Chullin

but according to the one who holds that birds do require shechitah by the law of the Torah,1 then it must also be held that the tearing loose of the organs is a defect. R. Ashi retorted: On the contrary, the reverse argument is the more reasonable. Thus, according to him who holds that birds do require shechitah by the law of the Torah,1 it can well be argued that he2 was expressly informed that the tearing loose of the organs [in the case of birds] was not a defect. Furthermore, even according to him who obtains this result by analogy with cattle,3 it can nevertheless be argued that as regards the tearing loose of the organs [he was informed that]4 birds are to be different from cattle.5 But, according to the one who holds that birds do not require shechitah by the law of the Torah but only by Rabbinic enactment, and the Rabbis obviously derived this rule only by a comparison with cattle, surely then [birds] should be compared with cattle in all respects! — Rabina answered: Rabin b. Kissi told me that the dictum of Rami b. Ezekiel, namely, the fact that the organs have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird, is to be applied only to the case of nipping, but in the case of slaughtering it is certainly a defect. But did not R. Jeremiah report in the name of Samuel: ‘Whatsoever part of the neck is valid for slaughtering the corresponding part on the back of the neck is valid for nipping’, and from which followed [the corollary] viz., What is invalid for slaughtering is invalid for nipping?6 — This is at variance [with the teaching of Rabin b. Kissi]. Ze'iri said: If the neckbone of an animal was broken together with the major portion of the surrounding flesh, the animal is nebelah forthwith.7 R. Hisda said: We have also learnt the same: If one nipped off [the head of a consecrated bird] with a knife, the carcass, whilst in the gullet, renders clothes unclean.8 Now if you were to say that [in Ze'iri's case] the animal is merely trefah, should not the knife in this case have the effect of removing [from this bird] the uncleanness of nebelah,9 inasmuch as nipping with a knife is tantamount to slaughtering?10 — It is so,11 I say, because the slaughtering is not in accordance with ritual. Why? — R. Huna says: Because he thrusts [whilst cutting the organs].12 Rabbah13 says: Because he presses [the knife downwards]. Now he who says: ‘Because he thrusts’, wherefore does he not say: ‘Because he presses [the knife downwards]? — He is of the opinion that to move the finger-nail to and fro whilst nipping is allowed.14 And he who says: ‘Because he presses [the knife downwards]’, wherefore does he not say: ‘Because he thrusts’? — He argues thus: What is meant by ‘thrusting’?15 Clearly [any cutting where the knife is] covered, just like a weasel which is covered16 by the foundations of a house; in our case, however, the knife is visible.17 Raba said: If there is any difficulty [in connection with Ze'iri's statement] it is this: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead?18 Abaye thereupon said to him, You can raise the same difficulty in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs to be nipped through, thus: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead?19 — He replied: In this latter case, he does so merely to carry out the precept of severance.20 If so, the skin, too, [should be severed!]21 — The rule is: Whatever is indispensable in the slaughtering is indispensable in the precept of severance, and whatever is not indispensable in the slaughtering is not indispensable in the precept of severance.22 But what of the lesser portion23 of each organ, which is not indispensable in the slaughtering, nevertheless according to the ruling of the Rabbis is indispensable in the precept of severance? — Read, therefore, Whatever comes within the purview of slaughtering comes within the precept of severance and whatever does not come within the purview of slaughtering does not come within the precept of severance.24 the result is obtained that birds require shechitah. V. infra 27b. all the rules ‘and regulations of shechitah. is a defect in the other. life by movements and jerks. becomes unclean and so do also the clothes that he is wearing at the time. This unusual and unique form of conveying uncleanness is found only in connection with the carcass of a clean bird, and is derived by Rabbinic interpretation from Lev. XVII, 15 and XXII, 8. The other modes of conveying uncleanness, e.g., by contact or by carrying, do not apply to the carcass of a bird. convey any uncleanness. through the neckbone, and there is therefore a ‘thrusting’. According to R. Gershom and Tosaf. it is invalid because he is cutting the neck from back to front. already dead then why continue with it? only one organ has been cut through. V. infra 27a. within the purview of slaughtering. On the other hand, the skin of the throat is outside the scope of the slaughtering, for the slaughtering would be valid even though the skin of the throat had been removed.