Talmud Bavli Hullin 20a-b - translation by Tzvee

Here it is on Friday in advance...

C.            Why is that? Because it was taught, He who slaughters [by cutting] at the back [of the neck] — his act of slaughter is invalid. He who wrings the neck [of a bird] at the back [of the neck] — his act of wringing the neck is valid (Lev. 5:8) [M. Hul. 1:4 E-H]. [20a] And if you had concluded that it should mean, “You must pull them around” why specify that he who wrings [that it is valid]? Even he who slaughters [from the back of the neck should be valid if he must pull the organs around]. Rather we may derive [the conclusion that the correct version is], “Even if you pull them around.” And our Mishnah deals with a case where he did not pull them around [behind the neck].

D.            Said R. Yannai, “May the youngsters accept their answer.” For it was taught [further in the Mishnah], 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 [M. Hul. 1:4 M]. What does this exclude? Does it not exclude the case of he who pulled [the organs around behind the neck, that such is not [a case of valid slaughtering]?

E.            Said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, “No. It excludes the case of [one who slaughters with a] tooth or fingernail.” But [the exclusions of] a tooth and a fingernail [as valid objects for slaughtering] are specified explicitly, [And with anything do they slaughter, except for (1) a scythe, and (2) a saw, and (3) teeth, and (4) a fingernail, because they [do not cut but tear the windpipe and] choke [the animal] [M. Hul. 1:2 E-G].]

F.             But said R. Jeremiah, “It excludes one who draws back and forth [across the organs in wringing the neck because this is considered slaughtering rather than wringing].”

G.            This makes sense according to the authority who holds the view that drawing back and forth in wringing the neck is invalid. But according to the authority who holds the view that [drawing back and forth in wringing the neck] is valid, what can you say? [The case in F should not be excluded.]

H.           The children of R. Hiyya hold in accord with the view that drawing back and forth in the process of wringing the neck is invalid. [Hence the exclusion at F is consistent.]

II.2

A.            Said R. Kahana, “This is the way to fulfill the commandment of wringing the neck. He cuts [the organs] by pressing down on them [with a fingernail in one motion]. And that is the way to fulfill the commandment.”

B.            R. Abin reasoned and said, “If he cuts by pressing down — yes [that is valid]. If he draws back and forth — no [that is invalid].” Said to him R. Jeremiah, “It makes more sense to conclude that if he draws back and forth in wringing the neck it is valid. So then what does it mean, `And that is the way to fulfill the commandment'? It means to say, `Even [if he just cuts by pressing down and not by drawing back and forth] that is the way to fulfill the commandment.'”

III.1

A.            Said R. Jeremiah, said Samuel, “All [of the zone of the front of the neck] that is valid for slaughtering, [the area in the back of the neck] opposite it is valid for wringing. Lo [this implies that] that [zone] that is invalid for slaughtering, is invalid for wringing.”

B.            What case does this rule exclude? If you say it excludes the case of one who tears the organs loose, but lo Rami bar Ezekiel taught, “There is no [rule to invalidate] if one tears the organs loose in [slaughtering or wringing a] fowl.”

C.            Said R. Pappa, “It excludes the case of one who [slaughters or wrings in the animal's] head.” But doing so in the head is obviously [invalid]! The Torah said, “[He shall wring its head] from its neck (i.e., near the back of its neck)” (Lev. 5:8). And [this implies] not in its head.

D.            What then does, “Its head” imply? The lower slope of the head. As [in the case where] he began [wringing by cutting with his fingernail] in the lower slope of the head and he slanted down and continued until he came out below [in the neck itself].

E.            And this is in accord with the view that R. Huna said [in the name of] R. Assi. For said R. Huna [in the name of] R. Assi, “If he slanted up [and cut outside the valid zone] through one third [of the organ] and he slaughtered [in the proper zone] through two thirds [of the organ], it is invalid.” [Cf. above M. 1:3, II.3 B.]

F.             Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi, “That which Rami bar Ezekiel taught, `There is no [rule to invalidate] if one tears the organs loose in [slaughtering or wringing a] fowl,' we can only say this [is consistent] according to the authority who holds the view that there is no [rule for] slaughtering fowl based on the authority of the Torah.

G.            [20b] “But according to the authority who holds the view that there is a [rule for] slaughtering fowl based on the authority of the Torah, there is a rule [invalidating the animal] if one tears the organs loose.”

H.           He said to him, “On the contrary. The converse makes sense. According to the authority who holds the view that there is [a rule for] slaughtering fowl based on the authority of the Torah, you could say that this is how he was taught [the rule, i.e.], that there is no [rule invalidating the animal] if one tears the organs loose. And even according to the authority who holds the view that [the rules for slaughtering fowl are the same as] those [rules for slaughtering] a beast, in respect to the matter of tearing the organs loose, [rules for slaughtering a fowl] are not the same as for a beast.”

I.              But according to the authority who holds the view that there is no [rule for] slaughtering fowl based on the Torah, but that it [rests only] on the authority of the sages, from what source do we derive [the rules for slaughtering fowl]? From [the rules for slaughtering] a beast. [So we must derive that in] the entire matter [the rules for slaughtering fowl are the same as those for] a beast [including the rule for invalidating it if he tears loose the organs].

J.              Said Rabina, said to me Rabin bar Qissi, that which Rami bar Ezekiel said, “There is no [rule to invalidate] if one tears the organs loose in a fowl,” he said this only with regard to wringing. But with regard to slaughtering he held the view that there is [a rule to invalidate] if one tears the organs loose.

K.            But lo said R. Jeremiah said Samuel, “All [of the zone of the front of the neck] that is valid for slaughtering, [the area in the back of the neck] opposite it is valid for wringing. Lo [this implies that] that [zone] that is invalid for slaughtering, is invalid for wringing.” [Cf. above III.1 A.] That indeed disputes [the view of Rabin at J].

IV.1

A.            Said Ziri, “If the neck bone was broken and along with it the majority of the flesh around it [was torn], the animal is deemed carrion.” [This calls into question the validity of the process of wringing the neck where the neck bone is broken and the flesh is torn.]

B.            Said R. Hisda, “I also taught, `If he performed wringing with a knife, [the animal is carrion and] it renders the clothing unclean of the one who swallows its flesh.'” And if you say that it [the animal in such a case] was rendered terefah [and not carrion] then [why should we not say] the act of wringing its neck serves for it as an act of slaughter? The [act of slaughter with the] knife should have the effect of removing from it the uncleanness of carrion [even when the outcome of the act is invalid].

C.            We must say there [that the animal renders the clothing unclean of the one who swallows its flesh] because the act is not at all one of [valid] slaughtering. On what basis [do you draw this conclusion]? R. Huna said, “Because [in the process of wringing with the knife] he thrusts.” Raba said, “Because [in the process] he presses.”

D.            The authority who holds the view [it is not valid] because he thrusts, on what basis does he not say [it is not valid] because he presses? He reasons that if one draws [the knife] back and forth in the process of wringing the neck, it is valid. [Accordingly he may not have pressed.]

E.            And the authority who holds the view [it is not valid] because he presses, on what basis does he not say [it is not valid] because he thrusts? He will say to you, “What is the definition of thrusting? It is [inserting the knife in the neck] like a weasel that burrows under the foundation of a house and is concealed.” Here [however the knife] is visible.

F.             Said Raba, “If I have a question [about the rule of A], this is my question. If it is dead [after he breaks through the neck bone and surrounding flesh, what good does it do to continue] to stand and wring the neck?”

G.            Said to him Abayye, “You should have a question then about the whole-burnt-offering of a fowl. That [sacrifice] must have two organs cut [to be valid]. If it is dead [after he cuts through one organ, what good does it do to continue] to stand and wring the neck [i.e., to cut the second organ]?”

H.           He said to him, “There [he continues to cut the second organ] in order to fulfill the commandment of separating [the head of the sacrifice from the body].” If so why not cut through the skin as well [to complete the separation]? [He does not have to cut through the skin because of the principle]: whatever impedes the effectiveness of the act of slaughter, impedes the effectiveness of the act of separation. And whatever does not impede the effectiveness of the act of slaughter, does not impede the effectiveness of the act of separation.

I.              But lo [you may object], a minor portion of the organ [that was not cut], according to the rabbis, does not impede the effectiveness of the act of slaughter. But it does impede the effectiveness of the act of separation. Rather it makes better sense to say [that the skin is of no consequence because the principle should be] that: anything that is relevant to the act of slaughter is relevant to the act of separation. And anything that is not relevant to the act of slaughter is not relevant to the act of separation. [The skin is not relevant. The organs are relevant.]