Chullin

If another animal was [accidentally] slaughtered with it, according to R. Nathan, the Red Cow is invalid1 and the other animal valid;2 according to the Rabbis, the Red Cow is valid3 and the other animal invalid.4 This is surely obvious! — It was necessary to state the clause, ‘If another animal was [accidentally] slaughtered with it’ in order to set forth R. Nathan's view. For I might have said that the Divine Law [when it] said: And he shall slaughter it,5 implying ‘it’ but not it and another, referred to the slaughtering of two Red Cows simultaneously; but to slaughter a ‘common’ animal with it, I might have said, would not render it invalid. We are therefore taught [otherwise]. If, while slaughtering the Red Cow, he cut at the same time a pumpkin, according to all views the Red Cow is invalid. If a pumpkin was [accidentally] cut whilst the Red Cow was being slaughtered, according to all views the Red Cow is valid. MISHNAH. IF THE KNIFE FELL6 AND HE PAUSED [IN THE SLAUGHTERING IN ORDER] TO LIFT IT UP, IF HIS COAT FELL DOWN6 AND HE PAUSED TO LIFT IT UP, IF HE SHARPENED THE KNIFE AND GREW TIRED6 AND ANOTHER CAME AND SLAUGHTERED — [IN EACH CASE] IF THE PAUSE WAS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR SLAUGHTERING, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID. R. SIMEON SAID, [IT IS INVALID] IF THE PAUSE WAS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR EXAMINING7 [THE KNIFE]. GEMARA. What is meant by THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR SLAUGHTERING? — It means, said Rab, the of time required for slaughtering another animal.8 R. Kahana and R. Assi asked Rab: Is the test in the case of a beast to be the length of time required for slaughtering another beast, and in the case of a bird the length of time required for slaughtering another bird; or is the test always the length of time required for slaughtering a beast even in the case of a bird? — Rab answered: ‘I was not on such intimate terms with my uncle9 as to ask him this’. It was stated: Rab said: In the case of a beast the test is the length of time required for slaughtering a beast, and in the case of a bird the length of time required for slaughtering a bird. Samuel said: The test even in the case of a bird is the length of time required for slaughtering a beast. So, too, when R. Abin came [from Palestine] he reported R. Johanan's opinion that the test even in the case of a bird is the length of time required for slaughtering a beast. R. Hanina said, [The Mishnah means] the length of time required for fetching another animal and slaughtering it. Fetching! Why he might fetch an animal from anywhere! Then you have made the test to vary [with the circumstances of each case]!10 — R. Papa explained. The difference between them11 is as regards an animal that is ready for casting.12 In the West it was reported in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: [The Mishnah means] the length of time required to lift up, lay on the ground and slaughter, in the case of small animals,13 a small animal, and in the case of large animals,14 a large animal. Raba said: If one spent the whole day slaughtering [one animal] with a blunt knife, the slaughtering is valid. Raba raised the question: Are several [short] pauses to be combined?15 But surely this can be solved from his preceding statement!16 — No, for there he did not pause at all. R. Huna the son of R. Nathan raised this question: What if he paused whilst cutting the lesser portion of the organs?17 — This remains undecided. R. SIMEON SAID, [IT IS INVALID] IF THE PAUSE WAS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR EXAMINING [THE KNIFE]. What is the meaning of THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR EXAMINING? — R. Johanan said: It means the length of time required for a Sage to examine [the knife]. But this test would vary with the circumstances of each case!18 — It means the length of time required for the slaughterer, himself a Sage, to examine [the knife]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN FIRST CUT THE GULLET AND THEN TORE AWAY19 THE WINDPIPE, OR FIRST TORE AWAY THE WINDPIPE AND THEN CUT THE GULLET; OR IF HE CUT ONE OF THESE ORGANS AND PAUSED20 UNTIL THE ANIMAL DIED; OR IF HE THRUST THE KNIFE UNDERNEATH THE SECOND ORGAN AND CUT IT21 — [IN ALL THESE CASES] R. JESHEBAB SAYS, THE ANIMAL IS NEBELAH; R. AKIBA SAYS, IT IS TREFAH. R. JESHEBAB LAID DOWN THIS RULE IN THE NAME OF R. JOSHUA: WHENEVER AN ANIMAL IS RENDERED INVALID BY A FAULT IN THE SLAUGHTERING IT IS NEBELAH; WHENEVER AN ANIMAL HAS BEEN DULY SLAUGHTERED BUT IS RENDERED INVALID BY SOME OTHER DEFECT IT IS TREFAH. R. AKIBA [ULTIMATELY] AGREED WITH HIM. GEMARA. IF A MAN FIRST CUT THE GULLET etc. AND R. AKIBA AGREED WITH HIM. A contradiction was pointed out. We have learnt: The following defects render cattle trefah: Num. XIX, 3. And he shall slaughter it, which means, ‘it by itself’, and not another animal with it. unconsecrated animal valid. the validity of the Red Cow, for the slaughterer's mind will not have been taken away from the Red Cow. animal on which he had started. fetched from a place nearby; so that the pause which would render invalid one animal would not render invalid another animal. is’, are to be omitted; R. Papa then merely interprets R. Hanina's view. required for slaughtering, but according to R. Hanina it is the length of time required for casting the animal on the ground Plus the time required for slaughtering it. length required to invalidate the slaughtering, are the times of the various pauses to be reckoned together so as to constitute a pause long enough to invalidate the slaughtering? and gone away there is no doubt that the slaughtering would be valid; it is only the continuation of the slaughtering after a long pause that gives rise to the difficulty.