Chullin 57

Chapter 57

א כדי שחיטה אחרת וגמרה שחיטתו כשרה
1 for the length of time required for another slaughtering and then finished it, the slaughtering is valid.
ב ואי אמרת מחצה על מחצה כרוב איטרפא לה
2 Now if you say that an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion then here the animal is already trefah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is assumed for the present that an animal which requires the cutting of both organs was being slaughtered, and the pause, occurring as it does after the greater portion of the windpipe has been cut (for that is the equivalent of an exact half according to Rab) , renders it trefah, and no subsequent slaughtering could render it valid.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג מי סברת בבהמה
3 - You are assuming, are you not, that the Baraitha is dealing with cattle?
ד לא בעוף
4 Indeed it deals with a bird, and whichever view you take the result is the same.
ה ממה נפשך אי מחצה על מחצה כרוב הא עביד ליה רובא אי מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב לא עבד ולא כלום
5 For if an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion then he has cut here the greater portion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this in the case of a bird is sufficient to render the slaughtering valid.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ו ת"ש
6 and if an exact half is not equivalent to the greater portion then he has done nothing at all [which would render the slaughtering invalid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his having cut half of the windpipe is of no consequence for the bird would not be rendered trefah thereby; v. infra 44a-b.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ז הרי שהיה חצי קנה פגום והוסיף עליו כל שהוא וגמרו שחיטתו כשרה
7 Come and hear: If half of the windpipe [of a bird] was mutilated and a man cut a fraction more and finished it, the slaughtering is valid.
ח ואי אמרת מחצה על מחצה כרוב טרפה הויא
8 Now if you say that an exact half is equivalent to the greater portion, then was it not already trefah [before the slaughtering]? - Raba answered: With regard to the law of trefah it is different, for there [all agree that] we require such a greater portion as is perceptible to the eye.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that an exact half even though equivalent in law to the greater portion, would not be sufficient to render trefah.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ט אמר רבא
9 Thereupon Abaye said to him: But is there not here an a fortiori argument: If in the law concerning trefah, notwithstanding that [in certain cases] the slightest defect will render an animal trefah, nevertheless whenever we do require a greater portion we insist upon a greater portion that is perceptible to the eye, how much more in the law concerning shechitah, where no slaughtering is valid without the greater portion having been cut, should we insist upon a greater portion which is perceptible to the eye? - Rather say [thus]: All are of the opinion that an exact half is not equivalent to the greater portion, and when the dispute between Rab and R'Kahana was reported it was only in connection with the passover sacrifice.
י שאני לענין טרפה דבעינן רוב הנראה לעינים
10 Thus: If the community of Israel was exactly equally divided, half being clean and half unclean, Rab said that an exact half was equivalent to the greater portion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore those members of the community who are unclean, regarded i11 law as a majority, will sacrifice the paschal offering in its due season, even though they are all in a state of uncleanness.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יא א"ל אביי
11 R'Kahana said that an exact half was not equivalent to the greater portion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that those who are unclean must postpone their paschal offering until the following month in accordance with Num. IX, 2-14; v. Pes. 79a.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
יב ולא כל דכן הוא
12 And what is the reason for Rab's view in that case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that elsewhere the exact half is not considered equivalent to the greater portion.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יג ומה טרפה דבמשהו מיטרפא היכא דבעינן רובא בעינן רוב הנראה לעינים שחיטה דעד דאיכא רובא לא מיתכשרא לא כ"ש דבעינן רוב הנראה לעינים
13 - For it is written: If any man of you shall be unclean by reason of a dead body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יד אלא דכולי עלמא מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב וכי איתמר דרב ודרב כהנא לענין פסח אתמר
14 signifying that only an individual is obliged to postpone [his passover sacrifice on account of uncleanness] but not a community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Half of the community cannot be regarded as individuals and are therefore not obliged to postpone their sacrifice.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
טו הרי שהיו ישראל מחצה טהורים ומחצה טמאים רב אמר
15 THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD.
טז מחצה על מחצה כרוב ורב כהנא אמר
16 Has not the Tanna already taught this: THE GREATER PART OF AN ORGAN IS EQUIVALENT TO [THE WHOLE OF] IT? - (Mnemonic: Hakesh; Pashah).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mnemonic (meaning perhaps 'Strike', 'Pull out') consisting of the characteristic letters of the names of the Rabbis whose dicta follow.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יז מחצה על מחצה אינו כרוב
17 R'Hoshaia answered: One clause refers to unconsecrated animals, the other clause to consecrated animals.
יח והתם מ"ט דרב
18 And they are both necessary.
יט דכתיב
19 For had he taught the rule only in connection with unconsecrated animals I should have said that only there is the greater portion of the organ sufficient since the blood is not required for any purpose, but in the case of consecrated animals, since the blood is required for a special purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sprinkling upon the altar.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כ (במדבר ט, י) איש איש כי יהיה טמא לנפש איש נדחה ואין ציבור נדחין:
20 I should have said that the greater portion of the organ was not sufficient but that the whole organ must be cut? - [Hence the rule had to be stated in connection with consecrated animals.] And if he taught the rule only in connection with consecrated animals I should have said that only there [is the greater portion of the organ necessary], since the blood is required for a special purpose, but in the case of unconsecrated animals, since the blood is not required for any purpose.
כא רוב אחד בעוף:
21 I should have said that half of the organ was sufficient.
כב תנינא חדא זימנא
22 Hence both are necessary.
כג רובו של אחד כמוהו
23 Which clause refers to unconsecrated animals and which to consecrated animals? - R'Kahana said: It is reasonable to say that the first clause refers to unconsecrated animals and the second to consecrated animals.
כד (הכש פשח סימן) אמר רב הושעיא
24 Why?
כה חדא בחולין וחדא בקדשים
25 Because the Mishnah opens with, IF A MAN CUT [ ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD]'; now if you were to say that the first clause refers to consecrated animals it should open with, 'If one nipped'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nipping is the only method prescribed by the Torah for slaying a consecrated bird. yjuav');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כו וצריכא דאי אשמועינן חולין התם הוא דסגי ליה ברובא משום דלאו לדם הוא צריך אבל קדשים דלדם הוא צריך אימא לא תיסגי ליה ברובא עד דאיכא כוליה
26 You say, therefore, that the second clause refers to consecrated animals! but then why does it state, 'THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID'; it should state, 'The nipping is valid'?
כז ואי אשמועינן קדשים משום דלדם הוא צריך אבל חולין דלדם לא צריך אימא בפלגא סגי ליה קמ"ל
27 This is no real difficulty, for one can say that because the Tanna mentioned 'cattle' last, he therefore stated: THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.
כח הי בחולין והי בקדשים
28 But [this argument is conclusive:] for since it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which opens with , 'IF A MAN CUT'.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כט אמר רב כהנא
29 the first clause, clearly refers to the case of a bird, if you were say that it refers to consecrated birds, the Tanna ought to have stated: 'If one nipped'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that the first clause deals with unconsecrated birds.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ל מיסתברא רישא בחולין וסיפא בקדשים ממאי
30 R'Shimi B'Ashi said: It can be proved that the first portion [of the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals from this clause, viz. , ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD.
לא מדקתני השוחט ואי סלקא דעתך רישא בקדשים המולק מיבעי ליה
31 For if you were to say that the first portion deals with consecrated animals.
לב אלא מאי סיפא בקדשים
32 [the question would be raised:] What about the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs [to be cut]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it would not be correct for the Mishnah to state generally that one organ in the case of a bird was sufficient, for this would not be taking into account the case of a burnt-offering of a bird, where both organs must be severed. V. supra 21a.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לג שחיטתו כשרה מליקתו כשרה מיבעי ליה
33 You therefore say that the second portion of the Mishnah deals with consecrated animals; but then [the same question will be raised upon the clause which reads].
לד הא ל"ק איידי דסליק מבהמה תנא נמי שחיטתו כשרה
34 THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD, viz. , What about the burnt-offering of a bird which requires both organs [to be cut]? - THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN really means the greater part of each organ, and strictly the Mishnah should have stated: 'The greater part of both'; since, however, there is the case of the sin-offering of a bird, for which one organ is sufficient, the Tanna stated th clause ambiguously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression may mean either the greater portion of one organ, to meet the case of the sin-offering of a bird, or the greater portion of each organ, to meet the case of the burnt-offering of a bird.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לה אלא רישא מכדי על עוף קאי אי ס"ד בקדשים המולק מיבעי ליה
35 R'Papa said: It can be proved that the first portion [of our Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals from this clause: R'JUDAH SAYS, HE MUST CUT THROUGH THE JUGULAR VEINS.
לו רב שימי בר אשי אמר
36 The Rabbis, however, disagree.
לז רישא בחולין מהכא דקתני
37 Now if you say that the first portion deals with unconsecrated animals it is well, but if you were to say that it deals with consecrated animals, why do the Rabbis disagree [with the view of R'Judah]?
לח אחד בעוף ואי ס"ד בקדשים הא איכא עולת העוף דבעי שני סימנים
38 Is not the whole purpose of the slaughtering [of consecrated animals] for the sake of obtaining the blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Rabbis would concede that in the case of consecrated animals one should cut the jugular veins in order to obtain as much blood as possible for sprinkling upon the altar.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לט אלא מאי סיפא בקדשים
39 R'Ashi said: It can be proved that the latter portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah which follows infra 30b, which is the continuation of the last clause of our MISHNAH:');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מ רוב אחד בעוף
40 [of the Mishnah] deals with consecrated animals from the following statement: If one slaughtered two animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'two heads'. hre uvujcz, uvjcz,');"><sup>19</sup></span>
מא הא איכא עולת העוף דבעי שני סימנין
41 Simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid.
מב מאי רוב אחד רוב כל אחד ואחד
42 And this expression, 'If one slaughtered', clearly implies that the slaughtering is valid only after the act, bu that there is no right to slaughter thus in the first instance.
מג ובדין הוא דליתני רוב שנים כיון דאיכא חטאת דסגי ליה בחד סימן מש"ה לא פסיקא ליה
43 Now if you say that this latter portion [of the Mishnah] deals with consecrated animals, then it is evident why there is no right to slaughter thus in the first instance.
מד רב פפא אמר
44 For R'Joseph learnt: It is written: Thou shalt slaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 5. The traditional reading ( Kere) of the Hebrew is [ ] 'Ye shall slaughter it', but the traditional spelling ch,f uvjcz,');"><sup>20</sup></span>
מה רישא בחולין מהכא
45 [to teach] that two persons shall not slaughter one sacrifice; and also, 'Thou shalt slaughter it', [to teach] that one person shall not slaughter two sacrifices [simultaneously].
מו דקתני רבי יהודה אומר
46 And R'Kahana said that this exposition was based upon the Kethib which is: Thou shalt slaughter it.
מז עד שישחוט את הורידין ופליגי רבנן עליה
47 Now if you were to say that the latter portion [of the Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals, then surely there is a right to slaughter thus even in the first instance!
מח אי אמרת בשלמא בחולין שפיר אלא אי אמרת בקדשים אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה
48 Resh Lakish is also of the opinion that the first clause [of our Mishnah] deals with unconsecrated animals whilst the second deals with consecrated animals.
מט הוא עצמו לדם הוא צריך
49 For Resh Lakish said: Since our Mishnah teaches us, THE GREATER PART OF AN ORGAN IS EQUIVALENT TO [THE WHOLE OF] IT, what need is there for the further statement, THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD.
נ רב אשי אמר
50 OR THE GREATER PART OF EACH ORGAN IN THE CASE OF CATTLE?
נא סיפא בקדשים מהכא דקתני
51 It is necessary because we have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 31b.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
נב השוחט שני ראשין כאחד שחיטתו כשרה
52 When they brought unto him [sc. the High priest on the Day of Atonement] the Daily Sacrifice, he made an incision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he cut the greater part of each organ and no more.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
נג השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא
53 but another [priest] completed the slaughtering for him.
נד אי אמרת בשלמא בקדשים היינו דלכתחלה לא משום דתני רב יוסף
54 Now from this Mishnah I might have thought that if another had not completed the slaughtering it would have been invalid; our Mishnah therefore teaches us.
נה תזבח שלא יהא שנים שוחטים זבח אחד (ויקרא יט, ה) תזבחהו שלא יהא אחד שוחט שני זבחים
55 [IF A MAN CUT] THE GREATER PART OF ONE ORGAN IN THE CASE OF A BIRD, OR THE GREATER PART OF EACH ORGAN IN THE CASE OF CATTLE.
נו ואמר רב כהנא
56 THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This latter clause was therefore stated with regard to consecrated animals.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
נז תזבחהו כתיב
57 The Master said: 'I might have thought that if another had not completed the slaughtering it would have been invalid.'
נח אלא אי אמרת בחולין אפילו לכתחלה נמי
58 
נט ואף רשב"ל סבר
59 
ס רישא בחולין וסיפא בקדשים
60 
סא דאמר רשב"ל
61 
סב מאחר ששנינו רובו של אחד כמוהו למה שנינו רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה
62 
סג לפי ששנינו
63 
סד הביאו לו את התמיד קרצו ומירק אחר שחיטתו על ידו
64 
סה יכול לא מירק יהא פסול
65 
סו לכך שנינו
66 
סז רוב אחד בעוף ורוב שנים בבהמה
67 
סח אמר מר
68 
סט יכול לא מירק יהא פסול
69 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter