The Eddie B. Sitt edition of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Chullin, has been dedicated by Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack's engagement to Shirley Sutton. May they be married at an auspicious time, and may the merit of the Torah study we undertake for the next several months in Masechet Chullin bring them much joy, peace in their home, prosperity, and all blessings. Amen. Today's page, Daf Yud-Chet, has been studied for the elevation of the souls of Avraham ben Esther and Rabbi Moshe ben Nun. May the spirit of God grant them rest in Gan Eden. Amen. This page is also studied for the success of Yaakov ben Yosef.
We begin today's discussion on Yud-Zayin Amud Bet, in the middle of the page. The initial part of the page addresses the law of inspecting the knife before slaughter to ensure it has no notches. In the West, meaning in the land of Israel, they would check the knife in the sun. What does it mean to check it in the sun? As Rashi explains, they would place it in the sun and observe its edge. Others say, quoting Shmuel bar Nachmani, that one would place the knife in the sun with its edge facing upwards and observe its shadow. If there was a notch, it would be discernible in the shadow where light would penetrate the imperfection. In Nahardea, they would check the knife in water. How so? Rashi explains that they would turn its edge downwards and draw it lightly across the surface of the water. If there was a notch or a barb, it would create a furrow in the water as it moved, indicating the knife was not perfectly straight. Another method involved holding the knife with its edge upwards, slanting it downwards, and dripping water onto its edge with a finger. If there was a notch, the water would get caught there, making it visible, otherwise it would flow smoothly down to the tip. So, there were two ways to check it in water.
Rav Sheshet would check the knife with his tongue, running it across the blade. Rav Acha bar Yaakov would check it by cutting a hair. In Sura, they would say, "It cuts meat, so it should be checked with meat." The underlying principle is that since the animal being slaughtered is meat, the best way to check if the knife is fit is by testing it on meat. Rashi elaborates: "It comes to cut meat," referring to the animal's internal signs, which are like flesh. Therefore, its inspection should be done with an item of similar consistency. This could be one's tongue, as one rabbi did, or the flesh of one's finger. If this flesh encounters a notch, then it can be assumed that the flesh of the animal's signs will also be affected. However, checking it on something else is not a valid inspection. Why? Because a hard item might pass over a small notch without catching it, or a very soft item might enter a small notch too deeply, even if that notch would not affect the animal's signs. Thus, one seeks the most consistent item, most similar to the animal's signs, for the best test. So again, "it cuts meat, therefore it should be checked with meat."
Rav Papa said that the knife requires inspection on two things: on flesh and on a nail. One must run it over the flesh and the nail itself. Rashi clarifies that "flesh" refers to the flesh of the finger, and "nail" refers to the fingernail. Some say this inspection should be done on three sides: the middle of the sharp edge and its two sides. The Gemara assumes that during slaughter, the sides of the knife, not just the sharp blade, might also come into contact, so they too must be checked.
Ravina asked Rav Ashi, "Did Rav Sama bar Mesharshiya say in your name, quoting Rava, that the knife requires inspection on flesh, on a nail, and on three sides?" Rav Ashi replied, "No, I only said on flesh and on a nail. I did not say on three sides." Another version states that Rav Ashi did say on flesh, on a nail, and on three sides, but he did not say it in the name of Rava, clarifying the attribution. Ravina and Rav Acha bar Rava were sitting before Rav Ashi. They brought a knife before Rav Ashi for inspection. He told Rav Acha bar Rava to check it. Rav Acha bar Rava checked it on the nail, on the flesh of the thumb, and on three sides. Rav Ashi said to him, "Well done," indicating that his method of inspection was correct. Rav Kahana also stated that the knife must be checked in this manner. However, Rav Yeimar said that it is necessary to check it on flesh and on a nail, but not on all three sides.
The Gemara then asks: Did not Rabbi Zeira say in the name of Shmuel that if one heated a knife until it was very hot and then performed slaughter with it, the slaughter is valid? This raised a question: Does the sharpness of the blade perform the slaughter, or does the burning heat? If the heat performs the slaughter, it is invalid. The Gemara answered that the sharpness of the knife precedes the heat, meaning the cut is made by the blade before the heat affects the signs. We then asked about the sides of the knife, which are hot and might touch the signs before the slaughter is complete. We answered that the area of slaughter widens a little during the act, so the sides will not touch the signs themselves; only the blade will. Similarly here, the area of slaughter widens a little, so only the blade touches the signs. Therefore, one does not need to check the sides of the knife.
Rav Huna bar Daftina said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that there are three types of notches in Jewish law. First, a notch in a bone of the Paschal lamb, where it is forbidden to break a bone of the Paschal lamb, and even a mere notch is considered a blemish that renders it forbidden. Second, a notch in the ear of a firstborn animal. A firstborn animal is given to a priest, who offers part as a sacrifice and eats the rest in Jerusalem in a state of ritual purity. If the animal develops a blemish, it becomes a "baal mum," allowing the priest to eat it outside Jerusalem. A notch on the ear is one such blemish. Third, a notch in consecrated female animals, such as a sin offering or peace offering, which can be female. Here, a notch in the womb of the animal also renders it invalid. This is a specific blemish for female animals, as males do not have a womb. These are the three types of notches in consecrated items.
Rav Chisda added a fourth: a notch on a knife. The Gemara asks why Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish did not include the knife's notch. The answer is that he was discussing blemishes related to consecrated items, not ordinary matters. He agreed that a knife's notch is a blemish, but it falls under the category of non-consecrated items. All three types of blemishes mentioned by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish share the same measure for what constitutes a notch. The Gemara will explain this measure. These include a bone notch in the Paschal lamb, which transgresses the prohibition "you shall not break a bone in it"; an ear notch in a firstborn animal, which makes it a blemish allowing it to be slaughtered outside Jerusalem, as taught in a Mishnah that if its ear cartilage is notched, it is blemished; and other similar blemishes. The ear was chosen as an example because it was the first listed in the tractate Bechorot. The third is a blemish in consecrated female animals, such as a sin offering or peace offering, where a notch in the womb, though not always obvious, is also a blemish. The measure for these blemishes is where a fingernail catches when run across it, as we learned on yesterday's page.
The Gemara asks why the firstborn animal was listed separately from other consecrated animals, as a firstborn is also a consecrated animal. The answer is that if it had simply said "consecrated animals," one might have thought that such a blemish only invalidates it from being offered as a sacrifice, but not from being considered a complete blemish that allows it to be slaughtered outside Jerusalem. Many blemishes disqualify an animal from sacrifice, but not all allow a firstborn to be slaughtered outside Jerusalem. For example, some blemishes prevent slaughter both in the Temple and outside. Therefore, it was necessary to specify the ear notch in a firstborn, as mentioned in Bechorot, to clarify that it is a complete blemish allowing slaughter outside Jerusalem. The measure for all these blemishes is the measure of a blemish on the altar stones. What is the measure of a blemish on the altar? The Gemara answers: enough for a fingernail to catch in it. This means that when one runs a fingernail across it, it gets caught. The stones of the altar had to be perfectly smooth. If a fingernail caught, it was considered a blemish. The Gemara challenges this: A Mishnah teaches that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says the measure of a blemish on the altar is a handbreadth (about three inches), and Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says it is the size of an olive, both much larger than a fingernail's catch. The Gemara reconciles this: There is no contradiction; one refers to the plaster coating, and the other to the stones themselves. The stones had to be perfect, as the Torah says "whole stones." Any blemish, however small, on the stone itself, would invalidate it. But for the plaster, a larger blemish, up to a handbreadth or an olive's size, would be permitted. Thus, even a small nick on the stone itself is a blemish.
Rav Huna said: Any butcher who does not show his knife to a sage before slaughtering is excommunicated. This excommunication means he is treated like a mourner: he cannot cut his hair, shave, or wash his clothes, is not counted in a prayer quorum, and people may not approach within four cubits of him. Rava went further, saying he is fired from his position, and an announcement is made that his meat is invalid. Rashi clarifies that "fired" means he is prevented from selling meat again. The Gemara states there is no dispute between them. One case is where the knife is later found to be good, and the other is where it is found to be defective. If the knife is found to be good, he is merely excommunicated for his audacity and disrespect towards the sage, as one is excommunicated for disrespecting a rabbi. This excommunication typically lasts thirty days. If the knife is found to be defective, then he is fired, and his meat is declared invalid.
Ravina offered a different interpretation. He said that if the knife is found to be defective, they smear the animal with excrement, meaning it cannot even be sold to a non-Jew. This is a more stringent approach than merely declaring the meat invalid for Jews but allowing sale to non-Jews. And if the knife is found to be good, they still announce that his meat is invalid, as a penalty, but it may still be sold to non-Jews. So, Ravina is more stringent in both scenarios.
There was a butcher who did not show his knife to Rabba bar Chinena. Rabba bar Chinena excommunicated him, fired him, and announced that his meat was invalid. This aligns with Ravina's stringent view, even if the knife was good. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi came to Rabba bar Chinena and asked him to reconsider the butcher's case, as he had many children dependent on him. Rav Ashi checked the knife and found it to be good. He then reinstated the butcher. Mar Zutra asked Rav Ashi, "Should you not be concerned about the elder Rabba bar Chinena, who clearly deemed the slaughter invalid?" Rav Ashi replied, "I am merely fulfilling his emissary role," meaning Rabba bar Chinena had asked them to look for a way to be lenient. Another interpretation is that Rabba bar Chinena excommunicated and fired him because he believed that even if the knife was found to be good, a butcher who fails to show his knife should be fired. This is a stringent reading of Rabba's opinion, similar to Ravina's. However, the other rabbis understood Rabba's ruling leniently, that if the knife was good, he would only be excommunicated for disrespect, not fired. When Rav Ashi found the knife to be good, he took the lenient interpretation, reinstating the butcher. When asked why he went against the elder Rabba bar Chinena, who had already excommunicated and fired the butcher, Rav Ashi replied that he was fulfilling Rabba bar Chinena's request to find a merit for the butcher, and now that they had found one, they did not need to consult the rabbi again.
Rabbah bar Huna said that it is permissible to slaughter with a detached tooth or a detached nail from the outset. A detached tooth means a jawbone that has been removed from a person or an animal. The Mishnah, however, states that one may not slaughter with a reaping sickle, a saw, teeth, or a nail, because they strangle the animal rather than making a proper cut. How can Rabbah bar Huna say it is permissible? The Gemara reconciles the contradiction regarding teeth: There is no contradiction between one tooth and two teeth. Rabbah bar Huna refers to one tooth, while the Mishnah refers to two teeth. When there are two teeth, there is a ridge between them that would catch and tear the animal's signs. With a single tooth, even if it lacks width, it is valid if moved back and forth. Regarding nails, there is no contradiction: Rabbah bar Huna refers to a detached nail, while the Mishnah refers to an attached nail. The Mishnah follows the opinion of Rabbi, who held that one cannot slaughter with something still attached to a living being. Thus, Rabbah bar Huna's ruling applies when the nail is detached from the animal.
The next Mishnah discusses slaughtering with a reaping sickle. A reaping sickle has ridges, with the points facing towards the handle. If one slaughters by moving it in one direction, away from the slaughterer, it would be fine, as it goes with the blade and would not catch. The problem arises when moving it back, as it would catch. The Mishnah states that if one slaughters with a reaping sickle by moving it in one direction, Beit Shammai invalidates the slaughter, while Beit Hillel validates it. If the teeth of the sickle are smoothed out, it becomes like a regular knife. What is the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel? Rashi explains that Beit Hillel believes that when moving the sickle in one direction, it does not tear because its points are bent downwards. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that even when Beit Hillel validated the slaughter, they only meant that it would not incur the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, but eating the meat would still be prohibited. This is a rabbinic decree, fearing that one might also move the sickle back and forth, which would invalidate the slaughter. Rav Ashi said that the Mishnah's language supports this interpretation. It uses the terms "invalidates" and "validates" rather than "prohibits" and "permits." The terms "prohibits" and "permits" typically refer to the meat itself. The use of "invalidates" and "validates" suggests a discussion about the validity of the slaughter itself, not necessarily the permissibility of eating the meat. However, the Gemara challenges this, asking why the Mishnah does not simply say "renders impure" and "renders pure" if it is only about ritual impurity. The Gemara concludes that "invalidates" and "validates" are equivalent to "prohibits" and "permits." Therefore, Beit Shammai considers the slaughter invalid and the animal an unslaughtered carcass, while Beit Hillel considers the slaughter valid, even for eating, without any qualification.
We now turn to the actual act of slaughter, which involves cutting the trachea (windpipe) and the esophagus. Our discussion today focuses on the trachea. The trachea is a hollow pipe, encircled along its length by rings of cartilage. These rings are horseshoe-shaped, covering most of the circumference from the front and sides, but not completely encircling the trachea. The back is covered by a fleshy membrane. The esophagus sits snugly behind the trachea. Near the animal's head, there is a larger ring called the taba'at hagedolah, which completely encircles the trachea and is thicker at the back. The other rings do not completely encircle the trachea. The kova (thyroid cartilage) is located above the taba'at hagedolah. One of the laws transmitted to Moses at Sinai is the prohibition of "hagrama," which means tilting the knife upwards during slaughter, causing the cut to extend beyond the designated area of valid slaughter. Even if the slaughter began in a valid area, if the knife tilts upwards and finishes outside the zone, it is invalid. The Mishnah will discuss the measure of this "hagrama."
The Mishnah states: If one slaughters within the taba'at hagedolah, which is the uppermost ring, and leaves a thread's breadth (meaning a minimal amount) of it towards the head, having cut through its entire width, the slaughter is valid. This implies that if the knife had tilted upwards and exited the taba'at hagedolah before completing the cut, it would be invalid due to "hagrama," even if the majority of the trachea was cut in the valid area. This is a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai. Rashi clarifies that "a thread's breadth" means any minimal amount, and the slaughter is valid if the knife made a straight cut without tilting. If the knife tilted towards the head and exited the taba'at hagedolah, completing the cut above it, this is "hagrama" and is invalid, even if most of the trachea was cut in the valid area. Rashi notes that although it is a law from Sinai, the Rabbis declared it invalid. This apparent contradiction (a biblical law being rabbinically invalidated) needs further analysis, but the main point is the invalidity of "hagrama."
Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda says that if one leaves a thread's breadth of the taba'at hagedolah towards the head, having cut through most of it, the slaughter is valid. This means that if the majority of the trachea was cut within the taba'at hagedolah, even if the knife then tilted upwards, the slaughter is valid. The remaining cut is considered like cutting ordinary meat. This implies that Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda does not consider such a "hagrama" to be invalid, as long as the majority of the sign was cut. The first Tanna, however, does not apply the principle of "rov k'kulo" (the majority is like the whole) in this case; even if most was cut correctly, the upward tilt invalidates it. Rav and Shmuel both rule according to Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda. However, they clarify that Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda only applied his ruling to the taba'at hagedolah because it completely encircles the trachea. When one cuts through its cartilage, one cuts through the entire trachea. But for the other rings, which do not completely encircle the trachea, the slaughter is invalid if cut through the cartilage itself. This is because these rings are not considered part of the trachea itself, and slaughter must be done specifically in the trachea. Therefore, according to Rav and Shmuel, the only place on cartilage that is valid for slaughter is the taba'at hagedolah. In the lower areas, one must slaughter in between the cartilages, directly on the trachea itself.
The Gemara questions this: Did not a Baraita state in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda that if one slaughters in the other rings, even though they do not completely encircle the trachea, the slaughter is valid because they encircle most of it? This contradicts Rav and Shmuel's interpretation of Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara also asks about "mugremet," referring to a slaughter where the knife was tilted, which was stated to be invalid. Then Rabbi Chananya ben Antignos testified that "mugremet" is valid. He holds that even the lower half of the kova and below is valid for slaughter, meaning a larger area is permitted, and "hagrama" would only apply if one went above the kova. This adds another layer of dispute. Rav Yosef reconciles the statements about Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda: Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda made two rulings. First, that if one cut through the majority of the taba'at hagedolah, even if the knife then tilted upwards, it is valid because of "rov k'kulo." Second, that if one slaughters through the other rings, it is also valid because they encircle most of the trachea. Rav and Shmuel agree with him on the first point (regarding the taba'at hagedolah) but disagree on the second (regarding the other rings). The Gemara challenges this, stating that Rav and Shmuel explicitly said their ruling in the name of Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda, implying they fully adopted his view. The Gemara clarifies that when Rav and Shmuel said, "And even Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda did not say it except for the taba'at hagedolah," it means that while Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Yehuda indeed made both statements, they only accept his ruling regarding the taba'at hagedolah, not his ruling regarding the other rings. Thus, according to Rav and Shmuel, slaughtering on the lower rings' cartilage is invalid; one must cut in between the rings to get the full trachea.
When Rabbi Zeira ascended to the land of Israel, he ate meat from an animal that was slaughtered in a "mugremet" fashion according to Rav and Shmuel. Here, "mugremet" refers to slaughtering on the lower rings, which Rav and Shmuel deemed invalid. The Rabbis of the land of Israel asked him, "Do you not come from the place of Rav and Shmuel, who would invalidate such slaughter?" Rabbi Zeira replied, "Who said this?" He implied that the person who transmitted this teaching from Rav and Shmuel, Yosef bar Chiya, was not trustworthy and would quote from various sources without precision. When Rav Yosef heard this, he became upset. He protested, "Do I just take my statements from anywhere? I received this tradition from Rav Yehuda, who heard it in the name of Rav and Shmuel." He emphasized Rav Yehuda's precision, noting that Rav Yehuda would even state when he was unsure whether a teaching came from Rav or Shmuel, demonstrating his meticulousness. For example, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Abba, "Perhaps in the name of Rav, perhaps in the name of Shmuel: Three laymen may permit a firstborn animal with a blemish in a place where there is no expert." This shows Rav Yehuda's careful approach to attribution. So, Rav Yosef was offended that Rabbi Zeira questioned his reliability.
The Gemara then addresses why Rabbi Zeira ate the meat, even if the statement from Rav and Shmuel was legitimate. It asks: Does not Rabbi Zeira subscribe to the rule that one must adopt the stringencies of both the place one came from and the place one went to? Since he came from Babylonia, where this type of slaughter was considered invalid by Rav and Shmuel, he should have maintained that stringency. Abaye answered that this rule applies only when moving between cities within Babylonia, or between cities within the land of Israel, or from the land of Israel to Babylonia. However, when moving from Babylonia to the land of Israel, since the people of Babylonia are subservient to the Rabbis of the land of Israel, one adopts the local customs and is not bound by the stringencies of Babylonia. Another explanation is that this rule only applies if one intends to return to their original place. However, Rabbi Zeira intended to settle permanently in the land of Israel, thus detaching himself from his original custom.
Abaye then asked Rav Yosef: "But the Rabbis who came from Mechuza, a city in Babylonia, said that Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Nachman that 'mugremet' is valid." This implies that even in Babylonia, there was a lenient opinion regarding slaughtering on the lower rings. This contradicts the assumption that Babylonia was uniformly stringent. Rav Yosef replied with the famous saying, "Every river has its own course," meaning that within Babylonia, different communities or regions had different customs. So, while Mechuza might have been lenient on "hagrama," other regions were stringent. Each place followed its own custom. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.