Chullin 55

מאי לאו בעוף דקא בעי ליה לדמיה ליניכא

Now presumably this statement refers to [the slaughtering of] a bird whose blood he would require for [destroying] the flax worm?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This clearly proves that birds must be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah; hence where they were not ritually slaughtered there would be no obligation to cover the blood and so it might be used for any purpose. tfk');">¹</span>

לא בחיה דקא בעי ליה לדמיה ללכא:

- No, it refers to [the slaughtering of] a wild animal whose blood he would require for dyeing purposes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Probably 'lac', a red resinous substance used as a dye.');">²</span>

ת"ש

Come and hear: 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',' V. supra 20b.');">³</span>

מלק בסכין מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה

Now if you were right in holding that birds do not require to be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah, then, granting that as soon as its neckbone and spinal cord have been sundered the bird is trefah,[the subsequent cutting of the organs with] the knife should at least have the effect of rendering the carcass free from the uncleanness of nebelah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the Rabbinic dictum: The carcass of a trefah animal when ritually slaughtered does not render anything unclean. V. supra p. 103.');">⁴</span>

ואי אמרת אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה נהי נמי דכי תבר ליה שדרה ומפרקת הויא לה טרפה תהני לה סכין לטהרה מידי נבלה

- He [R'Isaac B'Phinehas] accepts the view of the Tanna in the following Baraitha: R'Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 52, n. 4.');">⁵</span>

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא

says: What does the verse: Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten [so shalt thou eat there of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 22. This verse deals with consecrated animals that have become unfit for a sacrifice by reason of a blemish.');">⁶</span>

דתניא ר"א הקפר ברבי אומר

teach us?

מה ת"ל (דברים יב, כב) אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי וגו'

What do we learn from the gazelle and the hart?

וכי מה למדנו מצבי ואיל מעתה

Indeed, 'it comes as a teacher but turns out to be a pupil';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A proverbial saying. The suggestion here is that the gazelle and the hart were apparently mentioned in the verse in order to elucidate the law with regard to consecrated animals that have become unfit (i.e., to act the teacher) , but in reality it is the law with regard to The latter which throws light on the position concerning the gazelle and the hart (i.e., it is now the pupil) .');">⁷</span>

הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש צבי ואיל לפסולי המוקדשין

we must put the gazelle and the hart on the same footing as consecrated animals which have been rendered unfit for sacrifice.

מה פסולי המוקדשין בשחיטה אף צבי ואיל בשחיטה

Thus, as the latter must be ritually slaughtered so the gazelle and the hart must also be ritually slaughtered.

ועוף אין לו שחיטה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים

Birds, however, need not be ritually slaughtered by the law of the Torah, but only by Rabbinic enactment.

מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי אלעזר הקפר

Who is the Tanna who disagrees with this view of R'Eleazar ha.

רבי היא

Kappar? - It is Rabbi.

דתניא רבי אומר

For it has been taught: Rabbi says.

(דברים יב, כא) וזבחת כאשר צויתיך מלמד שנצטוה משה על הושט ועל הקנה ועל רוב אחד בעוף ועל רוב שנים בבהמה:

The verse: And thou shalt slaughter.

אחד בעוף:

as I have commanded thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII. 22.');">⁸</span>

איתמר ר"נ אמר

teaches us that Moses was instructed concerning the gullet and the windpipe; concerning the greater part of one of these organs [that must be cut] in the case of a bird, and the greater part of each in the case of cattle.

או וושט או קנה רב אדא בר אהבה אמר

ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD.

וושט ולא קנה

It was stated: R'Nahman says.

ר"נ אמר או וושט או קנה אחד קתני אחד כל דהו

Either the gullet or the windpipe; whilst R'Adda B'Ahabah says.

רב אדא בר אהבה אמר וושט ולא קנה מאי אחד מיוחד

Only the gullet and not the windpipe.

(סימן שחט חצאין גרגרת פגימה דחטאת העוף)

R'Nahman says.

מיתיבי

Either the gullet or the windpipe', for the Mishnah says ONE ORGAN, that is, any one.

שחט את הוושט ואחר כך נשמטה הגרגרת כשרה נשמטה הגרגרת ואח"כ שחט את הוושט פסולה

R'Adda B'Ahabah says: Only the gullet and not the windpipe', for 'ONE ORGAN' means the vital one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the distinct one' i.e., the gullet. It is the vital organ because the slightest perforation in it will render the animal trefah, but this is not with regard to the windpipe.');">⁹</span>

שחט את הוושט ונמצאת גרגרת שמוטה ואינו יודע אם קודם שחיטה נשמטה אם לאחר שחיטה נשמטה זה היה מעשה ואמרו

<br>(Mnemonic: He cut.

כל ספק בשחיטה פסולה

Half of each.

ואילו שחיטה בגרגרת לא קתני

The windpipe.

משום דגרגרת עבידא לאישתמוטי

Mutilated.

ת"ש

The sin-offering of a bird.)

שחט שני חצאי סימנין בעוף פסולה ואין צריך לומר בבהמה

An objection was raised: If a man cut the gullet [of a bird] and afterwards the windpipe was torn away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it had become detached from its articulation in the larynx.');">¹⁰</span>

ר' יהודה אומר

the slaughtering is valid.

בעוף עד שישחוט את הושט ואת הורידין

If the windpipe was torn away and he then cut the gullet, the slaughtering is invalid.

משום דושט סמוך לורידין

If he cut the gullet and the windpipe was found to be torn away, and it is not known whether it was torn away before or after the slaughtering - this was an actual case [which came before the Rabbis] and they ruled: Any doubt whatsoever arising about the slaughtering makes it invalid.

ת"ש

Now there is no mention here at all of the cutting of the windpipe!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any clause such as this: If he cut the windpipe and afterwards the gullet was torn away, the slaughtering is valid; presumably because the cutting of the windpipe alone would not render the animal valid, contra R. Nahman.');">¹¹</span>

שחט חצי גרגרת ושהה כדי שחיטה אחרת וגמר שחיטתו כשרה

- It is because the windpipe is more liable to be torn away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the case quoted refers to the tearing away of the windpipe, as this is most usual.');">¹²</span>

מאי לאו בעוף ומאי גמרה גמרה לגרגרת

Come and hear: If a man cut half of each organ in the case of a bird, the slaughtering is invalid; needless to say this is so in the case of cattle.

לא בבהמה ומאי גמרה גמרה לשחיטה כולה

R'Judah says.

ת"ש

In a bird he must cut through the gullet and the jugular veins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to let the blood run out, since a bird is often roasted whole without being cut up. The first Tanna only disagrees with R. Judah on this point about the jugular veins, but apparently all hold that it is only the cutting of the gullet that renders the bird fit, contra R. Nahman.');">¹³</span>

הרי שהיה חצי קנה פגום והוסיף עליו כל שהוא וגמרו שחיטתו כשרה

- It is because the gullet lies close to the jugular veins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is usual when cutting the jugular veins to cut the gullet too. The law, however, would be the same if the windpipe were cut with the jugular veins.');">¹⁴</span>

מאי לאו בעוף ומאי גמרו גמרו לקנה

Come and hear: If a man cut half of the windpipe and paused for the length of time required for another slaughtering, and then finished it, the slaughtering is valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the cutting of the first half of the windpipe is not reckoned as part of the slaughtering, since even if half of the windpipe was mutilated by an accident the subsequent cutting of the remainder of the windpipe would be valid; therefore whatever fault occurs at this stage of the cutting is of no consequence.');">¹⁵</span>

לא בבהמה ומאי גמרו גמרו לוושט

presumably this passage deals with a bird, and 'finished it' means, finished cutting the windpipe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence by the cutting of the windpipe only the slaughtering is valid, contra R. Adda b. Ahaba.');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ש

- No, it deals with cattle, and 'finished it' means, finished the entire slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By cutting both organs.');">¹⁷</span>

כיצד מולקין חטאת העוף

Come and hear: If half of the windpipe was mutilated and a man cut a fraction more and finished it, the slaughtering is valid.

חותך שדרה ומפרקת בלא רוב בשר עד שמגיע לוושט או לקנה

Presumably this deals with a bird, and 'finished it' means, finished cutting the windpipe? - No, it deals with cattle, and 'finished it' means, finished cutting the gullet.

הגיע לוושט או לקנה חותך סימן אחד ורוב בשר עמו ובעולה שנים או רוב שנים

Come and hear: How must he [the priest] nip off the head of the sin-offering of birds?

תיובתא דרב אדא בר אהבה

He must cut [with his finger.

תיובתא

nail] the spinal cord and the neckbone, but must not cut the major portion of the surrounding flesh before he reaches the gullet or the windpipe.

מאי הוי עלה

On reaching the gullet or the windpipe he cuts one, or the greater portion of one, organ and then the major portion of the surrounding flesh; and in the case of a burnt-offering both, or the greater portion of both, organs and then the major portion of the surrounding flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 21a.');">¹⁸</span>

מאי הוי עלה

This is a refutation of R'Adda B'Ahaba's view!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Baraitha expressly states that for nipping one may cut either organ. Presumably this is so in the case of slaughtering too.');">¹⁹</span>

כדקאמרת

It is a refutation.

דלמא שאני התם דאיכא שדרה ומפרקת

What has been decided about the matter? 'What has been decided' [you ask]! Surely it is as you have stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the rule as stated with regard to nipping will apply likewise to slaughtering.');">²⁰</span>

מאי

- [No] but it might be said that in that case the law is different, since there is [the breaking] of t spinal cord and neckbone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of nipping, where the spinal cord and neckbone are broken, it is admitted that one may cut any one organ and it would be sufficient, but with regard to slaughtering it might be held that the cutting of the windpipe only would not be sufficient.');">²¹</span>

ת"ש

What then is the law? - Come and hear: A duck belonging to Raba's house was found with its neck smeared with blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was therefore necessary to examine the organs of the throat against any perforation of the gullet or laceration of the windpipe.');">²²</span>

דההוא בר אווזא דהוה בי רבא אתא כי ממסמס קועיה דמא אמר רבא

Said Raba: How shall we deal with it?

היכי נעביד