חולין 20 — parallel

20:1

Now if you adopt the reading. ‘must twist’, then why is it that only if one nipped off [the head] there it is valid? Even if one slaughtered there [it would] also [be valid]. You can, therefore, prove from this that the correct reading is, ‘may twist’; and as for our Mishnah the case is that the organs were not twisted around, [and therefore the slaughtering is invalid]. R. Jannai said: Let these young men receive the refutation of their view. For our Mishnah reads: 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. Now what does this rule exclude? presumably the case where one twisted the organs around to the back of the neck! — Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said: It is not so, but it excludes the use of a tooth or a finger-nail. But is not a tooth or a finger.nail expressly stated [to be invalid for slaughtering]? — Rather, said R. Jeremiah, it excludes the act of moving to and fro. This is well, however, according to the one who holds that to move [the fingernail] to and fro whilst nipping is not allowed; but according to the one who holds that it is allowed, how is it to be explained? — The sons of R. Hiyya agree with him who holds that to move the fingernail to and fro whilst nipping is not allowed. R. Kahana said: The precept of nipping requires pressing [with the finger-nail] downward; and this is the proper method. Now R. Abin thought this to mean that if he pressed with his finger-nail downward it is [valid], but if he moved it to and fro it is not [valid]. Whereupon R. Jeremiah said to him: But surely, to move the finger-nail to and fro whilst nipping is most certainly allowed! And as for the words: ‘This is the proper method’, read instead, ‘This also is a proper method’. R. Jeremiah said in the name of Samuel: Whatsoever part of the front of the neck is valid for slaughtering, the corresponding part on the back of the neck is valid for nipping. It follows, no doubt, that what is invalid for slaughtering is invalid for nipping. Now what does this exclude? Can it exclude the case where the organs of the throat had been torn loose? Surely not! For Rami b. Ezekiel has taught: The fact that the organs of the throat have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird. — R. Papa said: It excludes the head. ‘The head’! But this is obvious! For the Divine law enjoins. Close to the back of its neck. but not on the head! — By ‘head’, he meant the slope of the head; and the case is as follows: he commenced to nip at the slope of the head and, moving [his finger-nail] gradually downwards, ended the nipping below. This view is in agreement with that stated by R. Huna in the name of R. Assi. For R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: If one cut a third [of the windpipe] outside the prescribed area [for slaughtering] and then cut two thirds within it, the slaughtering is invalid. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: This dictum of Rami b. Ezekiel, namely, the fact that the organs have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird, can be maintained only by him who holds that according to the law of the Torah birds do not require shechitah; [

—

20:2

but according to the one who holds that birds do require shechitah by the law of the Torah, then it must also be held that the tearing loose of the organs is a defect. R. Ashi retorted: On the contrary, the reverse argument is the more reasonable. Thus, according to him who holds that birds do require shechitah by the law of the Torah, it can well be argued that he was expressly informed that the tearing loose of the organs [in the case of birds] was not a defect. Furthermore, even according to him who obtains this result by analogy with cattle, it can nevertheless be argued that as regards the tearing loose of the organs [he was informed that] birds are to be different from cattle. But, according to the one who holds that birds do not require shechitah by the law of the Torah but only by Rabbinic enactment, and the Rabbis obviously derived this rule only by a comparison with cattle, surely then [birds] should be compared with cattle in all respects! — Rabina answered: Rabin b. Kissi told me that the dictum of Rami b. Ezekiel, namely, the fact that the organs have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird, is to be applied only to the case of nipping, but in the case of slaughtering it is certainly a defect. But did not R. Jeremiah report in the name of Samuel: ‘Whatsoever part of the neck is valid for slaughtering the corresponding part on the back of the neck is valid for nipping’, and from which followed [the corollary] viz., What is invalid for slaughtering is invalid for nipping? — This is at variance [with the teaching of Rabin b. Kissi]. Ze'iri said: If the neckbone of an animal was broken together with the major portion of the surrounding flesh, the animal is nebelah forthwith. R. Hisda said: We have also learnt the same: If one nipped off [the head of a consecrated bird] with a knife, the carcass, whilst in the gullet, renders clothes unclean. Now if you were to say that [in Ze'iri's case] the animal is merely trefah, should not the knife in this case have the effect of removing [from this bird] the uncleanness of nebelah, inasmuch as nipping with a knife is tantamount to slaughtering? — It is so, I say, because the slaughtering is not in accordance with ritual. Why? — R. Huna says: Because he thrusts [whilst cutting the organs]. Rabbah says: Because he presses [the knife downwards]. Now he who says: ‘Because he thrusts’, wherefore does he not say: ‘Because he presses [the knife downwards]? — He is of the opinion that to move the finger-nail to and fro whilst nipping is allowed. And he who says: ‘Because he presses [the knife downwards]’, wherefore does he not say: ‘Because he thrusts’? — He argues thus: What is meant by ‘thrusting’? Clearly [any cutting where the knife is] covered, just like a weasel which is covered by the foundations of a house; in our case, however, the knife is visible. Raba said: If there is any difficulty [in connection with Ze'iri's statement] it is this: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead? Abaye thereupon said to him, You can raise the same difficulty in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs to be nipped through, thus: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead? — He replied: In this latter case, he does so merely to carry out the precept of severance. If so, the skin, too, [should be severed!] — The rule is: Whatever is indispensable in the slaughtering is indispensable in the precept of severance, and whatever is not indispensable in the slaughtering is not indispensable in the precept of severance. But what of the lesser portion of each organ, which is not indispensable in the slaughtering, nevertheless according to the ruling of the Rabbis is indispensable in the precept of severance? — Read, therefore, Whatever comes within the purview of slaughtering comes within the precept of severance and whatever does not come within the purview of slaughtering does not come within the precept of severance.24

—