Chullin 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara infers:

Does it not mean

that it is speaking here

of a bird,

whose blood is put to use

as he needs its blood for the lice

[since he needs it to kill the moths in clothing]? This proves that nekhira renders a bird a nevela by Torah law, and therefore one is exempt from covering its blood, since it was not slaughtered in the proper manner!

And we answer:

No,

it is not speaking of a bird, but rather

of an undomesticated animal, as he needs its blood for the red dye

[since he needs to dye leather red and uses its blood for the dyeing].

Ta shma

from a Mishna in tractate Zevahim [68a], which is not in accordance with Rabbi Yitzhak:

As we learned: A kohen who

pinched

the nape of a sacrificial bird

with a knife,

rather than with his fingernail as required for pinching—the pinching is invalid, and the bird

imparts impurity to garments through swallowing,

as is the law with regard to the carcass of a kosher bird.

And the Gemara infers:

And if you say that there is no slaughter of a bird by Torah law,

and by Torah law its preparation is achieved through severing the prescribed organs in any manner,

even if, when

he pinched it from the nape,

he broke its

[the bird’s]

spinal column and neck vertebrae

before reaching the prescribed organs, and

it becomes

the bird

a tereifa,

nevertheless he does not kill it by doing so . And if so,

the knife should be of benefit

[should be effective]

in purifying it from the status of a carcass,

as is the law with regard to one who slaughters a tereifa, which does not impart the impurity of a carcass. And although the bird is prohibited by rabbinic law even according to Rabbi Yitzhak, nevertheless, it does not have the impurity of a carcass.

And we answer: The tannaim disagree about this matter, and

he

[Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinhas]

holds in accordance with this tanna—

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar son of Rabbi says: What is the meaning of

the verse in the passage concerning redeemed disqualified sacrificial animals,

“However, just as the gazelle

and the deer is eaten, so you shall eat it; the impure and the pure alike” [Deuteronomy 12:22]?

And what have we learned from “gazelle and deer” from this point onward?

After all, that same verse explicitly states the law concerning disqualified sacrificial animals, saying there, “the impure and the pure alike shall eat it”; there is no need for it also to say “deer and gazelle.”

This

[the mention of gazelle and deer]

comes to teach

about an animal, according to the plain meaning of the verse,

and it is consequently learned

from it.

The verse juxtaposes

here the law of

the gazelle and deer to

the

animal of disqualified sacrificial offerings,

in order to teach you:

Just as disqualified sacrificial offerings

are subject

to slaughter,

as it is stated earlier in that passage, “You shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks” [Deuteronomy 12:21],

so too the gazelle and deer

and other undomesticated animals are subject

to slaughter.

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar adds:

And a bird does not require slaughter by Torah law, but only by rabbinic law.

And the Gemara asks: Since we have proven from the Mishna that slaughter of a bird is required by Torah law,

who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar?

It is

Rabbi.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi says,

the Torah states:

“You shall slaughter

from your cattle and from your flocks,

as I have commanded you”

[Deuteronomy 12:21]. But we do not find anywhere in the Torah that the Jewish people were commanded concerning the slaughter of non-sacred animals.

This teaches

that the verse indicates

that Moses was commanded

orally concerning the laws of slaughter, and we have received a tradition that he was commanded

concerning

the slaughter of

the esophagus, and concerning

the slaughter of

the trachea, and concerning most

of one of the prescribed organs

in a bird, and concerning most of both in an animal.

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters

one prescribed organ in a bird

—his slaughter is valid.

It was stated: Rav Naḥman said:

One must slaughter

either the esophagus or the trachea.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

One must slaughter specifically

the esophagus and not the trachea. 50 .

And we explain the basis of their opinions:

Rav Naḥman said: Either the esophagus or the trachea,

since

“one” is taught

in the Mishna;

one

means

whichever it may be

[either one].

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The esophagus and not the trachea. What is the meaning of “one”

as it appears in the Mishna?

The special one

among the prescribed organs, namely the esophagus, since the animal’s life depends on it more than on the trachea. If an animal has a perforation in the trachea, it is kosher, whereas if it has a perforation in the esophagus, it is a tereifa. Since life depends more on the esophagus, slaughter kills the bird only when one slaughters it.

A mnemonic: slaughtered half, trachea, defect, the sin-offering of the bird.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Naḥman from a beraita dealing with the law of ikkur.

It is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that if one of the prescribed organs is torn away from its place of attachment, the slaughter is invalid. And although in a bird it is unnecessary to slaughter both prescribed organs, nevertheless, both must be attached at the time of slaughter.

The objection is raised: If one slaughtered the esophagus

of the bird

and afterward the trachea was torn away—

the slaughter

is valid,

because no disqualification existed until the slaughter was completed, and since a bird requires the slaughter of only one prescribed organ, the slaughter was completed when he slaughtered the esophagus.

If the trachea was torn away and afterward he slaughtered the esophagus—

the slaughter

is invalid,

because at the time of slaughter the two prescribed organs were not attached.

If one slaughtered the esophagus and the trachea was found to be displaced, and he does not know whether it was displaced before slaughter

the slaughter is invalid,

or whether it was displaced after slaughter,

in which case it is valid—

this was the case

and the Sages asked about it

and said: Any uncertainty concerning slaughter—

renders it invalid. 53 .

And we challenge Rav Naḥman: Since the beraita specifically stated that the slaughter was performed on the esophagus,

whereas

the case in which the

slaughter

was performed on the

trachea

and the esophagus was torn away

it did not teach,

this indicates that the slaughter is valid only when performed on the esophagus!

And we answer: In fact, if one slaughtered the trachea and the esophagus was torn away, the law would be the same. The beraita mentioned the case of the trachea being torn away

because the trachea is more likely to be displaced

[it is more liable to be displaced] than the esophagus.

Ta shma,

another objection to Rav Naḥman from a beraita:

If one slaughtered two halves of the prescribed organs in a bird—

the slaughter

is invalid,

because slaughtering half of the second organ does not complete the deficiency in the first organ.

And it is unnecessary to say

that the slaughter is invalid if he did this

in an animal,

which requires the slaughter of most of both prescribed organs.

Rabbi Yehuda says: In a bird

the slaughter is not valid

until he slaughters the esophagus and the veins.

It follows from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that the esophagus specifically must be slaughtered, and that the Sages who disagree with him disagree only concerning the requirement to slaughter the veins, which Rabbi Yehuda requires and the Sages do not!

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda does not require specifically that the esophagus be slaughtered, but rather requires the veins to be slaughtered.

Because the esophagus

is

adjacent to the veins,

one who wishes to slaughter them must slaughter the esophagus. Rabbi Yehuda therefore said that the esophagus must be slaughtered, but the slaughter itself is valid even when performed on the trachea.

The Gemara brings proof for Rav Naḥman from a beraita discussing the disqualification of pausing during slaughter. If one began slaughtering, stopped in the middle, and paused for the amount of time required for slaughter, his slaughter is invalid. However, if the initial cut he made does not render the animal or bird a tereifa, there is no concern about the disqualification of pausing, since the first part of the slaughter can be treated as nonexistent, and the slaughter began only after the pause.

Ta shma: If one slaughtered half the trachea, paused for the amount of time required for another slaughter, and completed it—

his slaughter is valid,

because if half the trachea is torn, this does not render the animal a tereifa until most of it has been torn.

And the Gemara proves that this is not in accordance with Rav Adda:

Does it not mean

[that it is speaking]

of a bird

which is rendered kosher through slaughtering one prescribed organ,

and what is the meaning of “completed”

as stated in the beraita?

He completed the slaughter of the

prescribed organ, namely the

trachea,

since the beraita is speaking about the trachea. This proves that one who slaughters only the trachea of a bird renders his slaughter valid!

And we answer:

No,

it is not speaking specifically of a bird, but also

of an animal,

in which everyone agrees that one must slaughter the esophagus as well.

And what is the meaning of “completed”

as stated in the beraita?

He completed the entire slaughter,

and not merely the trachea; even in the case of a bird, he must slaughter the esophagus.

Ta shma,

another objection to Rav Adda from a beraita:

As it is taught:

If half the trachea was defective—

this does not render the animal a tereifa. And if one slaughtered it

and added even the slightest amount to it and completed it—

his slaughter is valid,

because the slaughterer need not slaughter most of the trachea; rather, the slaughter must result in most of the trachea being severed.

And we challenge this:

Does it not mean

[that it is speaking]

of a bird, and what is the meaning of “completed it”

as stated in the beraita?

He completed the trachea,

as it implies that by adding even the slightest amount he completed the slaughter. This proves that slaughtering the trachea alone suffices in the case of a bird!

And we answer:

No,

it is not speaking of a bird, but rather

of an animal,

which also requires slaughter of the esophagus.

And what is the meaning of “completed it”? -

He completed the esophagus,

and the meaning of the beraita is that the slaughterer did two things: he added even the slightest amount to the trachea, and afterward completed the slaughter through the esophagus.

Ta shma,

an objection from a beraita to Rav Adda:

How is the bird sin-offering pinched?

He begins from the nape and

cuts through the spinal column and neck vertebrae,

taking care to cut them

without

cutting

most of the flesh

extending from the nape to the neck, for if he does so, he has already killed the bird

before reaching the esophagus or the trachea,

and he is pinching a dead bird.

When he reaches the esophagus or the trachea,

he cuts one prescribed organ

of the two,

and

then he may cut

most of the flesh with it.

The beraita continues:

And in

the bird

burnt offering,

there is a mitzva of separating the head from the body: he must separate the head from the body, and when he reaches the prescribed organs he must cut

both

according to one opinion,

or most of both

according to another opinion.

And it is explicit in the beraita that in the bird sin-offering, whose law is that it is rendered fit through one prescribed organ, he may pinch whichever organ he wishes.

And we say:

A refutation of Rav Adda bar Ahava; a refutation!

And we consider the matter:

What conclusion was reached?

[What is the conclusion?]

And we are astonished: Is it appropriate to ask,

“What conclusion was reached?”

After all, the beraita clearly supports Rav Naḥman,

as you have said?!

The Gemara explains that it may be possible to resolve the refutation, because

perhaps

in slaughter one must slaughter specifically the esophagus, upon which the bird’s life depends more than upon the trachea, and slaughtering the trachea is insufficient to kill the bird. But

there it is different,

in the case of pinching, since one may pinch the trachea

because the spinal column and neck vertebrae are present

before the trachea is pinched, and this is sufficient to kill the bird.

Therefore, it must be considered:

what was the conclusion

?

Ta shma:

A proof from an incident that occurred, indicating that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Naḥman:

there was a certain goose that was in Rava’s house, and it came with its throat oozing blood [The goose arrived wounded, with its neck soiled with blood], and it was necessary to examine it to determine whether it had become a tereifa due to a defect in the windpipe or the esophagus .

Rava said: How should we proceed [How can we examine it and know that there is nothing in the bird that renders it a tereifa]?

[How should we examine it] to know that the bird has no defect that renders it non-kosher?