Chullin — Daf 21a

מכל מקום קשיא אמר רבא אימא וכן הוא עושה חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר

כי סליק רבי זירא אשכחיה לר' אמי דיתיב וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה וכי מתה עומד ומולק (דניאל ד, טז) אשתומם כשעה חדא אמר ליה אימא כך הוא עושה חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר

תניא נמי הכי כיצד מולקין חטאת העוף חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר עד שמגיע לוושט או לקנה הגיע לוושט או לקנה חותך סימן אחד או רובו ורוב בשר עמו ובעולה שנים או רוב שנים

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי שנים דוקא אי כר"א בר"ש האמר רוב שנים

אימא שנים לרבנן רוב שנים לרבי אלעזר בר"ש ואיבעית אימא הא והא ר' אלעזר בר"ש ומאי שנים שדומין לשנים

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה מטמא באהל

וא"ת אותו מעשה דעלי מפרקת בלא רוב בשר הואי זקנה שאני דכתיב (שמואל א ד, יח) ויהי כהזכירו את ארון האלהים ויפול מעל הכסא אחורנית בעד יד השער ותשבר מפרקתו וימת כי זקן האיש וכבד וגו'

אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן קרעו כדג מטמא באהל א"ר שמואל בר יצחק ומגבו

אמר שמואל עשאה גיסטרא נבלה א"ר אלעזר ניטל הירך וחלל שלה (ניכר) נבלה ה"ד חלל שלה (ניכר) אמר רבא כל שרבוצה ונראית חסרה

תנן התם הותזו ראשיהן אע"פ שמפרכסין טמאים כזנב הלטאה שמפרכסת

מאי הותזו ר"ל אמר הותזו ממש ר' אסי אמר רבי מני כהבדלת עולת העוף

א"ל ר' ירמיה לרבי אסי כהבדלת עולת העוף לרבנן ולא פלגיתו או דלמא כהבדלת עולת העוף לר"א בר"ש ופלגיתו

א"ל כהבדלת עולת העוף לר"א בר"ש ופליגינן

איכא דאמרי ר"ש בן לקיש אמר הותזו ממש ר' אסי א"ר מני כהבדלת עולת העוף לרבי אלעזר בר"ש ברוב שנים

מאי רבנן ומאי רבי אלעזר בר"ש דתניא (ויקרא ה, י) ואת השני יעשה עולה כמשפט כמשפט חטאת בהמה

אתה אומר כמשפט חטאת בהמה או אינו אלא כמשפט חטאת העוף כשהוא אומר והקריבו חלק הכתוב בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף ומה אני מקיים כמשפט כמשפט חטאת בהמה מה חטאת בהמה אינה באה

But after all does not the original objection stand?1 — Raba answered: Read [in the text]. ‘This is what he does: He [the priest] cuts [with his finger-nail] the spinal cord and the neckbone without cutting through the major portion of the surrounding flesh’.2 When R. Zera went up [to palestine] he found R. Ammi sitting and reciting the above statement [of Ze'iri], and at once put to him the question: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead? He was astounded for a moment,3 but then replied. Read [in the text]. This is what he does: He cuts [with his finger-nail] the spinal cord and the neckbone without cutting through the major portion of the surrounding flesh. The same is taught [in the following Baraitha]: How must he [the priest] nip off [the head] of the sin-offering of a bird? He cuts [with his finger-nail] the spinal cord and the neckbone without cutting through the major portion of the surrounding flesh, until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. On reaching the gullet or the windpipe he cuts through one of them or the major portion of one of them, and then cuts through the major portion of the surrounding flesh. In the case of a burnt-offering he cuts through both, or the major portion of both, of these organs. Who is the author of this [Baraitha]? Is it the Rabbis?4 Surely they hold that both organs must be severed! Is it R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon?4 Surely he holds that the major portion only of both organs [shall be cut through]! — Interpret it thus: ‘Both organs’ — that is, according to the view of the Rabbis; ‘or the major portion of both organs’ — that is, according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. If you wish, however, I can say that the whole [Baraitha] is in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, and as to the term ‘both organs’ it means that both organs appear to be severed. 5 Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: If [in a human being] the neckbone and the major portion of the surrounding flesh was broken, the body immediately defiles6 [men and vessels that are] in the tent. And if you will contend: But was not the incident of Eli a case where the neckbone was broken without the major portion of the surrounding flesh having been cut?7 [I reply that] in the case of old age it is different, for it is written: And it came to pass when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke and he died; for he was an old man and heavy.8 R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Johanan. If one ripped up a human being as one does a fish, the body immediately defiles [men and vessels that are] in the tent. R. Samuel b. Isaac added: provided [he was ripped up] along the back. Samuel said: If one split an animal into two, it is immediately nebelah. R. Eleazar said: If the thigh was removed and the cavity was noticeable, the animal is [immediately] nebelah. What is the meaning of ‘And the cavity was not8 ceable’? — Raba replied: It means that when the animal is crouching there appears to be something missing. We have learnt elsewhere:9 If their10 heads have been cut off, even though their limbs move convulsively, they are unclean[the convulsions being] but similar to the convulsive movements of the lizard's tail [after it has been cut off].11 What is meant by ‘Have been cut off’? — Resh Lakish said, [It means] actually cut off; R. Assi said in the name of R. Mani, [It means severed in the sense] as the head of the burnt-offering of a bird is severed. Whereupon R. Jeremiah asked R. Assi: Do you mean ‘as the head of the burnt-offering of a bird is severed’ according to the view of the Rabbis,12 and so you do not disagree at all; or do you mean ‘as the head of the burnt-offering of a bird is severed’ according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon,13 and so you do disagree? — He replied: I mean, ‘as the head of the burnt-offering of a bird is severed’ according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, and so we disagree. Some there are who read [the above passage thus]: Resh Lakish said: It means actually cut off; R. Assi said in the name of R. Mani, [It means severed in the sense] as the head of the burnt-offering of a bird is severed according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, [and that is.] cut off to the extent of the greater portion of both organs. What is [this dispute between] the Rabbis and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — It was taught: It is written: And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordinance.14 This means, according to the ordinance prescribed for the sin-offering of an animal. You say it means, ‘according to the ordinance prescribed for the sin-offering of an animal’; but perhaps it is not so, but rather, according to the ordinance prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird! [This cannot be], for when it says. And he shall bring it near,15 the verse thereby draws a distinction between the sin-offering of a bird and the burnt-offering of a bird. How then must I interpret the verse: ‘According to the ordinance’? [It must mean,] according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of an animal. Thus, as the sin-offering of an animal must be brought supra n. 1. as though both organs were severed, although in reality only the major portion of each has been actually cut through. (Tosaf.). Lakish. stated serves to indicate that this sacrifice must be dealt with differently from others of the same class.