Chullin 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

Lest you say:

Let us slaughter it and then examine it,

let us examine it after slaughtering, above and below the slaughtering site, to see whether the trachea was severed or the esophagus perforated—is this not a useful examination?

Perhaps

there was already a perforation, and

he slaughtered at the site of the perforation,

so that after slaughter the perforation is no longer visible.

Lest you say:

Let us examine it

while it is alive, by cutting the flesh, exposing the simanim, and seeing that they are intact,

and then slaughter it.

This is indeed a good suggestion for examining the trachea, which renders the animal a tereifa only when most of its width has been damaged, and in this manner one can see that there is no such damage. But this examination is not effective with regard to the esophagus, because:

Rava said: The esophagus,

since its outer membrane is red,

cannot be examined from the outside,

because with even the slightest perforation in the esophagus the animal becomes a tereifa, and a drop of blood can seal the perforation. The perforation and the seal cannot be detected because the outer color of the esophagus is red, like the blood. Therefore, the esophagus cannot be examined

except from the inside,

for its inner membrane is white, and if there is a perforation there into which a drop of blood has entered, it will be detected.

Rav Yosef, his son, said to him,

Rava’s son said to his father: There is still a solution.

Let us examine

it while it is alive,

the trachea

alone, since it is damaged only when most of it has been severed,

and let us slaughter the trachea

alone

and render it fit

through this, since in a bird it is possible to slaughter one siman,

and then

[afterward] detach the esophagus from the jaw, and

turn over the esophagus

[turn over the esophagus] to its white inner side,

and examine it.

Rava said

regarding the words of his son, Rav Yosef:

My son Yosef is as wise in the laws of tereifot as Rabbi Yohanan

And we learn from this:

Apparently,

Rava holds that slaughtering only the trachea renders the bird fit, and that when

one

is stated by the tanna of our Mishna, it means

either this or that

[either the trachea or the esophagus].

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Until he slaughters

the veins.

Rav Hisda said: Rabbi Yehuda stated

that one must also slaughter the veins not with regard to an animal,

but only with regard to a bird,

and the reason is the prohibition against eating blood,

since

it is customary

to roast it

whole as one,

and if he does not remove the blood by slaughtering the veins, it will remain in the bird when it is roasted.

But in the case of an animal, since it is cut up

—it is not roasted as one piece, but is cut up

limb by limb

before roasting—there is no concern about this, and

it is not necessary

to slaughter its veins, because the blood will emerge even without this.

And we raise an objection:

Is that to say that the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling,

that one must slaughter the veins, is

because

of removing

blood?

But didn’t we learn: Rabbi Yehuda says: Until he slaughters the veins?

If his reason is the removal of blood, it is not necessary to slaughter the veins; it would suffice to perforate them!

And we answer:

Say instead: Until he perforates the veins.

And what does “until he slaughters” mean? It means

until he perforates them at the time of slaughter,

and it is not sufficient to perforate them after slaughter, because only at the time of slaughter is the blood warm and does it emerge through the perforation.

Come and hear

an objection to Rav Hisda from a beraita, as it was taught:

The veins—

at the time of slaughter, the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

It is evident here that the law of the veins applies specifically during slaughter, and not merely to perforating them!

And we answer: Here too,

say: The veins must be perforated at the time of slaughter; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Come and hear

an objection to the possibility of perforating them, from a beraita.

As it was taught:

The Sages said

to

Rabbi Yehuda: Since the veins were not mentioned

by you with regard to slaughter

except

for the purpose of

removing blood from them, what difference is there whether this is done during slaughter or not during slaughter,

but in some other manner?

The Gemara proves: Since they asked him why it must specifically be done through slaughter,

by inference

you learn

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the law of the veins applies

during slaughter

specifically!

And we answer: In fact, the Sages did not hear from Rabbi Yehuda that the veins must be slaughtered; rather, they heard from him that the veins must be perforated at the time of slaughter.

And this is what they said to him: What difference is there whether we perforate them at the time of slaughter or whether we perforate them not at the time of slaughter,

but afterward?

And he holds

that only

at the time of slaughter does

[come]

blood

to the perforation and emerge, because

it is alive

[it is still warm]; but

not at the time of slaughter does blood emerge,

because

it is cold,

having already cooled, and it will no longer emerge through salting, and the bird will be prohibited when it is roasted.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya, who did not know Rav Hisda’s statement, was uncertain about the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling, and the amoraim resolved his uncertainty in accordance with Rav Hisda’s view.

Rabbi Yirmeya inquired: With regard to the veins, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

if he

delayed with regard to them,

or

pressed with regard to them, what is the law?

Does Rabbi Yehuda require the veins to be slaughtered as part of the act of slaughter, in which case they must be slaughtered in accordance with the laws of slaughter, or does he require them to be slaughtered for the sake of removing the blood, in which case delay or pressing does not disqualify them?

A certain elder said to him

—to Rabbi Yirmeya:

This is what Rabbi Elazar said

concerning this matter.

And some say

[and some say that the certain elder did not say this to Rabbi Yirmeya, but rather]

the certain elder said to Rabbi Elazar: This is what Rabbi Yohanan said: If one perforates them with a thorn, they are fit,

because the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling is the removal of blood, and not the laws of slaughter.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Hisda’s opinion,

that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement applies only to a bird, so that the blood will be removed, as it was taught:

If one slaughtered two halves of the simanim of a bird

—

it is disqualified,

and needless to say, in the case of an animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a bird,

the slaughter is not performed in accordance with halakha

until he slaughters the esophagus and the veins

adjacent to the esophagus.

It is thus evident that Rabbi Yehuda’s entire ruling was stated only with regard to a bird, and because of the removal of blood.

We learned in our Mishna: The slaughterer who slaughters

half of one [siman] in a bird

—his slaughter is invalid.

It was stated: Rav said: Half

of a slaughtered siman

against half

of an unslaughtered siman is

like a majority

of the siman having been slaughtered.

The Gemara assumed that Rav said this with regard to slaughter: If one slaughtered half of a siman, it is considered as though most of the siman had been slaughtered, and the slaughter is therefore valid.

Rav Kahana said: Half against half

—

is not like a majority.

Rav said that half against half is like a majority,

because

this is what the Merciful One said to Moses

when He transmitted the laws of slaughter to him orally:

Do not leave a majority

of the siman unslaughtered.

Rav Kahana said: Half against half is not like a majority,

because

this is what the Merciful One said to Moses: Slaughter a majority

of the siman.

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the order of the challenges raised from several sources against Rav’s statement:

Mnemonic: Half, Ketina, windpipe, damage.

We learned,

in our Mishna: The slaughterer who slaughters

half

of

one siman in a bird, and one and a half in an animal

—

his slaughter is invalid.

If you say

that according to Rav, slaughtering

half against half

of a siman is considered

like a majority, why is it invalid? He has performed

slaughter of a

majority,

which is the slaughter required according to Rav!?

And we answer: By Torah law, slaughtering half against half is valid, but the invalidity stated in our Mishna is

rabbinic,

because the Sages were concerned

perhaps he will come not to perform half

[lest he fail to perform half], and therefore prohibited eating meat from this slaughter. But the meat does not contract the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. Rabbi Ketina said: Come and hear

proof that half against half is not considered like a majority, from the laws of ritual impurity and purity.

The Torah states that an impure earthenware oven has no means of becoming pure except through breaking, as the verse says: “An oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are impure” [Leviticus 11:35]. But when the oven is broken and a piece remains that constitutes a majority of the oven as it was whole, that piece is not considered smashed, and it remains impure.

The beraita says: An impure oven that

was divided in two, and the two pieces

—the two parts—are

equal

in size according to visual assessment,

both are impure

by uncertainty,

since it is impossible to achieve exact equality

and know with certainty that the two pieces are equal, and there is uncertainty with regard to each piece whether it constitutes the majority of the oven.

Rav Ketina infers from the beraita:

Had

it been

possible to achieve exact equality

and establish that the two pieces were equal, then both would be

pure.

This presents a difficulty to Rav:

Why would they be pure?

Since half is considered like a majority, then

go here: there is a majority,

for when you consider this side, one piece of the oven, it has the status of a majority of an oven that remained whole, and it is impure; and likewise,

go here,

to the other piece of the oven,

there is a majority!

Rav Pappa said

in answer:

There cannot be two majorities in one vessel

[there is no basis for saying, with regard to two pieces of one vessel, that each is a majority of the vessel]. Every majority has a minority opposite it, and it is mutually contradictory to render both halves of the vessel impure by treating each as the majority of the vessel [under discussion]. Therefore, both are considered only halves, and not majorities. With regard to slaughter, however, the slaughtered half can be considered a majority and the remainder a minority, because we are not concerned with the unslaughtered half, and there is no practical legal consequence concerning it; thus there is no contradiction in treating half of it as though a majority had been slaughtered.