חולין 17 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Then is there not all the more reason [for them to be permitted] now that they are even further away from the Sanctuary! Rather said R. Joseph: The Tanna of our Mishnah is R. Akiba. For it has been taught: [It is written] If the place which the Lord thy God will choose to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt slaughter of thy herd and of thy flock. This verse, says R. Akiba, is stated specially in order to prohibit the flesh of a stabbed animal. For in the beginning the Israelites were permitted to eat the flesh of a stabbed animal, but on entering the land of Israel they were forbidden. But now that they are in exile it might be said that they should revert to their former license, the Mishnah therefore teaches us: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER. Wherein do they differ? — R. Akiba maintains that at no time was it ever forbidden to eat flesh at will. R. Ishmael maintains that at no time was it ever permitted to eat the flesh of a stabbed animal. Now according to R. Ishmael the verse: And he shall slaughter the bullock, is of significance; but according to R. Akiba what is the purpose of ‘And he shall slaughter’? [In the case of] consecrated animals, the law is different. Again, according to R. Ishmael the verse. Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them? is of significance; but according to R. Akiba why does the verse read ‘be slaughtered for them’? It should rather read ‘be stabbed for them’! — The stabbing of animals constituted their slaughtering. Again, according to R. Ishmael we can understand what we learnt: If a man slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it became nebelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or he tore away [the organs of the throat], there is no obligation to cover the blood. But according to R. Akiba, wherefore is there no obligation to cover the blood? — Since stabbing became prohibited it is regarded as an unlawful [slaughtering]. Now according to R. Akiba, who maintains that at no time was it ever forbidden to eat flesh at will, the significance of the verse. Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so shalt thou eat thereof; [the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike]. is evident; but according to R. Ishmael [the verse is incomprehensible], for was the gazelle or the hart ever permitted to be eaten at all? — When the Divine Law prohibited [the eating of flesh at will it was] only the flesh of an animal that was fit for a sacrifice but not [the flesh of] a wild animal that was not fit for a sacrifice. R. Jeremiah raised the following question: What was the law regarding portions of meat of stabbed animals that were brought into the land of Israel by the Israelites? But then, at what period could this Question have arisen? Should you say during the seven years of conquest? Behold! They were permitted to eat unclean things, for it is written: And houses full of all good things, and R. Jeremiah b. Abba stated ill the name of Rab that even bacon was permitted! Can there then be any question regarding the flesh of a stabbed animal? — The question could have arisen only after this period. If you wish, however, I can say that the question refers to the seven years’ period of conquest, and it would have arisen, [since it might be argued] that when permission was granted it was only with regard to the spoil taken from the idolaters but not their own [stabbed meat]! The question remains unanswered. Raba remarked: You have interpreted the clause: ALL MAY SLAUGHTER, and so too the clause: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER, but how do you interpret the final clause: WITH ANY IMPLEMENT ONE MAY SLAUGHTER? Should you say it means: whether with a flint or a glass or a reed haulm, [there is this difficulty]. Behold it is in juxtaposition with the other clauses [in our Mishnah]; if their the other clauses deal with the subjects that may slaughter, this also must deal with the subjects that may slaughter; and if the others deal with the subjects that are to be slaughtered, this also must deal with the subjects that are to be slaughtered! — Rather said Raba [interpret the Mishnah thus]: ALL MAY SLAUGHTER [is stated twice], one to include a Cuthean and the other to include an Israelite apostate. AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER, whether by day or by night, whether on the roof top or on the top of a ship. WITH ANY IMPLEMENT ONE MAY SLAUGHTER, with a flint or a glass or a reed haulm. EXCEPTING A SCYTHE AND A SAW. The father of Samuel made a notch in a knife and sent it [up to palestine], and also on another occasion he made a notch and sent it up; whereupon the authorities sent back word to him: We have been taught in the Mishnah: A SAW. Our Rabbis taught:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:Consequently it is unnecessary for the Tanna of our Mishnah to teach us that it is permitted to slaughter at will.
^ᵇnote:Deut. XII, 21.
^ᶜnote:vrhjb, generally denoting stabbing at the throat. In the wilderness the Israelites were permitted to eat the flesh of an animal no matter how it was killed, because the injunction to slaughter according to ritual was not intended to be effective until they had entered the land of Israel.
^ᵈnote:I.e., for all times in the future one must slaughter in order to eat meat.
^ᵉnote:Lev. I, 5. Apparently the Israelites in the wilderness were commanded to slaughter according to ritual.
^ᶠnote:This verse was apparently meaningless to the Israelites in the wilderness since according to R. Akiba they were permitted to kill an animal in any manner whatsoever.
^ᵍnote:Num. XI, 22.
^ʰnote:I.e., became ritually unfit by unskillful slaughtering. e.g., by pausing or pressing in the act of slaughtering. V. Glos.
^ⁱnote:From Lev. XVII, 13, is derived the law that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to such slaughtering which permits the flesh to be eaten. V. infra 85a.
^ʲnote:Inasmuch as stabbing was the ordinary form of killing an animal practised by the Israelites in the wilderness, and the law for covering the blood was made known to the Israelites also in the wilderness, it is difficult to understand, according to R. Akiba, why there should be exemption from covering the blood when such a mode of slaughtering is adopted nowadays.
^ᵏnote:Therefore there is no need to cover the blood in such cases.
^ˡnote:Deut. XII, 22. The meaning of the verse is: Just as now, in the wilderness, it is permitted to eat the gazelle and the hart even in a state of uncleanness, so will it be the practice with all unconsecrated animals on entering the land of Israel.
^ᵐnote:For according to R. Ishmael the Israelites in the wilderness were permitted to eat only sacrificial meat, and since the gazelle and the hart were not permitted to be offered as sacrifices, it follows that these animals could never have been eaten. The comparison therefore in the verse is meaningless.
^ⁿnote:This question is based on the view of R. Akiba and is purely an academic question as to what was the position at that particular period in history. Cf. however, comment of Asheri a.l.
^ᵒnote:Deut. VI, 11.
^ᵖnote:I.e., during the following seven years when the land was being divided among the tribes, and during which period the concessions of the Torah did not obtain.
^ᵠnote:I.e., rules as to who may slaughter and with what implements. The first and second clauses, however, do not deal with such matters. These two clauses deal rather with that which has to be slaughtered. V. supra 16b.
^ʳnote:In the Mishnah supra 15b and in the opening Mishnah of this tractate supra 21.
^ˢnote:To enquire from the authorities in Palestine on the law concerning a notch in the knife.
^ᵗnote:I.e., only such notches like the teeth of a saw render the knife unfit for slaughtering.

²A knife with many notches must be regarded as a saw; with but one notch, if it is ogereth, it may not be used; if it is mesakseketh, it may be used. What is meant by ogereth and what is meant by mesakseketh? — Ogereth, said R. Eleazar, is a notch with two edges; mesakseketh, a notch with but one edge. Why is it that if the notch has two edges [the knife is invalid]? [presumably] because the first edge will cut [the skin and flesh] and the second edge will tear [the organs]. Then, even if the notch has but one edge it should likewise be said. The sharp edge of the knife will cut [the skin and flesh] and the notch will tear [the organs]! — [The reference is to a notch] that is at the top of the knife. But even so, when the knife is moved forward [the edge of the notch] cuts [the skin and flesh] and when it is drawn back it tears [the organs]! — [The reference is where the slaughterer] moved [the knife] forward but did not draw it back. Raba stated: There are three rules with regard to the knife: (i) if it has an ogereth, one may not slaughter with it, and if one did the slaughtering is invalid; (ii) if it has a mesakseketh, one may not slaughter with it in the first instance, but if one did the slaughtering is valid; (iii) if its edge is uneven, one may slaughter with it even in the first instance. R. Huna the son of R. Nehemiah asked R. Ashi: Did you teach us in the name of Raba that a knife with a mesakseketh is unfit for use? Is it not well known that Raba said: A knife with a mesakseketh is fit for use? — It is no contradiction, for in the one case [the slaughterer] moved the knife forward and backward but in the other case he moved the knife forward but not backward. R. Aha the son of R. Awia asked R. Ashi: What if the edge of the knife resembles an awn? — He replied: Would that we were given such meat to eat! R. Hisda said: Whence do we learn from Scripture that it is necessary to examine the slaughtering knife? From the verse: And slaughter with this and eat. But is it not obviously necessary so to do, seeing that if the gullet is perforated the animal is trefah? — We mean: [Whence do we learn from Scripture that] it is essential that the knife be examined by a Sage? But surely has not R. Johanan said that the ruling that one must present the knife to a Sage for examination was laid down only out of respect to the Sage? — The rule is actually Rabbinic; and the verse adduced is merely a support. In the West the knife is usually examined by the light of the sun. In Nehardea it is usually examined with water. R. Shesheth used to examine it with the tip of his tongue. R. Aha b. Jacob used to examine it with a hair. In Sura it was said: Seeing that it is to cut flesh it must be examined with flesh. R. Papa ruled: It must be examined with the flesh of the finger and with the fingernail, and the examination must be of the three edges [of the knife]. Rabina said to R. Ashi: R. Sama the son of R. Mesharsheya told us in your name that you said to him in the name of Raba that it must be examined with the flesh and the nail on the three edges. R. Ashi replied: I said: ‘With the flesh and the nail’, but not, ‘on the three edges’. Another version reads: R. Ashi replied: I said: ‘With the flesh and the nail on the three edges’, but not ‘in the name of Raba’. Rabina and R. Aha the son of Raba were sitting before R. Ashi when a knife was brought to R. Ashi for examination. He thereupon asked R. Aha to examine it, who did so with the flesh of his finger and with his finger nail, on the three edges of the knife. ‘Well done!’ said R. Ashi. R. Kahana held a similar view. R. Yemar said: It must be examined with the nail and the flesh but not on the three edges. For did not R. Zera say in the name of Samuel that if one made a knife red-hot and slaughtered with it the slaughtering is valid, because the effect of the sharp edge precedes the effect of the heat; and the question was raised as to the sides of the knife, and the answer was given that the cut opens wide? Then in this case, too, we should also say that the cut opens wide. R. Huna son of R. Kattina said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish. In three matters the law regards a notch as of consequence: (i) A notch in the bone of the paschal lamb; (ii) A notch in the ear of a male firstling; (iii) A notch in any organ which, if blemished, invalidates a sacrifice. R. Hisda adds: (iv) Also a notch in the slaughtering knife. And [why does not] the other [teacher include this last]? — Because he does not deal with unconsecrated matters. In all these cases the notch is measured by the standard of a notch which renders the altar unfit.^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ

^ᵘnote:Heb. ,rdut from the root rdt, ‘to gather, to take in’, i.e., to catch or intercept the finger-nail as it passes along the edge of the knife.
^ᵛnote:Heb. ,fxfxn; so MS.M., cur. edd. ,fxfuxn; from the root lxfx, ‘to entangle’.
^ʷnote:So that the part of the knife which has this one-edged notch will merely cut the skin and perhaps also the flesh, but the organs will be properly cut by the rest of the knife which is not notched.
^ˣnote:There is therefore no possibility of the notch having come into contact with the organs at all.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘it rises and descends’.
^ᶻnote:The slaughtering is then invalid.
^ᵃᵃnote:In which case the slaughtering is valid.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the edge of the knife is rough, though without notches. According to the Alfasi: the knife is so sharp that it resembles an awn.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., of an animal slaughtered with such a knife.
^ᵃᵈnote:I Sam. XIV, 34. With this, i.e., a knife prepared and examined according to law.
^ᵃᵉnote:And a knife with a notch will most certainly perforate and tear the gullet.
^ᵃᶠnote:And this apparently is derived from the verse quoted.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., Palestine.
^ᵃʰnote:In order to detect any notches; either by holding up the knife to the light of the sun or by watching the shadow of the knife on the ground.
^ᵃⁱnote:Either by passing the sharp edge of the knife across a smooth surface of water, the presence of a notch being detected by the ripple caused; or by allowing a drop of water to trickle down the edge of the knife, when any notch would impede the course of this drop of water.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., with the soft flesh of the finger or, as R. Shesheth did, with the tip of the tongue.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., the sharp edge, and also the sides of this edge must be examined.
^ᵃˡnote:V. supra, 8a. (p. 32) and notes.
^ᵃᵐnote:It is therefore unnecessary to examine the side edges of the knife, for these cannot come into contact with the flesh since the cut opens wide apart.
^ᵃⁿnote:A notch or cut made in the bone of the paschal lamb is a transgression of the law: Neither shall ye break a bone thereof. Ex. XII, 46.
^ᵃᵒnote:This is regarded as a blemish and renders the animal unfit for a sacrifice. Consequently this firstling may be slaughtered and used for ordinary purposes. The same would apply to a notch in any other organ besides the ear (v. Bek. 36a).
^ᵃᵖnote:This refers to such blemishes which are only to be found in female animals and which are not included in class (ii). E.g., if the female genital organs were defective.