Chullin

for the length of time required for another slaughtering and then finished it, the slaughtering is valid. Now if you say that an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion then here the animal is already trefah!1 — You are assuming, are you not, that the Baraitha is dealing with cattle? Indeed it deals with a bird, and whichever view you take the result is the same. For if an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion then he has cut here the greater portion;2 and if an exact half is not equivalent to the greater portion then he has done nothing at all [which would render the slaughtering invalid]. 3 Come and hear: If half of the windpipe [of a bird] was mutilated and a man cut a fraction more and finished it, the slaughtering is valid. Now if you say that an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion, then was it not already trefah [before the slaughtering]? — Raba answered: With regard to the law of trefah it is different, for there [all agree that] we require such a greater portion as is perceptible to the eye.4 Thereupon Abaye said to him: But is there not here an a fortiori argument: If in the law concerning trefah, notwithstanding that [in certain cases] the slightest defect will render an animal trefah, nevertheless whenever we do require a greater portion we insist upon a greater portion that is perceptible to the eye, how much more in the law concerning shechitah, where no slaughtering is valid without the greater portion having been cut, should we insist upon a greater portion which is perceptible to the eye? — Rather say [thus]: All are of the opinion that an exact half is not equivalent to the greater portion, and when the dispute between Rab and R. Kahana was reported it was only in connection with the passover sacrifice. Thus: If the community of Israel was exactly equally divided, half being clean and half unclean, Rab said that an exact half was equivalent to the greater portion;5 R. Kahana said that an exact half was not equivalent to the greater portion.6 And what is the reason for Rab's view in that case?7 — For it is written: If any man of you shall be unclean by reason of a dead body,8 signifying that only an individual is obliged to postpone [his passover sacrifice on account of uncleanness] but not a community.9 THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD. Has not the Tanna already taught this: THE GREATER PART OF AN ORGAN IS EQUIVALENT TO [THE WHOLE OF] IT? — (Mnemonic: Hakesh; Pashah.)10 R. Hoshaia answered: One clause refers to unconsecrated animals, the other clause to consecrated animals. And they are both necessary. For had he taught the rule only in connection with unconsecrated animals I should have said that only there is the greater portion of the organ sufficient since the blood is not required for any purpose, but in the case of consecrated animals, since the blood is required for a special purpose.11 I should have said that the greater portion of the organ was not sufficient but that the whole organ must be cut? — [Hence the rule had to be stated in connection with consecrated animals.] And if he taught the rule only in connection with consecrated animals I should have said that only there [is the greater portion of the organ necessary], since the blood is required for a special purpose, but in the case of unconsecrated animals, since the blood is not required for any purpose. I should have said that half of the organ was sufficient. Hence both are necessary. Which clause refers to unconsecrated animals and which to consecrated animals? — R. Kahana said: It is reasonable to say that the first clause refers to unconsecrated animals and the second to consecrated animals. Why? Because the Mishnah opens with, IF A MAN CUT [ ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD]’; now if you were to say that the first clause refers to consecrated animals it should open with, ‘If one nipped’.12 You say, therefore, that the second clause refers to consecrated animals! but then why does it state, ‘THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID’; it should state, ‘The nipping is valid’? This is no real difficulty, for one can say that because the Tanna mentioned ‘cattle’ last, he therefore stated: THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. But [this argument is conclusive:] for since it,13 the first clause, clearly refers to the case of a bird, if you were to say that it refers to consecrated birds, the Tanna ought to have stated: ‘If one nipped’. 14 R. Shimi b. Ashi said: It can be proved that the first portion [of the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals from this clause, viz., ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD. For if you were to say that the first portion deals with consecrated animals.[the question would be raised:] What about the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs [to be cut]? 15 You therefore say that the second portion of the Mishnah deals with consecrated animals; but then [the same question will be raised upon the clause which reads]. THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD, viz., What about the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs [to be cut]? — THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN really means the greater part of each organ, and strictly the Mishnah should have stated: ‘The greater part of both’; since, however, there is the case of the sin-offering of a bird, for which one organ is sufficient, the Tanna stated the clause ambiguously. 16 R. Papa said: It can be proved that the first portion [of our Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals from this clause: R. JUDAH SAYS, HE MUST CUT THROUGH THE JUGULAR VEINS. The Rabbis, however, disagree. Now if you say that the first portion deals with unconsecrated animals it is well, but if you were to say that it deals with consecrated animals, why do the Rabbis disagree [with the view of R. Judah]? Is not the whole purpose of the slaughtering [of consecrated animals] for the sake of obtaining the blood?17 R. Ashi said: It can be proved that the latter portion18 [of the Mishnah] deals with consecrated animals from the following statement: If one slaughtered two animals19 Simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid. And this expression, ‘If one slaughtered’, clearly implies that the slaughtering is valid only after the act, but that there is no right to slaughter thus in the first instance. Now if you say that this latter portion [of the Mishnah] deals with consecrated animals, then it is evident why there is no right to slaughter thus in the first instance. For R. Joseph learnt: It is written: Thou shalt slaughter,20 [to teach] that two persons shall not slaughter one sacrifice; and also, ‘Thou shalt slaughter it’, [to teach] that one person shall not slaughter two sacrifices [simultaneously]. And R. Kahana said that this exposition was based upon the Kethib which is: Thou shalt slaughter it. Now if you were to say that the latter portion [of the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals, then surely there is a right to slaughter thus even in the first instance! Resh Lakish is also of the opinion that the first clause [of our Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals whilst the second deals with consecrated animals. For Resh Lakish said: Since our Mishnah teaches us, THE GREATER PART OF AN ORGAN IS EQUIVALENT TO [THE WHOLE OF] IT, what need is there for the further statement, THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD. OR THE GREATER PART OF EACH ORGAN IN THE CASE OF CATTLE? It is necessary because we have learnt elsewhere:21 When they brought unto him [sc. the High priest on the Day of Atonement] the Daily Sacrifice, he made an incision22 but another [priest] completed the slaughtering for him. Now from this Mishnah I might have thought that if another had not completed the slaughtering it would have been invalid; our Mishnah therefore teaches us. [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.23 The Master said: ‘I might have thought that if another had not completed the slaughtering it would have been invalid.’ the pause, occurring as it does after the greater portion of the windpipe has been cut (for that is the equivalent of an exact half according to Rab), renders it trefah, and no subsequent slaughtering could render it valid. infra 44a-b. paschal offering in its due season, even though they are all in a state of uncleanness. Num. IX, 2-14; v. Pes. 79a. whose dicta follow. for this would not be taking into account the case of a burnt-offering of a bird, where both organs must be severed. V. supra 21a. the greater portion of each organ, to meet the case of the burnt-offering of a bird. obtain as much blood as possible for sprinkling upon the altar. but the traditional spelling (ch,f, Kethib) is uvjcz,, ‘Thou shalt slaughter it’. R. Joseph's exposition is based upon the Kethib, laying special emphasis upon the subject ‘thou’ and upon the object ‘it’, each of which excludes the plural.