Chullin 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Avin said to him: In truth, it is taught

in a beraita:

We are not concerned

lest they press against one another.

Rav Avin raised an objection

from a beraita against Shmuel:

If one slaughtered the esophagus below, and the trachea above

the place where the esophagus was slaughtered

. Or

if he slaughtered

the esophagus above, and the trachea below

it,

his slaughter is valid.

Apparently, this refers to a case in which he made two cuts, in two places: one above, toward the head, and one below, toward the chest.

And Rav Avin asks:

Why

is the slaughter valid?

But there is no exposed slaughter!

He raised the objection, and he himself resolved it:

This does not refer to two cuts in two places, but rather

to slaughtering in the form of a quill,

that is, he began slaughtering the trachea above, and angled and directed the knife downward; at the place where slaughtering the trachea ended, slaughtering the esophagus began. And similarly, the case may involve 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 Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta took the choicest of the choicest portions [

he took an especially choice portion of its meat].

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

In this incident,

you have taught us, our teacher,

that

our Mishna

speaks

of two knives

and two people,

and nevertheless it validates the slaughter, in accordance with Rav, and not in accordance with Shmuel and Reish Lakish, who required exposed slaughter. According to their view, the Mishna must be interpreted as referring to one knife.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said

two points concerning the halakha of ḥaladah:

a. If one slaughters after

hiding the knife

and inserting it

between one siman and the other, and cuts through it

the lower siman in accordance with its halakhot, and afterward removes the knife and slaughters the upper siman in the usual manner, the slaughter is

invalid,

because slaughter must be exposed; and when he slaughtered the esophagus, the knife was covered by the trachea.

b. If he inserted the knife

under the skin

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

valid,

because the skin is not included in the mitzva of slaughter. Only when something that is included in the act of slaughter covers the knife is this considered ḥaladah.

And we ask:

What does this teach us

through Rav’s first ruling? After all, the disqualification of ḥaladah

we already learned

in our Mishna below in this chapter!

We learned in the Mishna: “If one slaughtered the esophagus and severed the trachea” ...

or if he hid the knife beneath

the siman

and cut through it,

while he slaughtered one siman properly,

Rabbi Yeshevav says:

This animal is

a carcass

since its two simanim were not slaughtered properly.

Rabbi Akiva says: This is not a carcass, but rather

a tereifa

;

and it does not impart impurity like a carcass.

And we answer:

Had it been only from the Mishna,

without Rav’s words,

I would have said, this applies

only when ḥaladah is disqualified in a case where he slaughtered

from below upward,

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

as he is not performing the slaughter in the usual manner,

which is from the neck toward the nape.

But

in Rav’s case, where he slaughters the simanim

from above downward, as he is performing the slaughter in the usual manner, I would say that it is entirely permissible,

as this is not ḥaladah.

He therefore teaches us

Rav’s ruling: The concept of ḥaladah is that the knife is covered; it is not that one slaughters from below upward .

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

under the skin—

the slaughter is valid.

The Gemara cites a different tradition in Rav’s name.

The scholars of Rav’s academy say

in Rav’s name:

Under the skin—

I do not know

whether this is ḥaladah, since the knife is covered, or whether it is not ḥaladah, since the knife is not covered by something upon which the validity of slaughter depends.

They raised a dilemma: According to the scholars of Rav’s academy, 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 there also reason for uncertainty, and should we say that this too is ḥaladah, as when one slaughters under the animal’s skin, or is there no reason for uncertainty in this case, and it is certainly not ḥaladah, since the knife is not concealed by the animal’s body?

And we conclude:

The matter stands unresolved,

and one should be stringent due to the uncertainty .

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma:

If one slaughtered the majority of both simanim properly and afterward

hid the knife while slaughtering the minority of the simanim, what is the law?

Should we say that once he has slaughtered the majority of the simanim, he has already rendered the animal permitted, and we do not care what he did afterward? Or should we say that although, in truth, the slaughter is valid through the majority of the simanim, nevertheless the minority is also considered part of the slaughter, and if he performed it improperly, the slaughter is invalidated?

And we conclude:

The matter stands unresolved,

and one should be stringent in this matter.

Mishna:

If one slaughters two heads

of animals

at once—

his slaughter is valid

even in the case of sacrificial animals. However, in the case of sacrificial animals one should not do this initially, whereas in the case of non-sacred animals one may do so initially .

Two people hold

a knife and slaughter

one animal,

even if one

slaughters with his knife

above

on the animal’s neck, close to its head,

and the other

slaughters with his knife

below,

close to the chest—

their slaughter is valid 118 .

The Mishna comes to teach the laws of derasa.

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

severs the head in a single motion—

this is derasa, and the slaughter is

invalid.

If he was slaughtering

by drawing the knife

and severed

the head in a single motion,

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

if the

length of the

knife contains the full neck

of the animal being slaughtered beyond 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, derasa was also performed. But if the knife did not have this measure, it certainly pressed down.

Likewise, if

he was slaughtering

two animals

and severed

the

two

heads

in a single motion

by moving the knife outward or bringing it inward,

if the knife contains the full measure of one neck

beyond the two necks—meaning that the knife is as long as three necks—his slaughter

is valid,

but if not, his slaughter is not valid .

When is this statement applicable

that the knife must have this measure?

When he moved the knife 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 scalpel —

the slaughter is valid 127 .

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If he severed the head with a single stroke, it is unfit.

And we raised the question:

From where are these matters derived?

That slaughter must be performed by drawing the knife, and not by pressing it down?

Shmuel said:

One can derive that the term “slaughter” means drawing from what

the verse says:

“Their tongue is a slaughtered arrow; it speaks deceit” [Jeremiah 9:7].

The prophet compares the tongue of the wicked, which speaks deceit and harms their fellows from afar, to an arrow that travels by being drawn; thus, the term “slaughtered” means drawn.

The Gemara cites a beraita that derives from the term “slaughter” that derasa is unfit, in accordance with Shmuel.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

The Torah writes:

“And he shall slaughter

the young bull” [Leviticus 1:5].

“And he shall slaughter” means only “and he shall draw”; and so it says

concerning King Solomon, who plated the shields with

“drawn gold”

[I Kings 10:16–17]. This is soft gold that can easily be beaten thin and drawn out.

And

another verse

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

And we clarify:

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

Why did the tanna not suffice with the first verse, but added “and so it says” and cited an additional verse?

And we explain that this is what the tanna is saying:

“But if you should say”

[that one might object] that there is no proof from

“drawn gold”

that the term “slaughtered” means drawn, because it can be interpreted as referring to something that 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 as referring to drawing, as it says:

“Their tongue is a slaughtered arrow.”

Incidentally, the Gemara relates an incident in which a bird was slaughtered by means of an arrow.

Rava would examine an arrow

[Rava examined an arrow]

for Rabbi Yona bar Taḥlifa,

as the arrow was sharpened like a knife, and Rava examined it to ensure that it had no nick, since the law is that a Sage must examine the knife .

And with it

Rabbi Yona

slaughtered a bird while it was flying

[while it was in flight].

And we raised the question: How did they validate the bird

and

yet surely there is concern

that perhaps

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

he performed halada?

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