חולין 28 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now presumably this statement refers to [the slaughtering of] a bird whose blood he would require for [destroying] the flax worm? — No, it refers to [the slaughtering of] a wild animal whose blood he would require for dyeing purposes. Come and hear: If one nipped off [the head of a consecrated bird] with a knife, the carcass, whilst in the gullet, renders clothes unclean. Now if you were right in holding that birds do not require to be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah, then, granting that as soon as its neckbone and spinal cord have been sundered the bird is trefah,[the subsequent cutting of the organs with] the knife should at least have the effect of rendering the carcass free from the uncleanness of nebelah? — He [R. Isaac b. Phinehas] accepts the view of the Tanna in the following Baraitha: R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi says: What does the verse: Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten [so shalt thou eat there of] teach us? What do we learn from the gazelle and the hart? Indeed, ‘it comes as a teacher but turns out to be a pupil’; we must put the gazelle and the hart on the same footing as consecrated animals which have been rendered unfit for sacrifice. Thus, as the latter must be ritually slaughtered so the gazelle and the hart must also be ritually slaughtered. Birds, however, need not be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah, but only by Rabbinic enactment. Who is the Tanna who disagrees with this view of R. Eleazar ha.Kappar? — It is Rabbi. For it has been taught: Rabbi says. The verse: And thou shalt slaughter . . . as I have commanded thee, teaches us that Moses was instructed concerning the gullet and the windpipe; concerning the greater part of one of these organs [that must be cut] in the case of a bird, and the greater part of each in the case of cattle. ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD. It was stated: R. Nahman says. Either the gullet or the windpipe; whilst R. Adda b. Ahabah says. Only the gullet and not the windpipe. ‘R. Nahman says. Either the gullet or the windpipe’, for the Mishnah says ONE ORGAN, that is, any one. R. Adda b. Ahabah says: Only the gullet and not the windpipe’, for ‘ONE ORGAN’ means the vital one. (Mnemonic: He cut. Half of each. The windpipe. Mutilated. The sin-offering of a bird.) An objection was raised: If a man cut the gullet [of a bird] and afterwards the windpipe was torn away. the slaughtering is valid. If the windpipe was torn away and he then cut the gullet, the slaughtering is invalid. If he cut the gullet and the windpipe was found to be torn away, and it is not known whether it was torn away before or after the slaughtering — this was an actual case [which came before the Rabbis] and they ruled: Any doubt whatsoever arising about the slaughtering makes it invalid. Now there is no mention here at all of the cutting of the windpipe! — It is because the windpipe is more liable to be torn away. Come and hear: If a man cut half of each organ in the case of a bird, the slaughtering is invalid; needless to say this is so in the case of cattle. R. Judah says. In a bird he must cut through the gullet and the jugular veins. — It is because the gullet lies close to the jugular veins. Come and hear: If a man cut half of the windpipe and paused for the length of time required for another slaughtering, and then finished it, the slaughtering is valid, presumably this passage deals with a bird, and ‘finished it’ means, finished cutting the windpipe? — No, it deals with cattle, and ‘finished it’ means, finished the entire slaughtering. Come and hear: If half of the windpipe was mutilated and a man cut a fraction more and finished it, the slaughtering is valid. Presumably this deals with a bird, and ‘finished it’ means, finished cutting the windpipe? — No, it deals with cattle, and ‘finished it’ means, finished cutting the gullet. Come and hear: How must he [the priest] nip off the head of the sin-offering of birds? He must cut [with his finger.nail] the spinal cord and the neckbone, but must not cut the major portion of the surrounding flesh before he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. On reaching the gullet or the windpipe he cuts one, or the greater portion of one, organ and then the major portion of the surrounding flesh; and in the case of a burnt-offering both, or the greater portion of both, organs and then the major portion of the surrounding flesh. This is a refutation of R. Adda b. Ahaba's view! It is a refutation. What has been decided about the matter? ‘What has been decided’ [you ask]! Surely it is as you have stated. — [No] but it might be said that in that case the law is different, since there is [the breaking] of the spinal cord and neckbone. What then is the law? — Come and hear: A duck belonging to Raba's house was found with its neck smeared with blood. Said Raba: How shall we deal with it?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:This clearly proves that birds must be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah; hence where they were not ritually slaughtered there would be no obligation to cover the blood and so it might be used for any purpose.
^ᵇnote:Heb. tfk. Probably ‘lac’, a red resinous substance used as a dye.
^ᶜnote:V. supra 20b.
^ᵈnote:In accordance with the Rabbinic dictum: The carcass of a trefah animal when ritually slaughtered does not render anything unclean. V. supra p. 103.
^ᵉnote:V. supra p. 52, n. 4.
^ᶠnote:Deut. XII, 22. This verse deals with consecrated animals that have become unfit for a sacrifice by reason of a blemish.
^ᵍnote:A proverbial saying. The suggestion here is that the gazelle and the hart were apparently mentioned in the verse in order to elucidate the law with regard to consecrated animals that have become unfit (i.e., to act the teacher), but in reality it is the law with regard to The latter which throws light on the position concerning the gazelle and the hart (i.e., it is now the pupil).
^ʰnote:Deut. XII. 22.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘the distinct one’ i.e., the gullet. It is the vital organ because the slightest perforation in it will render the animal trefah, but this is not so with regard to the windpipe.
^ʲnote:I.e., it had become detached from its articulation in the larynx.
^ᵏnote:In any clause such as this: If he cut the windpipe and afterwards the gullet was torn away, the slaughtering is valid; presumably because the cutting of the windpipe alone would not render the animal valid, contra R. Nahman.
^ˡnote:And therefore the case quoted refers to the tearing away of the windpipe, as this is most usual.
^ᵐnote:In order to let the blood run out, since a bird is often roasted whole without being cut up. The first Tanna only disagrees with R. Judah on this point about the jugular veins, but apparently all hold that it is only the cutting of the gullet that renders the bird fit, contra R. Nahman.
^ⁿnote:Hence it is usual when cutting the jugular veins to cut the gullet too. The law, however, would be the same if the windpipe were cut with the jugular veins.
^ᵒnote:For the cutting of the first half of the windpipe is not reckoned as part of the slaughtering, since even if half of the windpipe was mutilated by an accident the subsequent cutting of the remainder of the windpipe would be valid; therefore whatever fault occurs at this stage of the cutting is of no consequence.
^ᵖnote:Hence by the cutting of the windpipe only the slaughtering is valid, contra R. Adda b. Ahaba.
^ᵠnote:By cutting both organs.
^ʳnote:V. supra 21a.
^ˢnote:For the Baraitha expressly states that for nipping one may cut either organ. Presumably this is so in the case of slaughtering too.
^ᵗnote:That the rule as stated with regard to nipping will apply likewise to slaughtering.
^ᵘnote:I.e., in the case of nipping, where the spinal cord and neckbone are broken, it is admitted that one may cut any one organ and it would be sufficient, but with regard to slaughtering it might be held that the cutting of the windpipe only would not be sufficient.
^ᵛnote:It was therefore necessary to examine the organs of the throat against any perforation of the gullet or laceration of the windpipe.

²If we first slaughter it and then examine the organs [it is of no avail, for] it might have been slaughtered in the very place where there was a perforation [in the gullet]. If we first examine it and then slaughter it [it is also of no avail, for] has not Rabbah taught that the gullet cannot be examined from the outside but only from the inside? His son, R. Joseph, said to him: We could first examine the windpipe and then cut it, and thereafter the gullet can be turned inside out and examined. Raba exclaimed. My son Joseph is as versed in the laws concerning what is trefah as R. Johanan! This proves that [the Mishnah] when it says ONE ORGAN, means either the one or the other. R. JUDAH SAYS, HE MUST CUT THROUGH THE JUGULAR VEINS. R. Hisda said that R. Judah deals with the case of a bird only, [and his reason is] because it is often roasted whole, but in the case of cattle, since the animal is usually cut up into limbs, it is not necessary [to cut the jugular veins]. Shall we say that the reason for R. Judah's ruling is on account of the blood? Surely we have learnt: R. JUDAH SAYS: HE MUST CUT THROUGH THE JUGULAR VEINS? — Say: He must pierce the jugular veins. Why then does it say: HE MUST CUT? — Because he must pierce them at the time of the ritual cutting. Come and hear: The jugular veins must be ritually cut; so R. Judah. — Say: ‘The jugular veins must be pierced at the time of the ritual cutting; so R. Judah’. Come and hear: They said to R. Judah: ‘Since the jugular veins were referred to only for the purpose of drawing out the blood, what does it matter whether they are cut ritually or not?’ It is evident,is it not, that R. Judah is of the opinion that they must be cut ritually? — This is what they said to him, ‘What does it matter whether one pierces them at the time of the ritual cutting or not?’ He, however, is of the opinion that if [the jugular veins are] pierced at the time of the ritual cutting, the blood, being warm, will flow freely, but after the ritual cutting the blood will not flow so freely, for it is already cold. R. Jeremiah raised the question: According to R. Judah, what would be the law if one paused or pressed downwards whilst cutting the jugular veins? — A certain old man answered him: This is what R. Eleazar has said (others read: A certain old man said to R. Eleazar: This is what R. Johanan has said): They may be pierced with a thorn and are thus rendered valid. [A Baraitha] was taught in accordance with R. Hisda's view, viz., If a man cut ritually half of each organ in a bird the slaughtering is invalid; it is needless to say so in the case of cattle. R. Judah says. In a bird he must cut through ritually the gullet and the jugular veins. HALF OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD etc. It was stated: Rab said: An exact half is equivalent to the greater portion; R. Kahana said: An exact half is not equivalent to the greater portion. ‘Rab said: An exact half is equivalent to the greater portion’, because what the Divine Law instructed Moses was: ‘Thou shalt not leave the greater portion [uncut]’. ‘R. Kahana said: An exact half is not equivalent to the greater portion’, because what the Divine Law instructed Moses was: ‘Thou shalt cut the greater portion’. (Mnemonic: A half. Kattina. The windpipe. Mutilated.) We have learnt: [IF A MAN 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. Now if you say that an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion, why is the slaughtering invalid? Has he not cut here the greater portion? — [It is invalid only] by Rabbinic ruling as a precaution lest he should cut less than an exact half. R. Kattina said: Come and hear: If he divided it into two equal parts, both parts are unclean, because it is impossible to make an exactly equal division. It follows, however, that if it were possible to make an exactly equal division both parts would be clean. Now if you say that an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion, why would both parts be clean? When you turn to one part you must regard it as the greater portion [and therefore unclean], and when you turn to the other part you must regard it as the greater portion [and therefore also unclean]? — R. Papa answered: There cannot be two greater portions in one vessel! Come and hear: If a man cut half of the windpipe and paused^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ

^ʷnote:The gullet or oesophagus has two principal coats, the outer or muscular coat being red and the inner or mucous coat pale or whitish. A perforation would not be noticeable in the outer coat but only in the inner coat.
^ˣnote:And this in itself would be sufficient to render the slaughtering valid.
^ʸnote:I.e., the inner coat of the gullet can be examined.
^ᶻnote:v. infra 50a and 95b.
^ᵃᵃnote:It is therefore necessary to cut these veins in order to allow the blood to flow out.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘slaughter’. I.e., ritually, since they are an intrinsic part of the slaughtering, and not merely cut for the purpose of allowing the blood to run out.
^ᵃᶜnote:With any instrument and not necessarily the slaughtering knife; the sole purpose being to allow the blood to flow.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., do they require ritual cutting? It is quite apparent that R. Jeremiah had not heard of R. Hisda's statement supra, for otherwise this question would not arise.
^ᵃᵉnote:For the piercing of these veins does not form part of the slaughtering and therefore it is of no consequence if one paused or pressed whilst cutting them.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘half on half’.
^ᵃᵍnote:By the law of the Torah the slaughtering in this case would be valid; the carcass therefore is not regarded as nebelah and will not render anything unclean.
^ᵃʰnote:Sc. an unclean earthenware stove. An earthenware vessel, once unclean, can in no wise be rendered clean and must be broken (V. Lev. XI, 35). There must not remain one whole piece larger than half of the original vessel, for then the greater Part of the vessel is whole and would retain the uncleanness.
^ᵃⁱnote:Since one must necessarily be larger than the other, and it is not known which is the larger piece, both pieces remain unclean.
^ᵃʲnote:In this case therefore, since each half must clearly be treated on the same footing, each must be considered as a half and no more, with the result that each half is clean. In the case of shechitah however, the two parts of the organ are not treated on the same footing, for we are only concerned with the part that is cut; hence we may regard the exact half which is cut as equivalent to the greater portion, with the result that the slaughtering is valid.