the whole, in accordance with the principle that “the majority is equivalent to the whole.”

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Although the slaughter itself is valid when he slaughters the signs, the slaughterer has not slaughtered 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, altogether, he slaughtered the majority of the two signs, he is considered as one who slaughtered them all, but he must slaughter the majority of each and every sign.

One who slaughters

the majority of one sign in a bird and the majority of two signs 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 sign in a bird and two in an animal, his slaughter is valid.

And we infer: From the wording

“one who slaughters,”

it implies

after the fact, yes,

but

ideally, no,

he should not slaughter in this manner.

And we raise an objection:

Ideally, two in an animal is not sufficient? How far should he continue slaughtering?!

[How much must he continue to slaughter?!] The law of slaughter applies to the signs, and he has slaughtered them completely; surely he need not cut through the entire head, even ideally.

And we answer:

Alternatively,

the expression indicating after-the-fact validity refers

to one in a bird,

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

Alternatively,

perhaps it is never necessary to slaughter both signs in a bird, even ideally , and the expression indicating after-the-fact validity refers to the continuation of the Mishna,

“the majority of one is equivalent to the whole,”

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

The Gemara now cites the words of tannaim and amoraim who derived the laws of slaughter from the Torah; in the course of their discussion, the source for the Mishna’s law that two signs must be slaughtered in an animal and one sign in a bird will be explained.

Some amoraim learned the laws of slaughter from the slaughter mentioned with regard to consecrated offerings, because the fundamental basis of slaughtering an animal is the same with regard to non-sacred animals and consecrated offerings.

The Gemara provides an acronym as a mnemonic for their statements:

The mnemonic is: K-M-Sh.

Rav Kahana said: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed at the neck

and not elsewhere on the animal’s body?

As it is stated

with regard to offering a sacrifice:

“And he shall slaughter the young bull”

[Leviticus 1:5], and the word “slaughtered” [shahat—shin-hetet] indicates the location of slaughter, as follows:

From the place where

the young bull

bends,

that is, bends down, there

slaughter it,

cleanse it and purify it; that is, render it fit to eat by removing its blood from there.

The Gemara explains:

From where do we know that this word “slaughter it”

is an expression of cleansing

?

[How do we know that “slaughter it” is an expression of cleansing?]

As it is written

with regard to the affliction of houses:

“And he shall cleanse the house”

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

Alternatively,

one can learn that cleansing is an expression of rendering fit and purification

from here,

as it is written:

“Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be pure”

[Psalms 51:9].

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Kahana know that “from the place where it bends, slaughter it” refers to the neck?

But perhaps

we should say that the place of slaughter is

its tail,

which is always bent!

And we answer:

“Bends”

means that it bends itself; therefore,

by inference

you learn that it is

upright

ordinarily

that is required.

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

whereas

the

latter,

the tail,

is bent and remains so

all the time.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

But perhaps

slaughter is performed

at its ear,

which the ox can bend whenever it wishes?!

The Gemara explains: Since “and he shall slaughter” is 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 soul

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

and there is no

blood of the soul when slaughtering at the ear.

The Gemara nevertheless asks:

But perhaps

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

that he tears

the ear

and proceeds until he reaches

[and proceeds until he reaches]

the blood of the soul!

Furthermore,

we raise an objection to Rav Kahana: What is the source of the laws of slaughter, that five matters invalidate slaughter—

pausing, pressing, concealing, deviating, and uprooting; from where are they derived? Rather,

it is necessarily the case that

a received tradition

[a tradition] from “a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.” And if so,

slaughter at the neck is also a received tradition,

as the entire nature of “deviating” is that the slaughter was not performed at the neck, since this was transmitted to Moses at Sinai. And this proves that the view of Rav Huna is not correct, for he derives this from “and he shall slaughter the young bull.”

And the verse

“And he shall slaughter the young bull”

comes for what purpose?

To state

that he must not render it a “gistera,”

that he must not cut through the spinal column as well, thereby completely separating the head from the body, for this is implied by the expression “slaughter it”: he should remove its blood, but no more.

Rav Yeimar said:

From where is it derived that slaughter is performed at the neck?

The verse says

with regard to 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 language of zevach indicates that

from the place

where its blood

flows—

slaughter it!

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

The Gemara asks:

What is the indication that this expression “slaughter it”

is an expression of breaking?

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

As it is written: “Do not fear and do not break”

[Deuteronomy 1:21], and “do not break” means: Do not be broken.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

you should say that slaughter is performed

at its snout,

from which moisture constantly flows, since the word “slaughter” does not specifically allude to the flowing of blood!

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

must flow through breaking,

that is, through slaughter, and this is blood;

whereas this

moisture

flows by itself.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

slaughter is performed

at its heart,

for if one cuts there, much blood will flow?

Furthermore,

we raise an objection:

From where are pausing, pressing, concealing, deviating, and uprooting derived

as matters that invalidate slaughter?

Rather,

necessarily,

it is a received tradition,

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai. If so,

slaughter at the neck is also a received tradition,

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai!

And

if you should say that since it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

the verse

“and you shall slaughter”

comes for what purpose?

To state

that he must not render it a gistera.

This is implied by the expression “it flows—slaughter it”: 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 Yishmael taught:

From where is it derived that slaughter is performed at the neck? It is stated:

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull”

[Leviticus 1:5].

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

and expound it:

From the place where it presses,

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

slaughter it,

cleanse it by removing its blood and thereby render it fit to eat; this is the neck.

And say:

lest you say,

from its tongue

one must slaughter from it, since the tongue, too, assists in bringing out the voice!?

Your answer is:

we require, in the slaughter of sacrificial animals, which is what the verse is discussing, the extraction of

in the slaughter of sacrificial animals, which is what the verse is discussing, the extraction of

the blood of the soul, in order to sprinkle it on the altar,

in order to sprinkle it on the altar,

and there is none. For the blood of the tongue is not the blood through which the soul departs.

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

But it is still difficult:

and say that the slaughter should be performed on the tongue, in such a manner

that the slaughter should be performed on the tongue, in such a manner

that he cuts and proceeds, beginning by cutting the tongue and continuing to tear it

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

until he reaches the place of

he reaches the place of

the blood of the soul?

Furthermore, there is another difficulty: Since

there is another difficulty:

as for interruption, pressing, concealment, deviation, and uprooting, from where do we derive that they invalidate slaughter?

that these invalidate the slaughter?

Rather,

necessarily,

it is a Gemara; they are learned by a halakha given to Moses at Sinai. If so,

meaning that they are learned through a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai; and if so,

slaughter from the neck, too, is a Gemara, a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai,

so

and if so,

what does the verse come to teach?

So as not to render it a gistera! He must not sever the spinal column; rather, he cuts only at the place where it is slaughtered, for that is the meaning of the verse: “Slaughter it”—render it fit for consumption בלבד, and no more.

One must not cut through the spinal column; rather, one should cut only at the place where the slaughter is performed, for this is the meaning of the verse: “Slaughter it”—render it fit for eating, and no more.

And the tanna

of the Torat Kohanim,

derives it, learning and bringing the law that slaughter is performed from the neck from the laws of offering a sacrifice,

learning and bringing the law that slaughter is performed from the neck from the laws of offering a sacrifice,

from here:

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Hiyya said: From where is it derived that slaughter

is

from the neck?

As it is stated concerning the offering of a bull as an olah:

with regard to the offering of a bull as an olah,

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

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

There is no need for the verse to state

it is unnecessary to write in the verse]

“the head and the feder,” since there is no reason that the head and the suet should not be burned like all the limbs of the olah. If so,

since there is no reason that the head and the fats should not be burned like all the limbs of the burnt offering. And if so,

what does the verse come to teach [

what does it come to teach us]

“the head and the feder”? Were not the head and the feder included among all the pieces

mentioned in the verse

already, and if so,

and if so,

why were they singled out

and written separately?

Because it was stated earlier in the passage:

previously in the passage,

“And he shall flay the olah and cut

it into its pieces” [Leviticus 1:6], and afterward, concerning the burning, it says: “And the sons of Aaron shall arrange the pieces,” implying that the pieces mentioned with regard to the burning are those pieces of which it was said: “He shall flay and cut.”

And if so,

I have

with regard to the burning

only pieces that are included in flaying.

From where is it derived that the head is also included

in the burning,

even though it has already been severed

in the slaughter? That is, its life has already been taken from it when its סימנים are cut, and it is as though it has been separated from the body and it is not flayed; rather, it is offered as it is]?

The verse therefore states with regard to the olah of sheep: “And he shall cut it into its pieces

with regard to the burnt offering of sheep, “And he shall cut it into its pieces

; and its head and its feder. And the priest shall arrange

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

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

since the tanna says that the Torah included the head among those burned,

which are burned,

the head, “which has already been severed,” from this you learn

that

slaughter is performed from the neck, as though the head had been separated from the body.

and the head is considered as though it has been separated from the body.

The Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

And the tanna began with “the head and the feder

which are stated in the first passage concerning the offering of a bull, where the Torah’s wording is: “the head and the feder,”

and concluded with “its head” and “its feder

which are stated in the second passage, concerning the offering of sheep, where the Torah’s wording is: “and its head and its feder”!

And we answer: The wording of the beraita must be amended by adding words, and

this is what

the tanna means at the beginning of his statement:

From where is it derived that the head, which has already been severed, is included? The verse states

with regard to the bull:

“the head and the feder,”

in the first passage.

The Gemara discusses this:

And “its head” and “its feder

which are stated in the second passage, concerning the olah of sheep,

why do I need them?

He requires them for that which was taught

in another beraita, as it was taught:

From where is it derived that the head and the feder precede

being brought up onto the ramp

all the other pieces?

The verse states: “its head and its feder, and he shall arrange.”

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