Parallel
חולין 19
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But the law is: [If the windpipe was cut] at or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows, the slaughtering is valid. This then corresponds with [the aforementioned view that] if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages, leaving part of them [on the side of the head the slaughtering is valid]. R. Nahman held that the slaughtering was valid [if the windpipe was cut] at or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows. R. Hanan son of R. Kattina asked R. Nahman: But whose view do you adopt? It is neither the view of the Rabbis nor that of R. Jose son of R. Judah [of our Mishnah]! — He replied. I know no Hillak and no Billak; I only know a tradition. For R. Hiyya b. Abba, said in the name of R. Johanan (some read: R. Abba b. Zabda said in the name of R. Hanina, and others read: R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi). At or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows the slaughtering is valid. R. Joshua b. Levi also said: That which is regarded as a deflection by the Rabbis is permitted by R. Jose b. Judah, and that which is regarded as a deflection by R. Jose b. Judah is permitted by R. Hanina b. Antigonos. Is not this obvious? — You might have thought that the statement of R. Hanina b. Antigonos refers to that of the Rabbis; we are therefore taught that it does not. But perhaps it does? — If so, it should read: ‘He testified concerning it [that it was permitted]’. The law is in accordance with the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonos, since R. Nahman agrees with him. R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: They differ only where the slaughterer cut two thirds [of the windpipe in the top ring] and then the last third above it; for the Rabbis hold the view that all the slaughtering must be within the top ring and R. Jose son of R. Judah holds the view that the greater portion is equal to the whole. But in the case where the slaughterer first cut a third above the top ring and then the other two thirds in it, all are of the opinion that the slaughtering is invalid; because at the moment when the life escapes the greater portion should have been cut in the ritual manner and this was not the case here. Said R. Hisda to him: On the contrary, the Master might just as well say the opposite thus: They differ only where the slaughterer first cut a third above the top ring and then the other two thirds in it-according to R. Jose son of R. Judah it is analogous with the case where half the windpipe was mutilated [before the slaughtering], and according to the Rabbis [it is to be distinguished thus:] in the latter case [the mutilation was] in the prescribed area for slaughtering, whereas in our case [the cutting of the first third] was outside the prescribed area for slaughtering. But where the slaughterer first cut two thirds [in the top ring] and then the last third above it, all are of the opinion that the slaughtering is valid, for we have learnt [in a Mishnah]: The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it! R. Joseph said to him: Who can tell us that the rule there concerning the greater portion is not the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah? It might indeed be the [individual] opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah! — Abaye interposed: Are you suggesting that wherever it is held that a majority is sufficient it is the individual opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah? — He replied. I mean that the view that a majority is sufficient in matters concerning shechitah [is the individual opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah], for we know that the Rabbis hold a different view. Another version of the above reads as follows: R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: They differ only where the slaughterer first cut a third above [the top ring] and then the other two thirds in it — according to R. Jose son of R. Judah it is analogous with the case where half the windpipe was mutilated [before the slaughtering] and according to the Rabbis [it is to be distinguished thus:] in the latter case [the mutilation was] within the prescribed area for slaughtering, whereas in our case [the cutting of the first third] was outside the prescribed area for slaughtering. But in the case where the slaughterer first cut two thirds [in the top ring] and then the last third above it, all are of the opinion that the slaughtering is valid, for we have learnt: The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it. To this R. Hisda demurred: Who can tell us that the rule there concerning the greater portion is not the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah? It might indeed be the [individual] opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah! Said R. Joseph to him: Are you suggesting that wherever it is held that a majority is sufficient it is the individual opinion of R. Jose b. Judah? — He replied: I mean that the view that a majority is sufficient in matters concerning shechitah [is the individual view of R. Jose b. R. Judah], for we know that the Rabbis hold a different view. If a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] outside the prescribed area, another third within it, and the last third outside it, R. Huna said in the name of Rab that the slaughtering was valid; Rab Judah said in the name of Rab that the slaughtering was invalid. ‘R. Huna said in the name of Rab that it was valid’, because at the moment when the life escaped he was cutting in the ritual manner. ‘Rab Judah said in the name of Rab that it was invalid’, because the greater portion of the cutting must be in the ritual manner, and this was not the case here. If a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] within the prescribed area, another third outside it and the last third within it Rab Judah said in the name of Rab that the slaughtering was valid. When this case was put to R. Huna, he said that the slaughtering was invalid. Rab Judah heard of this and became annoyed, saying: ‘When I say invalid he says valid, and when I say valid he says invalid!’ R. Huna then said: ‘He is rightly annoyed. In the first place, he heard the decision from Rab himself and I did not; and in the second place, in this case the greater portion of the cutting was in the ritual manner’. Thereupon R. Hisda said to him, ‘Do not withdraw your decision,
—
because if you do you defeat your decision in the first case. For there your reason for declaring it valid was that the life escaped at the time that he was cutting within the prescribed area; it follows then that in this case it should be invalid, because here the life escaped at the time that he was cutting outside the prescribed area’. When R. Nahman once happened to come to Sura he was asked: What is the law if a slaughterer first cut a third of the windpipe within the prescribed area, another third outside it, and the last third within it? — He replied: Is not this the case that was taught by R. Eleazar b. Manyomi? For R. Eleazar b. Manyomi said: Where the cutting of the organ is like a zigzag, the slaughtering is valid. But perhaps this decision applies only to a slaughtering entirely within the prescribed area? ‘Within the prescribed area’! But this goes without saying [that the slaughtering is valid]! — Indeed no. For you might have thought that there must be an open cut, and here it is not so; we are therefore taught [that it is not essential]. (Mnemonic: Bakad.) R. Abba was once sitting behind R. Kahana whilst R. Kahana was before Rab Judah, when R. Kahana asked: What is the law if a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] within the prescribed area, another third outside it and the last third within it? — Rab Judah answered: The slaughtering is valid. And what is the law if a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] outside the prescribed area, another third within it, and the last third outside it? — He replied: The slaughtering is invalid. And what is the law if a slaughterer cut the windpipe in an existing gash? — He replied: The slaughtering is valid. And what is the law if a slaughterer cut the windpipe terminating in an existing gash [in the windpipe]? — He replied: The slaughtering is invalid. R. Abba then went and reported these decisions to R. Eleazar, and the latter went and reported them to R. Johanan. R. Johanan asked: Wherein lies the difference? — He [R. Eleazar] replied, [The case] where one cut the windpipe in an existing gash is the same as when a gentile began the slaughtering and an Israelite finished it; and [the case] where one cut the windpipe terminating in an existing gash is the same as when an Israelite began the slaughtering and a gentile finished it. Whereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: Gentile, gentile! Raba said: He was right in exclaiming. Gentile, gentile! For, in that case, [where the gentile finished the slaughtering.] the decision is reasonable, because the Israelite should have cut [at least] the greater portion and this he did not do, with the result that life escaped at the hand of the gentile. In this case, however, [where there is a gash in the windpipe,] he has indeed cut as much as he could, what difference, therefore, can there be whether he cuts in a gash or cuts terminating in a gash? MISHNAH. IF ONE CUT AT THE SIDE [OF THE NECK], THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE SIDE OF THE NECK, THE NIPPING IS INVALID; IF ONE CUT AT THE BACK OF THE NECK. THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE BACK OF THE NECK, THE NIPPING IS VALID. IF ONE CUT AT THE FRONT OF THE NECK. THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE FRONT OF THE NECK. THE NIPPING IS INVALID. FOR THE WHOLE OF THE BACK OF THE NECK IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR NIPPING, AND THE WHOLE OF THE FRONT OF THE NECK IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR SLAUGHTERING. IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT THE PLACE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR SLAUGHTERING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR NIPPING, AND THE PLACE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR NIPPING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR SLAUGHTERING. GEMARA. What is meant by THE BACK OF THE NECK? Does it mean the actual back of the neck? If so, why is it, that only if one slaughtered there it is invalid? If one nipped there it would also be invalid, for in the Divine Law it is stated: Close to the back of its neck, but not the actual back of the head! — THE BACK OF THE NECK really means [the region] close to the back of the neck, and this is indicated in the subsequent clause which reads: FOR THE WHOLE OF THE BACK OF THE NECK IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR NIPPING. Whence do we know this? — From the following statement. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Close to the back of its neck’, that is to say, the region which overlooks the back of the neck, as it is written: And they dwell clue to me; and it is also written: For they have turned unto Me the back of the neck and not the face. Why another verse? — Because you might argue that [so long as] we do not know the true meaning of the back of the neck we cannot know what is meant by [the region] which is close to it. Therefore come and hear: It is written: ‘For they have turned unto Me the back of the neck and not the face’; thus clearly showing that the back of the neck is directly opposite the face. The sons of R. Hiyya said: This is the proper method for nipping: [the priest] twists the organs of the throat around to the back of the neck and then nips off [the head]. Some read, ‘may twist’; others, ‘must twist’. It is more reasonable, however, to adopt the reading, ‘may twist’. Why? — For the Mishnah reads: IF ONE CUT AT THE BACK OF THE NECK, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE BACK OF THE NECK, THE NIPPING IS VALID.
—