Chullin

If 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?1 His son, R. Joseph, said to him: We could first examine the windpipe and then cut it,2 and thereafter the gullet can be turned inside out and examined.3 Raba exclaimed. My son Joseph is as versed in the laws concerning what is trefah as R. Johanan!4 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,5 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 CUT6 THROUGH THE JUGULAR VEINS? — Say: He must pierce7 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?8 — 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. 9 [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 half10 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. 11 R. Kattina said: Come and hear: If he divided it12 into two equal parts, both parts are unclean, because it is impossible to make an exactly equal division.13 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! 14 Come and hear: If a man cut half of the windpipe and paused pale or whitish. A perforation would not be noticeable in the outer coat but only in the inner coat. allowing the blood to run out. for otherwise this question would not arise. paused or pressed whilst cutting them. and will not render anything unclean. 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. unclean. 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.