B. [28a] Is it not [the case here that reference is made to killing] a bird because he needs to use its blood for killing worms? [This then would prove that birds are subject to the laws of slaughter and the obligation of covering the blood.] No, [the reference is to killing a] wild beast because he needs to use its blood for dyeing. [So we can draw no conclusion from this rule regarding the obligations for a bird.]
A. Come and take note: “He who wrings [the neck of a bird-offering and cuts the neck from the back] with a knife — [if he eats the meat from this fowl] it renders unclean the clothing of he who swallows it.” And if you say that [we hold the principle that] “there is no requirement to slaughter a bird on the authority of the Torah,” it also should be the case that when he severs the neck bone and spinal cord that renders the bird terefah, the knife should have the effect [slaughtering through the organs] of saving the bird from the uncleanness of carrion. [The principle is that a terefah animal that was slaughtered properly does not become unclean as carrion.]
B. [It must be the case that] he [Yitzhak, above at V.1 A] states matters according the view of that Tanna. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Eleazar Haqappar Be-rabbi says, “What does Scripture tell us in the verse, `Just as the gazelle or the hart is eaten, so you may eat of it; the unclean and the clean alike may eat of it' (Deut. 12:22)? What do we deduce from [the presence in the verse of] the gazelle and the hart? Now look. Lo, it comes [ostensibly] to teach [some new detail of the law for other types of animals] and instead it ends up learning [i.e., deriving rules for the gazelle and hart from the procedures for other animals].
C. The gazelle and hart are juxtaposed to unfit Holy Things. [Accordingly they share rules.] Just as unfit Holy Things are subject to the requirement of slaughter, so too the gazelle and the hart are subject to the requirement of slaughter. But a bird is not subject to the requirement of slaughter on the authority of the Torah, but only on the authority of the scribes [i.e., the rabbis].
D. Who is the Tanna who disputes the view of R. Eleazar Haqappar? It is Rabbi. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, Rabbi says, “`[If the place which the Lord your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you], then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you; [and you may eat within your towns as much as you desire]' (Deut. 12:21). This teaches us that Moses was commanded concerning [the requirement to slaughter by cutting] the gullet and the windpipe [and the requirement to slaughter] the majority of one organ for a bird and the majority of two organs for a beast.”
A. He who slaughters [cuts] one [organ, either the windpipe or the gullet] in the case of fowl [M. 2:1 A] — It was stated: R. Nahman said, “Either the gullet or the windpipe.” R. Ada bar Ahava said, “The gullet, but not the windpipe.”
B. R. Nahman said, “Either the gullet or the windpipe” [based on his interpretation of the text of the Mishnah] — one, was the way it was taught, meaning either one. R. Ada bar Ahava said, “The gullet, but not the windpipe” [based on his interpretation of the text of the Mishnah] — what does one imply? The one that is singled out. [The rule is that a small defect in the gullet renders the animal terefah. Only a major defect in the windpipe renders the animal terefah (Rashi).]
A. [A mnemonic is given.] They posed the question: [Consider the following teaching as a contradiction to R. Nahman's view above:] If he slaughtered the gullet and afterward the windpipe was displaced (Cashdan: displaced from its articulation in the larynx), it is valid. If the windpipe was displaced and afterward he slaughtered the gullet, it is invalid. If he slaughtered the gullet and afterward it was found that windpipe was displaced and he does not know whether before the act of slaughter it was displaced or after the act of slaughter it was displaced, this was a case and they said, “Any case of doubt regarding the act of slaughter — it is invalid.” [The implication is that only where he slaughters the gullet is it valid in agreement with the view of Ada bar Ahava.]
B. [The response is that we may draw no conclusion to settle the dispute above from this teaching.] Slaughter of only the windpipe is not taught because the windpipe is more likely to be displaced.
A. Come and take note: If he slaughtered half of the two organs in a bird, it is invalid. And we need not even state this with regard to a beast [that it is invalid in the circumstance].
B. R. Judah says, “For a bird [it is not valid] unless he slaughters the gullet and the jugular veins.” [Actually he could cut the windpipe and the jugular veins and it would be valid too. The reason it specifies the gullet is] because the gullet is near the jugular veins.
C. Come and take note: If he slaughtered half of the windpipe and then he paused long enough to complete a whole other act of slaughter, and then he finished slaughtering, it is valid.
D. What do we say is the case? He was [slaughtering] a bird. And what does it mean, “then he finished”? It means that he finished [slaughtering only the windpipe]. [This disproves the view of Ada above.]
E. No. [This is not a valid proof against Ada.] [It refers to slaughter] of a beast. And what does it mean, “then he finished”? It means he finished the whole act of slaughter.
F. Come and take note: Behold, if half the windpipe was defective and he added to it [by cutting] a bit more and thereby he completed its slaughter, it is valid.
G. What do we say is the case? He was [slaughtering] a bird. And what does it mean, “then he finished”? It means that he finished [slaughtering only the windpipe]. [This disproves the view of Ada above.]
H. No. [This is not a valid proof against Ada.] [It refers to slaughter] of a beast. And what does it mean, “then he finished”? It means he finished cutting the gullet.
I. Come and take note: “What is the procedure for wringing the neck of the sin-offering of a fowl? He cuts the spinal cord and the neck bone without [cutting] the majority of the flesh until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. Once he reaches the gullet or the windpipe, he cuts one of the organs or [a majority of one and at that point he may cut] the major portion of the flesh along with it. And for a whole burnt-offering, [the procedure is the same but] he cuts the two organs or the majority of the two organs [cf. b. ul. 21a above, 1:4, IV.1 L].” [It is logical to conclude that it is valid if either organ is cut when it is slaughtered.]
J. This is a valid objection to the view of R. Ada bar Ahava. It is a valid objection.
K. What does this have to do with that? [That rule pertains to wringing and not to slaughtering.] What this has to do with that is as we stated matters! [The rules for wringing and slaughtering are parallel.] But perhaps they are different! There [in the case of wringing he already cut through] the spine and neck bone. [He can complete the act by cutting either organ. In the case of an act of slaughter, cutting the windpipe might not be enough. So] why [is this a valid objection to Ada]?
L. Come and take note: They found a certain duck in Raba's house with its neck smeared with blood. Said Raba, “What shall we do with it?” [28b] Shall we slaughter it and then inspect [it for defects]? Perhaps at the place of defect we will slaughter [and obscure the evidence that it was terefah.] Shall we inspect it and then slaughter it? Lo, Rabbah said, “The gullet cannot be examined externally, only internally.”
M. Said to him R. Joseph his son, “Let us inspect the windpipe and slaughter it at the windpipe and declare it valid. And afterward let us turn to the gullet and inspect that [for defects].”
N. Said Raba, “My son Joseph is as smart as R. Yohanan [cf. b. ul. 95b] when it comes to terefot.” It is logical to say, one [organ that was stated in the Mishnah means] either one.
A. R. Judah says, “[This in the case of fowl is so only on condition] that he will slaughter [cut through] the [jugular] veins [of the neck of the bird][M. 2:1 C].” Said R. Hisda, “R. Judah only stated this with regard to a bird because it is roasted whole. But regarding a beast that is cut into sections, you do not need to say this.”
B. And the basis for the rule of R. Judah [that he must cut the veins is] because of the [need to drain the] blood. But lo it was taught, R. Judah says, “[This in the case of fowl is so only on condition] that he will slaughter [cut through] the [jugular] veins [of the neck of the bird].” [This language implies that cutting the veins is an integral part of the act of slaughter and not a separate concern for removing the blood.]
C. It makes sense to say that he means, “That he will pierce the veins.” And why [then does it say], “that he will slaughter the veins”? [It means], “that he will pierce them at the time he slaughters.”
D. Come and take note [by way of objection to the preceding]: “The veins are subject to slaughtering,” the words of R. Judah. [This is not contradiction because] it makes sense to say he means, “The veins must be pierced at the time of slaughtering,” the words of R. Judah.
E. Come and take note [by way of objection]: They said to R. Judah, “[According to your view] as long as the veins were mentioned only because you must remove the blood from them, what difference does it make if they are slaughtered or not?” In general it appears that R. Judah reasons that they must be slaughtered [not pierced].
F. This is the way they stated the matter to him: “[According to your view] what difference does it make whether they pierce them at the time of slaughtering or if they pierced them not at the time of slaughtering?” And he reasoned that [the difference is that if he pierces them] at the time of slaughtering the blood flows out because it is hot, [if he does so later], not at the time of slaughtering, the blood does not flow out because it is cool.
A. R. Jeremiah posed the question: [During the process of cutting] the veins, according to the view of R. Judah, what is the rule if he paused or pressed? Said to him a certain elder, “This is what R. Eleazar said.”And another version: said a certain elder to R. Eleazar, “This is what R. Yohanan said.” [The teaching alluded to is]: he may pierce them [the veins] with a thorn and they are valid.
B. It was taught on Tannaite authority in accord with R. Hisda [VII.1 A]: If he slaughtered [exactly] half of two organs in a bird, it is invalid. And you do not even have to mention that [it is invalid if he slaughtered in this fashion] in the case of a beast. R. Judah says, “For a bird [it is invalid] until he slaughters the gullet and the veins.”
A. [He who cuts through] half of one [organ] in the case of fowl and one and a half [organs] in the case of a beast — his act of slaughter is invalid [M. 2:1 D]. It was stated: Rab said, “Halfway is deemed a majority.” R. Kahana said, “Halfway is not deemed a majority.”
B. Rab said, “Halfway is deemed a majority” — this is what the Torah [in the oral tradition defining the proper means of slaughter] said to Moses, “Do not leave a majority [uncut].”
C. R. Kahana said, “Halfway is not deemed a majority” — this is what the Torah [in the oral tradition defining the proper means of slaughter] said to Moses, “Slaughter a majority [of the organ].”
A. [A mnemonic is given.] It was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: [He who cuts through] half of one [organ] in the case of fowl and one and a half [organs] in the case of a beast — his act of slaughter is invalid [M. 2:1 D]. If you say halfway is deemed a majority, why is it invalid? Lo, he has performed [an act of slaughter] of the majority [of the organ]. [It is invalid] on the authority of the rabbis [who feared that] perhaps [if they permitted where he slaughtered half] he might not perform [an act of slaughter even] on half [of the organ and this would be invalid by all reckoning].
B. [In the case of one who had a clay oven that became unclean and therefore had to be broken — ] Said R. Qatina, “Come and take note: If he divided it [an unclean clay oven] in two equal pieces — they are unclean because it is not possible to be precise [in dividing or measuring the pieces and we cannot determine which one is smaller than the major part of the oven].”
C. Lo, [this implies that] if it were possible to be precise [i.e., to divide it into two exactly equal pieces] — they would be clean. Why would they be clean? Consider this [first] piece [and say that half the oven is equivalent to the majority] and you have a majority [and it is unclean]. Consider this [second] piece [and say that half the oven is equivalent to the majority] and you have a majority [and it is unclean].
D. Said R. Pappa, “[This case regarding an oven is not parallel to the issue of cutting the organs during slaughter. In the case of an unclean oven you have to conclude that it is not possible to declare there are] two majority entities in one object. [With regard to the organ of a bird we simply wish to determine that the major portion was cut.]”