Chullin

MISHNAH. IF A MAN CUT1 ONE [OF THE ORGANS OF THE THROAT]2 IN THE CASE OF A BIRD, OR BOTH ORGANS IN THE CASE OF CATTLE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. THE GREATER PART OF AN ORGAN IS EQUIVALENT TO [THE WHOLE OF] IT. R. JUDAH SAYS, HE MUST CUT THROUGH THE JUGULAR VEINS. [IF ONE CUT] HALF OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD, OR ONE AND A HALF ORGANS IN THE CASE OF CATTLE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID. [IF A MAN CUT] THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD, OR THE GREATER PART OF EACH ORGAN IN THE CASE OF CATTLE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. GEMARA. ‘IF A MAN CUT’ implies that the slaughtering is valid only after the act but that one is not permitted to do so in the first instance. [This would mean that] to cut both organs in the case of cattle is not sufficient in the first instance. Indeed, how much further can one go on cutting? — If you wish I can say that the expression ‘IF ONE CUT’ refers to the clause, ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD; alternatively it refers to the clause, THE GREATER PART OF AN ORGAN IS EQUIVALENT TO [THE WHOLE OF] IT.3 (Kemash)4 R. Kahana said: Whence do we know that slaughtering must be performed at the neck? From the verse: And he shall slaughter [we-shahat] the bullock,5 that is to say, he shall cleanse [hat] it [from blood] in the place where it bends down [shah].6 And whence do we know that hat means to cleanse? — From the verse: And he shall cleanse [we-hitte] the house;7 or, if you wish, from the verse: Cleanse me [tehatte'eni] with hyssop and I shall be clean.8 perhaps [it should be performed] at the tail? — the word shah, we say, implies, bent down, of something that is usually erect,9 but that [sc. the tail] is always bent down. Perhaps [it should be performed] at the ear?10 — It is necessary to obtain the life blood. Perhaps one should keep on cutting [the ear] until one reaches the life blood! Moreover,11 whence would we know the rules against pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting, and tearing? [We must therefore say that] we know them by tradition; then the rule that slaughtering must be performed at the neck is also derived from tradition. What then does this verse teach us? — That one may not cut the animal into two.12 R. Yemar said: We can derive it from the verse: And thou shalt slaughter [we-zabahta]13 that is to say, one must break [hat] it in the place where [the blood] flows [zab].14 And whence do we know that hat means to break? — From the verse: Fear not neither be dismayed [tehath].15 perhaps [it should be performed] at the nose?16 — The word zab implies to flow by reason of a cut, but that [sc. the nose] flows of its own. Perhaps [it should be performed] at the heart! Moreover, whence would we know the rules against pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting, and tearing? [We must therefore say that] we know them by tradition; then the rule that slaughtering must be performed at the neck is also derived from tradition. What then does this verse teach us? — That one may not cut the animal into two. The school of R. Ishmael taught: It is written: And he shall slaughter [we-shahat];17 read not we-shahat but we-sahat, meaning, one shall cleanse [hat] it [from blood] in the place where it utters Sound [sah].18 Perhaps [one should perform it] at the tongue? — It is necessary to obtain the life blood. Perhaps one should keep on cutting until one reaches the life blood! Moreover, whence would we know the rules against pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting, and tearing? [We must say] therefore [that] we know them by tradition; then the rule that slaughtering must be performed at the neck is also derived from tradition. What then does this verse teach us? — That One may not cut the animal into two. A Tanna derives it from the following Baraitha: R. Hiyya said: Whence do we know that slaughtering must be performed at the neck? From the verse: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay in order the pieces, [the head and the fat].19 Now it was quite unnecessary for the verse to add ‘the head and the fat’. Why is it written: ‘the head and the fat’? Are not the head and the fat included in ‘the pieces’? Why are they mentioned separately? [For this reason]; since it is written: And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it [into its pieces].20 I would have thought that only such limbs as must be flayed are included [in the pieces];21 whence would I learn to include also the head which is already severed?22 It is therefore written explicitly. [And he shall cut it into its pieces,] with its head and its fat and he shall lay them in order.23 Now since the Tanna speaks of the head as severed, it is evident that slaughtering must be performed at the neck. Why does the Tanna open his argument with, ‘And the head and the fat’,24 and conclude with, ‘Its head and its fat’?25 — This is what he means. Whence would I learn to include the head which is already severed? From the verse: ‘And the head and the fat’. Then for what purpose do I require the verse,26 ‘Its head and its fat’? — For the purpose shown in the following Baraitha: Whence do I know that the head and the fat precede all limbs [on the altar]? From the verse: Its head and its fat, and he shall lay them in order. 27 windpipe or the trachea, and (ii) the foodpipe or the gullet or oesophagus. Rabbis whose statements follow. this further question confronts us: Whence would we derive the rules . . .? V. Tosaf. s.v. u,u. the main organs of the throat and no more. Others interpret tryxhd. to mean, ‘to cut with force’; the verse is therefore taken as a direct prohibition against chopping the neck or pressing the knife downwards while slaughtering, on this interpretation the rule against pressing has a Biblical basis, v. Rashi. jx, to talk, to utter sound, and yj, to cleanse. of flaying the animal does head (cf. Zeb. 85b); consequently as the head is not flayed the the pieces in order would not apply to it. the altar.