Chullin 85b (פה:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Abba said:

not for every

matter

did Rabbi Meir say that an unfit slaughtering is considered slaughtering;

rather,

Rabbi Meir concedes

that although it is considered slaughtering, nevertheless

the

slaughtering

does not permit it to be eaten! [

This will be challenged below: Is this not obvious?]

And not for every

matter did

Rabbi Shimon say that an unfit slaughtering is not considered slaughtering.

Rather,

Rabbi Shimon concedes that

an unfit slaughtering

purifies it from the status of an unslaughtered carcass!

We do not say that, since it is not considered slaughtering, the animal is as though it died on its own and therefore becomes impure as an unslaughtered carcass. For purposes of impurity, Rabbi Shimon concedes that this slaughtering bears the designation “slaughtering.”

The Master said: Rabbi Meir did not say with regard to every matter that an unfit slaughtering is considered slaughtering. Rabbi Meir concedes that it does not permit the animal to be eaten.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious!?

For

can a tereifa be permitted through slaughtering,

meaning, can slaughtering permit the prohibition of a tereifa?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rabbi Abba to teach us this law only with regard

to one who slaughters the

animal

that is a tereifa and finds in it

a fetus

of nine

months, which is

alive, [

since once it has completed nine months and is fit to be born, it does not follow its mother so as to be a tereifa like her] . For if the animal were not a tereifa, the law would be that this fetus would not require slaughtering; it could be eaten without slaughtering, since its mother’s slaughtering is effective for it as well, and it is as though it itself had been slaughtered.

It might enter your mind to say

that even if its mother is a tereifa,

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

including the slaughtering of a tereifa, then

it should be effective for it,

for the fetus,

its mother’s slaughtering, and it should not require

the fetus itself to undergo

slaughtering,

as is the law with a naturally delivered fetus, which does not require slaughtering.

It teaches us

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

And we challenge this:

Can you understand it so,

meaning, is it possible to say this according to Rabbi Meir?

For Rabbi Meir said: A naturally delivered fetus,

a nine-month fetus found in its mother’s womb after she has been slaughtered,

requires slaughtering,

and its mother’s slaughtering, even if she is kosher, is not effective for it. If so, what is the novelty in stating that when its mother is a tereifa, her slaughtering does not permit the fetus?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rabbi Abba to teach us this not with regard to Rabbi Meir himself, but with regard to Rabbi, because

Rabbi follows Rabbi Meir

in one matter

and follows the Sages

in another matter.

And we explain:

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

[as explained above, that with regard to oto ve-et beno, Rabbi follows Rabbi Meir in saying that it is considered slaughtering, and derives from this 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 it to be eaten without slaughtering. According to Rabbi, one might have thought:

Since the Sages said that its mother’s slaughtering purifies it, its mother’s slaughtering should be effective for it

even if she is a tereifa,

and it should not require

the fetus itself to undergo

slaughtering; it 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 considered slaughtering. Rabbi Shimon concedes that it purifies it from the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

And we challenge this:

Is it not obvious

that the slaughtering of a tereifa purifies it from the status of an unslaughtered carcass!?

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and it was taught in a beraita:

It is written: “

And when an animal dies

... whoever touches its carcass shall become impure.” We derive from the implication of the verse, “from the animal,” that not every animal causes impurity, but only

some animals cause impurity and some animals do not cause impurity

as an unslaughtered carcass

! And which is that

which does not cause impurity—

a tereifa that one slaughtered!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for Rabbi Abba to teach us this only with regard

to one who slaughters the

animal

that is a tereifa and is a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, which also leaves the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

It was necessary to teach this law because

it was taught: One who slaughters a tereifa

that was known before slaughtering to be a tereifa,

and likewise one who slaughters and it is found

after slaughtering that it is

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!

Although ordinary non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are generally forbidden for benefit, here, since the animal is a tereifa, Rabbi Shimon maintains, in accordance with his view, that an unfit slaughtering is not considered slaughtering. Consequently, it is not called “non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard” and is not forbidden.

And the Sages prohibit

them, in accordance with their view that an unfit slaughtering is considered slaughtering.

And since

it might enter your mind to say: 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 so one might have thought—

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

It teaches us

Rabbi Abba that even the slaughtering of a tereifa that is a non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard purifies it from the status of an unslaughtered carcass.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And

does

Rabbi Shimon maintain that non-sacred animals

that were slaughtered

in the Temple courtyard

are subject to a prohibition against benefiting from them that

is of Torah origin!?

This is indicated by the fact that he permitted them for benefit in the case of unfit slaughtering. For if the prohibition were only rabbinic [the Sages decreed this lest people think that the non-sacred animals were consecrated animals and, after seeing them eaten outside the Temple courtyard, come to permit eating consecrated animals outside], Rabbi Shimon should have prohibited them even after an unfit slaughtering for this reason .

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

Yes! And did we not learn

that Rabbi Shimon indeed maintains that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are prohibited by Torah law:

Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned with 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 [since a sacrifice is not brought from it].

Since we learned that Rabbi Shimon prohibits this even in the case of a wild animal, it necessarily follows that, in his view, the prohibition of non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is of Torah origin.

Granted, if you say that it is of Torah origin, this is why we decree with regard to a wild animal on account of a domesticated animal. But if you say that it is rabbinic,

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

What is the reason

the Sages prohibited a

domesticated animal? Perhaps one might come to eat consecrated animals outside,

mistakenly thinking that the non-sacred domesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is consecrated. But this reason does not apply to a wild animal, since everyone knows that it is non-sacred. And if you say that it is prohibited because they decreed, “a wild animal on account of a domesticated animal,”

that

the non-sacred domesticated animal

itself is a decree, and shall we then arise and enact a decree to safeguard a decree!?

A worm fell upon Rabbi Chiyya’s flax.

A worm that eats flax entered his flax.

He came before Rabbi. He said to him:

Rabbi,

take a bird

and slaughter it over the pool of water,

the water in which the flax was soaked,

so that it smells the blood,

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

and it will leave it,

fleeing from the water because it dislikes that smell.

And we challenge this:

How could he do this?

He should have been required to cover the bird’s blood!

But it was taught: One who slaughters

because he

needs the blood

for use, although he does not need to eat the bird,

is obligated to cover

the blood! That is, he may not use the blood; rather, he must cover it .

What should one who needs the blood do?

One

either kills it by piercing its throat or severs its windpipe,

and thereby is exempt from covering . If so, it is puzzling how Rabbi told Rabbi Chiyya, “Take a bird and slaughter it over the pool of water,” without covering the blood!?

And we answer:

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

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

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

meaning, kill it, but do not slaughter it at all [as even according to Rabbi Meir he would be exempt from covering].

We raise the following difficulty:

According to the one who says, “Go and maul it,” why did he not say

that this is what Rabbi said to Rabbi Hiyya:

“Go and pierce it!”?

And if you would say

that he holds that Rabbi did not say to him, “Go and pierce it,” because

he holds

Rabbi:

There is no Torah requirement of slaughter for a bird,

and the obligation to slaughter a bird is only rabbinic, whereas according to Torah law it is permitted to eat it even if one killed it by piercing it or by severing its identifying organs; consequently, if he had pierced it, he would not have been exempt from covering the blood, since

this piercing is its slaughter,

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

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

As it was taught in a beraita: 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,

this teaches that Moses was commanded

orally

concerning the esophagus and the trachea,

that slaughter must be performed in them,

and concerning the majority of

one identifying organ

in the case of a bird,

which must be slaughtered,

and concerning the majority of two

which must be slaughtered

in the case of an animal!

It follows that Rabbi holds that the slaughter of a bird is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and that this is therefore a Torah law. If so, why did he not say to Rabbi Hiyya, “Go and pierce it”?