Bavli Hullin Chapter Two Folios 27A-42A
2:1 [27a]
A. He who slaughters [cuts] one [organ, either the windpipe or the gullet] in the case of fowl, or two [both the windpipe and the gullet] in the case of a beast — his act of slaughter is valid.
B. And the greater part of one [of the organs] is equivalent to [the whole of] it.
C. 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].”
D. [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.
E. [He who cuts through] the greater part of one [organ] in the case of fowl or the greater part of two [organs] in the case of a beast — his act of slaughter is valid.
I.1
A. He who slaughters [implies that if he already performed the act of slaughter] after the fact, yes [the act is deemed proper, but] to begin with, no [he may not perform the act].
B. [But this leads to a question.] [If he cut] two [both the windpipe and the gullet] in the case of a beast [do we say that if he did this] to begin with, no [it is not valid]? Just how much more must he slaughter?
C. One possibility [to explain the implication of the Mishnah text is that it states matters to include a case of one who slaughtered] one organ in a fowl. Another possibility [to explain the text is that it states matters to include a case of one who slaughtered] the majority of an organ [that it has the same status as slaughtering the entire organ] itself.
II.1
A. [A mnemonic is given.] Said R. Kahana, “On what basis do we know that slaughtering must be done at the neck?” As it says, “Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord; [and Aaron's sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting]” (Lev. 1:5). [This implies that] at the place it bends [its head, i.e., bows from the neck] from there you should drain the blood [to cleanse the animal; alt., he must prepare it for eating (see Rashi), in either case a play on the Hebrew word for slaughter].
B. And on what basis do we draw the conclusion that this language implies he must drain [and cleanse it]? For it is written, “Thus he shall cleanse the house [with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet stuff]” (Lev. 14:52). And another possibility is [to derive this] from here, “Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean” (Ps. 51:7).
C. And would it not make sense to say that it bends its tail [and you should slaughter it there]? [No.] We must have a place that is generally upright [and that the animal can bend] and this [tail] is constantly bent down.
D. And would it not make sense to say [that you slaughter it] at the ear [because it bends its ear or lifts it up]? [No.] We must have [a case of a cut that drains] the life blood [of the animal] and we do not have that [where he cuts at the ear].
E. And would it not make sense to say that he continue to cut from the ear until the life blood [drains from the animal]? [Accordingly, the verse cited does not provide enough specific information to serve as the source for slaughter at the neck.]
F. And further [if we rely on this verse] how would we know [the rules for] pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting and tearing? Accordingly [they must have been] taught [as an oral tradition]. The rule that slaughtering must be at the neck must also have been taught [as an oral tradition].
G. [In that case] what purpose is served by the verse? It comes [to teach us] that he may not sever [the head from the body].
II.2
A. R. Yemar said, “The verse 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 [zbt, 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 implies that you should] cut [or break, t] it at the place where [the blood] flows [zb, i.e., at the neck].” [Again this is derived from a play on the Hebrew word.]
B. Based on what can we draw the conclusion that the word ht means to break? As it is written, “[Behold, the Lord your God has set the land before you; go up, take possession, as the Lord, the God of your fathers, has told you]; do not fear or be dismayed [tt]” (Deut. 1:21). [I.e., do not be broken.]
C. And would it not make sense to say [based on this derivation that he cut it] at its nose where it flows [mucus]? [No.] We must have a flow by virtue of a cut and this [from the nose] flows by itself.
D. And would it not make sense to say [based on this derivation that he cut it] at its heart [where, if cut, the blood flows freely]? [No.]
E. And further [if we rely on this verse] how would we know [the rules for] pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting and tearing? Accordingly [they must have been] taught [as an oral tradition]. The rule that slaughtering must be at the neck must also have been taught [as an oral tradition].
F. [In that case] what purpose is served by the verse? It comes [to teach us] that he may not sever [the head from the body].
II.3
A. The House of R. Ishmael taught: “Then he shall kill...” (Lev. 1:5), do not read it “Then he shall kill [wšt]” but “Then he shall squeeze [wst].” At the place it makes its sounds [sh, i.e., the neck], there you should drain [t, or cleanse] it.
B. And would it not make sense to say [that you slaughter it] at its tongue [because it makes its sounds with that organ]? [No.] We must have [a case of a cut that drains] the life blood [of the animal] and we do not have that [where he cuts at the tongue].
C. And would it not make sense to say that he continue to cut from the tongue until the life blood [drains from the animal]? [Accordingly, the verse cited does not provide enough specific information to serve as the source for slaughter at the neck.]
D. And further [if we rely on this verse] how would we know [the rules for] pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting and tearing? Accordingly [they must have been] taught [as an oral tradition]. The rule that slaughtering must be at the neck must also have been taught [as an oral tradition].
E. [In that case] what purpose is served by the verse? It comes [to teach us] that he may not sever [the head from the body].
II.4
A. And a Tanna derives it [that slaughtering must be at the neck] from this: as it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Hiyya said, “On what basis do we know that slaughtering must be done at the neck?” As it says, “And Aaron's sons the priests shall lay the pieces, [the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar]” (Lev. 1:8). It was not necessary to tell us, “the head and the fat.” Why does it tell us, “the head and the fat?” Is it not the case that “the head and the fat” were included already in the category of “the pieces?” Why were they removed [from that general category and stated separately]? Because it said, “And he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into pieces” (Lev. 1:6). [Based on that verse I would have deduced they must lay on the altar] only those pieces that are included in the rule of flaying. How then would we know to include “the head” that was already cut off? It comes to tell us, “And he shall cut it into pieces, with its head and its fat, and the priest shall lay them in order [upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar]” (Lev. 1:12).
B. Since it says, “the head” [implying that] it was already cut off, we may derive the rule that slaughtering must be done at the neck.
C. And [why was it that] the Tanna began with [reference to the verse], “the head and the fat” and concluded with [reference to the verse], “its head and its fat”? Here is what you should say. On what basis do we know to include the head that was already cut off [in the category of pieces that are laid on the wood on the altar]? It comes to tell us, “the head and the fat.”
D. Why then [must I have a second verse specify] “its head and its fat”? We need this in accord with what was taught on Tannaite authority: On what basis do we say that the head and the fat go up on the altar before all the other pieces? It comes to tell us, “its head and its fat, and the priest shall lay them in order.”
E. [27b] And for what purpose do I need the first reference written in the Torah to “the fat”? In accord with what was taught on Tannaite authority: How does he do it [i.e., offer the fat]? He places the fat over the place it was slaughtered [i.e., he covers the cut in the neck] and he offers it up. And this is the way to offer honor on high.
II.5
A. And this Tanna derives it [that slaughtering must be at the neck] from this: as it was taught on Tannaite authority: “This is the law [lit. Torah] pertaining to beast and bird [and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms upon the earth]” (Lev. 11:46). And in what respects did the Torah equate the beast to the bird and the bird to the beast? The [carrion of a] beast renders unclean through contact and carrying. The [carrion of a] bird does not render unclean through contact and carrying. The [carrion of a bird] renders unclean the clothing of one who swallows it. The [carrion of a beast] does not render unclean the clothing of one who swallows it.
B. [So] in what respects did the Torah equate the beast to the bird and the bird to the beast? To tell you that just as a beast is [rendered clean] through slaughtering, so also a bird is [rendered clean] through slaughtering.
C. If so then [we should also extend the rules from the beast to the bird] just as there it, [the slaughtering, is effective only after he cuts] the majority of the two organs, here [it should be effective only after he cuts] the majority of the two organs. It comes to tell us, “This.” [This limits the equation of the rules for the two categories.]
D. R. Eliezer says, “In what respects did the Torah equate the beast to the bird and the bird to the beast?” To tell you that just as the bird is prepared [by slaughtering] at the neck, so too is the beast prepared [by slaughtering] at the neck.
E. If so then [we should also extend the rules from the bird to the beast] just as there [the bird may be rendered fit by wringing it] opposite its neck, so too the beast [should be rendered fit by wringing it] opposite its neck. It comes to tell us, “He shall wring its head from its neck, but shall not sever it” (Lev. 5:8). [Only] this one's head [may be wrung to render it fit] opposite its neck, but the head of no other [kind of animal may be wrung to render it fit] opposite its neck.
F. And what does R. Eliezer do with this [exclusion based on the interpretation of the word,] “This” [in C]? If not for [this exclusion based on the interpretation of the word,] “This” I would have reasoned, just as a bird [is rendered fit by the slaughter of] one organ, so also a beast [is rendered fit by the slaughter of] one organ. The Torah wrote, “This” [to tell us that this rule for a bird does not apply to a beast].
III.1
A. Taught Bar Qappara, “This is the law pertaining to beast and bird [and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms upon the earth]” (Lev. 11:46). The Torah interjected the bird [in the verse] between the beast and the fish. [Why?] [It could not be so as] to require [that one who slaughters a bird cut] two organs, because it was already juxtaposed [in the verse] to fish [that do not require any slaughtering to render them fit]. [It could not be so as] to free it from every [act of slaughter], because it was already juxtaposed [in the verse] to the beast. Lo, what then? The proper way to render [a bird] fit is by the slaughter of one organ.
III.2
A. What is the source of the assertion that fish are not subject to the requirement of slaughtering? If you say it is because it is written, “Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to suffice them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them?” (Num. 11:22), [this suggests that] gathering alone suffices for them [to render them fit for consumption].
B. But now consider regarding the quail it is written, “[And the people rose all that day, and all night, and all the next day,] and gathered the quails; [he who gathered least gathered ten omers; and they spread them out for themselves all around the camp]” (Num. 11:32), [should not] this too [suggest] that they are not subject to the requirement of slaughtering?
C. But lo we said [regarding birds], “[It could not be so as] to free it from every [act of slaughter], because it was already juxtaposed [in the verse] to the beast” [III.1 A].
D. [The difference is that] there [regarding the quail] it was not written that you need to gather it [to render it fit] rather than to slaughter it, as [you would need to do] for other [creatures]. Here [regarding the fish] it was written that you need to gather it [to render it fit] rather than to slaughter it, as [you would need to do] for other [creatures].
IV.1
A. An itinerant Galilean expounded: For a beast that was created from the earth, its preparation is [slaughtering] two organs. For a fish that was created from the water, its preparation is exempt from every [act of slaughter]. For a bird that was created from mud, its preparation is [slaughtering] one organ.
B. Said R. Samuel of Cappadocia, “You should know [that they were created from mud because] some birds have scales on their feet like fish.”
IV.2
A. And [a Roman official] asked him [i.e., Rabban Gamaliel (Rashi and cf. b. Bekh. 5a)] further: one verse says, “And God said, `Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.'” (Gen. 1:20). It seems [logical to conclude] that they were created out of the waters. And it is written, “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, [and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name]” (Gen. 2:19). It seems [logical to conclude] that they were created out of the ground.
B. He [Gamaliel] said to him, “They were created out of the mud.” He saw that his students were looking at one another [in puzzlement]. He said to them, “Is it difficult for you to understand that I deflected his question with a straw? They were [in fact] created from out of the waters [as the first verse indicates]. And why [are birds mentioned in the other verse in connection with the ground? To tell us, as the verse indicates in its conclusion], that He brought them before Adam so that he could give them names.”
C. And another version: He offered the other [second] explanation to that official. And he offered the first explanation to his students, because it is written, “God formed (Gen. 2:19)” concerning [the birds indicating that more must be deduced from this verse than just the fact that Adam named them].
V.1
A. Said R. Judah in the name of R. Yitzhak b. Phineas, “There is no requirement to slaughter a bird [to render it fit for consumption] based on the authority of the Torah.” As it says, “[Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten] shall pour out [its blood and cover it with dust] (Lev. 17:13). [This implies that] pouring [the blood] by itself suffices [to render the bird fit].
B. If so then a wild animal also [should be rendered fit by just pouring out its blood since the verse refers to a beast that is hunted]. [No. References to wild beasts are] juxtaposed [in the Torah] to unfit Holy Things [and accordingly, like them, can be rendered fit only by an act of slaughter (cf. b. ul. 28a below)].
C. Birds also have been juxtaposed to beasts [in the Torah], as it is written, “This is the law pertaining to beast and bird [and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms upon the earth]” (Lev. 11:46).
D. But lo, it is written, “[Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten] shall pour out its blood [and cover it with dust]” (Lev. 17:13). And why do you seek to apply this [rule only] to birds? You should apply it [as well] to wild beasts. It makes more sense [to apply it to birds] because [the phrase] comes right after it [i.e., the mention of birds in the verse].
V.2
A. [A mnemonic is given.] They posed the question [concerning the following teaching regarding a wild animal or a bird]: “He who slaughters and it becomes carrion through his actions, or if he stabbed it, or if he ripped out its organs, he is exempt from [the obligation] to cover the blood.” And if you say that there is no requirement to slaughter a bird based on the authority of the Torah, then ripping out its organs serves as a valid means of slaughtering and it should be necessary for him to cover the blood.
B. Does it make sense to reason that this [exemption] refers to a bird? No. It refers to a wild beast [that can only be rendered fit through slaughter. Hence if it was killed in another fashion the obligation to cover the blood does not apply.]
V.3
A. Come and take note: He who slaughters and needs to use the blood, he is obligated to cover it. What must he do [to kill it in order to use the blood]? Either he stabs it or he rips out its organs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.