Chullin

And why did the Divine Law mention the fat in the first verse?1 — For the purpose shown in the following Baraitha: How does he offer it? He covers the throat with the fat and thus offers it upon the altar; and in this way there is glory given to the Most High. Another Tanna derives it from the following Baraitha: It is written: This is the law of cattle and of birds.2 Now in which law [of the laws of uncleanness] are birds and cattle treated alike. On the one hand the carcass of cattle conveys uncleanness by contact or by carrying whereas the carcass of a bird does not. On the other hand the carcass of a bird whilst in the gullet renders clothes unclean3 whereas the carcass of cattle does not. In which respect then are birds and cattle alike? In this respect: As cattle [are rendered clean] by slaughtering, so birds [are rendered clean] by slaughtering. But it should follow, should it not, that as in the case of cattle the greater part of both organs must be cut, so in the case of birds the greater part of both organs must be cut? The verse therefore reads: This [is the law].4 R. Eliezer says: In which respect are birds and cattle alike? In this: As birds are rendered fit at the neck,5 so cattle are rendered fit at the neck.6 But then it should follow, should it not, that as in the case of birds [the nipping is done] close to the back of the neck, so in the case of cattle [the slaughtering should be done] close to the back of the neck? The verse therefore reads. And he shall nip off its head close to the back of its neck but shall not divide it asunder,7 that is to say, its head shall be [nipped off] close to the back of its neck but the head of no other shall be [cut] close to the back of its neck.8 And how does R. Eliezer interpret the word ‘this’? — Without ‘this’, I would have argued that as in the case of birds only one organ [is severed], so in the case of cattle only one organ [shall be cut]; the Divine Law therefore states. This [is the law]. 9 Bar Kappara taught: It is written: This is the law of cattle and of birds [and of every living creature that moveth in the waters].9 This verse has interposed birds between cattle and fishes. Now one cannot say that [in the case of birds] both organs of the throat must be cut, for they are, on the one hand, grouped with fishes. And one cannot say that none of the organs are to be cut, for they are, on the other hand, grouped with cattle. How is this to be explained? — They are rendered fit by the cutting of one organ.10 Whence do we know that fish do not require to be ritually slaughtered? Shall I say from the verse: If flocks and birds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will it suffice them?11 which implies that the mere gathering [of fishes] is sufficient?12 But if so, with regard to quails, of which it is written: And they gathered the quails,13 can it similarly be said [that the mere gathering is sufficient and] that no slaughtering is necessary? Have you not said [above], ‘And one cannot say that none of the organs are to be cut for they are grouped with cattle’? — In the latter verse ‘gathering’ is not written in the same verse which mentions slaughtering for others, but in the former verse ‘gathering’ [in the case of fishes] is written in the same verse which mentions slaughtering for others.14 A Galilean travelling lecturer expounded: Cattle were created out of the dry earth and are rendered fit by the cutting of both organs; fish were created out of the water and are rendered fit without any ritual slaughtering; birds were created out of the alluvial mud and are therefore rendered fit by the cutting of one organ. R. Samuel of Cappadocia said: You can prove this from the fact that birds have scales on their legs like the scales of fishes. He15 put to him this further question: One verse says. And God said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and let birds fly above the earth,16 from which it would appear that birds were created out of the water; but another verse says. And the Lord God formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the air,17 from which it would appear that they were created out of the earth? — He replied: They were created out of the alluvial mud. He thereupon noticed his disciples looking at each other with surprise. ‘You are no doubt displeased’, said he, ‘because I brushed aside my opponent with a straw. The truth is that they were created out of the water but they were brought before Adam only in order that he might name them’.18 Others say that he replied to the [Roman] general in accordance with the latter view, but to his disciples he gave the first explanation.19 since they [birds] are mentioned in connection with the expression: And He formed.20 Rab Judah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Phinehas: Birds do not require to be slaughtered ritually by the law of the Torah, for it is written: And he shall pour out the blood thereof,21 that is to say, the mere pouring out of the blood is sufficient [to render the bird fit]. But if so, should not the same be said of wild beasts too?22 — No, for wild beasts have been compared [by Biblical analogy] with consecrated animals that have become unfit [for sacrifice].23 Well, then, birds have also been compared with cattle in the following verse: This is the law of cattle and of birds.24 — Surely there is also the verse: He shall pour out the blood thereof!25 But why do you choose to apply the latter verse to birds rather than to wild animals? — It is more reasonable to do so since [birds] are mentioned last.26 (Mnemonic: ‘It became nebelah’. ‘Blood’. ‘Nipping’.)27 An objection was raised: If a man slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it became nebelah under his hand, or if he stabbed, or if he tore away the organs of the throat [of a wild animal or a bird], he is exempt from covering the blood. Now if you were right in holding that birds do not require to be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah, then stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required for them, consequently there is surely an obligation to cover the blood! — You are assuming that the above [Mishnah] deals with a bird; in fact it deals with the case of a wild animal only.28 Come and hear: If a man slaughtered, even though he requires the blood for use, he must nevertheless cover it. But what should he do [so that he may use the blood]? He should either stab it or tear away the organs. reason given in the text, but why was it necessary to mention the fat? detailed rules of slaughtering. Torah refers to the practice that is proper in each case. Rabban Gamaliel). V. Bek. 5a. verse (II, 19) merely informs us that birds as well as all other creatures were brought to Adam that he might name them. with the subject of naming the creatures. Therefore, to reconcile these verses the correct answer is, as originally suggested, that they were created out of the alluvial mud. V. Rashi. like cattle. immediately precedes these words in the verse, i.e., birds. cover the blood.