Chullin 27b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara continues to discuss:

And the first peder that the Merciful One wrote

in the sacrifice of an ox,

why do I need it?

For the beraita explained only why the Torah needed to specify the head, but did not explain why the Torah specified the peder, for it is included among the stripped-off portions.

And we answer:

It is needed for that which was taught: How does he perform

the burning of the head?

He spreads the peder over the place of slaughter

[he covers the place of slaughter with the peder],

and raises it

onto the fire upon the altar,

and this is the way of honoring the One above,

so that the place of the cut should not appear soiled with blood. And this matter we learn from the peder mentioned in the first section, adjacent to the head.

The Gemara now brings another beraita, in which the words of Rabbi Eliezer are brought, who learned from another place that slaughter is from the neck.

And this tanna brings it from here:

For it was taught:

It is stated at the end of the section speaking of the impurity of an animal carcass,

“This is the law of the animal and the bird”

[Leviticus 11:46]; the Torah compared the animal to the bird with regard to impurity.

And with regard to which “law”

of impurity

did it make the animal equal to the bird, and in what way

is the

bird

equal

to the animal?

Yet their impurity is not equal.

For

an animal renders impure

a person through its carcass, both

through contact,

when he touches it,

and

also

through carrying,

for if he carries it, it renders him impure even without his touching it. But

a bird does not render impure

when it becomes a carcass, neither

through contact nor

through

carrying.

And, by contrast,

a bird’s

impurity is more severe than the impurity of an animal, for when it becomes a carcass it

renders

even the

garments

of the person who eats its carcass impure,

in the house of swallowing,

when the bird carcass is in the person’s house of swallowing.

But the carcass of an

animal does not render garments impure in the house of swallowing.

For if his fellow pushed it into his house of swallowing, he does not become impure at all; and even through contact he does not become impure, because this contact is contact of covered places.

And if so,

with regard to which law did it make the animal equal to the bird and the bird equal to the animal?

Since we do not find explicitly written in the Torah the mitzva of slaughter for a bird, therefore the comparison comes

to tell you: Just as an animal

leaves impurity and the prohibition of an animal carcass

through slaughter,

as it is written, “And he shall slaughter the young bull,”

so too a bird

—a non-sacred bird—leaves its impurity and its prohibition

through slaughter.

And the beraita adds:

If

[perhaps it might be said]

just as there,

in the case of an animal, it is permitted only

through the majority of two signs,

and not through one sign,

so too here,

in the case of a bird, it is permitted only

through the majority of two signs?

The verse states: “This

is the law,”

to exclude the comparison, and to say that the slaughter of a bird is not similar to the slaughter of an animal in every respect; rather, with a bird, the slaughter of one sign is sufficient.

Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to which law did it make the animal equal to the bird and the bird equal to the animal?

Rather,

to tell you: Just as a bird

—a consecrated bird whose mitzva is performed through pinching—

its fitness is from the neck,

by cutting the signs,

so too an animal’s fitness is from the neck

through cutting the signs; and in an animal there is no difference between non-sacred and consecrated animals.

If so, just as there,

in pinching, he pinches

opposite the nape,

which is behind the bird,

so too here,

in slaughter, he should slaughter

opposite the nape

and not from its front.

The verse states: “And he shall pinch its head opposite its nape, but shall not divide it,”

[Leviticus 5:8]; the Torah limited it and said that specifically

the head of this one is opposite the nape, but the head of another is not opposite the nape;

from here [we learn] that slaughter is from the neck.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Eliezer—this “this,”

which the first tanna expounded,

what does he do with it

[how does he expound it]?

And we answer: Just as according to the first tanna we learned from “this” that it is not necessary to slaughter two signs in a bird as in an animal, so too according to Rabbi Eliezer,

had it not been for “this,” I would have said

that we compare an animal to a bird in every respect and say:

Just as

the bird sin-offering is

sufficient

for it

with

the pinching of

one sign,

as it is stated, “And he shall pinch its head but shall not divide it,”

so too in the slaughter of an

in the slaughter of an

animal

it is

sufficient with one sign; the Merciful One wrote “this”

to exclude the comparison and to say that it is necessary to slaughter two signs in an animal.

The Gemara now brings a tanna who taught like the first tanna, that a bird requires slaughter, but learned in another manner that it requires the slaughter of only one sign.

Bar Kappara taught:

It is stated,

“This is the law of the animal and the bird

and every living creature that moves in the waters” [Leviticus 11:46].

The verse placed the bird between the animal and the fish

called “living creature that moves in the waters,” to say that the bird is intermediate between them in its law.

To obligate it in

the slaughter of

two signs is impossible,

because

it has already been compared to fish,

which are entirely exempt from slaughter.

To exempt it without anything at all

like fish

is impossible, for it has already been compared to an animal.

What, then, is it? —

Its fitness is with one sign.

And we raise an objection:

Fish, which are not subject to slaughter, from where do we know it?

From where do we know that the fish were not compared to an animal and a bird in order to obligate them in slaughter?

If you say,

perhaps it might be said,

because it is written, “Shall flocks and cattle be slaughtered for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered for them?”

[Numbers 11:22], it follows that

mere gathering is sufficient for them

[mere gathering is sufficient for them]—for the fish, and they do not require slaughter.

But from now, concerning quail,

in which the language of gathering is also written,

for it is written, “And they gathered the quail,”

[Numbers 11:32], should

so too

we say

that it was not through slaughter

that they ate it?

But you said: To exempt it without anything at all is impossible, for it has already been compared to an animal.

Necessarily, the language of gathering does not imply that the gathered thing need not be slaughtered.

And we resolve:

There,

in the verse “And they gathered the quail,”

gathering is not written in the place

where it is written

slaughter of

living creatures

other,

and the language of gathering does not imply that slaughter is unnecessary.

But

here,

in the verse “if all the fish of the sea be gathered,”

gathering is written in the place

where it is written

slaughter of

living creatures

other,

for it is stated there, “Shall flocks and cattle be slaughtered for them?” Since the Torah distinguished between them, writing the language of slaughter concerning flocks and cattle and the language of gathering concerning fish, it follows that fish do not require slaughter.

Over Galilean expounded,

from among the people of the Galilee: Why were the living creatures distinguished in the law of slaughter?

An animal —

which was created from dry land

alone, and whose vitality is healthy and strong because it comes from a strong substance, therefore

its fitness

is

with two signs. Fish —

which were created from water

alone, and whose vitality is weak,

their fitness is with “nothing at all,”

like fruits.

A bird, which was created from the mud,

which contains a mixture of earth and water —

its fitness is with one sign.

Rav Shmuel of Kapotkia said: Know

that this is so, that birds were also created from water,

for

birds have a certain similarity to fish, in that

birds have scales on their feet like fish.

In tractate Bekhorot [5a], questions are brought that the hegemon Constricton asked Rabban Gamliel, concerning apparent contradictions in the Torah, in order to taunt him, and also the answers that Rabban Gamliel gave him. The Gemara here brings one question and answer connected with our matter.

And they also asked him: It is written

[a verse]

one says, “And God said, ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms, a living creature, and let birds fly

over the earth’” [Genesis 1:20].

It follows that they were created from water,

meaning that the birds were created from water.

And

on the other hand,

it is written

in the preceding verse

“And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens. It follows that they were created from the earth,”

meaning that they were created from the earth!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

From the mud

[a mixture of earth and water]

they were created.

Rabban Gamliel saw

that

his students were looking at one another,

astonished at the answer.

He said to them,

Rabban Gamliel: Is it

difficult in your eyes that I drove away my enemy with straw

and answered him an incorrect answer? Rather, indeed

from the water

alone

they were created,

as implied by the one verse.

And why

are the birds mentioned in the other verse together with the animals that were created from the earth? Because it is written there later that the Holy One, blessed be He,

brought them to the human

together with the beasts

to give them names,

as it is written in the verse, “And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and He brought it to the human to see what he would call it.” And the part of the verse, “and every bird of the heavens,” refers only to what is written, “and He brought it to the human to see what he would call it.”

And some say, in another formulation

that was brought earlier, that “the bird of the heavens” is mentioned in the verse only with regard to the giving of names;

he said

Rabban Gamliel

to that hegemon.

And according to the first formulation,

from which it sounds that the birds were created from the mud,

he said to his students,

when he saw that they were astonished, because it appears that the truth is that the birds were created from the earth,

because it is written

“the bird of the heavens”

upon

following the word

“formed,”

and it does not sound that “the bird of the heavens” does not refer to the beginning of the verse. The Gemara now brings an opinion that disputes the baraitot above, which derived from the comparison that a bird is obligated in slaughter. According to this opinion, by Torah law there is no obligation of slaughter for a bird. But even according to this opinion, there is the law of a carcass with regard to a bird, and it imparts ritual impurity to the garments of one who eats it when it is in the throat, by Torah law. Rather, the Torah is speaking of a bird that died or that they killed without cutting its signs, but if they cut its signs, though they did not slaughter it according to the laws of shechita, it is permitted for eating, even if they performed nechira on it, that is, they tore the signs along their length, from the nostrils to the chest.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinhas: There is no shechita for a bird by Torah law. As it is stated

“And any man who hunts an animal or a bird, and spills its blood and covers it with dust” [Leviticus 17:13]. The Torah did not say, “And he shall slaughter,” but rather

“and he shall spill,”

to say that

with spilling

its blood

alone it suffices.

And we raise an objection:

If so, a wild animal also

does not require shechita by Torah law, for “and he shall spill” is also written with regard to it!

And we answer:

A wild animal —

was likened to disqualified consecrated animals.

For the Torah said concerning animals that had been consecrated and in which a blemish had developed, “The impure and the pure shall eat it, as the gazelle and as the deer” [Deuteronomy 12:15]; the Torah likened the wild animal to the domestic animal with regard to shechita.

And we raise an objection:

A bird, too, was likened to a domestic animal, as it is written, “This is the law of the domestic animal and the bird” !

And we answer:

Here it is written, “and he shall spill its blood,”

and if we learn from the juxtaposition that a bird is obligated in shechita, it is difficult: why did the Torah not write with regard to a bird, “and he shall slaughter it”?

And we raise an objection:

And what did you see that you cast it upon the bird; cast it upon the wild animal! [

What compels you to apply the wording “spilled” to the bird and not to the wild animal?] For both of them were likened to the domestic animal!?

And we answer:

It is logical

to say so,

because it concludes from it [

because the verse concludes and completes its words with the bird] and juxtaposes it to “and he shall spill,” for it is written, “an animal or a bird, and he shall spill.”

The Gemara brings a mnemonic for the sources of the objections to Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinhas:

Mnemonic: Became a carcass, blood, with melika.

The meitivi

against Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinhas from the Mishna:

One who slaughters and it became a carcass in his hand

unintentionally, or

one who performs nechira or uproots [

uproots the signs from their places] intentionally,

is exempt from covering

the blood, because the Torah said with regard to covering the blood, “an animal or a bird that may be eaten,” and not the blood of a carcass.

The Gemara proves:

And if you say that there is no shechita for a bird by Torah law,

then

its nechira

of the bird

is its shechita

and permits it for eating, and if so,

let him be required to cover [the blood]!

And although the bird is forbidden for eating by rabbinic law, one may not be lenient and exempt it from the Torah obligation of covering!

And we answer:

Do you think [

do you think] that the Mishna is dealing

with a bird? No,

the Mishna is speaking

of a wild animal,

which requires shechita by Torah law.

The ta shma

from a beraita that is not in accordance with Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinhas:

One who slaughters

and does not want to eat the meat, since

and

he does not

need

anything except

the blood,

nevertheless

is obligated to cover

the blood, and he will not be able to use it.

What does he do? Either he performs nechira on it or uproots it,

and by doing so he is exempt from covering the blood, since the meat is forbidden for eating.