VIII.3
A. Come and take note: If he slaughtered half of the gullet and he paused [29a] for long enough to have completed another act of slaughter, and then he completed his act of slaughter — it is valid.
B. Now if you say, “Halfway is deemed a majority” he already rendered the animal terefah [by pausing in between the slaughter of the two organs. The cut in the first organ is deemed a defect in the major portion of the organ. Hence it must be that cutting halfway is not deemed a majority.]
C. Does it make sense to reason [that this refers to a case of one who slaughters] a beast? No, [it refers to one who slaughters] a bird. Any way you wish [to look at the matter it will turn out that the act of slaughter is valid]. If halfway is deemed a majority then lo, he performed [an act of slaughter] on the major portion [of the organ]. And if halfway is not deemed a majority then he has performed nothing of consequence [in cutting into one organ of the bird].
VIII.4
A. Come and take note: If half of the gullet was defective and he added any amount [by cutting into it past the midpoint of the organ] and completed it — it is valid.
B. Now if you say halfway is deemed a majority — it should be terefah [since the organ then is deemed defective in its major part]! Said Raba, “The rule is different for determining [the amount of defect in an organ necessary to render it] terefah. You must have an obvious majority.”
C. Said to him Abayye, “Is this not certainly logical? Regarding terefah [in some cases] any amount is enough to render it terefah. Where [the rule is] that you must have a major portion [defective in the organ to render it terefah] you must have an obvious majority. With regard to slaughtering that [in all cases] is not deemed fit until there is a majority [of the organ cut] most certainly you must have cut an obvious majority.”
D. But according to everyone halfway is not deemed a majority. And what was stated by Rab and R. Kahana [VIII.1 A, above] was stated concerning Passover: Behold if in Israel half the people was clean and half was unclean — Rab said, “Half is deemed a majority.” R. Kahana said, “Half is not deemed a majority.”
E. And here what is the basis for the view of Rab? As it is written, “[Say to the people of Israel], If any man of you or of your descendants is unclean through touching a dead body, [or is afar off on a journey, he shall still keep the Passover to the Lord] (Num. 9:10). An individual person postpones [celebrating Passover until he is clean] but an entire community does not postpone [celebrating if they are unclean].
IX.1
A. [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 [M. 2:1 E]. It was already taught on Tannaite authority one time [in M. 2:1 C], And the greater part of one [of the organs] is equivalent to [the whole of] it. [Why repeat it?]
B. [A mnemonic is given.] Said R. Hoshaya, “One refers to unconsecrated animals and one to consecrated animals. And it is necessary to state both. For if we had been instructed about unconsecrated animals [I might have argued that] there cutting a majority of the organ suffices because he does not need to remove the blood [for the sacrificial ritual]. But for a consecrated animal he does need to remove the blood. It makes sense to say that cutting a majority of the organ does not suffice. He must cut the whole thing.
C. “And if we had been instructed about consecrated animals [I might have argued that there cutting the entire organ is necessary] because he needs to remove the blood [for the ritual]. But for an unconsecrated animal he does not need to remove the blood. It makes sense then to say that cutting a half of the organ should suffice. It informs us [by teaching the matter twice that the rule holds for both categories of animals].”
D. Which one [of the two references in M.] applies to unconsecrated animals and which one applies to consecrated animals? Said R. Kahana, “It makes sense to say that the first text refers to unconsecrated animals and the last text refers to consecrated animals.”
E. Why draw this conclusion? Because it teaches, he who slaughters [M. 2:1 A]. And if you think to conclude that the first text refers to consecrated animals, it should say, he who wrings. What then? The last text must refer to consecrated animals. [Why then does it say], his act of slaughter is valid? It should say, his act of wringing is valid. This is not a problem? Because it just left off from making reference to beasts [in the text], it taught further [using the same language], his act of slaughter is valid.
F. What then [proves that] the first text [refers to unconsecrated animals]? It specifically refers to birds. If you thought to conclude that it refers to consecrated animals it should say, he who wrings. [Accordingly it must refer to unconsecrated animals.]
G. R. Shimi bar Ashi says, “The first text refers to unconsecrated animals, derived from this which it taught, [He who cuts through] half of one [organ] in the case of fowl [M. 2:1 D]. And if you think to conclude that it refers to unconsecrated animals, lo we have the case of the burnt-offering of the bird that requires that you slaughter both organs. What then? It must be the last text that refers to consecrated animals [in E], [He who cuts through] the greater part of one [organ] in the case of fowl. [Still you can say] lo we have the case of the burnt-offering of the bird that requires that you slaughter both organs [so it cannot refer here to consecrated animals.]
H. “But what then? The last text must refer to consecrated animals. [But what do we do with the text], [He who cuts through] the greater part of one [organ] in the case of fowl? [Still you can say] lo we have the case of the burnt-offering of the bird that requires that you slaughter both organs [so it cannot refer here to consecrated animals.] [You can respond that] what does the greater part of one [organ] in the case of fowl mean? [It means] the greater part of each one.”
I. And it is logical to say that it should have taught then, the greater part of two. [It did not] because we have the case of the sin-offering where it suffices to slaughter one organ. On account of this [the Tanna] did not specify [more clearly].
J. R. Pappa said, “The first text refers to unconsecrated animals based on this that 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].'” And the rabbis disputed his view.
K. If you say it is consistent [that the text refers to] unconsecrated animals, it makes perfect sense. But if you say it refers to consecrated animals why do the rabbis dispute his view? The whole point [of slaughtering a consecrated animal] is because he needs the blood [for the ritual].
L. R. Ashi said, “The last text refers to consecrated animals based on this that was taught: He who slaughters [cuts through] two heads [of cattle] simultaneously — his act of slaughter is valid [M. 2:2 A]. He who slaughters [implies that] after the fact, yes [we deem it effective]. But to begin with, no [we do not permit this].”
M. If you say it is consistent that this refers to consecrated animals and that to begin with, no, [we do not permit this], that is based on what was taught by R. Joseph, “[Scripture says], `[When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord], you shall offer it [so that you may be accepted'] (Lev. 19:5). [The form of the verb indicates action in the singular implying] two people should not slaughter one sacrifice. `You shall offer it' [implies further] one person should not slaughter two sacrifices.”
N. Said R. Kahana, “[You can draw this inference because] the orthography of the Hebrew word `You shall slaughter it' is tzbhw [the singular form of the verb].”
O. But if you say that this [last text] refers to unconsecrated animals, then even to begin with I would also [say we permit it].
P. And even R. Simeon b. Laqish reasons that the first text refers to unconsecrated animals and the last text refers to consecrated animals. For said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “After we repeated [in M.] the rule that the major portion of one organ is equivalent to the whole, why then did we repeat [the rules for slaughter], [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]? It is because we repeated [the following rule in b. Yoma 31b]: `When they bring him [i.e., the High Priest] the daily-offering, he cuts it and another priest completes [cf. Tosafot, ad. loc.] the slaughter.' You might have concluded that if he did not complete [the slaughter] that it would be invalid. Therefore the rule was repeated, [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].”
Q. Said the master, “You might have concluded that if he did not complete [the cutting] that it would be invalid. [29b] [If another priest completes it] if so it would be in the category of service performed by another [priest] and it was taught on Tannaite authority, `All of the service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if performed by him [the High Priest]' [b. Yoma 32a].”
R. This is how you should state matters: You might conclude that [if another priest did not cut it through the rest of the way] it should be invalid on the authority of the rabbis. Because it would have made sense to say that there is a rule to invalidate it on the authority of the rabbis. Therefore we repeated the rule, [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].
S. And finally, if there is not even a reason to invalidate [if a priest did not finish cutting] based on the authority of the rabbis, why then complete the cutting? It is [an additional active fulfillment of the] commandment to complete [the cutting].
X.1
A. Said R. Simeon b. Laqish in the name of Levi the Elder, “We do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act].” And R. Yohanan said, “We call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish.”
B. Said Raba, “All agree where an idolater slaughtered one organ and an Israelite slaughtered the other organ, that it is invalid. For behold an act rendering it terefah was done at the hand of an idolater.
C. “And [both parties agree] with regard to the burnt-offering of a bird also where he wrung one organ below [the red line of the altar] and one organ above, that it is invalid, because he has already performed [upon the bird the ritual of] the service of the sin-offering of a bird below [the red line].
D. “They disputed only in a case where he slaughtered one organ outside [the Temple] and one organ inside.”
E. According to the authority [R. Simeon b. Laqish in the name of Levi the Elder] who holds the view, “We do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act]” he is liable [for slaughtering outside the Temple].
F. And according to [R. Yohanan] the authority who holds the view, “We call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish,” he is not liable.
G. Said to him Rabbah bar Shimi, “Our master did not say this. And who is [the master]? R. Joseph.
H. “Where he slaughtered one organ outside [the Temple] and the other organ inside, this too would render it invalid. For behold he performed [the equivalent of] the service of the sin-offering of a bird outside.”
I. They disputed only in a case where he slaughtered a small part of the organ outside and finished inside.
J. According to the authority [R. Yohanan] who holds the view, “We call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish,” he is liable [for slaughtering outside the Temple].
K. And according to the authority [R. Simeon b. Laqish in the name of Levi the Elder] who holds the view, “We do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act],” he is not liable.
X.2
A. R. Zira posed a question: All those who are engaged in the work of the cow from the beginning to the end [of the process]: (1) render clothing [or other utensils which they touch] unclean, and (2) render it [the rite] unfit through [other] work. If an invalidity happened to it in its slaughter, it does not render clothing unclean. If it happened to it in its sprinkling, all who participate in the work involving it before its unfitness — it renders clothing unclean. And [those who do so] after its unfitness — it does not render clothing unclean [M. Parah 4:4]. And if you say, “We call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish,” we should make a distinction within the process of slaughtering itself. [We should say], if an invalidity happened to it in its slaughter, [all those who participate in the work involving it] before its unfitness — it renders clothing unclean. And [those who do so] after its unfitness — it does not render clothing unclean.
B. Said Raba, “You are speaking of an act of slaughter that was botched. That case is different. For it is clarified retroactively [after it was botched] that this was not at all an act of slaughter.”
C. Said Raba, “If I have a problem, this is it. According to the authority who holds the view, `We do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act],' we should make a distinction within the process of the preparation of the cow in an instance where it was slaughtered by two people. The first person would not become unclean [because there is no act of slaughter yet] and the last person would become unclean [because he completes an act of slaughter].”
D. Said R. Joseph, “Are you saying that two persons may perform one act of slaughter? Get out of here!” For it was taught: “[Scripture says], `[When you offer a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord,] you shall offer it [so that you may be accepted'] (Lev. 19:5). [The form of the verb indicates action in the singular implying] two people should not slaughter one sacrifice. `You shall offer it' [implies further] one person should not slaughter two sacrifices.” Said R. Kahana, “[You can draw this inference because] the orthography of the Hebrew word `You shall slaughter it' is tzbhw [the singular form of the verb]” [above: IX.1 M-N].
E. Said to him Abayye, “Is it not stated concerning this, said Rabbah bar bar Hannah said R. Yohanan, `These are the words of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon [30a] cited anonymously?' But sages say, `Two persons may slaughter one sacrifice.'”
No comments:
Post a Comment