Chullin 30b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Avin said to him: In truth, teach

in the beraita:

we are not concerned ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

lest they crush one another.

Rav Avin raised an objection

from a beraita against Shmuel:

If he slaughtered the esophagus below, and the windpipe above

the place of slaughtering the esophagus

. Or

if he slaughtered

the esophagus above, and the windpipe below

it,

his slaughter is valid.

And seemingly, this is referring to a case where he made two cuts, in two places: one above, toward the head, and one below, toward the chest.

And Rav Avin challenges:

Why

is the slaughter valid?

But there is no exposed slaughtering!

He raised the objection, and he resolves it:

This is not referring to two cuts in two places, but rather

to slaughtering performed like a pen,

meaning that he began slaughtering the windpipe above, and inclined and directed the knife downward, and at the place where the slaughtering of the windpipe ended, there the slaughtering of the esophagus began; and similarly, it is referring to one who slaughters from below upward.

And we bring an incident:

There was a certain ox that was slaughtered in two or three places. Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta took the choicest of the choicest [

he took from its meat an especially fine portion].

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

In this incident,

you have taught us, our teacher,

that

our Mishna

is speaking

of two knives

and two people,

and nevertheless it validates the slaughter, in accordance with Rav and unlike Shmuel and Reish Lakish, who required exposed slaughtering; and according to their view, the Mishna must be explained as speaking of one knife.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav

two matters concerning the law of halada:

a. One who

inserted the knife

and placed it

between one sign and the other and cut it

—he cut the lower sign in accordance with its law, and afterward removed the knife and slaughtered the upper sign in the manner of slaughtering—the slaughter is

invalid,

because slaughter must be exposed, and when this person slaughtered the esophagus, the knife was covered by the windpipe.

b. If he thrust the knife

under the skin

and slaughtered the signs while the knife was covered by the skin, the slaughter is

valid,

because the skin is not included in the commandment of slaughter; only when something that is included in slaughter covers the knife is this included in halada.

And we challenge:

What does this teach us

through Rav’s first ruling? Surely the invalidity of halada

we learned

in our Mishna below, in this chapter!

We learned in the Mishna: If he slaughtered the esophagus and cut the windpipe ...

or if he inserted the knife under

the sign

second and cut it,

and slaughtered one sign properly,

Rabbi Yishvav says:

This animal is

a nevela

since its two signs were not slaughtered in accordance with halakha.

Rabbi Akiva says:

This is not a nevela, but rather

a terefa

and it does not impart impurity like a nevela.

And we answer:

If [we derived it] from the Mishna

without Rav’s words,

I would have said, this matter applies

that halada is invalid specifically in a case where he slaughtered

from below upward,

that is, he slaughtered from the direction of the nape toward the neck,

for he does not act in the manner of slaughtering,

which is from the neck toward the nape,

but

in Rav’s case, where he slaughters the signs

from above downward, for he acts in the manner of slaughtering, I would say that it is entirely permitted,

as this is not halada.

It teaches us

Rav that the matter of halada is that the knife is covered, and the matter of halada is not that he slaughters from below upward.

The second ruling that Rav stated is that if he inserted the knife

under the skin—

[the slaughter is] valid.

The Gemara brings another tradition in Rav’s name.

In the school of Rav they say

in Rav’s name:

Under the skin—

I do not know

whether this is halada, since the knife is covered, or whether this is not halada, since the knife is not covered by something upon which the slaughter depends.

It was asked of them: According to the school of Rav, who say, “Under the skin, I do not know,”

if one slaughters

under a cloth

wrapped around the animal around its neck,

what is [the law]?

And likewise, if one slaughters while the knife is covered

under tangled wool

of the animal,

what is [the law]?

Is one to be uncertain and say that this too is halada, as when one slaughters under the animal’s skin, or is there no uncertainty in this case, and certainly this is not halada, since the knife is not concealed by the animal’s body?

And we conclude:

Teyku,

and one must be stringent because of the uncertainty .

Rav Pappa inquired:

If he slaughtered the majority of the two signs in accordance with halakha and afterward

inserted the knife into the minority of the signs, what is [the law]?

Should we say that once he slaughtered the majority of the signs, he had already rendered the animal permitted, and we do not care about what he did afterward; or should we say that although in truth the slaughter is valid through the majority of the signs, nevertheless the minority too is considered part of the slaughter, and if he performed it not in accordance with halakha, the slaughter is invalidated .

And we conclude:

Teyku,

and one must be stringent in this matter.

Mishna:

One who slaughters two heads

of animals

at once—

his slaughter is valid

even in sacrificial animals. But with sacrificial animals, one should not do this initially; with non-sacred animals, one may do this initially .

Two hold

a knife and slaughter

one animal,

even if one

slaughters with his knife

above

on the animal’s neck, near its head,

and one

slaughters with his knife

below,

near the chest—

his slaughter is valid 118 .

The Mishna comes to teach the laws of pressing.

One who presses the knife forcefully into the animal’s neck and

severs the head all at once,

this is pressing, and the slaughter is

invalid.

If he was slaughtering

by drawing the knife

and severed

the head all at once,

that is, he did not move the knife back and forth, but either moved the knife outward along the animal’s neck or brought the animal’s neck toward it,

if there is in the

length of the

knife the full neck

of the slaughtered animal outside its neck , that is, if it is as long as two necks —the slaughter is

valid,

and there is no concern that, because of the speed of the slaughter, pressing was also performed; but if the knife did not have this measure, certainly he pressed.

And likewise, if

he was slaughtering

two animals

and severed

the

two

heads

all at once

by moving the knife outward or bringing it inward,

if the knife contains the full measure of one neck

outside the two necks—that is, the knife is as long as three necks—his slaughter is

valid,

but if not, his slaughter is not valid .

In what circumstances does this matter

that the knife must have this measure?

When he moved it outward but did not bring it inward, or brought it inward but did not move it outward

the knife.

But if he moved it outward and brought it inward, even if

he slaughtered with a knife

of any size, even if

he slaughtered

with a razor —

[the slaughter is] valid 127 .

Tosafot that we brought in note 122, that the intention determines.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If he severed the head all at once—it is invalid.

And we ask:

From where are these words?

that slaughter is by way of pulling and not by way of pressing down?

Shmuel said:

It is to be learned that the expression of slaughter means pulling, from what

the verse says: “Their tongue is a slaughtered arrow; it speaks deceit”

The prophet compares the tongue of the wicked, which speaks deceit and harms their fellows from afar, to an arrow that moves by pulling; thus, the expression “slaughtered” means pulled.

The Gemara brings a beraita that expounds from the expression of slaughter that pressing down is invalid, in accordance with Shmuel.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

It is written in the Torah:

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull” [Leviticus 1:5]

“‘And he shall slaughter’ means only ‘and he shall pull’; and so it says

concerning King Solomon, who overlaid the shields with

“drawn gold”

and this is soft gold that is easy to beat out, and they pull it.

And

another verse

says, “Their tongue is a slaughtered arrow; it speaks deceit.”

And we clarify:

What is the purpose of “and so it says”?

Why did the tanna not suffice with the first verse, and add “and so it says” and bring an additional verse?

And we explain that this is what the tanna said:

And if you would say

[and if you would say] that there is no proof from

“drawn gold”

that the expression “slaughtered” means pulled, because it can be interpreted in the sense that it is a thread,

that it is spun like a thread

because of its great softness,

come and hear

another verse that can be interpreted only in the sense of pulling, as it is written:

“Their tongue is a slaughtered arrow.”

Incidentally, the Gemara brings an incident in which a bird was slaughtered by an arrow.

Rava would examine an arrow

Rava examined an arrow

for Rabbi Yonah bar Tahlifa,

for the arrow was sharpened like a knife, and Rava was examining whether it had no nick, since the law is that one must have a sage examine the knife .

And he slaughtered with it

Rabbi Yonah

a bird while it was flying

[while it was flying].

And we ask: How did they declare the bird valid?

And

after all, there is concern

lest

the arrow was covered by the skin of the bird when he slaughtered, and

he performed concealment?

And we say: There is a way to know that concealment did not occur,