Chullin

is there not a membrane above [the fat]?1 — [This membrane,] since it is handled by the butcher, crumbles away. Again Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A scholar must learn three things, viz.: writing, shechitah, and circumcision. R. Hanania b. Shelemia said in the name of Rab, He must also learn the art of forming the knot of the Tefillin,2 the benedictions recited at the marriage ceremony,3 and the art of binding the Zizith.4 And the other [Rab Judah]? — [He says], These are frequent.5 Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: One may not eat of the slaughtering of any butcher who does not know the rules of shechitah. And these are the rules of shechitah:6 [the rules as to] pausing,7 pressing,8 thrusting,9 deflecting,10 and tearing.11 Why is it necessary to teach us this? Have we not learnt about each of these [elsewhere]? — It is only necessary for the case where one [not knowing the rules] slaughtered two or three times in our presence correctly. You might argue that since on those occasions he slaughtered correctly so now, too, he will slaughter correctly. It is therefore necessary to teach you that [he may not slaughter because,] since he does not know the rules, it may sometimes happen that he will pause or press, and will not know [that it is wrong to do so]. Again Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The butcher must examine the organs of the throat after slaughtering.12 R. Joseph remarked: We have learnt the same [in a Mishnah]:13 R. Simeon says. If one paused for the time taken to examine . . .13 Now does it not mean the time taken to examine the organs [of the throat]? — Abaye replied: No; thus did R. Johanan say: It means the time taken for the Sage to examine [the knife]. If this is the meaning, then the rule would vary according to circumstances?14 — Rather [the meaning is]: The time taken for a butcher [who is himself] a Sage to examine [the knife]. If one did not examine [the organs of the throat after slaughtering], what is the law? — R. Eliezer b. Antigonus ruled in the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Jannai: The animal is trefah15 and may not be eaten. In a Baraitha it was taught: The animal is nebelah15 and defiles one who carries it. On what principle do they differ? — On the principle laid down by R. Huna, who said: An animal while alive is presumed to be forbidden16 [and, therefore, remains forbidden when dead] until it becomes known to you that it was ritually slaughtered; once ritually slaughtered, it is presumed to be permitted until it becomes known to you how it became trefah. The one17 reasons thus: It is presumed to be forbidden, and now that it is dead [it is nebelah and therefore defiles].18 The other19 reasons thus: The presumption holds good20 only in respect of the prohibition [to be eaten], but there is no presumption in respect of defilement.21 The text [above stated]: ‘R. Huna said: An animal while alive is presumed to be forbidden [and, therefore, remains forbidden when dead] until it becomes known to you that it was ritually slaughtered; once ritually slaughtered, it is presumed to be permitted until it becomes known to you how it became trefah’. Should he not [simply] have said: ‘Once ritually slaughtered it is permitted’?22 — He teaches you this: That even if something happened to the animal to impair its status23 [it is nevertheless permitted]. For example, the question which was put to R. Huna by R. Abba: If a wolf came and carried away the intestines [of a slaughtered animal], what is the law? [You ask] ‘carried away’! Then they are not here!24 — Rather, say: ‘and perforated the intestines’. ‘Perforated the intestines’! Then it is evident that the wolf did it! Rather say: ‘carried away the intestines and brought them back perforated’ — Now, what is the law? Are we to apprehend that the wolf inserted [its teeth] in a perforation that was there previously,25 or not? — R. Huna replied: We do not apprehend that it inserted [its teeth] in a perforation.26 [R. Abba] thereupon raised an objection [from the following Baraitha]: If one saw a bird nibbling at a fig or a mouse nibbling at a melon, meat. and that of the letter Yod in the Tefillin worn on the hand. learn them. According to another explanation. ‘these’ refers to the accomplishments enumerated by Rab Judah. A scholar should particularly acquire these arts because he will be frequently called upon to practise them. be kept in continuous motion, forward and backward, until the organs or the greater part of them are cut through. V. infra 32a. 30b. the side of the throat and thus cut the organs, the slaughtering would be invalid, since the knife would have been covered either by the organs or the skin of the throat. V. infra 32a. If the knife cut anywhere outside this region the slaughtering would be invalid. V. infra 18a. means: tearing out the windpipe after having cut through the gullet; V. infra 32a. According to Halakoth Gedoloth it means: cutting through the organs after the windpipe has been dislocated or torn out of its position; v, infra 85a. According to Tosaf. s.v. uvkuf it means: slaughtering with a notched knife, which tears and does not cut the organs. V. article by Dr. S. Daiches in Hazafeh vol. 12, pp. 255-8 where it is shown that the Halakoth Gedoloth in fact agrees with Rashi. of necessity, be longer than in the former case. of being forbidden food until we have definite proof that it has been properly slaughtered. Once, however, we know that an animal has been ritually slaughtered the presumption that it is permitted food will not be rebutted without proof that some internal defect has made it trefah. defiles. lifetime. Now, during its lifetime the animal was forbidden only to be eaten; it certainly could not defile. The effect, therefore, of the presumption can only be to render the animal forbidden to be eaten and not that it should defile. slaughtering or not, the animal is permitted because of the principle stated by R. Huna. became trefah.