Chullin 54

Chapter 54

א ופדר קמא דכתב רחמנא למה לי
1 And why did the Divine Law mention the fat in the first verse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in verse 8. For 'the pieces' generally include all the limbs; now the head had to be specifically mentioned for the reason given in the text, but why was it necessary to mention the fat?');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב מיבעי ליה לכדתניא
2 - For the purpose shown in the following Baraitha: How does he offer it?
ג כיצד הוא עושה
3 He covers the throat with the fat and thus offers it upon the altar; and in this way there is glory given to the Most High.
ד חופה את הפדר על בית השחיטה ומעלהו וזהו דרך כבוד של מעלה
4 Another Tanna derives it from the following Baraitha: It is written: This is the law of cattle and of birds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI. 46. The passage deals with the laws of uncleanness of the carcasses of animals.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא
5 Now in which law [of the laws of uncleanness] are birds and cattle treated alike.
ו (ויקרא יא, מו) זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף וכי באיזו תורה שוותה בהמה לעוף ועוף לבהמה
6 On the one hand the carcass of cattle conveys uncleanness by contact or by carrying whereas the carcass of a bird does not.
ז בהמה מטמאה במגע ובמשא עוף אינו מטמא במגע ובמשא
7 On the other hand the carcass of a bird whilst in the gullet renders clothes unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 103, n. 1.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ח עוף מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה בהמה אינה מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה
8 whereas the carcass of cattle does not.
ט באיזו תורה שוותה בהמה לעוף ועוף לבהמה
9 In which respect then are birds and cattle alike?
י לומר לך
10 In this respect: As cattle [are rendered clean] by slaughtering, so birds [are rendered clean] by slaughtering.
יא מה בהמה בשחיטה אף עוף בשחיטה
11 But it should follow, should it not, that as in the case of cattle the greater part of both organs must be cut, so in the case of birds the greater part of both organs must be cut?
יב אי מה להלן ברוב שנים אף כאן ברוב שנים
12 The verse therefore reads: This [is the law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only with regard to the general principle of shechitah are cattle and birds alike, but not with regard to all the detailed rules of slaughtering.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
יג ת"ל
13 R'Eliezer says: In which respect are birds and cattle alike?
יד זאת
14 In this: As birds are rendered fit at the neck,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a consecrated bird is rendered fit for sacrifice by nipping off its head at the neck.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
טו ר' אליעזר אומר
15 so cattle are rendered fit at the neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By slaughtering there. This Tanna accordingly proves from this verse that to slaughter one must cut the neck.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
טז באיזו תורה שוותה בהמה לעוף ועוף לבהמה
16 But then it should follow, should it not, that as in the case of birds [the nipping is done] close to the back of the nec so in the case of cattle [the slaughtering should be done] close to the back of the neck?
יז לומר לך
17 The verse therefore reads.
יח מה עוף הכשרו מן הצואר אף בהמה הכשרה מן הצואר
18 And he shall nip off its head close to the back of its neck but shall not divide it asunder,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 8.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יט אי מה להלן ממול עורף אף כאן ממול עורף
19 that is to say, its head shall be [nipped off] close to the back of its neck but the head of no other shall be [cut] close the back of its neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only at the front of the neck.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כ ת"ל
20 And how does R'Eliezer interpret the word 'this'? - Without 'this', I would have argued that as in the case of birds only one organ [is severed], so in the case of cattle only one organ [shall cut]; the Divine Law therefore states.
כא (ויקרא ה, ח) ומלק את ראשו ממול ערפו ולא יבדיל ראשו של זה ממול עורף ואין ראשו של אחר ממול עורף
21 This [is the law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 46. 'This' suggests limitation, I.e., not all the laws of this case shall apply to others.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
כב ור' אליעזר האי זאת מאי עביד ליה
22 Bar Kappara taught: It is written: This is the law of cattle and of birds [and of every living creature that moveth in the waters].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 46. 'This' suggests limitation, I.e., not all the laws of this case shall apply to others.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
כג אי לאו זאת הוה אמינא
23 This verse has interposed birds between cattle and fishes.
כד מה עוף בסימן אחד אף בהמה בסימן אחד כתב רחמנא זאת
24 Now one cannot say that [in the case of birds] both organs of the throat must be cut, for they are, on the one hand, grouped with fishes.
כה תני בר קפרא
25 And one cannot say that none of the organs are to be cut, for they are, on the other hand, grouped with cattle.
כו זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף הטיל הכתוב לעוף בין בהמה לדגים
26 How is this to be explained? - They are rendered fit by the cutting of one organ.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Compromising between the requirements of cattle and of fish.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
כז לחייבו בשני סימנין אי אפשר שכבר הוקש לדגים לפוטרו בלא כלום אי אפשר שכבר הוקש לבהמה הא כיצד הכשרו
27 Whence do we know that fish do not require to be ritually slaughtered?
כח בסימן אחד
28 Shall I say from the verse: If flocks and birds be slain for them, will they suffice them?
כט דגים דלאו בני שחיטה נינהו מנלן
29 or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them will it suffice them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XI, 22.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ל אילימא משום דכתיב
30 which implies that the mere gathering [of fishes] is sufficient?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To render them fit without any ritual slaughtering.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
לא (במדבר יא, כב) הצאן ובקר ישחט להם אם את כל דגי הים יאסף להם באסיפה בעלמא סגי להו
31 But if so, with regard to quails, of which it is written: And they gathered the quails,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 32.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
לב אלא מעתה גבי שליו דכתיב
32 can it similarly be said [that the mere gathering is sufficient and] that no slaughtering is necessary?
לג (במדבר יא, לב) ויאספו את השליו הכי נמי דלאו בשחיטה
33 Have you not said [above], 'And one cannot say that none of the organs are to be cut for they are grouped with cattle'? - In the latter verse 'gathering' i not written in the same verse which mentions slaughtering for others, but in the former verse 'gathering' [in the case of fishes] is written in the same verse which mentions slaughtering for others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this verse mentions slaughtering with regard to cattle and gathering with regard to fishes it is apparent that the Torah refers to the practice that is proper in each case.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
לד והא אמרת
34 A Galilean travelling lecturer expounded: Cattle were created out of the dry earth and are rendered fit by the cutting of both organs; fish were created out of the water and are rendered fit without any ritual slaughtering; birds were created out of the alluvial mud and are therefore rendered fit by the cutting of one organ.
לה לפוטרו בולא כלום אי אפשר שכבר הוקש לבהמה
35 R'Samuel of Cappadocia said: You can prove this from the fact that birds have scales on their legs like the scales of fishes.
לו התם לא כתיבא אסיפה במקום שחיטה דאחריני הכא כתיבא אסיפה במקום שחיטה דאחריני:
36 He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Roman general put the following question, amongst others, to R. Johanan b. Zakkai (according to Rashi, to Rabban Gamaliel) . V. Bek. 5a.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לז דרש עובר גלילאה
37 put to him this further question: One verse says.
לח בהמה שנבראת מן היבשה הכשרה בשני סימנים דגים שנבראו מן המים הכשירן בולא כלום עוף שנברא מן הרקק הכשרו בסימן אחד
38 And God said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and let birds fly above the earth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 20.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לט אמר רב שמואל קפוטקאה
39 from which it would appear that birds were created out of the water; but another verse says.
מ תדע שהרי עופות יש להן קשקשת ברגליהם כדגים:
40 And the Lord God formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the air,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 19.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
מא ועוד שאלו כתוב אחד אומר
41 from which it would appear that they were created out of the earth? - He replied: They were created out of the alluvial mud.
מב (בראשית א, כ) ויאמר אלהים ישרצו המים שרץ נפש חיה ועוף יעופף אלמא ממיא איברו וכתיב
42 He thereupon noticed his disciples looking at each other with surprise.'
מג (בראשית ב, יט) ויצר ה' אלהים מן האדמה כל חית השדה ואת כל עוף השמים אלמא מארעא איברו
43 You are no doubt displeased', said he, 'because I brushed aside my opponent with a straw.
מד אמר לו
44 The truth is that they were created out of the water but they were brought before Adam only in order that he might name them'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer is that the former verse (I. 20) refers to the substance out of which birds were created, whereas the latter verse (II, 19) merely informs us that birds as well as all other creatures were brought to Adam that he might name them.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מה מן הרקק נבראו
45 Others say that he replied to the [Roman] general in accordance with the latter view, but to his disciples he gave the first explanation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the verses are reconciled by the suggestion that birds were created out of the alluvial mud.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
מו ראה תלמידיו מסתכלים זה בזה אמר להם
46 since they [birds] are mentioned in connection with the expression: And He formed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently this verse (Gen. II, 19) , also deals with the substance out of which birds were created and not merely with the subject of naming the creatures. Therefore, to reconcile these verses the correct answer is, as originally suggested, that they were created out of the alluvial mud. V. Rashi.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
מז קשה בעיניכם שדחיתי את אויבי בקש
47 Rab Judah said in the name of R'Isaac B'Phinehas: Birds do not require to be slaughtered ritually by the law of the Torah, for it is written: And he shall pour out the blood thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 13.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
מח מן המים נבראו ולמה הביאן אל האדם
48 that is to say, the mere pouring out of the blood is sufficient [to render the bird fit].
מט לקרות להן שם
49 But if so, should not the same be said of wild beasts too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the verse quoted are mentioned birds and wild beasts.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
נ ויש אומרים
50 - No, for wild beasts have been compared [by Biblical analogy] with consecrated animals that have become unfit [for sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 285, whence it is concluded that wild animals must be ritually slaughtered.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
נא בלשון אחר אמר לאותו הגמון ובלשון הראשון אמר להן לתלמידיו משום דכתיב על ויצר
51 Well, then, birds have also been compared with cattle in the following verse: This is the law of cattle and of birds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 46. And therefore on the strength of this analogy it should be held that birds should be ritually slaughtered like cattle.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
נב אמר רב יהודה משום ר' יצחק בן פנחס
52 - Surely there is also the verse: He shall pour out the blood thereof!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which clearly indicates that no particular form of slaughtering is necessary.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
נג אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה שנאמר
53 But why do you choose to apply the latter verse to birds rather than to wild animals? - It is more reasonable to do so since [birds] are mentioned last.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law derived from the words: And he shall pour out the blood thereof, would most likely refer to that which immediately precedes these words in the verse, i.e., birds.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
נד ושפך בשפיכה בעלמא סגי
54 <br>(Mnemonic: 'It became nebelah'.'
נה א"ה חיה נמי
55 Blood'.'
נו איתקש לפסולי המוקדשין
56 Nipping').<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mnemonic indicating the subject matter of the three statements which follow.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
נז עוף נמי איתקש לבהמה דכתיב
57 An objection was raised: If a man slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it became nebelah under his hand, or if he stabbed, or if he tore away the organs of the throat [of a wild animal or a bird], he is exempt from covering the blood.
נח זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף
58 Now if you were right in holding that birds do not require to be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah, then stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required for them, consequently there is surely an obligation to cover the blood! - You are assuming that the above [Mishnah] deals with a bird; in fact it deals with the case of a wild animal only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is rendered fit only by slaughtering, and therefore if one stabbed the beast to death there is no obligation to cover the blood.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
נט הא כתיב
59 Come and hear: If a man slaughtered, even though he requires the blood for use, he must nevertheless cover it.
ס (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך את דמו
60 But what should he do [so that he may use the blood]?
סא ומאי חזית דשדייה ליה על עוף
61 He should either stab it or tear away the organs.
סב שדייה אחיה
62 
סג מסתברא משום דסליק מיניה
63 
סד (סימן נתנבל דם במליקה) מיתיבי
64 
סה השוחט ונתנבלה בידו הנוחר והמעקר פטור מלכסות
65 
סו ואי אמרת אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה נחירתו זו היא שחיטתו ליבעי כסוי
66 
סז מי סברת בעוף
67 
סח לא בחיה
68 
סט ת"ש
69 
ע השוחט וצריך לדם חייב לכסות כיצד הוא עושה
70 
עא או נוחרו או עוקרו
71 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter