חולין 30:1 — Soncino English Talmud

[who was often] quoted anonymously, whereas the Rabbis are of the opinion that two persons may slaughter one sacrifice? Moreover, even adopting the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, the Tanna might have drawn a distinction in the case where only one person slaughtered it but he wore two different garments while slaughtering; in which case the first garment is clean and the second unclean. The truth of the matter is that the Tanna dealt only with those circumstances where the Red Cow was in fact rendered invalid, but not where everything was done entirely according to ritual. R. Idi b. Abin raised this objection: [We have learnt: If a man slaughtered the paschal lamb whilst having leaven in his possession] during the festival under its own name, he has not incurred guilt; under the name of another, he has incurred guilt. And we argued upon it as follows: ‘This is so only because it was slaughtered under the name of another, but if it were slaughtered under no specific name [it follows that] no guilt would have been incurred. But why is no guilt incurred? Is not the paschal lamb at any time of the year [save on the eve of Passover] regarded as a peace-offering? Will not then this [Mishnah] prove the rule that for a paschal lamb [to become valid as a peace-offering] at any other time of the year its name must first be repealed. R. Hiyya b. Gamada said: It was suggested by the whole assembly that the circumstances of the case were these: The owners of this paschal lamb were rendered unclean by a corpse, so that they had to postpone the offering of the paschal lamb until the Second Passover; hence [if this lamb was slaughtered during the first Passover] under no specific name it would certainly be regarded [as slaughtered] under its own name’. Now, only in this particular case must [the name of the paschal lamb] be repealed [before it is valid as a peace-offering], but in no other case is repeal necessary. This is right if you were to say that the term shechitah applies to the entire process of the slaughtering from beginning to end, for then the paschal lamb is rendered invalid at the beginning of the slaughtering, [and therefore no guilt is incurred]. But if you say that the term shechitah applies only to the last stage of the slaughtering, then as soon as the person commenced to slaughter it, it can no longer be intended to serve as the paschal lamb. and as he continues to slaughter he is really slaughtering a peaceoffering [consequently, he should incur guilt!] Thereupon Abaye answered him, Granted that this lamb can no longer serve as a paschal lamb, but its price can serve this purpose! And should you say that [in order to sell a consecrated animal] it must be placed [before the priest] and appraised. [I reply that] we have learnt: If one cut both, or the greater portion of both organs, and the animal still moves convulsively, it is regarded as alive for all purposes. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, ‘If one cut the throat in two or three places the slaughtering is valid. But when I reported this statement to Samuel he said to me, "We must have a wide open cut and it is not so here."’ Resh Lakish is also of the opinion that there must be a wide open cut. For Resh Lakish taught. Whence do we know that shechitah implies a wide open cut? From the verse: Their tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaketh deceit. R. Eleazar raised an objection. [We have learnt,] If two persons held a knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid. Now why is this so? There is not here a wide open cut! — R. Jeremiah answered: Our Mishnah deals with the case of two persons holding one knife. Thereupon R. Abba said to him: If so, let us consider the comment upon this Mishnah, viz.: ‘And there is no fear that one will render the animal trefah on account of the other.’ Now if you say that it deals with the case of two knives and two persons [each holding a knife], then [the comment is] most proper. For you might have said that we must apprehend lest they come to rely one upon the other, and neither the one nor the other will cut the required greater Portion [of the organs]; we are therefore informed that there is no fear of this. But if you say that it deals with the case of two persons holding one knife, then why the comment, ‘And there is no fear that one will render the animal trefah on account of the other’? It should rather read: ‘And there is no fear that one will cause the other to press upon the throat! — R. Abin said: Then read: ‘And there is no fear^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:So that, according to the view of the Rabbis, Raba's original objection stands, viz., ‘The Tanna should have drawn a distinction in the case where two persons slaughtered it’. V. supra p. 256 and notes.
^ᵇnote:E.g., while he was slaughtering the Red Cow another person came, removed the slaughterer's coat and placed another coat on him. If therefore we were to say that the term shechitah applies only to the last stage of the slaughtering then the coat which was removed before the end of the slaughtering would not be unclean.
^ᶜnote:To meet the difficulty raised by Raba.
^ᵈnote:The proper time for slaughtering the paschal lamb was on the eve of the Passover festival and it is enjoined in Ex. XXIII, 18, that at the time of slaughtering the paschal lamb — and indeed at the time of slaughtering any sacrifice during the Passover festival (v. Pes. 63a) there must be no leaven in one's possession. In our case the circumstances were these: A lamb was originally set apart for the paschal offering but was lost, and another was offered as a sacrifice in its place. Subsequently, the original lamb was found and is now being offered on the festival as a sacrifice.
^ᵉnote:I.e., as a paschal lamb. As such it is invalid, since it is not being offered in its proper time, and therefore the prohibition of Ex. XXIII, 18, will not apply.
^ᶠnote:E.g., as a peace-offering. As such it is a valid sacrifice, except that guilt will be incurred under Ex. XXIII, 18.
^ᵍnote:v. Pes. 64a.
^ʰnote:Ibid. 70b and Zeb. 9a.
^ⁱnote:Although in Pes. 73b this rule is a subject of dispute among the scholars.
^ʲnote:vrucj, ‘fellow’, ‘associate’, v. Glos.
^ᵏnote:On the fourteenth day of the second month (Iyar) in accordance with Num. IX. 11.
^ˡnote:I.e., as a paschal lamb, since it was intended to serve as the paschal lamb to be offered on the Second Passover.
^ᵐnote:So that in ordinary circumstances the slaughtering of the paschal lamb during the Passover Festival would be regarded as a valid peace.offering.
^ⁿnote:For although it is not slaughtered under the specific name of the paschal lamb it is nevertheless considered as such, and inasmuch as the first act of the slaughtering renders it invalid, since it is not being slaughtered at the proper time, no guilt is incurred.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘it has been rejected from’,
^ᵖnote:I.e., as the paschal lamb for the Second Passover, for it could not be kept till then as it is partly slaughtered.
^ᵠnote:In accordance with the rule now established that whatever cannot, or is not, intended to serve as a paschal lamb is regarded as a peace-offering. And the fact that when the slaughtering was commenced the lamb was still intended for the paschal-offering is of no consequence, for according to Resh Lakish it is only the last stage of the slaughtering which is the decisive factor.
^ʳnote:For the animal can be sold even now before the slaughtering has been completed, and the money it fetched could be used for purchasing the paschal lamb for the Second Passover, so that the first lamb at no time ceases to serve as a paschal lamb.
^ˢnote:This rule is derived from Lev. XXVII, 11 and 12. The implication is that the animal must be able to stand, i.e., living, when it is being valued by the priest.
^ᵗnote:This teaching is not found in any Mishnah but it might be inferred from the Mishnah, infra, 117b. V. Tosaf s.v. ib,vu.
^ᵘnote:Since the organs of the throat are tightened in preparation for the slaughtering, if they are cut in one place there will be a wide open cut, but if cut in several places none of the cuts will open wide; hence the slaughtering is invalid (Rashi). Accordingly a wide open cut is synonymous with a single cut. V. however Tosaf ad loc. for other interpretations.
^ᵛnote:Jer. IX. 7. Heb. yuja .j, lit., ‘an arrow thrust as in a slaughtering’. i.e., the cut in slaughtering should be wide open like the thrust of an arrow.
^ʷnote:V. infra, 30b. It is assumed for the present that there were two knives in use and each person held a knife and cut in a different part of the throat.
^ˣnote:They hold the knife in a slanting direction, one holding the handle and the other the head of the knife, and in this way one would be cutting the organs high up towards the head and the other lower down towards the body of the animal. There is, however, only one cut made.
^ʸnote:When two persons hold one knife the only danger is that they might not pull simultaneously, and therefore undue pressure would be exerted upon the organs.