Chullin 28b — the Talmud in English

Perhaps you will say:

Let us slaughter it, and afterward examine it,

let us examine it after slaughtering, above and below the place of slaughter, to see whether the trachea was severed or the esophagus perforated. This examination is not useful, for

perhaps

there was a perforation there, and

he slaughtered at the place of the perforation,

and after slaughtering the perforation is no longer visible.

Perhaps you will say:

Let us examine it

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

and afterward let us slaughter it.

This is indeed good advice only for examining the trachea, which does not render the animal non-kosher unless it is damaged across most of its width, and in this way one can see that there is no damage. But regarding the esophagus, this examination is not useful, for:

Rabba said: The esophagus,

since its outer membrane is red,

has no examination from the outside,

because with any perforation in the esophagus the animal becomes non-kosher, and a drop of blood can seal the perforation; the perforation and the seal cannot be distinguished, because the color of the esophagus on the outside is red like the blood, and therefore the esophagus has no examination

except from the inside,

where the inner membrane is white, and if there is a perforation there and a drop of blood has entered it, it will be noticed.

Rav Yosef, his son, said to him,

Rav’s son, to his father: There is still a solution. For

let us examine it

while it is alive

with regard to the trachea

alone, since it is damaged only if most of it is cut,

and let us slaughter the trachea

alone,

and deem it fit

by this, since in a bird it is possible to slaughter one sign,

and afterward

[and afterward] they will uproot the esophagus from the jaw, and

turn the esophagus

[turn the esophagus] toward its inner, white side,

and examine it.

Rava said

concerning the words of his son, Rav Yosef:

My son Yosef is wise in the laws of animals rendered non-kosher, like Rabbi Yohanan 63.

And we learn from this:

Evidently,

Rava holds that an animal is rendered fit by slaughtering the trachea alone, for the

one that the

tanna of the Mishna says

either this or that

[either the trachea or the esophagus].

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: Until he slaughters

the veins.

Rav Hisda said: Rabbi Judah stated

his words—that one must also slaughter the veins in an animal—

only with regard to a bird,

and the reason is the prohibition against eating blood,

since

the practice is to

roast it

whole at once,

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

But an animal, since it is cut up

—for it is not roasted all at once, but is cut up—

limb by limb

before roasting, there is no concern for this, and

it is not necessary

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

And we object:

Is this to say that the reason of Rabbi Judah

—that one must slaughter the veins—

is because of

the removal of

blood?

But we learned: Rabbi Judah says: Until he slaughters the veins.

And if his reason is because of the removal of blood, it is not necessary to slaughter the veins; rather, it is possible to perforate the veins!

And we answer:

Say instead: Until he perforates the veins.

And what is the meaning of “until he slaughters”? —

Until he perforates them at the time of slaughtering,

and it is not sufficient that he perforate them after slaughtering, because only at the time of slaughtering is the blood hot and does it leave through the perforation.

Ta shma

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

The veins

—

at slaughtering, the words of Rabbi Judah.

And it is proven here that the law of the veins applies specifically through slaughtering and not through perforation!

And we answer: Here too,

say instead: The veins must be perforated at the time of slaughtering, the words of Rabbi Judah.

Ta shma

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

As it was taught:

The Sages said

to Rabbi Judah: Since the veins were not mentioned

with regard to slaughtering in your words,

except

in order

to remove blood from them, what difference is there whether it is through slaughtering or whether it is not through slaughtering

but in another manner?

And the Gemara proves: From the fact that they asked him why it is necessary specifically to slaughter them,

by inference

you learn

that Rabbi Judah holds

that the law of the veins is

through slaughtering

specifically!

And we answer: In fact, the Sages did not hear from Rabbi Judah that one must slaughter the veins; rather, they heard from him that one must perforate the veins at the time of slaughtering, and

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

but afterward?

And he holds

that only

at the time of slaughtering there comes [comes]

[the]

blood

to the perforation and exits outside, because

it is alive [it is hot] still; but

[and therefore warm]. But

when it is not the time of slaughtering, blood does not come,

because

it is cold,

having already cooled, and it will no longer exit through salting, and will render it prohibited when we roast it.

The Gemara brings that Rabbi Jeremiah, who did not know Rav Hisda’s statement, was uncertain about Rabbi Judah’s reason, and the amoraim resolved his uncertainty in accordance with Rav Hisda’s view.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked: The veins, according to Rabbi Judah,

if he

delayed with them,

or

pressed with them, what is the law?

Does Rabbi Judah require slaughtering the veins as a law of slaughtering, and therefore must they be slaughtered according to the laws of slaughtering; or must they be slaughtered because of the removal of blood, and therefore delay or pressing does not invalidate them?

A certain elder said to him

—to Rabbi Jeremiah:

This is what Rabbi Elazar said

concerning this matter.

And some say

[and some say] that the certain elder did not say these words to Rabbi Jeremiah, but rather

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

because Rabbi Judah’s reason is the removal of blood and not the laws of slaughtering.

A beraita in support of Rav Hisda

—that Rabbi Judah’s words were stated only with regard to a bird, so that it should release the blood—as it was taught:

If he slaughtered two halves of the signs in a bird

—it is invalid,

because there is not a majority here, not even of one sign.

And it goes without saying in an animal. Rabbi Judah says: With a bird

the slaughtering is not according to halakha

until he slaughters the esophagus and the veins

adjacent to the esophagus.

And it is proven that all of Rabbi Judah’s law was stated only with regard to a bird, and because of the removal of blood.

We learned in our Mishna: The slaughterer

half of one sign in a bird

—his slaughtering is invalid.

It was stated: Rav said: Half

of a slaughtered sign

against half

of an unslaughtered sign is

like a majority

of a slaughtered sign.

And the Gemara assumed that Rav said this with regard to slaughtering: If he slaughtered half of a sign, it is considered as though a majority of the sign had been slaughtered, and this is slaughtering according to halakha.

Rav Kahana said: Half against half

—

is not like a majority.

Rav said: Half against half is like a majority,

since

this is what the Merciful One said to Moses

when He transmitted to him the laws of slaughtering orally:

Do not leave a majority

of the sign unslaughtered.

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

since

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

of the sign.

The Gemara brings a mnemonic for the order of the objections from several places against Rav’s words:

Mnemonic: Half, Ketina, trachea, defect.

We learned,

in our Mishna: The slaughterer

half

of one sign

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

—

his slaughtering is invalid.

If you say

that according to Rav, the slaughtering of

half against half

of a sign is considered

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

slaughtering of half, whose law is the law of slaughtering

a majority,

for this is the slaughtering required according to Rav!?

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

rabbinic,

for they were concerned

lest he not come to perform half [lest he not perform half], and therefore they prohibited eating from this slaughtering. But the meat does not convey the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass.

Rabbi Ketina said: Ta shma

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

It is stated in the Torah that a clay oven that became impure has no way to become pure except through breaking, as the verse says: “An oven and a hearth shall be broken; they are impure” [Leviticus 11:35]. But when the oven is broken and a part remains that is the majority of the oven as it was whole, this part is not considered broken, and it remains in its impurity.

The beraita says: An impure oven that

was divided into two, and they are

—the two parts—

equal

in size to the eye,

both are impure

as a matter of doubt,

because it is impossible to make them exactly equal

and know with certainty that the two parts are equal, and for each part we have a doubt, perhaps it is the majority of the oven.

And Rav Ketina infers from the beraita:

Indeed,

if it were

possible to make them exactly equal

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

pure.

And from here there is a difficulty for Rav:

Why are they pure?

Since half is considered like a majority, then

go here: there is a majority,

when you go to this side, to one part of the oven, it has the status of a majority of an oven that remains whole, and it is impure; and likewise,

go here,

to the second part of the oven,

there is a majority!

Rav Pappa said

in answer:

There are not two majorities in one vessel [there is no basis for saying, concerning two parts of one vessel, that each one is the majority of the vessel]. For every majority there is a minority corresponding to it, and this is two contradictory propositions if we are to render both halves of the vessel impure, as the majority of the vessel [under discussion]. Therefore both are considered only half, and not like a majority. But with regard to slaughtering, it is possible to consider the slaughtered half a majority and the remainder a minority, because we are not discussing the half that was not slaughtered, and there is no practical legal consequence concerning it; thus there is no contradiction to considering its half as though a majority of it had been slaughtered.

[there is no basis for saying, with regard to two parts of a single vessel, that each is a majority of the vessel]. Every majority has a minority corresponding to it, and considering both parts as majorities is self-contradictory; one cannot render both halves of the vessel impure as though each were the majority of the vessel. Therefore, both are considered only halves, and not majorities. With regard to slaughter, however, one may consider the slaughtered half a majority and the un-slaughtered part a minority, because we are not addressing the un-slaughtered half and no legal consequence depends on it. There is therefore no contradiction in treating half of the organ as though a majority of it had been slaughtered.