Chullin

because if you do you defeat your decision in the first case. For there your reason for declaring it valid was that the life escaped at the time that he was cutting within the prescribed area; it follows then that in this case it should be invalid, because here the life escaped at the time that he was cutting outside the prescribed area’. When R. Nahman once happened to come to Sura he was asked: What is the law if a slaughterer first cut a third of the windpipe within the prescribed area, another third outside it, and the last third within it? — He replied: Is not this the case that was taught by R. Eleazar b. Manyomi? For R. Eleazar b. Manyomi said: Where the cutting of the organ is like a zigzag,1 the slaughtering is valid. But perhaps this decision applies only to a slaughtering entirely within the prescribed area? ‘Within the prescribed area’! But this goes without saying [that the slaughtering is valid]! — Indeed no. For you might have thought that there must be an open cut,2 and here it is not so; we are therefore taught [that it is not essential].3 (Mnemonic: Bakad.)4 R. Abba was once sitting behind R. Kahana whilst R. Kahana was before Rab Judah, when R. Kahana asked: What is the law 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 answered: The slaughtering is valid. And what is the law if a slaughterer first cut a third [of the windpipe] outside the prescribed area, another third within it, and the last third outside it? — He replied: The slaughtering is invalid. And what is the law if a slaughterer cut the windpipe in an existing gash?5 — He replied: The slaughtering is valid. And what is the law if a slaughterer cut the windpipe terminating in an existing gash [in the windpipe]?6 — He replied: The slaughtering is invalid. R. Abba then went and reported these decisions to R. Eleazar, and the latter went and reported them to R. Johanan. R. Johanan asked: Wherein lies the difference? — He [R. Eleazar] replied, [The case] where one cut the windpipe in an existing gash is the same as when a gentile began the slaughtering and an Israelite finished it;7 and [the case] where one cut the windpipe terminating in an existing gash is the same as when an Israelite began the slaughtering and a gentile finished it.8 Whereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: Gentile, gentile!9 Raba said: He was right in exclaiming. Gentile, gentile! For, in that case, [where the gentile finished the slaughtering.] the decision10 is reasonable, because the Israelite should have cut [at least] the greater portion and this he did not do, with the result that life escaped at the hand of the gentile. In this case, however, [where there is a gash in the windpipe,] he has indeed cut as much as he could, what difference, therefore, can there be whether he cuts in a gash or cuts terminating in a gash? MISHNAH. IF ONE CUT AT11 THE SIDE [OF THE NECK], THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF12 [THE HEAD] FROM THE SIDE OF THE NECK, THE NIPPING IS INVALID; IF ONE CUT AT THE BACK OF THE NECK. THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE BACK OF THE NECK, THE NIPPING IS VALID. IF ONE CUT AT THE FRONT OF THE NECK. THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE FRONT OF THE NECK. THE NIPPING IS INVALID. FOR THE WHOLE OF THE BACK OF THE NECK IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR NIPPING, AND THE WHOLE OF THE FRONT OF THE NECK IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR SLAUGHTERING. IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT THE PLACE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR SLAUGHTERING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR NIPPING, AND THE PLACE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR NIPPING IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR SLAUGHTERING. GEMARA. What is meant by THE BACK OF THE NECK?13 Does it mean the actual back of the neck? If so, why is it, that only if one slaughtered there it is invalid? If one nipped there it would also be invalid, for in the Divine Law it is stated: Close to the back of its neck,14 but not the actual back of the head! — THE BACK OF THE NECK really means [the region] close to the back of the neck, and this is indicated in the subsequent clause which reads: FOR THE WHOLE OF THE BACK OF THE NECK IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR NIPPING.15 Whence do we know this? — From the following statement. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Close to the back of its neck’, that is to say, the region which overlooks the back of the neck, as it is written: And they dwell clue to me;16 and it is also written: For they have turned unto Me the back of the neck and not the face.17 Why another verse? — Because you might argue that [so long as] we do not know the true meaning of the back of the neck we cannot know what is meant by [the region] which is close to it. Therefore come and hear: It is written: ‘For they have turned unto Me the back of the neck and not the face’; thus clearly showing that the back of the neck is directly opposite the face. The sons of R. Hiyya said: This is the proper method for nipping: [the priest] twists the organs of the throat around to the back of the neck and then nips off [the head].18 Some read, ‘may twist’; others, ‘must twist’. It is more reasonable, however, to adopt the reading, ‘may twist’. Why? — For the Mishnah reads: IF ONE CUT AT THE BACK OF THE NECK, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID; IF ONE NIPPED OFF [THE HEAD] FROM THE BACK OF THE NECK, THE NIPPING IS VALID. Eleazar b. Manyomi. Rabbis mentioned in the following passage: R. Abba, R. Kahana and R. Judah. continued to cut. to the gash. consecrated for a sacrifice. The officiating priest breaks with his finger-nail the neckbone, the spinal cord and the surrounding flesh, and also one (in the case of a sin-offering) or both (in the case of a burnt-offering) of the organs of the throat. V. infra 21aff. by S. Daiches in Expository Times; Vol. XXXIX p. 426. refer to it in such terms as: THE WHOLE OF THE BACK OF THE NECK. It must mean, therefore, the whole region close to and in front of the back of the neck.