Chullin

But the law is: [If the windpipe was cut] at or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows,1 the slaughtering is valid. This then corresponds with [the aforementioned view that] if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages, leaving part of them [on the side of the head the slaughtering is valid]. R. Nahman held that the slaughtering was valid [if the windpipe was cut] at or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows. R. Hanan son of R. Kattina asked R. Nahman: But whose view do you adopt? It is neither the view of the Rabbis nor that of R. Jose son of R. Judah [of our Mishnah]!2 — He replied. I know no Hillak and no Billak;3 I only know a tradition. For R. Hiyya b. Abba, said in the name of R. Johanan (some read: R. Abba b. Zabda said in the name of R. Hanina, and others read: R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi). At or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows the slaughtering is valid. R. Joshua b. Levi also said: That which is regarded as a deflection by the Rabbis4 is permitted by R. Jose b. Judah, and that which is regarded as a deflection by R. Jose b. Judah5 is permitted by R. Hanina b. Antigonos.6 Is not this obvious? — You might have thought that the statement of R. Hanina b. Antigonos refers to that of the Rabbis;7 we are therefore taught that it does not. But perhaps it does? — If so, it should read: ‘He testified concerning it [that it was permitted]’. 8 The law is in accordance with the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonos, since R. Nahman agrees with him. R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: They differ9 only where the slaughterer cut10 two thirds [of the windpipe in the top ring] and then the last third above it;11 for the Rabbis hold the view that all the slaughtering must be within the top ring and R. Jose son of R. Judah holds the view that the greater portion is equal to the whole. But in the case where the slaughterer first cut a third above the top ring and then the other two thirds in it, all are of the opinion that the slaughtering is invalid; because at the moment when the life escapes12 the greater portion should have been cut in the ritual manner13 and this was not the case here. Said R. Hisda to him: On the contrary, the Master might just as well say the opposite thus: They differ9 only where the slaughterer first cut a third above the top ring and then the other two thirds in it-according to R. Jose son of R. Judah it is analogous with the case where half the windpipe was mutilated14 [before the slaughtering], and according to the Rabbis [it is to be distinguished thus:] in the latter case [the mutilation was] in the prescribed area for slaughtering,15 whereas in our case [the cutting of the first third] was outside the prescribed area for slaughtering. But where the slaughterer first cut two thirds [in the top ring] and then the last third above it, all are of the opinion that the slaughtering is valid, for we have learnt [in a Mishnah]: The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it!16 R. Joseph said to him: Who can tell us that the rule there concerning the greater portion is not the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah? It might indeed be the [individual] opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah! — Abaye interposed: Are you suggesting that wherever it is held that a majority is sufficient it is the individual opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah? — He replied. I mean that the view that a majority is sufficient in matters concerning shechitah [is the individual opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah], for we know that the Rabbis hold a different view. Another version of the above reads as follows: R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: They differ only where the slaughterer first cut a third above [the top ring] and then the other two thirds in it — according to R. Jose son of R. Judah it is analogous with the case where half the windpipe was mutilated [before the slaughtering] and according to the Rabbis [it is to be distinguished thus:] in the latter case [the mutilation was] within the prescribed area for slaughtering, whereas in our case [the cutting of the first third] was outside the prescribed area for slaughtering. But in the case where the slaughterer first cut two thirds [in the top ring] and then the last third above it, all are of the opinion that the slaughtering is valid, for we have learnt: The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it. To this R. Hisda demurred: Who can tell us that the rule there concerning the greater portion is not the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah? It might indeed be the [individual] opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah! Said R. Joseph to him: Are you suggesting that wherever it is held that a majority is sufficient it is the individual opinion of R. Jose b. Judah? — He replied: I mean that the view that a majority is sufficient in matters concerning shechitah [is the individual view of R. Jose b. R. Judah], for we know that the Rabbis hold a different view. If a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] outside the prescribed area, another third within it, and the last third outside it,17 R. Huna said in the name of Rab that the slaughtering was valid; Rab Judah said in the name of Rab that the slaughtering was invalid. ‘R. Huna said in the name of Rab that it was valid’, because at the moment when the life escaped he was cutting in the ritual manner. ‘Rab Judah said in the name of Rab that it was invalid’, because the greater portion of the cutting must be in the ritual manner, and this was not the case here. If a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] within the prescribed area, another third outside it and the last third within it Rab Judah said in the name of Rab that the slaughtering was valid. When this case was put to R. Huna, he said that the slaughtering was invalid. Rab Judah heard of this and became annoyed, saying: ‘When I say invalid he says valid, and when I say valid he says invalid!’ R. Huna then said: ‘He is rightly annoyed. In the first place, he heard the decision from Rab himself and I did not; and in the second place, in this case the greater portion of the cutting was in the ritual manner’. Thereupon R. Hisda said to him, ‘Do not withdraw your decision, Jose b. R. Judah at least the greater part of the slaughtering must be in the large ring, whereas R. Nahman permits the slaughtering at the thyroid cartilage which is completely above the large ring. the interpretation is: I know of no opinion which insists on severing (= Heb. ekhj) the top ring completely (i.e., the view of the Rabbis in the Mishnah), nor of any opinion which insists on rending (= Heb. ekhc) the greater portion of it (i.e., the view of R. Jose b. R. Judah) etc. . . . V. Aruch s.v. ekj VI. windpipe was cut above the top ring. were he to refer to the deflection contemplated by the Rabbis he would have testified in these words: ‘concerning it’. third. windpipe was mutilated before the slaughtering by reason of an accident, and a person cut just a fraction more of the windpipe according to ritual, the slaughtering is valid, although when the life escaped the greater part had not been cut in the ritual manner. In our case, therefore, the cutting outside the prescribed area should be regarded as a mutilation of the windpipe, so that when the greater part of the windpipe is cut immediately afterwards the slaughtering should be valid. escapes the greater part of the windpipe is severed within the prescribed area. and cannot affect the already valid slaughtering. V. infra 27a.