Chullin 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara continues its discussion:

And the first peder that the Merciful One wrote

in the bull offering,

why do I need it?

For the beraita explained only why the Torah needed to specify the head, but it did not explain why the Torah specified the peder, since it is included among the pieces that are flayed

.

It is needed for that which was taught:

How does one perform the burning of the head

? He covers the slaughtering site with the peder

he covers the slaughtering site with the peder],

and raises it

onto the fire on the altar,

and this is the manner of honoring the One above,

so that the cut area should not be visibly soiled with blood. And this matter is learned from the peder mentioned in the first passage, adjacent to the head.

The Gemara now cites another beraita, in which the statement of Rabbi Eliezer is brought, who learned from another source that slaughter is performed at the neck.

And this tanna derives it from here:

As it was taught:

It is stated at the end of the passage discussing the impurity of an animal carcass,

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

Leviticus 11:46]. The Torah juxtaposed the animal and the bird with regard to impurity.

And with regard to which “law”

of impurity

did it equate the animal to the bird, and in what respect is the

bird

equal

to the animal

?

After all, their impurity is not identical.

For

an animal renders

a person impure through its carcass, both

through contact,

when he touches it,

and

also

through carrying,

as when he carries it, it renders him impure even without his touching it. Whereas

a bird does not render one impure

when it becomes a carcass, neither

through contact nor

through

carrying.

Conversely,

a bird

has a more severe impurity than an animal, for when it becomes a carcass it

renders

the person who eats its carcass impure with a severe impurity, even rendering the

garments

of the person who eats its carcass

at the house of swallowing,

while the carcass of the bird is in the person’s throat.

Whereas the carcass of an

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

For if another person thrust it into his throat, he does not become impure at all; he does not even become impure through contact, because this contact is contact with a concealed area.

And if so,

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

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

to tell you: Just as an animal

leaves the status of impurity and the prohibition of a 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 prohibition

through slaughter.

The beraita adds:

Perhaps

perhaps one might say]

just as there,

with regard to an animal, it becomes permitted only

through the majority of two,

and not through one siman,

so too here,

with regard to a bird, it becomes permitted only

through the majority of two?

The verse states: “This

is the law,”

to exclude the juxtaposition and teach that the slaughter of a bird is not comparable to the slaughter of an animal in every respect; rather, with a bird, slaughtering one siman is sufficient.

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

Rather,

to tell you: Just as a bird

—a consecrated bird, whose mitzva is performed through melika—

is rendered fit from the neck,

by cutting the simanim,

so too an animal is rendered fit from the neck,

through cutting the simanim; and with regard to an animal there is no difference between non-sacred and consecrated animals.

Perhaps just as there,

in melika, one performs the act

opposite the nape,

which is behind the bird ,

so too here,

in slaughter, he should slaughter

opposite the nape,

and not from the front.

The verse states: “And he shall wring off its head opposite its nape, but shall not sever it”

Leviticus 5:8]; the Torah restricted this and stated that specifically

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

from here it follows that slaughter is performed from the neck.

We inquire:

And as for 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 both simanim in a bird as in an animal, so too according to Rabbi Eliezer,

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

that the animal should be juxtaposed to the bird in every respect, and we would say:

Just as

the bird sin offering —the

bird—

is sufficiently rendered fit

with

the pinching of

one siman,

as it is stated, “And he shall wring off its head, but shall not sever it,”

so too in the slaughter of an

in the slaughter of an

animal,

slaughtering one siman would be

sufficient; the Merciful One writes “this”

to exclude the juxtaposition and teach that both simanim must be slaughtered in an animal.

The Gemara now cites a tanna who taught in accordance with the first tanna, that a bird requires slaughter, but who learned by another method that it requires the slaughter of only one siman.

Bar Kappara taught:

It is stated:

“This is the law of the animal and the bird

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

The verse placed the bird between the animal and the fish ,

which are called “a living creature that swarms in the waters,” to indicate that the bird occupies an intermediate position between them with regard to its law.

To obligate it in

the slaughter of

two simanim is impossible,

because

it has already been equated with fish,

which are entirely exempt from slaughter.

To exempt it without anything at all

like fish

is impossible, since it has already been equated with an animal.

What, then, is the way? —

It is rendered fit through one siman.

And we inquire:

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

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

Perhaps,

perhaps one might say,

because it is written, “Shall flocks and herds 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 the fish], and they do not require slaughter.

If so, with regard to quail,

in which the language of gathering is also written,

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

[Numbers 11:32], would

so too

we say

that they did not eat it through slaughter

but ate it without slaughter?

But you said that exempting it without anything at all is impossible, since it has already been equated with an animal.

Necessarily, the language of gathering does not indicate that the gathered creature need not be slaughtered.

And we answer:

There,

in the verse “And they gathered the quail,”

the term gathering is not written in a context

in which

slaughter of

other living creatures

is

mentioned, and therefore the language of gathering does not indicate that slaughter is unnecessary.

But

here,

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

the term gathering is written in a context

in which

slaughter of

other living creatures

is

mentioned, for it says there, “Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them.” Since the Torah distinguished between them, using the language of slaughter with regard to flocks and herds and the language of gathering with regard to fish, it follows that fish do not require slaughter.

Ovar the Galilean expounded,

one of the people of the Galilee: Why do the animals differ in their law regarding slaughter?

An animal —

which was created solely from the dry land,

and whose life is healthy and strong because it derives from a firm substance — therefore

its fitness

is

through two simanim. Fish —

which were created solely from the water,

and whose life is weak—

their fitness is through “nothing at all,”

like produce.

A bird, which was created from the rekek,

a mixture of earth and water —

its fitness is through one siman.

Rav Shmuel of Kapotkia said: You can know

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

for

birds resemble fish in a certain respect:

birds have scales on their feet, like fish.

In tractate Bekhorot [5a], questions are brought that the official Kontrikon asked Rabban Gamliel about apparent contradictions in the Torah, in order to taunt him, together with the answers Rabban Gamliel gave him. The Gemara here cites one question and answer connected to our subject.

They also asked: It is written

[a verse]:

“And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly

above the earth” [Genesis 1:20].

Apparently, they were created from water,

which indicates that the birds were created from water.

And,

conversely,

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. Apparently, they were created from the earth,

which indicates that they were created from the earth!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

They were created from the rekek

[a mixture of earth and water]

.

Rabban Gamliel saw

that

his students were looking at one another,

amazed by the answer.

He said to them,

Rabban Gamliel: Is it

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

and gave him an incorrect answer? Rather, indeed, they were

created from the water

alone

,

as implied by the one verse.

And why

were the birds written in the other verse together with the animals that were created from the earth? Because the continuation of that verse states that the Holy One, blessed be He,

brought them to the man

together with the animals

to give them names,

as the verse states: “And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and He brought them to the man to see what he would call it.” The phrase “and every bird of the heavens” refers only to what is written afterward, “and He brought them to the man to see what he would call it.”

And some say, in another version,

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

he said

Rabban Gamliel

to that official.

And in the first version,

which implies that the birds were created from the rekek,

he said to his students,

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

because it is written “

bird of the heavens”

after

the word

“formed,”

and it does not appear that “the bird of the heavens” does not refer to the beginning of the verse. The Gemara now cites an opinion that disputes the beraitot above, which derived from the juxtaposition that a bird requires slaughter. According to this opinion, as a matter of Torah law, a bird does not require slaughter. Yet even according to this view, the status of nevela applies to a bird, and by Torah law it renders the garments of one who eats it impure when it is in the esophagus. However, the Torah is speaking of a bird that died or was killed without cutting the simanim, whereas if its simanim were cut, but it was not slaughtered in accordance with the laws of sheḥita, it is permitted to eat. , Even if they performed nekhira on it—that is, they tore the simanim lengthwise, from the nostrils to the breast.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pinḥas: There is no requirement of sheḥita for a bird by Torah law. As it is stated:

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

“and spills,”

to teach that

by spilling

its blood

alone is sufficient.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, a wild animal as well

does not require sheḥita by Torah law, since “and he shall spill” is written with regard to it as well!

The Gemara answers:

A wild animal —

was likened to animals disqualified from sacrificial use.

For the Torah stated with regard to animals that had been consecrated and then developed a defect: “The impure and the pure shall eat it, as the deer and as the gazelle” [Deuteronomy 12:15]. The Torah thereby likened a wild animal to a domesticated animal with regard to sheḥita.

The Gemara raises an objection:

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

The Gemara answers:

But it is written, “and spills its blood,”

and if we were to derive from the juxtaposition that a bird requires sheḥita, it would be difficult: Why did the Torah not write with regard to a bird, “and he shall slaughter” it?

The Gemara raises an objection:

What basis do you have for assigning it to the bird? Assign it to the wild animal!

What compels you to apply the wording “and spills” to the bird rather than to the wild animal, since both were likened to a domesticated animal!?

The Gemara answers:

It is reasonable

to say so

because it is adjacent to it

[because the verse concludes its statement with the bird] and connects it to “and spills,” as it is written: “a hunted animal or bird, and spills.”

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the sources of the objections to Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pinḥas:

Became a nevela, blood, with melika.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pinḥas from the Mishna:

If one slaughters an animal and it becomes a nevela in his hand

unintentionally, or

performs nekhira or uproots the simanim

[tearing the simanim from their places] intentionally,

he is exempt from covering

the blood, because the Torah stated with regard to covering the blood: “A wild animal or bird that may be eaten,” but not the blood of a nevela.

The Gemara proves:

And if you say that there is no requirement of sheḥita for a bird by Torah law,

then

its nekhira

of the bird

is its slaughter

and permits it to be eaten; if so,

it should require covering!

And although the bird is prohibited to eat by rabbinic decree, one may not be lenient and exempt it from the Torah obligation of covering!

The Gemara answers:

Do you think

[do you maintain] that the Mishna is discussing

a bird? No,

the Mishna is speaking

of a wild animal,

which requires sheḥita by Torah law.

Come and hear

from a beraita that disagrees with Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pinḥas:

If one slaughters

but does not wish to eat the meat, because

he

does not

need

anything but

the blood,

nevertheless

he is obligated to cover

the blood, and he may not make use of it.

What does he do? He either performs nekhira on it or uproots its simanim,

and thereby becomes exempt from covering the blood, since the meat is prohibited to eat.