Chullin

Then is there not all the more reason [for them to be permitted] now that they are even further away from the Sanctuary!1 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.2 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,3 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.4 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,5 is of significance; but according to R. Akiba what is the purpose of ‘And he shall slaughter’?6 [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?7 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 nebelah8 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.9 But according to R. Akiba, wherefore is there no obligation to cover the blood?10 — Since stabbing became prohibited it is regarded as an unlawful [slaughtering].11 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].12 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?13 — 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?14 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,15 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.16 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,17 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],18 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 it19 [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.20 Our Rabbis taught: 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. permitted to kill an animal in any manner whatsoever. permits the flesh to be eaten. V. infra 85a. 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. hart even in a state of uncleanness, so will it be the practice with all unconsecrated animals on entering the land of Israel. 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. that particular period in history. Cf. however, comment of Asheri a.l. the concessions of the Torah did not obtain. with such matters. These two clauses deal rather with that which has to be slaughtered. V. supra 16b.