Chullin 59

סתימתאה אבל חכמים אומרים

[who was often] quoted anonymously, whereas the Rabbis are of the opinion that two persons may slaughter one sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that, according to the view of the Rabbis, Raba's original objection stands, viz., 'The Tanna should have drawn a distinction in the case where two persons slaughtered it'. V. supra p. 256 and notes.');">¹</span>

ב' שוחטים זבח אחד

Moreover, even adopting the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, the Tanna might have drawn a distinction in the case where only one person slaughtered it but he wore two different garments while slaughtering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., while he was slaughtering the Red Cow another person came, removed the slaughterer's coat and placed another coat on him. If therefore we were to say that the term shechitah applies only to the last stage of the slaughtering then the coat which was removed before the end of the slaughtering would not be unclean.');">²</span>

ולרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון נמי לפלוג כגון דשחט חד גברא בשני סודרים דסודר קמא לא מטמא וסודר בתרא מטמא

in which case the first garment is clean and the second unclean.

אלא בפסולא דפרה קא מיירי בהכשרה לא קא מיירי

The truth of the matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To meet the difficulty raised by Raba.');">³</span>

מתיב רב אידי בר אבין

is that the Tanna dealt only with those circumstances where the Red Cow was in fact rendered invalid, but not where everything was done entirely according to ritual.

ובמועד לשמו פטור שלא לשמו חייב

R'Idi B'Abin raised this objection: [We have learnt: If a man slaughtered the paschal lamb whilst having leaven in his possession] during the festival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The proper time for slaughtering the paschal lamb was on the eve of the Passover festival and it is enjoined in Ex. XXIII, 18, that at the time of slaughtering the paschal lamb - and indeed at the time of slaughtering any sacrifice during the Passover festival (v. Pes. 63a) there must be no leaven in one's possession. In our case the circumstances were these: A lamb was originally set apart for the paschal offering but was lost, and another was offered as a sacrifice in its place. Subsequently, the original lamb was found and is now being offered on the festival as a sacrifice.');">⁴</span>

והוינן בה

under its own name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as a paschal lamb. As such it is invalid, since it is not being offered in its proper time, and therefore the prohibition of Ex. XXIII, 18, will not apply.');">⁵</span>

טעמא דשלא לשמו הא סתמא פטור

he has not incurred guilt; under the name of another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., as a peace-offering. As such it is a valid sacrifice, except that guilt will be incurred under Ex. XXIII, 18.');">⁶</span>

ואמאי פטור

he has incurred guilt.

פסח בשאר ימות השנה שלמים הוא

And we argued upon it as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Pes. 64a.');">⁷</span>

ש"מ

'This is so only because it was slaughtered under the name of another, but if it were slaughtered under no specific name [it follows that] no guilt would have been incurred.

פסח בשאר ימות השנה בעי עקירה

But why is no guilt incurred?

ואמר ר' חייא בר גמדא נזרקה מפי חבורה ואמרו

Is not the paschal lamb at any time of the year [save on the eve of Passover] regarded as a peace-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">⁸</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיו בעלים טמאי מתים דנדחין לפסח שני דסתמא לשמו קאי

Will not then this [Mishnah] prove the rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although in Pes. ');">⁹</span>

והאי הוא דבעי עקירה הא אחר לא בעי עקירה

that for a paschal lamb [to become valid as a peace-offering] at any other time of the year its name must first be repealed.

אי אמרת בשלמא ישנה לשחיטה מתחלה ועד סוף איפסיל ליה מתחלת שחיטה

R'Hiyya B'Gamada said: It was suggested by the whole assembly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , 'fellow', 'associate', v. Glos.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אי אמרת אינה לשחיטה אלא בסוף כיון דשחט ביה פורתא אידחי ליה מפסח אידך כי קא שחיט שלמים קא שחיט

that the circumstances of the case were these: The owners of this paschal lamb were rendered unclean by a corpse, so that they had to postpone the offering of the paschal lamb until the Second Passover;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the fourteenth day of the second month (Iyar) in accordance with Num. IX. 11.');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה אביי

hence [if this lamb was slaughtered during the first Passover] under no specific name it would certainly be regarded [as slaughtered] under its own name'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as a paschal lamb, since it was intended to serve as the paschal lamb to be offered on the Second Passover.');">¹²</span>

נהי דאידחי ליה מפסח מדמי פסח מי אידחי

Now, only in this particular case must [the name of the paschal lamb] be repealed [before it is valid as a peace-offering], but in no other case is repeal necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in ordinary circumstances the slaughtering of the paschal lamb during the Passover Festival would be regarded as a valid peace.offering.');">¹³</span>

וכי תימא בעי העמדה והערכה והתנן

This is right if you were to say that the term shechitah applies to the entire process of the slaughtering from beginning to end, for then the paschal lamb is rendered invalid at the beginning of the slaughtering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although it is not slaughtered under the specific name of the paschal lamb it is nevertheless considered as such, and inasmuch as the first act of the slaughtering renders it invalid, since it is not being slaughtered at the proper time, no guilt is incurred.');">¹⁴</span>

שחט בה שנים או רוב שנים ועדיין היא מפרכסת הרי היא כחיה לכל דבריה

[and therefore no guilt is incurred].

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

But if you say that the term shechitah applies only to the last stage of the slaughtering, then as soon as the person commenced to slaughter it, it can no longer be intended to serve as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it has been rejected from',');">¹⁵</span>

השוחט בשנים ושלשה מקומות שחיטתו כשרה

the paschal lamb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as the paschal lamb for the Second Passover, for it could not be kept till then as it is partly slaughtered.');">¹⁶</span>

כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי

and as he continues to slaughter he is really slaughtering a peaceoffering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the rule now established that whatever cannot, or is not, intended to serve as a paschal lamb is regarded as a peace-offering. And the fact that when the slaughtering was commenced the lamb was still intended for the paschal-offering is of no consequence, for according to Resh Lakish it is only the last stage of the slaughtering which is the decisive factor.');">¹⁷</span>

בעינן שחיטה מפורעת וליכא

[consequently, he should incur guilt!] Thereupon Abaye answered him, Granted that this lamb can no longer serve as a paschal lamb, but its price can serve this purpose!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the animal can be sold even now before the slaughtering has been completed, and the money it fetched could be used for purchasing the paschal lamb for the Second Passover, so that the first lamb at no time ceases to serve as a paschal lamb.');">¹⁸</span>

ואף ר"ש בן לקיש סבר

And should you say that [in order to sell a consecrated animal] it must be placed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This rule is derived from Lev. XXVII, 11 and 12. The implication is that the animal must be able to stand, i.e., living, when it is being valued by the priest. ib,vu');">¹⁹</span>

בעינן שחיטה מפורעת דא"ר שמעון בן לקיש

[before the priest] and appraised.

מנין לשחיטה שהיא מפורעת

[I reply that] we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This teaching is not found in any Mishnah but it might be inferred from the Mishnah, infra, 117b. V. Tosaf s.v. .');">²⁰</span>

שנאמר

If one cut both, or the greater portion of both organs, and the animal still moves convulsively, it is regarded as alive for all purposes.

(ירמיהו ט, ז) חץ שחוט לשונם מרמה דבר

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, 'If one cut the throat in two or three places the slaughtering is valid.

מתיב רבי אלעזר

But when I reported this statement to Samuel he said to me, "We must have a wide open cut<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the organs of the throat are tightened in preparation for the slaughtering, if they are cut in one place there will be a wide open cut, but if cut in several places none of the cuts will open wide; hence the slaughtering is invalid (Rashi) . Accordingly a wide open cut is synonymous with a single cut. V. however Tosaf ad loc. for other interpretations. yuja .j');">²¹</span>

ב' אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין אפילו אחד מלמעלה ואחד מלמטה שחיטתו כשרה

and it is not so here. "' Resh Lakish is also of the opinion that there must be a wide open cut.

אמאי

For Resh Lakish taught.

והא ליכא שחיטה מפורעת

Whence do we know that shechitah implies a wide open cut?

אמר ליה ר' ירמיה

From the verse: Their tongue is a sharpened arrow, it speaketh deceit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. IX. 7. Heb. , lit., 'an arrow thrust as in a slaughtering'. i.e., the cut in slaughtering should be wide open like the thrust of an arrow.');">²²</span>

משנתינו בסכין אחד ושני בני אדם

R'Eleazar raised an objection.

אמר ליה רבי אבא

[We have learnt,] If two persons held a knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra, 30b. It is assumed for the present that there were two knives in use and each person held a knife and cut in a different part of the throat.');">²³</span>

אי הכי היינו דתני עלה

Now why is this so?

אין חוששין שמא יטרפו זה על זה

There is not here a wide open cut! - R'Jeremiah answered: Our Mishnah deals with the case of two persons holding one knife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They hold the knife in a slanting direction, one holding the handle and the other the head of the knife, and in this way one would be cutting the organs high up towards the head and the other lower down towards the body of the animal. There is, however, only one cut made.');">²⁴</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא בשתי סכינין ושני בני אדם שפיר מהו דתימא

Thereupon R'Abba said to him: If so, let us consider the comment upon this Mishnah, viz. : 'And there is no fear that one will render the animal trefah on account of the other.'

ליחוש דלמא סמכי אהדדי והאי לא אתי למעבד רובא והאי לא אתי למעבד רובא קא משמע לן דאין חוששין

Now if you say that it deals with the case of two knives and two persons [each holding a knife], then [the comment is] most proper.

אלא אי אמרת בסכין אחת ושני בני אדם האי אין חוששין שמא יטרפו זה על זה שמא ידרוסו זה על זה מיבעי ליה

For you might have said that we must apprehend lest they come to rely one upon the other, and neither the one nor the other will cut the required greater Portion [of the organs]; we are therefore informed that there is no fear of this.

אמר ליה רבי אבין תני

But if you say that it deals with the case of two persons holding one knife, then why the comment, 'And there is no fear that one will render the animal trefah on account of the other'?

אין חוששין

It should rather read: 'And there is no fear that one will cause the other to press upon the throat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When two persons hold one knife the only danger is that they might not pull simultaneously, and therefore undue pressure would be exerted upon the organs.');">²⁵</span> - R'Abin said: Then read: 'And there is no fear