Chullin

One who adopts the view of Beth Shammai only when they incline to strictness and likewise the view of Beth Hillel only when they incline to strictness, [is a fool and] to such an one applies the verse: But the fool walketh in darkness.1 But one must either adopt the view of Beth Shammai in all cases, whether they incline to leniency or strictness, or the view of Beth Hillel in all cases, whether they incline to leniency or strictness’. Now is not this statement self-contradictory? At first it says: ‘The halachah is always in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel’, and immediately after it says: ‘Nevertheless one who desires to adopt the view of Beth Shammai may do so’? — This is no difficulty. The latter statement relates to the practice before the Heavenly Voice2 was heard, whilst the former states the law as it is after the Heavenly Voice was heard. Or, you may even say that the latter statement too was made after the Heavenly Voice was heard. [and yet there is no contradiction], for that statement is the view of R. Joshua who exclaimed: We pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice! Nevertheless the question remains?3 — R. Tabuth said: He [Raba] acted entirely in accordance with Rab's view. For when Rami b. Ezekiel arrived [from palestine] he stated: ‘Don't pay any heed to the laws transmitted to you by my brother Judah in the name of Rab; for thus said Rab: The Sages prescribed the limits in the gullet’.4 Now since he said that the Sages prescribed the limits [in the gullet], it follows that the pharynx is not within the region prescribed for slaughtering; nevertheless, [Rab ruled that] the slightest perforation therein [will render the animal trefah].5 How far on top?6 — Said R. Nahman: As far as [the last] hand grip.7 And how far below? — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: As far as that part where it is villous.8 But this cannot be, for Rabina said in the name of Geniba on the authority of Rab that the [last] handbreadth of the gullet close to the rumen was the inner rumen. Now [if you say: ‘as far as that part where it is villous’,] one would then actually be cutting the rumen!9 — Render thus: The [first] handbreadth in the rumen close to the gullet is the inner rumen.10 Alternatively, you may say that Rab was referring to an ox in which the villous portion is found higher up.11 R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If the pharynx was entirely detached from the jaw,12 [the animal] is valid. And our Tanna confirms this, for we have learnt: If the lower jaw was removed, [the animal] is valid.13 R. Papa demurred, saying: But is this not a case of [throat] organs being torn away?14 — And does not this statement of the Mishnah, ‘If the lower jaw was removed, [the animal] is valid’, present the same difficulty to R. Papa? — No, the Mishnah does not present any difficulty to R. Papa because in the one case [the organ] was torn away forcibly,15 whilst in the case [of the Mishnah the jawbone] was merely carved away.16 Against Samuel, however, the difficulty remains! — Do not read ‘entirely’, but rather ‘the greater portion’. But has not Samuel himself said that if the greater portion of [the circumference of] the pharynx was severed it is trefah?17 — There it was lacerated, but here it merely came away.18 But has not Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of Samuel that if the greater part of the [circumference of the] organs of the throat was torn loose the animal is trefah? — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi answered: In that case the organs were forcibly torn loose.19 OR THE WINDPIPE SEVERED. It was taught: How much of the windpipe must be severed? The greater part of it. And what is meant by ‘the greater part of it’? — Rab says, performed. Alfasi the text means ‘the grip of two fingers’, which means either two fingerbreadths, or what can be gripped by two fingers, placing one finger on each side of the gullet, in other words, one fingerbreadth. resembling hair, known as villi. continuation of the gullet, is attached to the lower jaw-bone and to the flesh around it. Accordingly, Samuel teaches that even if the pharynx was entirely detached from its moorings, i.e., torn away both from the jaw-bone and the surrounding flesh so that the gullet now hangs loose, the animal is still valid. As for the difficulty of reconciling this viewpoint with present day knowledge of anatomy v. Katzenelsohn, op. cit. pp. 125-127. the throat would hang loose, nevertheless the animal is valid, thus in accord with Samuel. Tosaf. s.v tfhtvu. unfit. valid. The text adopted here is that of MS.M. which is also given by Ban in his Glosses. Cur. edd. omit this question and the answer which follows. no wise was there any laceration or trauma in the organ, it is still valid; but where the actual body of the organ was severed it is trefah. tissue in a few places. In this case it is trefah, for the attachments in these places are meager and would not hold the organ in Position. On the other hand, Samuel speaks of the case in which the organ came away but not with violence, so that even though the greater part of its circumference on top was detached, what remains is firm and could hold the organ in its place; so he rules the animal still valid.