Chullin 32a — the Talmud in English

If another animal was slaughtered together with it

unintentionally— the cow was not disqualified because of performing work, since he did not intend to slaughter another animal, and there is no distraction,

however,

according to Rabbi Natan—

the

cow is disqualified

and the

animal is kosher,

the animal is kosher because, in the slaughter of non-sacred animals, intention is not required according to his view; and the cow is disqualified because of the disqualification of slaughtering two animals at once, for concerning the red cow the Torah says, “And he shall slaughter it” [Numbers 19:3], and we expound: “it,” but not it and its companion.

According to the Rabbis—

the cow is kosher, the animal is disqualified,

the animal is disqualified, since it was not slaughtered with intention; and therefore there is no disqualification in the cow: it is not disqualified because of performing work, since he did not intend to slaughter another animal and there is no distraction; and it is not disqualified because of slaughtering two animals at once, since the slaughter of the animal is disqualified.

And we challenge this:

It is obvious,

what ruling is Rava teaching? Is it not known that the cow is disqualified through performing work, and the disqualification of slaughtering two animals at once is also not a novelty of Rava!

And we answer: In truth, there is no novelty in this ruling that the cow is disqualified if he intentionally slaughtered another animal with it. However, this ruling, that if

an animal was slaughtered

unintentionally it is disqualified,

was necessary according to Rabbi Natan; it might enter your mind to say:

even though

the Merciful One said, “And he shall slaughter it,” but not it and its companion,

the cow is not disqualified in this case.

And what are the circumstances

in which it is disqualified? In

a case where he slaughtered two

red

cows together

[together], since both cows are consecrated, “it and its companion” applies to them;

but with regard to a non-sacred animal, say that it is not

included in “its companion”;

it teaches us

Rava that even a non-sacred animal causes disqualification.

Rava continues: If, when he slaughtered the red cow,

he cut a pumpkin with it,

according to

everyone—it is

disqualified

because of another work; and if

a pumpkin was cut with it

unintentionally, according to

everyone—it is kosher, since it was disqualified neither because of another work nor because of two animals together.

fit, because it was disqualified neither because of another task nor because of two animals being slaughtered together .

Mishna:

This Mishna deals with the law of interruption.

He was slaughtering, and in the middle of the slaughter

his

knife

fell from his hand and he lifted it

and continued slaughtering; or

his utensils fell

[his garments] in the middle of the slaughter

and he lifted them; or

he

sharpened the knife

before the slaughter

and became exhausted

[and tired] from this, and after he began slaughtering he stopped because he did not have the strength, and

his fellow came and slaughtered

and completed the slaughter;

if he interrupted

in the meantime

for the time required for slaughter—it is disqualified, for this is the measure of time given to Moses at Sinai concerning interruption.

disqualified, because this is the measure of time for interruption that was given to Moses at Sinai.

Rabbi Shimon says: If he interrupted for the time required to inspect

[to examine] the knife—his slaughter is disqualified, for this is the measure of interruption.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If he interrupted for the time required for slaughter—it is disqualified.

And we clarify:

What is “the time required for slaughter”?

Is it the time required to complete the slaughter that he had already begun, or is it the time required to slaughter from beginning to end?

Rav said:

The time required to slaughter another animal from beginning to end.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

This question: Does the measure of interruption vary according to the size or smallness of the slaughtered creature, so that

the time required to slaughter an animal

is the measure of interruption

for an animal, and

the time required to slaughter a

bird

is calculated

for a bird,

or perhaps there is a fixed measure for every slaughtered creature, and

there is a fixed measure for every creature being slaughtered? And does

even the time required to slaughter an

the time required to slaughter an

animal

is calculated

for a bird? He said to them:

Rav said: I too was uncertain about this when I studied with my uncle Rabbi Chiyya, but

I was not on intimate terms with my dear one so as to ask him.

[I did not then have sufficient closeness with my dear one to ask him this question].

The Gemara brings a dispute concerning this matter between Rav, who spoke from his own reasoning, and other amoraim.

It was stated: Rav said: The time required to slaughter an animal is for an animal, and a bird for a bird.

And Shmuel said:

One should be lenient and calculate

even according to the time required to slaughter an

animal

animal for a bird.

And likewise, when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yochanan said: Even an animal for a bird.

Rabbi Chanina said:

The measure is not calculated only by the slaughter itself, but

by the time required to bring another animal and slaughter it.

And we challenge Rabbi Chanina:

Should he bring it even from elsewhere?

[Should he even bring it from another place?] If so,

you have made your words dependent on measures,

sometimes the animal is near the place of slaughter and sometimes it is far away!

Rav Pappa said:

An animal that is found at the place of slaughter and

is standing ready to be cast down

to the ground—

the difference between them is this:

Rabbi Chanina calculates according to the time required for casting it down and slaughtering it, while Rav, Shmuel, and Rabbi Yochanan calculate only according to the slaughter itself.

They said in the West in the name of Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina:

One calculates according to

the time required to lift it, cast it down, and slaughter it,

in accordance with Rabbi Chanina; and one calculates each species according to its species, in accordance with Rav — the slaughter of a

small animal for a small animal, and a large animal for a large animal.

Rava said: One who slaughters with a poor knife

that is not sharp,

even if he slaughtered

if he slaughtered

the entire day—it is

the entire day, his slaughter is

kosher,

as long as he did not interrupt in the middle for the measure of interruption.

Rav asked: Interruptions

where the slaughterer interrupted two or three times during one slaughter—

what is the law: do they join together

if he interrupted between them for the measure of slaughter?

And we challenge this:

Resolve it from his own statement

[for it is possible to resolve the uncertainty from Rava’s own words], for he said that one who slaughters the entire day—his slaughter is kosher, and his intention is to say that even if there were several interruptions, they do not join together! And we answer:

There, he did not interrupt

at all; Rava’s novelty is that the slaughter is not required to be performed quickly, but only that there be no interruption in the middle.

Rav Huna son of Rav Natan asked:

If he slaughtered the majority of the two simanim and

interrupted during

the slaughter of the

minority of the simanim, what is the law?

Shall we say that once he slaughtered the majority, he had already rendered the animal permitted, and we do not care that he interrupted afterward; or shall we say that in any event the minority too is considered part of the slaughter, and if he performed it improperly, the slaughter is disqualified? And we conclude:

Teyku,

and one must be stringent in this matter.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: If he interrupted for the time required to inspect.

And we clarify:

What is the time required to inspect?

Rabbi Yochanan said: The time required for the inspection of a Sage,

for every slaughterer must show the knife with which he slaughters to a Sage, so that he may examine it to ensure that it has no notches.

And we challenge this:

If so, you have made your words dependent on measures,

for sometimes the Sage is close to the slaughterer and sometimes he is far from him, and there is no fixed measure here!

And we answer:

Rather, the time required for the inspection by a slaughterer

who is himself

a Sage

and does not bring the knife to another Sage; and one calculates only according to the inspection itself.

Mishna:

The Mishna teaches the law of an animal in which only one of its simanim was slaughtered properly.

If he slaughtered the esophagus

in an animal,

and severed the trachea

without a kosher knife,

or he severed the trachea and slaughtered

the esophagus,

Or he slaughtered one of them

and did not slaughter the other,

and waited for it until it died,

or

he slaughtered the one organ in accordance with its law, but

he buried

the knife

beneath

the

second organ, and severed it

from below upward, while the knife was covered by the organ—in these cases, the tannaim disagreed as to under which prohibition the animal becomes forbidden.

Rabbi Yishvav says:

the animal is

a nevela

and conveys the impurity of a nevela.

Rabbi Akiva says:

the animal is

a tereifa

and does not convey impurity.

Rabbi Yishvav stated a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Every

animal

that was disqualified

because there was a deficiency

in its slaughter—

a nevela; every

animal

whose slaughter was proper, and something else caused it to be disqualified

because there was a deficiency in one of its limbs, that is

a tereifa.

And Rabbi Akiva acknowledged him 201 .

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

“He slaughtered the esophagus, etc., and Rabbi Akiva acknowledged him.”

From the Mishna it is learned that according to all opinions, an animal whose trachea was severed and whose esophagus was slaughtered is a nevela, for there is no difference whether he severed the trachea a short time before he slaughtered it or a long time before, whether he severed it himself or the trachea was severed on its own.