Chullin

In the law concerning slaughtering, how are we to regard an implement which was first loose and subsequently attached? Come and hear: If there was a sharp stone jutting from the wall, or a reed growing of itself, and one slaughtered therewith, the slaughtering is invalid!1 — It is dealing here with the wall of a cave. Indeed the context proves this, for it puts ‘wall’ in juxtaposition with ‘a reed growing of itself’.2 This is proved. Come and hear: If one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid! — This case is different because one would not allow the knife to remain fixed [to the wall].3 Come and hear: [If one slaughtered] with an implement that was attached to the ground, the slaughtering is valid!4 — perhaps this clause is defined by the subsequent clause [of this Baraitha, thus]: What is meant by ‘an implement that was attached’? A knife, which clearly would not remain fixed permanently.5 The Master said: ‘If one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid’. Said R. ‘Anan in the name of Samuel: This is the law provided the knife was on top and the throat of the animal below.6 If, however, the knife was below and the throat of the animal on top, [the slaughtering is invalid], for it is to be feared that the head might press down heavily upon the knife.7 But does not the aforementioned8 [Baraitha] read: ‘Whether the knife be below and the throat on top or the knife on top and the throat below’? — R. Zebid answered: The cases are to be interpreted each in its own way, thus: ‘Whether the knife be below and the throat on top’, where [the knife is] loose;9 ‘or the knife on top and the throat below’, where [the knife is] attached. R. Papa answered, [The Baraitha deals] with [the slaughtering of] a bird which is of light weight. 10 R. Hisda stated in the name of R. Isaac, (others report that it was taught in a Baraitha) viz., Five rules have been laid down in connection with a reed haulm:11 (i) One must not slaughter with it, (ii) One must not perform circumcision with it. (iii) One must not cut flesh with it, (iv) One must not pick the teeth with it. (v) One must not cleanse oneself with it. ‘One must not slaughter with it’. But has it not been taught: One may slaughter with any implement, with flint, with glass or with a reed haulm? — R. Papa answered: [This Baraitha deals] with simuna of the marshes.12 ‘One must not cut flesh with it’. R. Papa used to cut with it the entrails of fish, for they are transparent.13 Rabbah son of R. Huna used to cut with it the flesh of chicken, for it is tender.14 ‘One must not cleanse oneself with it’. But is it not indeed [prohibited to do so] because of what a Master said viz., Whosoever cleanses himself [after an evacuation] with a material that is inflammable tears away the ligaments [of the anus]?15 R. Papa answered: We must say [that the Baraitha deals with] the cleansing of the opening of a wound. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER; AND AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER, that is to say, everything must be slaughtered,16 including birds.17 AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. Who is the Tanna who holds this view? Rabbah replied: It is R. Ishmael. For it has been taught: [It is written] When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou shalt say: ‘I will eat flesh’ . . .18 This verse, says R. Ishmael, is stated specially in order to permit the Israelites to eat flesh at will.19 For in the beginning they were forbidden to eat flesh at will,20 but on entering the land of Israel they were permitted. But, now they are exiled, it might be said that they should revert to the former restriction; the Mishnah therefore teaches us: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. To this R. Joseph demurred, [In the first place,] why does the Mishnah read: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER? It should read, ‘At all times one may slaughter and eat the flesh’!21 And in the second place, why were they forbidden in the beginning? [Surely] because they were near to the Sanctuary.22 And why were they permitted subsequently? [Similarly] because they were far away from the Sanctuary. invalid, thus proving that such an implement is to be regarded as attached. attached is regarded as loose; but it fails because it deals only with the case of a knife, which could not have been intended to be attached permanently. Other things, however, which could be thought of as attached permanently might be regarded as attached. Baraitha deal with a knife which is attached. matter which is being cut, causing thereby damage or hurt. In the case of slaughtering it is feared that a splinter will perforate the gullet of the animal, thus invalidating the slaughtering. might easily cause the injury mentioned. everything. according to Biblical law birds need not be slaughtered at all. V. infra 27b. the flesh without having recourse to sacrifices. first to be offered up as a sacrifice, v. Lev. XVII, 3 and 4. and to receive the meat for his own use after the blood and the fat had been offered upon the altar.