Chullin

that one will cause the other to press upon the throat’. R. Abin raised an objection. It was taught: If a man cut the gullet low down and the windpipe high up or the gullet high up and the windpipe low down, the slaughtering is valid. But why? There is not here a wide open cut?1 — He raised the objection but answered it himself thus: The cutting in this instance was slanting,2 like the cut of a writing reed. An ox was once slaughtered, its throat having been cut in several places, and R. Nahman b. Samuel b. Martha came and obtained some of the choicest meat of this animal. Whereupon R. Zera said to him, You have [by your action] taught us. Master, that our Mishnah deals with the case of two knives and two persons. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a man thrust the knife between the two organs and cut them,3 the slaughtering is invalid. If he thrust it underneath the skin, the slaughtering is valid. [What does he teach us?] Have we not learnt this already: ‘Or, if he thrust the knife underneath the second organ and cut it,4 R. Jeshebab says: The animal is nebelah; R. Akiba says: It is trefah’?5 — From that Mishnah, I might have argued that only there [is the slaughtering invalid] because he cut the organs from below upwards, which is not the usual way of slaughtering, but where he cut the organs from above downwards, which is the usual way of slaughtering. I might have said that the slaughtering was proper; he therefore teaches us [that it is not valid]. ‘Underneath the skin the slaughtering is valid’. ‘In the school of Rab it was said that underneath the skin it was doubtful [whether the slaughtering was valid or not]. The question was raised: According to the view of the school of Rab that ‘underneath the skin’ was a doubtful case, what would be the law if a man thrust the knife underneath a rag,6 or underneath the entangled wool?7 The question is undecided. R. Papa put the question: What is the law if he placed the knife under cover [on cutting] the lesser portions of the organs?8 This question too is undecided. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED TWO ANIMALS9 SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. IF TWO PERSONS HELD THE KNIFE AND SLAUGHTERED. EVEN IF ONE CUT HIGHER UP AND THE OTHER CUT LOWER DOWN [IN THE NECK]. THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.10 IF HE CHOPPED OFF THE HEAD WITH ONE STROKE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID.11 IF, WHILST CUTTING.12 HE CUT THROUGH THE NECK WITH ONE STROKE. THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID PROVIDED THE KNIFE EXTENDED THE WIDTH OF A NECK.13 IF. WHILST CUTTING, HE CUT THROUGH TWO NECKS14 WITH ONE STROKE, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. PROVIDED THE KNIFE EXTENDED THE WIDTH OF A NECK.13 THESE PROVISIONS APPLY ONLY TO THE CASE WHERE THE SLAUGHTERER MOVED THE KNIFE FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD, OR BACKWARD AND NOT FORWARD; BUT IF HE MOVED THE KNIFE TO AND FRO, HOWEVER SMALL IT WAS, EVEN IF IT WAS A LANCET, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. GEMARA. [IF HE CHOPPED OFF THE HEAD WITH ONE STROKE THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID]. Whence do we know this? — Said Samuel: From the verse: Their tongue is a sharpened arrow. It speaketh deceit.15 A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: It is written: And he shall slaughter [we-shahat].16 and ‘we-shahat’ means nothing else than ‘And he shall draw’, as in the verse: Beaten [shahut] gold,17 and as it is also written: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened [shahut] arrow, it speaketh deceit’. Why the second verse? You might have said that ‘gold shahut’ really means ‘gold woven in threads’;18 therefore, come and hear: It is written: ‘Their tongue is a sharpened [shahut] arrow’.19 Raba examined20 [the head of] an arrow for R. Jonah b. Tahlifa, and the latter slaughtered with it a bird in its flight. Perhaps there was a thrust? 21 — We saw below upwards. slaughtering would certainly be valid; but he now placed the knife under cover on cutting the remaining portion of each organ. So Rashi, but v. Tosaf. s.v. shkjv. it horizontally to and fro. knife horizontally to and fro. would be a case of vskj, (‘thrusting’), and would render the slaughtering invalid.