Parallel
חולין 18
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And what is the size of a notch which renders the altar unfit? — Such a notch as would catch the finger-nail [when passed over it]. An objection was raised. It was taught: What size of notch renders the altar unfit? R. Simeon b. Yohai says: The size of a handbreadth; R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: The size of an olive. — This is no objection, for ‘the opinions in this [Baraitha] refer to an altar of cement, whereas here we are dealing with an altar of stones. R. Huna said: A slaughterer who does not present his knife to a Sage for examination is to be placed under the ban. Raba said: He is to be removed [from his vocation], and it is to be announced publicly that his meat is trefah. Now these Rabbis do not disagree; for the former deals with the case where the knife on examination was found to be satisfactory, whereas the latter deals with the case where it was not found to be satisfactory. Rabina said that where the knife was not found to be satisfactory the meat is to be soiled with dung so that it may not even be sold to gentiles. There was a case of a slaughterer who did not present his knife for examination to Raba b. Hinena. The latter thereupon put him under the ban, removed him [from his] vocation and announced publicly that his meat was trefah. Mar Zutra and R. Ashi happened to call on the said Raba b. Hinena who said to them, ‘Would you, Masters, look into this case, for there are small children dependent on him’? R. Ashi examined the knife and found it satisfactory; he thereupon declared him fit again [to act as slaughterer]. Mar Zutra then said to him: ‘Are you not concerned at all in overruling this Sage’? — R. Ashi replied. ‘We were only carrying out his instructions’. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: One may slaughter in the first instance with a loose tooth or a loose finger-nail. But have we not learnt: EXCEPTING A SCYTHE, A SAW, TEETH OR A FINGERNAIL, SINCE THESE STRANGLE? — As regards teeth there is no contradiction, for Rabbah's statement deals with a single [tooth], whereas our Mishnah deals with two [teeth]; and as regards a finger-nail there is no contradiction, for Rabbah's statement deals with a nail that is detached from the finger, whereas our Mishnah deals with a nail that is attached to the finger. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED WITH A SCYTHE, MOVING IT FORWARD ONLY, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THE SLAUGHTERING INVALID, AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE IT VALID. IF THE TEETH OF THE SCYTHE WERE FILED AWAY IT IS REGARDED AS AN ORDINARY KNIFE. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan. Even when Beth Hillel declared the slaughtering valid they intended thereby to teach that the animal was to be regarded as clean and not a nebelah, but as for eating it they certainly held that it was forbidden. R. Ashi said: This is supported by the context, for it reads in the Mishnah: BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE THE SLAUGHTERING INVALID, AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE IT VALID; but it does not read: Beth Shammai forbid it and Beth Hillel permit it! But according to your argument, should not the Mishnah read: ‘Beth Shammai declare it unclean and Beth Hillel declare it clean’? The fact is that the expressions ‘declare valid and invalid’ and ‘permit and forbid’ are synonymous. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [BY CUTTING] AT THE [TOP] RING [OF THE WINDPIPE] AND LEFT A HAIR'S BREADTH OF ITS ENTIRE CIRCUMFERENCE [TOWARDS THE HEAD]. THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAYS, IF ONLY THERE WAS LEFT [TOWARDS THE HEAD] A HAIR'S BREADTH OF THE GREATER PART OF ITS CIRCUMFERENCE, [THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID]. GEMARA. Rab and Samuel both agree that the law is in accordance with the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah. Howbeit, R. Jose son of R. Judah said this only with regard to the top ring, since [the cartilage] surrounds the windpipe entirely, but he did not say this with regard to the other rings. But does he not hold such a view with regard to the other rings? Surely it has been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah says.
—
If one slaughtered by cutting in the other rings, although they do not surround the whole of it, yet since they surround the greater part of the windpipe, the slaughtering is valid. Any deflection [of the knife outside the top ring] invalidates the slaughtering. R. Hanina b. Antigonos testified that a deflection is permitted! — R. Joseph answered that R. Jose son of R. Judah gave both rulings, but Rab and Samuel agreed with one and not with the other. But do they not say: ‘he did not say this etc.’? — They mean to imply: the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah with regard to the top ring, but the halachah is not in accordance with his view with regard to the other rings. When R. Zera went up [to palestine] he ate there of an animal [which was slaughtered in that part of the throat] which was regarded as a deflection by Rab and Samuel. He was asked, ‘Are you not from the place of Rab and Samuel’? — He replied: ‘Who taught it [in the name of Rab and Samuel]? Was it not Joseph b. Hiyya? Well, Joseph b. Hiyya took traditions from everyone’! When R. Joseph [b. Hiyya] heard of this he was annoyed and said: ‘What! I take my traditions from every one! Indeed, I received my traditions from Rab Judah who recited in his statements of tradition even the doubt as to his authorities. As in the following statement: "Rab Judah said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba (and I am in doubt whether he reported it in the name of Rab or in the name of Samuel): Three ordinary persons may declare a firstling permitted for use where there is no specialist available"’. But does not R. Zera accept the rule: [When a person arrives in a town] he must adopt the restrictions of the place which he has left and also the restrictions of the place he has entered? — This rule applies only when one travels from town to town in Babylon, or from town to town in the land of Israel, or from the land of Israel to Babylon, but when one travels from Babylon to the land of Israel, inasmuch as we are subject to their authority, we must adopt their customs. R. Ashi said: You may even hold that the rule applies when one travels from Babylon to the land of Israel, but only when such a person intends to return; R. Zera, however, had no intention to return [to Babylon]. Abaye remarked to R. Joseph. The Rabbis who came from Mahuza report in the name of R. Nahman that this deflection is permitted. He replied: Every river has its own course. R. Simeon b. Lakish held that [if the windpipe was cut] at the top of the thyroid cartilage the slaughtering was valid. R. Johanan thereupon exclaimed: Too bold! Indeed, too bold! R. Papi reported in the name of Raba: If the knife reached the arytenoid cartilages, the slaughtering is invalid. The question was raised: Does ‘reached’ mean that it actually touched [the cartilages] as in the verse: And he fell upon him and slew him; or does it mean that it came close to but did not touch [the cartilages], as in the verse: And the angels of God met him? — It was stated: R. Papa said in the name of Raba: If the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages leaving part of them [on the side of the head], the slaughtering is valid. Amemar b. Mar Yanuka said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia and he told me that if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages leaving part of them [on the side of the head], the slaughtering is valid. Rabina said to R. Ashi, R. Shaman of Sikara told me that Mar Zutra once happened to come to our town and ruled that if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages, leaving part of them [on the side of the head], the slaughtering is valid. Mar son of R. Ashi said: If the knife reached the arytenoid cartilages the slaughtering is valid; if, however, [the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages,] leaving part of them [on the side of the head] the slaughtering is invalid.20
—