Chullin

Now presumably this statement refers to [the slaughtering of] a bird whose blood he would require for [destroying] the flax worm?1 — No, it refers to [the slaughtering of] a wild animal whose blood he would require for dyeing purposes.2 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.3 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?4 — He [R. Isaac b. Phinehas] accepts the view of the Tanna in the following Baraitha: R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi5 says: What does the verse: Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten [so shalt thou eat there of]6 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’;7 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,8 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.9 (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.10 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!11 — It is because the windpipe is more liable to be torn away.12 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.13 — It is because the gullet lies close to the jugular veins.14 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,15 presumably this passage deals with a bird, and ‘finished it’ means, finished cutting the windpipe?16 — No, it deals with cattle, and ‘finished it’ means, finished the entire slaughtering. 17 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.18 This is a refutation of R. Adda b. Ahaba's view!19 It is a refutation. What has been decided about the matter? ‘What has been decided’ [you ask]! Surely it is as you have stated.20 — [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.21 What then is the law? — Come and hear: A duck belonging to Raba's house was found with its neck smeared with blood.22 Said Raba: How shall we deal with it? slaughtered there would be no obligation to cover the blood and so it might be used for any purpose. anything unclean. V. supra p. 103. blemish. 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). trefah, but this is not so with regard to the windpipe. presumably because the cutting of the windpipe alone would not render the animal valid, contra R. Nahman. 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. windpipe were cut with the jugular veins. 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. slaughtering too. 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. the windpipe.