Chullin

If one slaughtered by cutting in the other rings, although they do not surround the whole of it, yet since they surround the greater part of the windpipe, the slaughtering is valid. Any deflection [of the knife outside the top ring] invalidates the slaughtering. R. Hanina b. Antigonos testified that a deflection is permitted! — R. Joseph answered that R. Jose son of R. Judah gave both rulings,1 but Rab and Samuel agreed with one and not with the other.2 But do they not say: ‘he did not say this etc.’? — They mean to imply: the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah with regard to the top ring, but the halachah is not in accordance with his view with regard to the other rings.3 When R. Zera went up [to palestine] he ate there of an animal [which was slaughtered in that part of the throat] which was regarded as a deflection by Rab and Samuel.4 He was asked, ‘Are you not from the place of Rab and Samuel’?5 — He replied: ‘Who taught it [in the name of Rab and Samuel]? Was it not Joseph b. Hiyya?6 Well, Joseph b. Hiyya took traditions from everyone’!7 When R. Joseph [b. Hiyya] heard of this he was annoyed and said: ‘What! I take my traditions from every one! Indeed, I received my traditions from Rab Judah who recited in his statements of tradition even the doubt as to his authorities. As in the following statement: "Rab Judah said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba (and I am in doubt whether he reported it in the name of Rab or in the name of Samuel): Three ordinary persons may declare a firstling permitted for use where there is no specialist available"’.8 But does not R. Zera accept the rule: [When a person arrives in a town] he must adopt the restrictions of the place which he has left and also the restrictions of the place he has entered?9 — This rule applies only when one travels from town to town in Babylon, or from town to town in the land of Israel, or from the land of Israel to Babylon, but when one travels from Babylon to the land of Israel, inasmuch as we are subject to their authority,10 we must adopt their customs. R. Ashi said: You may even hold that the rule applies when one travels from Babylon to the land of Israel, but only when such a person intends to return; R. Zera, however, had no intention to return [to Babylon]. Abaye remarked to R. Joseph. The Rabbis who came from Mahuza11 report in the name of R. Nahman that this deflection12 is permitted. He replied: Every river has its own course. 13 R. Simeon b. Lakish held that [if the windpipe was cut] at the top of the thyroid cartilage14 the slaughtering was valid. R. Johanan thereupon exclaimed: Too bold! Indeed, too bold! 15 R. Papi reported in the name of Raba: If the knife reached the arytenoid cartilages,16 the slaughtering is invalid. The question was raised: Does ‘reached’ mean that it actually touched [the cartilages] as in the verse: And he fell upon him and slew him;17 or does it mean that it came close to but did not touch [the cartilages], as in the verse: And the angels of God met him?18 — It was stated: R. Papa said in the name of Raba: If the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages leaving part of them [on the side of the head], the slaughtering is valid. Amemar b. Mar Yanuka said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia and he told me that if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages leaving part of them [on the side of the head], the slaughtering is valid. Rabina said to R. Ashi, R. Shaman of Sikara19 told me that Mar Zutra once happened to come to our town and ruled that if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages, leaving part of them [on the side of the head], the slaughtering is valid. Mar son of R. Ashi said: If the knife reached the arytenoid cartilages the slaughtering is valid; if, however, [the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages,] leaving part of them [on the side of the head] the slaughtering is invalid.20 the other rings too. (Rashi). slaughtering. could then be slaughtered and eaten by Priests. It was for an expert to decide whether a particular defect was or was not permanent. If, however, the defect was obviously permanent and no expert was available, it is ruled that three lay men could come together and declare the first born animal permitted for use. not on account of Rab and Samuel's ruling, then as a matter of stringency; v. Tosaf s.v. ;xuh. Adam's apple. cricoid. cut through the cartilages leaving part of them on the side of the head. touching’. Accordingly even though the knife did not touch these cartilages, since it cut quite close to them, the slaughtering is invalid (Rashi). Tosaf., however, interprets the expression ‘coming up to but not touching’ as actually cutting beyond or above the cartilages, but where the knife cut through them the slaughtering would be valid. V. Tosaf. s.v. ut. thus: If the knife reached the cartilages (i.e., cut beyond or above them) the slaughtering is invalid, but if it cut through them the slaughtering is valid. This view is also accepted by Maim. in Yad, Shechitah, III, 12.