H. And the law is [19a]: [If he cut in the neck to slaughter] from the place where the thyroid cartilage narrows, it is valid. And this concurs with: [If he cut to slaughter and left towards the head] part of the arytenoid cartilages, [it is valid].
I. R. Nahman declared valid [an animal that was slaughtered] from the place where the thyroid cartilage narrows [and below]. Said to him R. Hanan bar R. Qatina to R. Nahman, “In accord with whose view do you hold? Not in accord with the view of the rabbis and not in accord with the view [in the M.] of R. Yosé b. R. Judah.” He said to him, “I do not know of any view [that refers to] cutting [within the top cartilage ring, i.e., the view of the rabbis in A of M.] or of splitting [the greater part of the circumference, i.e., the view of R. Yosé b. R. Judah in C of M.].” [This could also be a play on the colloquial use of the phrase: I do not know either this fellow or that fellow.] I just know the teaching.
J. For said R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan; and some say about it, said R. Abba bar Zabda, said R. Hanina; and some say about it, said R. Jacob bar Idi, said R. Joshua b. Levi, “From the place where the thyroid cartilage narrows, it is valid.”
K. And said R. Joshua b. Levi, “[Meat from an animal that was slaughtered] slanting downward according to the view of the rabbis is valid according to the view of R. Yosé b. R. Judah. And [that slaughtered] in accord with the view of R. Yosé b. R. Judah is valid in accord with the view of R. Hanina b. Antigonos [cf. I.1 C]. ”
L. Is this not obvious? What might you have said? That R. Hanina b. R. Antigonos made reference to the view of the rabbis [to dispute them]. It makes the point [then that is not the case]. And does it not make sense to say this is the point [that Hanina refers to the rabbis]? If that were so it needed to specify, “He testified concerning it [i.e., the view of the rabbis. This is not the wording in I.1 C above.]”
M. And the law is in accord with R. Hanina b. Antigonos because R. Nahman supports his view.
II.3
A. Said R. Huna, said R. Assi, “There is a dispute in the case where he slaughtered through two thirds [of the windpipe] and slanted up [above that area] through one third. For the rabbis hold the view that the entire act of slaughter must be in the large ring. And R. Yosé b. R. Judah holds the view that [cutting through at the proper place] the majority [of the way] is as if he cut through the whole organ [in the proper place].
B. “But if he first slanted up [and cut above the area designated for slaughter] through one third [of the organ] and then slaughtered through two thirds [in the designated area of the organ] all authorities hold the view that it is invalid. Because at the time that the animal dies [i.e., at the moment he cuts through the mid-point of the organ] we must have a majority [of the organ cut by a proper] act of slaughter, and we do not have it [in this case where he cut one third above the area and then the remainder within the proper zone].”
C. Said to him R. Hisda, “On the contrary. Let the master say the opposite. There is a dispute in the case where he slanted up [above the proper zone] through one third and then slaughtered through two thirds [of the windpipe in the proper zone]. For R. Yosé b. R. Judah holds the view that [cutting through one third above and then at the proper place] is like [the case of one who cut] a windpipe that was half defective [which is valid under certain circumstances, cf. b. ul. 28a]. And the rabbis [would explain that they reject this view on the following grounds]. There [in the case of a defective windpipe at least he cuts within the defect in the valid] place for slaughtering. Here [in our case where he cuts one third out of the zone] it is not in the place [valid] for slaughter.
D. “But where he slaughtered through two thirds [in the proper zone] and slanted up through one third [above the proper zone], all authorities would hold the view that it is valid.”
E. For lo it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah, And the greater part of one [of the organs] is equivalent to [the whole of] it [M. ul. 2:1 B].
F. Said to him R. Joseph, “Who can tell us that the [statement] concerning the greater part [of one of the organs] there [in the Mishnah] was not taught in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah? Perhaps it was taught in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah.”
G. Said to him Abayye, “Is it possible that any [statement] concerning the greater part [of something as equivalent to the whole] was taught in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah?”
H. He said to him, “I hold the view that [the rule] with regard to the greater part [of the organ that was cut in the act] of slaughter [was taught in accord with Yosé] because we know that there is a dispute [over this issue].”
I. Another version they said concerning this [matter of C-H]: Said R. Huna, said R. Assi, “There is a dispute in the case where he slanted up [above the proper zone] through one third and then slaughtered through two thirds [of the windpipe]. For R. Yosé b. R. Judah holds the view that [cutting through one third above and then at the proper place] is like [the case of one who cut] a windpipe that was half defective [which is valid under certain circumstances]. And the rabbis [would explain that they reject this view on the following grounds]. There [in the case of a defective windpipe at least the defect is in the valid] place for slaughtering. Here [in our case where he cuts one third out of the zone] it is not in the place [valid] for slaughter.
J. “But where he slaughtered through two thirds [in the proper zone] and slanted up through one third [above the proper zone], all authorities would hold the view that it is valid.”
K. For lo it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah, And the greater part of one [of the organs] is equivalent to [the whole of] it [M. ul. 2:1 B].
L. R. Hisda posed the question, “Who can tell us that the [statement] concerning the greater part [of one of the organs] there [in the Mishnah] was not taught in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah? Perhaps it was taught in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah.”
M. Said to him R. Joseph, “Is it possible that any [statement] concerning the greater part [of something as equivalent to the whole] was taught in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah?”
N. He said to him, “I hold the view that [the rule] with regard to the greater part [of the organ that was cut in the act] of slaughter [was taught in accord with Yosé] because we know that there is a dispute [over this issue].”
II.4
A. If he slanted up through one third [of the organ], and then slaughtered [in the proper location] through one third, and then slanted up through one third — R. Huna said [in the name of] Rab, “It is valid.” R. Judah said [in the name of] Rab, “It is terefah.”
B. R. Huna said [in the name of] Rab, “It is valid” because when the animal dies [at the moment he cuts through the mid-point of the organ] it is by virtue of [a proper act of slaughter at that moment] that it dies.
C. R. Judah said [in the name of] Rab, “It is terefah” because we must have the majority of the [organ cut] through slaughter [in the proper zone] and we do not have it [in this case].
D. If he slaughtered [in the proper zone] through one third [of the organ], and then slanted up through one third, and then slaughtered [in the proper zone] though one third — R. Judah said [in the name of] Rab, “It is valid.” They went and asked [about this case] of R. Huna. He said to them, “It is terefah.”
E. R. Judah heard this and became angry. He said, “I declare it terefah and he [Huna] declares it valid. I declare it valid and he declares it terefah!” Said R. Huna, “He has good cause to be angry. First of all, he heard [the ruling directly] from Rab and I did not hear it [from him]. And moreover [in the case just stated] there a majority of the cutting is through slaughter [in the proper zone].”
F. Said to him R. Hisda, “Do not retract [your ruling]. [19b] For if you do you lose [the justification for] your first decision [in A].” There [in the case at A where he slanted, slaughtered and slanted] on what basis did you declare it valid? Because when the animal died [when he cut through the mid-point of the organ], it died through a valid act. Here too [in the case at D where he slaughtered, slanted and slaughtered] when the animal died, it died through [an invalid act, i.e., a cutting of the organ] slanting upward.
II.5
A. R. Nahman visited Sura. They posed this question to him: If he slaughtered [in the proper zone] through one third [of the organ], and he slanted up [and cut] through one third, and he slaughtered [in the proper zone] through one third, what is the rule? They said to him, “Is this not the [ruling of] R. Eleazar bar Manyomi?”
B. For said R. Eleazar bar Manyomi, “An act of slaughtering in the manner of a comb is valid [i.e., zig-zag (Cashdan)].” But perhaps this applies only [to such a manner of cutting] in the area [of the organ designated proper] for slaughter. But why would we even need to state [a rule for any kind of cutting] in the area [of the organ designated proper] for slaughter? You might have said [by way of argument that is it not valid to cut in this way because] you need an act of slaughter that is well-defined, and here you do not have it [in this kind of cut]. It makes the point [that such a cut is valid].
II.6
A. [A mnemonic is given.] R. Abba sat behind R. Kahana. And R. Kahana sat in front of R. Judah. He sat and said, “If he slaughtered [in the proper zone] through one third [of the organ], and he slanted up through one third, and he slaughtered [in the proper zone] through one third, what is the rule?” He said to him, “The act of slaughter is valid.” “If he slanted up through one third [of the organ], and then slaughtered [in the proper location] through one third, and then slanted up through one third, what is the rule?” He said to him, “His act of slaughter is invalid.” “If he slaughtered at a place [in the organ] where there already was a hole, what is the rule?” He said to him, “His act of slaughter is valid.” “If he slaughtered [normally] and came to a place where there was a hole [in the organ], what is the rule?” He said to him, “His act of slaughter is invalid.”
B. R. Abba went and stated these [last two] rules before R. Eleazar. And R. Eleazar stated these rules before R. Yohanan. He said to him, “What is the difference [between the last two cases]?” He said to him, “If he slaughtered at a place [in the organ] where there already was a hole, it is as if an idolater began to slaughter and an Israelite finished. If he slaughtered and came to a place where there was a hole [in the organ] it is as if an Israelite began to slaughter and an idolater finished.”
C. He [Yohanan] cried out, “Idolater, idolater. [What does this case have to do with that case?]” Said Raba, “For good cause did he cry out about him, `Idolater, idolater.' Because it makes sense to say there [in the case of an Israelite who slaughtered first and idolater who slaughtered second, that] since the Israelite should have slaughtered the majority of the organ and he did not, when the animal died, it died through the act of the idolater. But here [where there was a hole in the organ] he slaughtered what he could. What difference does it make [he asked rhetorically] if he slaughtered at the place there already was a hole or if he came to a place there was a hole [in the organ]?”
1:4
A. He who slaughters [an animal by cutting] at the sides [of the throat] —
B. his act of slaughter is valid.
C. He who wrings off [the neck of a bird with his fingernail for sacrificial purposes, M. Zeb. 6:4] at the sides [of the throat] —
D. his act of wringing the neck is invalid.
E. He who slaughters [by cutting] at the back [of the neck] —
F. his act of slaughter is invalid.
G. He who wrings the neck [of a bird] at the back [of the neck] —
H. His act of wringing the neck is valid [Lev. 5:8].
I. He who slaughters [by cutting] at [the front of] the throat — his act of slaughter is valid.
J. He who wrings the neck at [the front of] the throat —
K. his act of wringing the neck is invalid.
L. For the whole back of the neck is valid for wringing the neck, and the whole [region about] the throat is valid for slaughtering.
M. It turns out that what is valid for slaughtering is invalid for wringing the neck, what is valid for wringing the neck is invalid for slaughtering.
I.1
A. What does the “back [of the neck]” mean? If we say it means literally at the back [of the neck], why specify that he who slaughters [renders it invalid]? Even he who wrings [it there should render it invalid]. “[He shall wring its head] from its neck (i.e., near the back of its neck)” (Lev. 5:8), said the Torah, and not at its neck.
B. Rather what then does the “back [of the neck]” mean? It means near the back of the neck. As it was taught in the latter part of the Mishnah, For the whole back of the neck is valid for wringing the neck (L).
C. What is the source of these assertions? As our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority, “At the nape [or: From its neck]” (Lev. 5:8) [implies] the area opposite that faces the back of the neck. And likewise it says, “And they are dwelling opposite me” (Num. 22:5). And it says, “For they have turned their back to me, and not their face” (Jer. 2:27).
D. Why add “and it says” [i.e., a second prooftext]? If you say that we do not know where is the neck itself, so how can we know where is the back of the neck? Come and take note [the second text], “For they have turned their back to me, and not their face” (Jer. 2:27). The back of the neck is opposite the face.
II.1
A. Said the children of R. Hiyya, “This is the way to fulfill the commandment of wringing the neck. You pull the organs [of the throat] around behind the neck and you wring them.”
B. One version [of this text] has, “Even if you pull them around.” Another version has, “You must pull them around.” And it makes more sense according to the version, “Even if you pull them around.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.