Chullin

Not for all things did R. Meir say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. Indeed R. Meir would agree that such a slaughtering does not render [the animal] permitted to be eaten. Similarly, not for all things did R. Simeon say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is no slaughtering. Indeed R. Simeon would agree that such a slaughtering renders [the animal] clean so that it be not nebelah. The Master stated: ‘Not for all things did R. Meir say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. Indeed R. Meir would agree that such a slaughtering does not render [the animal] permitted to be eaten’. Is not this obvious? Would a trefah [animal] be permitted [to be eaten] by its slaughtering? — It was only necessary to be stated concerning the case where one slaughtered a trefah animal and found in its womb a living nine months’ foetus. Now I might have argued, since R. Meir maintains that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, that the slaughtering of its dam should serve for it too, and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. How could you have thought so? Does not R. Meir hold that a living animal extracted [out of its slaughtered dam's womb] requires slaughtering?1 — This2 was necessary to be stated since Rabbi agrees with R. Meir [in one matter] and with the Rabbis [in another]. He agrees with R. Meir that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And he agrees with the Rabbis that the slaughtering of its dam renders it3 permitted. Now since the Rabbis hold that the slaughtering of its dam renders it permitted, then [in this case, too, where the dam was a trefah I would say that] the slaughtering of the dam should serve for it too and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. ‘Not for all things did R. Simeon say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is no slaughtering. Indeed R. Simeon would agree that such a slaughtering renders the animal clean so that it be not nebelah’. Is not this obvious? For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab, (others say. It was so taught in a Baraitha.) It is written: And if there dieth of the beasts, [he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean],4 that is to say, some beasts convey uncleanness and some do not; and which are they [that do not convey uncleanness]? They are trefah animals which have been slaughtered!5 — It was only necessary to be stated concerning the case where one slaughtered an unconsecrated animal which was a trefah in the Temple Court. For it was taught: If one slaughtered a trefah animal, or if one slaughtered an animal and it was found to be trefah, both being unconsecrated, in the Temple Court, R. Simeon permits to derive benefit therefrom,6 but the Sages forbid it.7 Now I might have argued, since R. Simeon holds that one is permitted to derive benefit therefrom, that there was no slaughtering at all, consequently it is not even rendered clean that it be not nebelah; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. R. Papa said to Abaye. Is R. Simeon of the opinion that unconsecrated [animals slaughtered] in the Temple Court are [forbidden] Biblically?8 — He replied: Yes, he is. For we have learnt:9 R. Simeon says: Unconsecrated [animals which were slaughtered] in the Temple Court must be burned by fire; so, too, a wild animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Court.10 Now, if you say that they are forbidden Biblically, we therefore forbid wild animals on account of cattle;11 but if you say that they are forbidden Rabbinically, it is indeed difficult. For was not the reason for [the Rabbis forbidding cattle] that one might not fall into the error of eating consecrated food outside the Sanctuary? This in itself is a precautionary measure; shall we come and superimpose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure?12 The flax of R. Hiyya was infested with worms, and he came to Rabbi [for advice]. Rabbi said to him, ‘Take a bird and slaughter it over the tub of water,13 so that the worms will smell the blood and depart’. But how was he permitted to do so?14 Surely it has been taught: If a man slaughtered, even though he requires the blood for use, he must nevertheless cover it up. What then should he do [so that he may use the blood]? He should either stab it or tear away the organs!15 — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that he [Rabbi] said to him [R. Hiyya], ‘Go and make it trefah [and then slaughter it]’. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported that he said to him, ‘Go and stab it [at the throat]’. Why does not he who says that he told him ‘Go and make it trefah’, accept the other view that he told him ‘Go and stab it’? If you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and therefore stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required,16 but [this cannot be, for] it has been taught: Rabbi says. The verse: And thou shalt slaughter . . . as I have commanded thee,17 teaches us that Moses was instructed concerning the gullet and the windpipe, that the greater part of one of these organs in the case of birds and of both organs in the case of cattle [is required]? — ‘slaughtering’ in the Temple Court; hence one may derive a benefit from the carcass. animal slaughtered in the Sanctuary may be eaten according to Biblical law, but was forbidden by Rabbinic enactment because of the apprehension that people, seeing one eat the flesh of such an animal outside the Sanctuary, might be misled in believing that one may eat consecrated meat outside the Sanctuary — then there is no valid reason to differentiate (v. supra) between the slaughtering that renders the animal fit for food and the one that does not (i.e., the slaughtering of a trefah animal), since even in the latter case there is the apprehension that people will believe that one may derive benefit from a consecrated beast that was unfit (i.e., blemished or trefah). consecrated wild animals. same Biblical text.