Chullin 85b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Abba said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Not with regard to every

matter

did Rabbi Meir say that an unfit slaughtering is called slaughtering,

but

Rabbi Meir concedes

that even though it is called slaughtering, nevertheless

the

slaughtering

does not permit it for eating! [

We shall ask below: Is this not obvious?]

And not with regard to every

matter did

Rabbi Shimon say that an unfit slaughtering is not called slaughtering.]]

But,

Rabbi Shimon concedes that

the unfit slaughtering

purifies it from the status of an animal carcass!

And we do not say that since it is not called slaughtering, the animal is as though it died by itself and should become impure as a carcass. For with regard to impurity, Rabbi Shimon concedes that this slaughtering has the designation “slaughtering.”

The Master said: Rabbi Meir did not say with regard to every matter that an unfit slaughtering is called slaughtering. Rabbi Meir concedes that it does not permit it for eating.

And we object:

Is it obvious!?

For

is a tereifa through slaughtering permitted?

Can slaughtering permit the prohibition of a tereifa?

And we answer:

It is necessary.

Rabbi Abba needed to teach us this law only with regard

to one who slaughters the

animal,

the tereifa, and finds in it

a fetus

of nine

months, when it is

alive, [

for since it has completed nine months and is fit to be born, it does not trail after its mother, so that it too would be a tereifa like her] . For had the animal not been a tereifa, the law would be that this fetus does not require slaughtering, but it could be eaten without slaughtering, because its mother’s slaughtering is effective also for it, and it is as though it itself had been slaughtered. And

it might enter your mind

that even if its mother is a tereifa,

since Rabbi Meir said that an unfit slaughtering is called slaughtering,

and the slaughtering of a tereifa is included in this, therefore

it should benefit

the fetus

from its mother’s slaughtering, and it should not require

the fetus

slaughtering,

like the law of a fetus found alive in a slaughtered animal, which does not require slaughtering.

He teaches us

Rabbi Abba that Rabbi Meir concedes that with regard to this matter the slaughtering of the tereifa mother is not considered slaughtering and is not effective for the fetus; rather, the fetus itself must be slaughtered .

And we object:

Can this be maintained,

and is it possible to say this according to Rabbi Meir?

For did Rabbi Meir not say: A fetus found in a slaughtered animal,

a nine-month fetus found in its mother’s womb after her slaughtering,

requires slaughtering,

and its mother’s slaughtering, even if she is fit, is not effective for it? If so, what is the novelty concerning a tereifa mother—that her slaughtering does not permit the fetus?

And we answer:

It is necessary.

Rabbi Abba needed to teach us this according to Rabbi Meir himself, but according to Rabbi, because

Rabbi follows Rabbi Meir

in one matter,

and follows the Sages

in one matter.

And we explain:

He follows Rabbi Meir, who says: An unfit slaughtering is called slaughtering, [

as explained above, that Rabbi follows Rabbi Meir with regard to “it and its offspring,” that it is called slaughtering, and from this he learned it for all the laws of the Torah except covering the blood]

and

on the other hand

he follows the Sages, who

disagree with Rabbi Meir and

say:

a fetus—

its mother’s slaughtering purifies it!

That is, it permits eating it without slaughtering. According to Rabbi, it might enter your mind:

since the Sages said that its mother’s slaughtering purifies it, its mother’s slaughtering should benefit it

even if she is a tereifa,

and it should not require

the fetus

slaughtering; he teaches us

that if its mother is a tereifa, her slaughtering is not effective for the fetus.

The Master said:

And Rabbi Shimon did not say with regard to every matter that an unfit slaughtering is not called slaughtering. Rabbi Shimon concedes that it purifies it from the status of an animal carcass.

And we object:

Is it obvious

that the slaughtering of a tereifa purifies [it] from the status of a carcass!?

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and a tanna taught it in a baraita:

It is written: “

And when an animal dies …

the one who touches its carcass shall become impure.” And we derive from the implication of the verse, “from the animal,” that not every animal imparts impurity, but only

some animals impart impurity and some animals do not impart impurity

through a carcass.

And which is this?

That does not impart impurity—

a tereifa that one slaughtered!?

And we answer:

It is necessary.

Rabbi Abba needed to teach us this only with regard

to one who slaughters the

animal,

the tereifa, when it is also non-sacred meat in the Temple courtyard, which too has left the status of a carcass.

And it was necessary to introduce this law because

it was taught: One who slaughters a tereifa

that was known before the slaughtering to be a tereifa,

and likewise one who slaughters and it is found

after the slaughtering to be

a tereifa

in its internal organs—

both this and that,

if they were

non-sacred animals

and he slaughtered them

in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits

them

for benefit!

For even though ordinary non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are prohibited for benefit, here, since the animal is a tereifa, Rabbi Shimon holds, according to his position, that an unfit slaughtering is not called slaughtering; consequently, it is not called “non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard” and is not prohibited.

And the Sages prohibit,

in accordance with their position that an unfit slaughtering is called slaughtering.

And since

it might enter your mind: Since Rabbi Shimon said, “It is permitted for benefit,” evidently

an unfit slaughtering of non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard

is not slaughtering at all 18 ,

and if so, it might enter your mind—

say that it also does not purify from the status of a carcass!

He teaches us

Rabbi Abba that even the slaughtering of a tereifa that is non-sacred meat in the Temple courtyard purifies from the status of a carcass.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is it so that

Rabbi Shimon holds that non-sacred animals

that were slaughtered

in the Temple courtyard

are subject to a prohibition of benefit that

is from the Torah!?

For this is implied by the fact that he permitted them for benefit in the case of unfit slaughtering: if the prohibition were only rabbinic [for they decreed lest people think that the non-sacred animals are sacrificial animals, and after seeing that they eat them outside the courtyard they would come to permit eating sacrificial animals outside], then even in the case of unfit slaughtering Rabbi Shimon should have prohibited them for this reason .

He said to him

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

Yes! For we learned:

that indeed Rabbi Shimon holds that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are subject to a prohibition from the Torah:

Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned in fire, and likewise a wild animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard

shall be burned, even though everyone knows that the wild animal is non-sacred [for no offering is brought from it].

And since we learned that Rabbi Shimon prohibits [this] also with regard to a wild animal, necessarily, according to him, the prohibition of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is from the Torah. For

if you say that it is from the Torah, this is understandable: we decree concerning a wild animal because of a domesticated animal. But if you say that it is rabbinic,

why should a wild animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard be prohibited? For

for what reason

did the Sages prohibit a domesticated animal? A decree

lest one come to eat sacrificial animals outside,

that they might err and think that the non-sacred domesticated animal slaughtered in the courtyard is a sacrificial animal. But this reason does not apply to a wild animal, since everyone knows that it is non-sacred. And if you say that its prohibition is because they decreed “a wild animal because of a domesticated animal,” behold,

that

is the non-sacred domesticated animal

itself, a decree, and shall we then arise and decree a decree upon a decree!?

Rabbi Hiyya had a yaniva fall upon his flax.

A worm that eats flax entered his flax.

He came before Rabbi. He said to him:

Rabbi

said to him:

Take a bird

and slaughter it over the vat of water,

the water in which they soak the flax,

so that it smells the blood,

so that the worm will smell the bird’s blood,

and it will leave it,

and flee from the water because it hates this smell.

And we object:

How did he do this?

For he should have covered the blood of the bird.

For it was taught: One who slaughters

because he

needs the blood

to use it, even though he does not need to eat the bird,

is obligated to cover

the blood! That is, he cannot use the blood, but must cover it .

What shall one who needs the blood do?

One who needs the blood

must either tear its throat or uproot it,

and thereby he is exempt from covering . And if so, it is difficult: How did Rabbi say to Rabbi Hiyya, “Take a bird and slaughter it over the vat of water,” without covering the blood!?

And we answer:

When Rav Dimi came, he said: “Go and maul it!” Rabbi said to Rabbi Hiyya.

that he should make the bird a tereifa before slaughtering it, so that he would be exempt from covering [and in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon, that one who slaughters a tereifa is exempt from covering].

When Ravin came, he said: “Go and choke it!” he said to him,

that is, kill it and do not slaughter it at all [for even according to the view of Rabbi Meir, he is exempt from covering].

And we raise an objection to this:

According to the one who says, “Go and maul it,” what is the reason that he did not say

that Rabbi said this to Rabbi Hiyya:

“Go and choke it!”?

And if you say

that he holds that Rabbi did not tell him, “Go and choke it,” because

he holds

Rabbi:

there is no slaughter for a bird from the Torah,

for the obligation to slaughter the bird is only rabbinic, but by Torah law it is permitted to eat it even if he killed it by piercing or by uprooting the simanim, and consequently, if he had choked it, he would not have been exempt from covering the blood, for

this choking is its slaughter,

and therefore he told him, “Go and maul it,” so that it would be an unfit slaughter according to Torah law, [for a tereifa is forbidden to be eaten by Torah law even in the case of a bird]] .

It is impossible to say so! For there is proof that according to Rabbi one is required by Torah law to slaughter the bird.

As it was taught: Rabbi says:

It is written, “And you shall slaughter

as I commanded you!”

And where do we find in the Torah that Moses was commanded concerning the laws of slaughter? Rather,

it teaches that Moses was commanded

orally

concerning the gullet and the windpipe,

that the slaughter be in them,

and concerning the majority

of a siman

one

which one must slaughter

in a bird, and concerning the majority of two

which one must slaughter

in an animal!

Thus, Rabbi holds that the slaughter of a bird is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that is, from the Torah; and if so, why did he not say to Rabbi Hiyya, “Go and choke it”?