Chullin 40

אבל למ"ד

but according to the one who holds that birds do require shechitah by the law of the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case,'Torah' means the oral law which Moses received on mount Sinai.');">¹</span>

יש שחיטה לעוף מן התורה יש עיקור

then it must also be held that the tearing loose of the organs is a defect.

אמר ליה

R'Ashi retorted: On the contrary, the reverse argument is the more reasonable.

אדרבה איפכא מסתברא

Thus, according to him who holds that birds do require shechitah by the law of the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case,'Torah' means the oral law which Moses received on mount Sinai.');">¹</span>

למאן דאמר

it can well be argued that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Moses during his stay on the mountain.');">²</span>

יש שחיטה לעוף מן התורה איכא למימר דהכי אגמריה דאין עיקור

was expressly informed that the tearing loose of the organs [in the case of birds] was not a defect.

ואפי' למאן דאמר כבהמה לענין עיקור לא ליהוי כבהמה

Furthermore, even according to him who obtains this result by analogy with cattle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the juxtaposition of the words 'cattle' and 'birds' in Lev. XI, 46: This is the law of cattle and of birds, the result is obtained that birds require shechitah. V. infra 27b.');">³</span>

אלא למ"ד

it can nevertheless be argued that as regards the tearing loose of the organs [he was informed that]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Rashi.');">⁴</span>

אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה אלא מדברי סופרים מהיכא גמירי לה

birds are to be different from cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was only in the main principle of shechitah that the comparison was made, but it was not to be extended to include all the rules 'and regulations of shechitah.');">⁵</span>

מבהמה כולה מילתא כבהמה

But, according to the one who holds that birds do not require shechitah by the law of the Torah but only by Rabbinic enactment, and the Rabbis obviously derived this rule only by a comparison with cattle, surely then [birds] should be compared with cattle in all respects! - Rabina answered: Rabin B'Kissi told me that the dictum of Rami B'Ezekiel, namely, the fact that the organs have been torn loose is not a defect in a bird, is to be applied only to the case of nipping, but in the case of slaughtering it is certainly a defect.

אמר רבינא אמר לי רבין בר קיסי הא דתני רמי בר יחזקאל

But did not R'Jeremiah report in the name of Samuel: 'Whatsoever part of the neck is valid for slaughtering the corresponding part on the back of the neck is valid for nipping', and from which followed [the corollary] viz. , What is invalid for slaughtering is invalid for nipping?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This dictum precludes any possible distinction between nipping and slaughtering, and whatever is a defect in the one is a defect in the other.');">⁶</span>

אין עיקור סימנין בעוף לא אמרן אלא במליקה אבל בשחיטה יש עיקור

- This is at variance [with the teaching of Rabin B'Kissi].

והא"ר ירמיה אמר שמואל

Ze'iri said: If the neckbone of an animal was broken together with the major portion of the surrounding flesh, the animal is nebelah forthwith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And conveys uncleanness from this moment, as it is regarded already as dead; although the animal still shows sign of life by movements and jerks.');">⁷</span>

כל הכשר בשחיטה כנגדו בעורף כשר במליקה

R'Hisda said: We have also learnt the same: If one nipped off [the head of a consecrated bird] with a knife, the carcass, whilst in the gullet, renders clothes unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whilst a person is eating an olive's bulk of it, even if he did not touch it, as when it was thrust into his mouth, he becomes unclean and so do also the clothes that he is wearing at the time. This unusual and unique form of conveying uncleanness is found only in connection with the carcass of a clean bird, and is derived by Rabbinic interpretation from Lev. XVII, 15 and XXII, 8. The other modes of conveying uncleanness, e.g., by contact or by carrying, do not apply to the carcass of a bird.');">⁸</span>

הא פסול פסול

Now if you were to say that [in Ze'iri's case] the animal is merely trefah, should not the knife in this case have the effect of removing [from this bird] the uncleanness of nebelah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the Rabbinic dictum, infra 228b: A trefah animal that has been ritually slaughtered does not convey any uncleanness.');">⁹</span>

ההוא פליגא

inasmuch as nipping with a knife is tantamount to slaughtering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For after the neckbone has been cut through the subsequent cutting of the organs is akin to slaughtering.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר זעירי

- It is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the bird conveys uncleanness of the gullet and is not rendered clean by the slaughtering.');">¹¹</span>

נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה נבלה

I say, because the slaughtering is not in accordance with ritual.

אמר רב חסדא אף אנן נמי תנינא

Why? - R'Huna says: Because he thrusts [whilst cutting the organs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'thrusting' v. supra p. 37, n. 9. Here the cervical vertebrae close up and cover the knife as soon as it has cut through the neckbone, and there is therefore a 'thrusting'. According to R. Gershom and Tosaf. it is invalid because he is cutting the neck from back to front.');">¹²</span>

מלק בסכין מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה

Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and R. Gershom. In current editions 'Raba'.');">¹³</span>

ואי אמרת טרפה הויא מליקתה זו היא שחיטתה תהני לה סכין לטהרה מידי נבלה

says: Because he presses [the knife downwards].

אמרי

Now he who says: 'Because he thrusts', wherefore does he not say: 'Because he presses [the knife downwards]? - He is of the opinion that to move the finger-nail to and fro whilst nipping is allowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is, therefore, in this case no pressure upon the organs. vskj vskuj');">¹⁴</span>

התם משום דלאו שחיטה היא כלל

And he who says: 'Because he presses [the knife downwards]', wherefore does he not say: 'Because he thrusts'? - He argues thus: What is meant by 'thrusting'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , derived from , a weasel which burrows into the ground and is covered by earth.');">¹⁵</span>

מאי טעמא

Clearly [any cutting where the knife is] covered, just like a weasel which is covered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which dwells'.');">¹⁶</span>

רב הונא אמר

by the foundations of a house; in our case, however, the knife is visible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it does not come within the law of 'thrusting'.');">¹⁷</span>

מפני שהוא מחליד רבא אמר

Raba said: If there is any difficulty [in connection with Ze'iri's statement] it is this: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in nipping one must sever the neckbone and also the organs, but if in the first stage of the nipping the bird is already dead then why continue with it?');">¹⁸</span>

מפני שהוא דורס

Abaye thereupon said to him, You can raise the same difficulty in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs to be nipped through, thus: Why proceed with the nipping if it is already dead?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as the first organ is severed the bird is certainly dead; hence the slaughtering of a bird is valid even if only one organ has been cut through. V. infra 27a.');">¹⁹</span>

מ"ד

- He replied: In this latter case, he does so merely to carry out the precept of severance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 21b, in contradistinction from the sin-offering of a bird which must not be severed, cf. Lev. V, 8.');">²⁰</span>

מפני שהוא מחליד מ"ט לא אמר מפני שהוא דורס

If so, the skin, too, [should be severed!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this has never been suggested to be the law.');">²¹</span>

קסבר

- The rule is: Whatever is indispensable in the slaughtering is indispensable in the precept of severance, and whatever is not indispensable in the slaughtering is not indispensable in the precept of severance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Slaughtering is valid even if the skin at the throat had been removed by some other means before the slaughtering.');">²²</span>

מוליך ומביא במליקה כשר

But what of the lesser portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that portion which remains after the greater portion has been cut through.');">²³</span>

ומ"ד

of each organ, which is not indispensable in the slaughtering, nevertheless according to the ruling of the Rabbis is indispensable in the precept of severance? - Read, therefore, Whatever comes within the purview of slaughtering comes within the precept of severance and whatever does not come within the purview of slaughtering does not come within the precept of severance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term 'slaughtering' applies to the organs of the throat; therefore, even the lesser portion of the organs comes within the purview of slaughtering. On the other hand, the skin of the throat is outside the scope of the slaughtering, for the slaughtering would be valid even though the skin of the throat had been removed.');">²⁴</span>

מפני שהוא דורס מאי טעמא לא אמר מפני שהוא מחליד

אמר לך

חלדה היכי דמי

כחולדה הדרה בעיקרי בתים דמכסיא הכא הא מיגליא

אמר רבא

אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי וכי מתה עומד ומולק

א"ל אביי

ותקשי לך עולת העוף דבעיא שני סימנין וכי מתה עומד ומולק

אמר ליה

התם כדי לקיים בה מצות הבדלה

אי הכי עור נמי

כל המעכב בשחיטה מעכב בהבדלה וכל שאינו מעכב בשחיטה אינו מעכב בהבדלה

והא מיעוט סימנין לרבנן דלא מעכבי בשחיטה ומעכבי בהבדלה

אלא אימא

כל שישנו בשחיטה ישנו בהבדלה וכל שאינו בשחיטה אינו בהבדלה