Chullin 28a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara infers:

What, is it not

[does it not mean here]

a bird,

whose blood is useful

for he needs its blood for the louse

[for he needs it to kill the moth in garments]. And it is thereby proven that neḥira renders a bird a carcass by Torah law, and therefore he is exempt from covering, since it was not slaughtered in accordance with its law!

And we answer:

No,

it is speaking of a bird, but rather

of a wild animal, for he needs its blood for dye

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

Come and hear

from a Mishna in tractate Zevahim [68a], contrary to Rabbi Yitzhak:

For we learned: A priest who

malk

a sacrificial bird

with a knife,

and not with his fingernail as is the law of melika—his melika is invalid, and the bird

renders garments impure in the place of swallowing,

as is the law of the carcass of a kosher bird.

And the Gemara infers:

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

and by Torah law its qualification is accomplished through severing the simanim in any manner,

even if when

he malked it from the nape

he broke it

[he broke the bird’s]

spine and neck,

before reaching the simanim, and

it became

the bird

a tereifa,

nevertheless he does not kill it through this , and if so,

let

[it] benefit

from the knife to purify it from the status of a carcass,

as is the law of one who slaughters a tereifa, for it does not convey carcass impurity. And although the bird is forbidden rabbinically even according to Rabbi Yitzhak, nevertheless it does not have the impurity of a carcass.

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

he

[Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinhas]

is the one who says in accordance with this tanna:

For it was taught: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar son of Rabbi says: What is the meaning of

in the passage concerning redeemed disqualified consecrated animals,

“But just as the gazelle

and the deer are eaten, so shall you eat it, the impure and the pure” [Deuteronomy 12:15]?

And what have we learned from “gazelle and deer” from now on?

The law of disqualified consecrated animals is explicitly written in that same verse, where it says, “the impure and the pure together shall eat it”; there is no need to state in it “deer and gazelle”?

This

[gazelle and deer]

comes to teach

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

and it is found to be learned

from it.

It compares

the verse here the law of

gazelle and deer to

the animal of

disqualified consecrated animals,

in order to teach you:

Just as disqualified consecrated animals

have their law

through slaughtering,

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

so too gazelle and deer

and the other wild animals have their law

through slaughtering.

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar adds:

And a bird has no slaughtering from words of Torah, but only from the words of the Scribes.

And the Gemara discusses: Since we have proven from the Mishna that the slaughtering of a bird is by Torah law,

who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar HaKappar?

Rabbi—

it is.

For it was taught: Rabbi says,

it is written in the Torah:

“And you shall slaughter

from your cattle and from your flocks,

as I commanded you,”

[Deuteronomy 12:21]. Yet we do not find in the Torah that they were commanded concerning the slaughtering of non-consecrated animals.

It teaches

the verse here

that Moses was commanded

orally in the laws of slaughtering, and it is received by tradition that he was commanded

concerning

the slaughtering of

the gullet, and concerning

the slaughtering of

the windpipe, and concerning most

of one siman

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

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters

one in a bird—

his slaughtering is valid.

It was stated: Rav Nahman said:

It is necessary to slaughter

either the gullet or the windpipe.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

It is necessary to slaughter specifically

the gullet but not the windpipe 50 .

And we explain their reasoning:

Rav Nahman said: Either the gullet or the windpipe,

because

“one” is taught

in the Mishna;

one

means

any one

[whichever it may be].

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The gullet but not the windpipe. What is “one”

that is written in the Mishna?

The distinctive one

among the simanim, which is the gullet, since the animal’s life depends on it more than on the windpipe: an animal that has a perforation in the windpipe is valid, whereas if it has a perforation in the gullet, it is a tereifa. And since life depends on the gullet more, the slaughtering kills the bird only when one slaughters it or it.

A mnemonic: slaughtered halves, windpipe, notch, sin-offering bird.

The Gemara brings a difficulty against Rav Nahman from a beraita dealing with the law of “uprooting.”

It is a law given to Moses at Sinai that if one of the simanim is uprooted from its place of attachment, the slaughtering is invalid. And although in a bird it is not necessary to slaughter two simanim, nevertheless both of them must be attached at the time of slaughtering.

It was objected: If he slaughtered the gullet

of the bird

and afterward the windpipe became dislocated—

the slaughtering

is valid,

because there was no invalidity until the slaughtering was completed, and in a bird, which requires the slaughtering of only one siman, the slaughtering was completed when he slaughtered the gullet.

If the windpipe became dislocated and afterward he slaughtered the gullet—

the slaughtering

is invalid,

because at the time of slaughtering the two simanim were not attached .

If he slaughtered the gullet, and the windpipe was found to be dislocated, and he does not know whether it became dislocated before the slaughtering

and the slaughtering is invalid,

or whether it became dislocated after the slaughtering

and it is valid, this

was an incident,

and the Sages asked

and said: Any uncertainty in slaughtering—

is invalid 53 .

And we challenge Rav Nahman: Since the beraita specifically stated that the slaughtering was in the gullet,

whereas

the case in which the

slaughtering

was

in the windpipe

and the gullet became dislocated

it did not teach,

it follows that the slaughtering is valid only in the gullet!

And we answer: In truth, if he slaughtered the windpipe and the gullet became dislocated, the law would be the same; and the beraita stated the case of the windpipe becoming dislocated

because the windpipe is liable to become dislocated

[more than the gullet].

Come and hear,

another difficulty against Rav Nahman from a beraita:

If he slaughtered two halves of the simanim in a bird—

the slaughtering

is invalid,

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

And it is not necessary to say

that the slaughtering is invalid if he did this

in an animal,

which requires the slaughtering of most of both simanim.

Rabbi Judah says: In a bird

the slaughtering is not valid

until he slaughters the gullet and the veins.

It follows from Rabbi Judah’s words that one must specifically slaughter the gullet, and the Sages who disagree with him disagree only concerning this: he obligates slaughtering the veins, while the Sages exempt!

And we answer: Rabbi Judah does not obligate slaughtering specifically the gullet, but rather the veins, and

because the gullet

is found

adjacent to the veins,

one who wishes to slaughter them must slaughter the gullet. Rabbi Judah said that one must slaughter the gullet, but the slaughtering itself is valid also in the windpipe.

The Gemara brings proof for Rav Nahman from a beraita speaking of the invalidity of pausing during slaughtering. One who began to slaughter, stopped in the middle of the slaughtering, and paused for the amount of time required for slaughtering—his slaughtering is invalid. However, if the cut he made at the beginning does not render the animal or bird a tereifa, there is no concern for the invalidity of pausing, since it is possible to regard the first part of the slaughtering as nonexistent, and the slaughtering began after the pause.

Come and hear: If he slaughtered half the windpipe, paused for the time of another slaughtering, and completed it—

his slaughtering is valid,

because if half the windpipe was torn, this does not make it a tereifa until most of it is torn.

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

What, is it not

[the case]

of a bird

which is valid through slaughtering one siman,

and what is “completed it”

that is written in the beraita—

he completed the

slaughtering of the

windpipe,

for the beraita speaks of the windpipe, and it is proven that one who slaughters only the windpipe of a bird—his slaughtering is valid!

And we answer:

No,

it is not specifically speaking of a bird, but also

of an animal,

which according to everyone requires slaughtering the gullet as well.

And what is “completed it”

that is written in the beraita?

He completed the entire slaughtering,

and not the windpipe alone; and even in a bird he must slaughter the gullet.

Come and hear,

another difficulty against Rav Adda from a beraita:

For it was taught:

If half the windpipe was notched—

this is not a tereifa, and if he slaughtered

and added anything at all to it and completed it—

his slaughtering is valid,

because the slaughterer need not slaughter most of the windpipe; rather, the slaughtering must make most of the windpipe slaughtered.

And we challenge:

What, is it not

[the case]

of a bird, and what is “completed it”

that is written in the beraita?

He completed the windpipe,

for this implies that by adding anything at all he completed the slaughtering, and it is proven that slaughtering the windpipe alone suffices in a bird!

And we answer:

No,

it is not speaking of a bird, but

of an animal

and he must slaughter the gullet as well,

and what is “completed it” \-

he completed it in the gullet,

and the intention of the beraita is that the slaughterer did two things: he added anything at all to the windpipe and afterward completed it in the gullet.

Come and hear

a difficulty from a beraita against Rav Adda:

How does one perform melika of the bird sin-offering?

He begins from the nape and

cuts the spine and neck,

taking care to cut them

without

cutting

most of the flesh

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

before he reaches the gullet or the windpipe,

and he is performing melika on a dead bird.

When he reaches the gullet or the windpipe—

he cuts one siman

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 the mitzva of separating, that he separate the head from the body; and when he reaches the simanim, he must cut

two

according to one opinion,

or most of two

according to another opinion.

And it is explicit in the beraita that with regard to a bird sin-offering, whose law is through one siman, he may perform melika on whichever siman he wishes.

And we say:

A refutation of Rav Adda bar Ahava, a refutation!

And we consider:

What conclusion was reached concerning it

[what is the conclusion]?

And we are astonished: Is it necessary to ask,

“What conclusion was reached concerning it”!?

But it is proven from the beraita in accordance with Rav Nahman,

as he says?!

And the Gemara explains that it is possible to reconcile the refutation, for

perhaps

in slaughtering one must specifically slaughter the gullet, upon which the bird’s life depends more than upon the windpipe, and slaughtering the windpipe is insufficient to kill the bird,

but there it is different,

in melika, for it is possible to perform melika on the windpipe because

there is the spine and neck

before the melika of the windpipe, and this is sufficient to kill the bird .

Therefore, one must discuss:

what

is the conclusion?

Ta shma:

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

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

Rava said: How shall we act [

how shall we examine it and know that there is nothing in the bird that renders it a tereifa? ]