Chullin 29b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge: If completing the slaughter prevents the service,

if so, it would be a service

of Yom Kippur that was performed

by another

who is not the High Priest,

and it was taught in a beraita: All the services of Yom Kippur are valid only when performed by him!

And we answer:

This is what

Reish Lakish

could

say: If he did not complete the slaughter,

it might be invalid by rabbinic decree, for it might enter your mind to say that there is rabbinic invalidity

with regard to consecrated offerings if all the signs were not slaughtered, but the Sages did not make the matter stringent so that this would be an invalid service when performed by an ordinary priest;

therefore we learned: “one majority in a bird and two majorities in an animal,”

we learn that there is no rabbinic invalidity when he did not complete the slaughter.

And we inquire:

And since there is not even rabbinic invalidity, why must he complete the slaughter?

For it would have been preferable not to perform the service by another.

And we answer: Nevertheless,

it is a mitzva to complete the slaughter

in order to remove all the blood, and it is preferable to fulfill this mitzva even by another.

The Gemara brings a dispute among the amoraim concerning the nature of slaughter.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Levi the Elder:

The slaughter

does not

acquire

the designation of

slaughter

except at the end

of the slaughter; but the beginning of the act of slaughter is not called slaughter with regard to halakhot that depend upon the designation of slaughter.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The slaughter exists from beginning to end

everything is called slaughter.

The Gemara now explains the practical legal difference between the opinions of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan.

Rava said: Everyone agrees

that if the beginning of the slaughter was not performed according to its law, for example,

where a gentile slaughtered one sign, and

afterward

an Israelite slaughtered one sign, so that

the slaughter

is invalid 81 ,

because even according to Reish Lakish we do not say that we follow the end of the slaughter,

for an act of tereifa was performed upon it by the hand of a gentile,

as any animal one of whose signs has been severed is a tereifa, unless the severing was performed according to the conditions of the laws of slaughter.

And Rava brings another case concerning which one might have said that it depends upon the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, but Rava rejects this and says that in this case as well there is in truth no dispute.

Just as Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree concerning slaughter, so do they disagree concerning pinching: according to Reish Lakish, the designation of pinching applies only to the end of the pinching, whereas according to Rabbi Yohanan the entire act is called pinching.

There are two differences between the bird sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering with regard to pinching.

A. For a sin-offering, one must pinch one sign, whereas for a burnt-offering, one must pinch two signs.

B. The place of pinching a bird burnt-offering is above the scarlet line, The priest would ascend the ramp, turn toward the surrounding ledge of the altar, and pinch there; and if he pinched below, it was invalid, whereas for a sin-offering he would pinch below. [Zevahim 64b].

And Rava says:

With regard to the bird burnt-offering as well,

although it would have been possible to say:

Where he pinched one sign below

not in accordance with the law of its pinching,

and one sign above

in accordance with its law, the matter depends upon the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish: if we say that the designation of pinching applies to its end, the pinching was performed in its proper place; and if we say that the designation of pinching applies from its beginning, the pinching was not performed in its proper place.

In truth, the burnt-offering is

invalid

even according to Reish Lakish, and even though with regard to a burnt-offering the completion of the pinching is with the second sign,

for

when he pinched one sign, he

performed upon it

something that is the completion of the

act of the bird sin-offering,

and he performed it invalidly

below,

and here there is the end of an invalid pinching.

Rava explains that there is a practical difference between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish with regard to offerings slaughtered outside.

One who slaughters outside the Temple courtyard is liable for excision. One who slaughters a consecrated bird outside the Temple courtyard is liable, and although its law is that it must be pinched in the courtyard, he is liable for slaughtering it outside, and not for pinching it outside.

Rava says:

They disagree only

with

a case such as one in which he slaughtered one sign

of the bird burnt-offering

outside and one sign inside. According to the one who says—

the slaughter exists from beginning to end—

he is liable

for the beginning of the slaughter outside;

according to the one who says—

the slaughter exists only at the end—

he is not liable,

since the completion of the slaughter was inside, and before that the slaughter was not called slaughter.

According to Rava, in this case the slaughterer is not liable for one sign because with a bird sin-offering it is sufficient to pinch one sign, since he did not pinch the bird but slaughtered it; and it cannot be said that he completed outside the act that must be performed with a bird sin-offering. Since the Torah makes one liable for slaughter, the end of the act of slaughter must be viewed according to what must be done with a bird burnt-offering, because he slaughtered a bird burnt-offering outside.

Rabba bar Shimi said to Rava

:

The master did not say this, and who is it?

[And who is this master?]

Rav Yosef.

According to Rav Yosef, even

where he slaughtered one sign outside and one sign inside, it is also invalid

and he is liable for excision according to all opinions. And although he slaughtered a burnt-offering, and with a burnt-offering two signs must be pinched, nevertheless one sign is considered the completion of the slaughter,

for he performed upon it the act of a bird sin-offering outside,

even though he slaughtered and did not pinch.

And Rav Yosef says:

They disagree only

in

a case such as one in which he slaughtered a minority of the signs outside and completed them inside

88 . According to the one who says: The slaughter exists from beginning to end—

he is liable; according to the one who says: The slaughter exists only at the end—

he is not liable,

because a minority of the signs is not the completion with regard to any offering.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

from a Mishna in tractate Para against Rabbi Yohanan:

All those occupied with the red

cow

from beginning to end,

its services, from the one who slaughters it until the one who gathers its ashes, are impure and

impart impurity to garments

that they are wearing at the time of the service.

And

those occupied with it

disqualify it

if they engage

in another labor

during its preparation, since they expounded from the verses that a red cow is disqualified through performing another labor.

If an invalidity occurred in its slaughter

for example, it became a carcass—it imparts impurity as a carcass, but it does not impart impurity to those occupied with it by virtue of the red cow at all , and

whether before its invalidity or after its invalidity—

it does not impart impurity to garments

since it was never valid, and all those occupied with it are not occupied with a red cow.

And if a particular invalidity occurred

in its sprinkling,

when its blood was sprinkled seven times opposite the Sanctuary, then those occupied with it

before its invalidity—

impart impurity to garments

of theirs, because they were occupied with it while it was valid; whereas those occupied with it

after its invalidity—

do not impart impurity to garments

of theirs, because they were not occupied with a valid red cow.

And

Rabbi Zeira asks:

If you say that the slaughter exists from beginning to end,

and the beginning of the slaughter of the cow is fit to render the one occupied with it impure, then

let him also distinguish

[the tanna could also distinguish]

with regard to its slaughter

and say:

If an invalidity occurred in its slaughter,

for example, he paused in the middle of the slaughter, then the one who slaughtered it

before its invalidity—

imparts impurity to garments

of his; and the one who slaughtered it

after its invalidity,

if he was another person—

does not impart impurity to garments

of his!

Rava said:

You are speaking of

the slaughter having become defective,

where there is room to distinguish between before the invalidity and after the invalidity? It is not so. Rather, even according to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that the beginning of the slaughter is called slaughter,

there it is different,

when the slaughter became defective,

the matter is revealed retroactively

[that the matter became clear retroactively]

that it is not slaughter at all,

and only when the entire slaughter was valid is the beginning called by the designation of slaughter.

Rava said: If this is difficult to me

[if this Mishna is difficult to me, it is not difficult to me from it concerning Rabbi Yohanan, but rather]

this is what is difficult to me: According to the one who says: The slaughter exists only at the end, let him distinguish

[let the tanna distinguish] in the first clause of the Mishna dealing

with the fitness of the cow,

which says that all those occupied with the cow impart impurity to garments, and let him say that the one who begins the slaughter does not impart impurity to garments, and

in a case in which two men slaughtered it

[with two men],

the first man does not impart impurity and the last man imparts impurity!

Rav Yosef said

to Rava:

Are you saying two men with one slaughtering?!

[Do you want to say that the Mishna speaks of two men who slaughtered one offering?!]

Exclude that

[remove this possibility from your mind], for this should not be done, and it is not common for them to act improperly.

For we learned: “You shall slaughter”

teaches

that two shall not slaughter one offering. “You shall slaughter it”

teaches

that one shall not slaughter two offerings.

And Rav Kahana said: “You shall slaughter it” is written 93 .

From this beraita Rav Yosef learned that a red cow should not be slaughtered by two people, since the law of the preparation of a cow is like the law of an offering. And Rav Yosef understood that there is no difference between two people slaughtering together and two people slaughtering one after the other.