Chullin

Now if you adopt the reading. ‘must twist’, then why is it that only if one nipped off [the head] there it is valid? Even if one slaughtered there [it would] also [be valid].1 You can, therefore, prove from this that the correct reading is, ‘may twist’; and as for our Mishnah the case is that the organs were not twisted around, [and therefore the slaughtering is invalid]. R. Jannai said: Let these young men receive the refutation of their view. For our Mishnah reads: 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. Now what does this rule exclude? presumably the case where one twisted the organs around to the back of the neck!2 — Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said: It is not so, but it excludes the use of a tooth or a finger-nail.3 But is not a tooth or a finger.nail expressly stated [to be invalid for slaughtering]?4 — Rather, said R. Jeremiah, it excludes the act of moving to and fro.5 This is well, however, according to the one who holds that to move [the fingernail] to and fro whilst nipping is not allowed; but according to the one who holds that it is allowed, how is it to be explained? — The sons of R. Hiyya agree with him who holds that to move the fingernail to and fro whilst nipping is not allowed. R. Kahana said: The precept of nipping requires pressing [with the finger-nail] downward; and this is the proper method. Now R. Abin thought this to mean that if he pressed with his finger-nail downward it is [valid], but if he moved it to and fro it is not [valid]. Whereupon R. Jeremiah said to him: But surely, to move the finger-nail to and fro whilst nipping is most certainly allowed!6 And as for the words: ‘This is the proper method’, read instead, ‘This also is a proper method’. R. Jeremiah said in the name of Samuel: Whatsoever part of the front of the neck is valid for slaughtering, the corresponding part on the back of the neck is valid for nipping. It follows, no doubt, that what is invalid for slaughtering is invalid for nipping. Now what does this exclude? Can it exclude the case where the organs of the throat had been torn loose?7 Surely not! For Rami b. Ezekiel has taught: The fact that the organs of the throat have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird.8 — R. Papa said: It excludes the head.9 ‘The head’! But this is obvious! For the Divine law enjoins. Close to the back of its neck.10 but not on the head! — By ‘head’, he meant the slope of the head;11 and the case is as follows: he commenced to nip at the slope of the head and, moving [his finger-nail] gradually downwards, ended the nipping below.12 This view is in agreement with that stated by R. Huna in the name of R. Assi. For R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: If one cut a third [of the windpipe] outside the prescribed area [for slaughtering] and then cut two thirds within it, the slaughtering is invalid.13 R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: This dictum of Rami b. Ezekiel, namely, the fact that the organs have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird, can be maintained only by him who holds that according to the law of the Torah birds do not require shechitah; [ clause of the rule stated, the second clause being added merely for the sake of completeness. person. As to whether it is permitted to nip off the head with the teeth or not, v. Tosaf. ad. loc. This case, as explained, exemplifies the second clause of the rule stated. in the case of slaughtering. Accordingly the first clause of the rule in our Mishnah is the important one. slaughtering the better. according to Samuel.