Chullin 36
השוחט בשאר טבעות אע"פ שאין מקיפות את כל הקנה הואיל ומקיפות את רוב הקנה שחיטתו כשרה
If one slaughtered by cutting in the other rings, although they do not surround the whole of it, yet since they surround the greater part of the windpipe, the slaughtering is valid.
העיד רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס על מוגרמת שהיא כשרה
R'Hanina B'Antigonos testified that a deflection is permitted! - R'Joseph answered that R'Jose son of R'Judah gave both rulings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) That it is sufficient if only the greater part of the top ring is cut; and (b) that the slaughtering may be performed in the other rings too.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
רבי יוסי בר יהודה תרתי קאמר רב ושמואל סברי כוותיה בחדא ופליגי עליה בחדא
But do they not say: 'he did not say this etc.'? - They mean to imply: the halachah is in accordance with the view of R'Jose son of R'Judah with regard to the top ring, but the halachah is not in accordance with his view with regard to the other rings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'He did not say this' means, his view in this respect is of no consequence, as the halachah is not according to him (Rashi) .');"><sup>3</sup></span>
והא לא אמר קאמרי
When R'Zera went up [to palestine] he ate there of an animal [which was slaughtered in that part of the throat] which was regarded as a deflection by Rab and Samuel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the cut was made in one of the incomplete rings of the windpipe, which according to Rab and Samuel is no slaughtering.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
כי סליק רבי זירא אכל מוגרמת דרב ושמואל אמרי ליה
Was it not Joseph B'Hiyya?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Joseph who reported supra the views of Rab and Samuel. Aliter: (They said,) Joseph b. Hiyya (Rashi) .');"><sup>6</sup></span>
מאן אמרה יוסף בר חייא יוסף בר חייא מכולי עלמא גמיר
Hiyya] heard of this he was annoyed and said: 'What! I take my traditions from every one! Indeed, I received my traditions from Rab Judah who recited in his statements of tradition even the doubt as to his authorities.
שמע רב יוסף איקפד אמר
As in the following statement: "Rab Judah said in the name of R'Jeremiah B'Abba (and I am in doubt whether he reported it in the name of Rab or in the name of Samuel) : Three ordinary persons may declare a firstling permitted for use where there is no specialist available"'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first born male of cattle was sacred and had to be offered as a sacrifice; if, however, it had a permanent defect it could then be slaughtered and eaten by Priests. It was for an expert to decide whether a particular defect was or was not permanent. If, however, the defect was obviously permanent and no expert was available, it is ruled that three lay men could come together and declare the first born animal permitted for use.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אנא מכולי עלמא גמירנא
But does not R'Zera accept the rule: [When a person arrives in a town] he must adopt the restrictions of the place which he has left and also the restrictions of the place he has entered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in R. Zera's home town people, in point of fact, abstained from the flesh slaughtered in the manner mentioned, if not on account of Rab ;xuh and Samuel's ruling, then as a matter of stringency; v. Tosaf s.v. iuhf');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אנא מרב יהודה גמירנא דאפי' ספיקי דגברי גריס
- This rule applies only when one travels from town to town in Babylon, or from town to town in the land of Israel, or from the land of Israel to Babylon, but when one travels from Babylon to the land of Israel, inasmuch as we are subject to their authority,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Particularly with regard to the fixing of the Calendar. V. however, Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>10</sup></span>
שלשה מתירין את הבכור במקום שאין מומחה
R'Ashi said: You may even hold that the rule applies when one travels from Babylon to the land of Israel, but only when such a person intends to return; R'Zera, however, had no intention to return [to Babylon].
הני מילי מבבל לבבל ומארץ ישראל לארץ ישראל אי נמי מארץ ישראל לבבל אבל מבבל לארץ ישראל כיון דאנן כייפינן להו עבדינן כוותייהו
report in the name of R'Nahman that this deflection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the windpipe was cut in any of the other rings. This slaughtering is invalid according to Rab and Samuel.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף
R'Simeon B'Lakish held that [if the windpipe was cut] at the top of the thyroid cartilage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is far beyond the cricoid cartilage; lit., 'helmet', 'turban'. In human beings this is commonly known as the Adam's apple.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מוגרמת כשרה
R'Johanan thereupon exclaimed: Too bold! Indeed, too bold!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or: 'O, my brother-in-law! My brother-in-law!' R. Simeon b. Lakish had married R. Johanan's sister, v. B.M. 84a.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
א"ל
R'Papi reported in the name of Raba: If the knife reached the arytenoid cartilages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wheat grains'; two small triangular cartilages at the top of the larynx situated on either side in front of the cricoid. gdphu gdp');"><sup>16</sup></span>
רבי שמעון בן לקיש אכשר בחודא דכובעא קרי עליה רבי יוחנן
The question was raised: Does 'reached' mean that it actually touched [the cartilages] as in the verse: And he fell upon him and slew him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings II, 46. Heb. Accordingly the term in the question would mean actual contact; i.e., the knife cut through the cartilages leaving part of them on the side of the head. gdp');"><sup>17</sup></span>
גיסא גיסא
or does it mean that it came close to but did not touch [the cartilages] as in the verse: And the angels of God met him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXXII, 2. In this verse, too' the verb is used, but clearly in the sense of 'coming up to but not touching'. Accordingly even though the knife did not touch these cartilages, since it cut quite close to them, the slaughtering is invalid (Rashi) . Tosaf., however, interprets the expression 'coming up to but not touching' as actually cutting beyond or above the cartilages, but where the knife cut through them the ut slaughtering would be valid. V. Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>18</sup></span>
פגע בחיטי טרפה
Amemar B'Mar Yanuka said: I was once standing in the presence of R'Hiyya the son of R'Awia and he told me that if the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages leaving part of them [on the side of the head] the slaughtering is valid.
(מלכים א ב, כה) ויפגע בו וימת או דלמא פגע ולא נגע כדכתיב
Mar son of R'Ashi said: If the knife reached the arytenoid cartilages the slaughtering is valid; if, however, [the knife cut through the arytenoid cartilages,] leaving part of them [on the side of the head] the slaughtering is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the interpretation of Tosaf. (v. supra p. 92, n.7) this statement of Mar b. R. Ashi must be reversed thus: If the knife reached the cartilages (i.e., cut beyond or above them) the slaughtering is invalid, but if it cut through them the slaughtering is valid. This view is also accepted by Maim. in Yad, Shechitah, III, 12.');"><sup>20</sup></span>