Chullin 32

תלוש ולבסוף חברו לענין שחיטה מאי

In the law concerning slaughtering, how are we to regard an implement which was first loose and subsequently attached?

תא שמע

Come and hear: If there was a sharp stone jutting from the wall, or a reed growing of itself, and one slaughtered therewith, the slaughtering is invalid!<a rel="footnote" href="#1">¹</a>

היה צור יוצא מן הכותל או שהיה קנה עולה מאליו ושחט בו שחיטתו פסולה

- It is dealing here with the wall of a cave.

הכא במאי עסקינן בכותל מערה

Indeed the context proves this, for it puts 'wall' in juxtaposition with 'a reed growing of itself'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating that in each case it was so attached by nature.');">²</span>

דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דקנה עולה מאליו ש"מ

This is proved.

ת"ש

Come and hear: If one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid! - This case is different because one would not allow the knife to remain fixed [to the wall].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he does not abandon it'. It was attempted to prove from this clause that whatever was loose and subsequently attached is regarded as loose; but it fails because it deals only with the case of a knife, which could not have been intended to be attached permanently. Other things, however, which could be thought of as attached permanently might be regarded as attached.');">³</span>

נעץ סכין בכותל ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה

Come and hear: [If one slaughtered] with an implement that was attached to the ground, the slaughtering is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This clause deals with an implement which was loose but was subsequently attached, v. supra p. 75, n.6.');">⁴</span>

שאני סכין דלא מבטל ליה

- perhaps this clause is defined by the subsequent clause [of this Baraitha, thus]: What is meant by 'an implement that was attached'?

ת"ש

A knife, which clearly would not remain fixed permanently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtering is therefore valid. The question put by Raba remains unanswered.');">⁵</span>

במחובר לקרקע שחיטתו כשרה

The Master said: 'If one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid'.

דלמא פרושי קא מפרש לה

Said R''Anan in the name of Samuel: This is the law provided the knife was on top and the throat of the animal below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the slaughterer moved the head to and fro across the knife.');">⁶</span>

מאי מחובר לקרקע סכין דלא מבטל ליה

If, however, the knife was below and the throat of the animal on top, [the slaughtering is invalid], fo it is to be feared that the head might press down heavily upon the knife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would invalidate the slaughtering; v. p. 37, n. 8.');">⁷</span>

אמר מר

But does not the aforementioned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 74.');">⁸</span>

נעץ סכין בכותל ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה

[Baraitha] read: 'Whether the knife be below and the throat on top or the knife on top and the throat below'? - R'Zebid answered: The cases are to be interpreted each in its own way, thus: 'Whether the knife be below and the throat on top', where [the knife is] loose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the slaughterer holds the knife beneath the throat of the animal and cuts upwards.');">⁹</span>

אמר רב ענן אמר שמואל

'or the knife on top and the throat below', where [the knife is] attached.

לא שנו אלא שהסכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה אבל סכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה חיישינן שמא ידרוס

R'Papa answered, [The Baraitha deals] with [the slaughtering of] a bird which is of light weight.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is, therefore, no fear of the head pressing heavily on to the knife. According to R. Papa, both cases of the Baraitha deal with a knife which is attached.');">¹⁰</span>

והא קתני

R'Hisda stated in the name of R'Isaac, (others report that it was taught in a Baraitha) viz. , Five rules h been laid down in connection with a reed haulm:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all the following cases there is the danger of splinters breaking away from the reed and penetrating into the matter which is being cut, causing thereby damage or hurt. In the case of slaughtering it is feared that a splinter will perforate the gullet of the animal, thus invalidating the slaughtering.');">¹¹</span>

בין שהסכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה בין שהסכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה

One must not slaughter with it, (ii) One must not perform circumcision with it.

אמר רב זביד לצדדין קתני

One must not cut flesh with it, (iv) One must not pick the teeth with it.

סכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה בתלוש סכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה במחובר

¹² 'One must not cut flesh with it'.

רב פפא אמר

R'Papa used to cut with it the entrails of fish, for they are transparent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And any splinter that might be lodged in them would easily be seen.');">¹³</span>

בעופא דקליל

Rabbah son of R'Huna used to cut with it the flesh of chicken, for it is tender.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no fear of splinters, for no pressure is necessary in cutting the flesh of a chicken.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב חסדא א"ר יצחק ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא ה' דברים נאמרו בקרומית של קנה

'One must not cleanse oneself with it'.

אין שוחטין בה ואין מלין בה ואין מחתכין בה בשר ואין מחצצין בה שינים ואין מקנחים בה

But is it not indeed [prohibited to do so] because of what a Master said viz. , Whosoever cleanses himself [after an evacuation] with a material that is inflammable tears away the ligaments [of the anus]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab, 81a. The teacher no doubt had in mind such materials as wood or twigs which if used for cleansing oneself might easily cause the injury mentioned. kfv');">¹⁵</span>

אין שוחטין בה

R'Papa answered: We must say [that the Baraitha deals with] the cleansing of the opening of a wound.

והתניא בכל שוחטין

ALL MAY SLAUGHTER; AND AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER'ALL MAY SLAUGHTER, that is to say, everything must be slaughtered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'all, everything', might just as well be taken as the object of the sentence, thus: One must slaughter everything.');">¹⁶</span>

בין בצור בין בזכוכית בין בקרומית של קנה

including birds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in no passage in the Torah is shechitah ever mentioned in connection with birds. There is even the view that according to Biblical law birds need not be slaughtered at all. V. infra 27b.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב פפא

AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER'Who is the Tanna who holds this view?

בסימונא דאגמא

Rabbah replied: It is R'Ishmael.

ואין מחתכין בה בשר

For it has been taught: [It is written] When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou shalt say: 'I will eat flesh'.

רב פפא מחתך בה קרבי דגים דזיגי רבה בר רב הונא מחתך בה עופא דרכיך

.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 20.');">¹⁸</span>

ואין מקנחין בה

This verse, says R'Ishmael, is stated specially in order to permit the Israelites to eat flesh at will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of desire'. I.e., on entering the Holy Land the Israelites would be permitted to slaughter animals at will and eat the flesh without having recourse to sacrifices.');">¹⁹</span>

תיפוק ליה משום דאמר מר

For in the beginning they were forbidden to eat flesh at will,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Israelites were in the wilderness they were not permitted to slaughter and eat flesh at will. The animal had first to be offered up as a sacrifice, v. Lev. XVII, 3 and 4.');">²⁰</span>

המקנח בדבר שהאור שולטת בו שיניו נושרות

but on entering the land of Israel they were permitted.

אמר רב פפא

But, now they are exiled, it might be said that they should revert to the former restriction; the Mishnah therefore teaches us: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER'To this R'Joseph demurred, [In the first place,] why does the Mishnah read: AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER?

קינוח פי מכה קאמרינן:

It should read, 'At all times one may slaughter and eat the flesh'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the main point of the teaching is the permission to eat flesh at will.');">²¹</span>

הכל שוחטין ולעולם שוחטין:

And in the second place, why were they forbidden in the beginning?

הכל שוחטין הכל בשחיטה ואפילו עוף

[Surely] because they were near to the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'tabernacle'. It was therefore within reach of anyone who desired to eat meat to bring the animal as a sacrifice and to receive the meat for his own use after the blood and the fat had been offered upon the altar.');">²²</span>

לעולם שוחטין מאן תנא

And why were they permitted subsequently?

אמר רבה

[Similarly] because they were far away from the Sanctuary.

רבי ישמעאל היא דתניא

(דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך כאשר דבר לך ואמרת אוכלה בשר וגו' ר' ישמעאל אומר

לא בא הכתוב אלא להתיר להם בשר תאוה שבתחלה נאסר להם בשר תאוה משנכנסו לארץ הותר להם בשר תאוה

ועכשיו שגלו יכול יחזרו לאיסורן הראשון

לכך שנינו

לעולם שוחטין

מתקיף לה רב יוסף

האי לעולם שוחטין לעולם שוחטין ואוכלין מבעי ליה

ועוד מעיקרא מאי טעמא איתסר משום דהוו מקרבי למשכן ולבסוף מאי טעמא אישתרו דהוו מרחקי ממשכן