חולין דף יח

וכמה פגימת המזבח? כדי שתחגור בה צפורן.

And how much is the deficiency that renders the altar unfit? It is a deficiency that is sufficient for a fingernail to be impeded on it.

מיתיבי: כמה פגימת המזבח? רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר: טפח, רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר: כזית. לא קשיא: הא בסידא, הא באבנא.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How much is the deficiency that renders the altar unfit? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One handbreadth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One olive-bulk. The Gemara answers: This apparent contradiction is not difficult. This measure of one handbreadth or one olive-bulk is referring to a deficiency in the limestone coating of the altar; that smaller measure of a fingernail being caught is referring to a deficiency in the stone of the altar.

אמר רב הונא: האי טבחא דלא סר סכינא קמי חכם – משמתינן ליה, ורבא אמר: מעברינן ליה, ומכרזינן אבשריה דטרפה היא.

§ Apropos the obligation to show the knife to a Torah scholar, Rav Huna says: This slaughterer who did not present [sar] the knife before a Torah scholar, we ostracize him. And Rava says: We remove him from his position and we proclaim about meat from an animal that he slaughtered that it is tereifa.

ולא פליגי, כאן – בשנמצאת סכינו יפה, כאן – בשלא נמצאת סכינו יפה. רבינא אמר: היכא דלא נמצאת סכינו יפה – ממסמס ליה בפרתא,

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. Here, where Rav Huna says that he is ostracized, it is in a case where his knife was discovered intact, and he is ostracized for treating the scholar with contempt. There, where Rava says that his slaughter is proclaimed tereifa, it is in a case where his knife was discovered not intact, as in that case the meat from all animals that he slaughtered is suspect. Ravina said: In a case where his knife was discovered not to be intact, one spreads excrement on the flesh so that even to a gentile it will not be sold.

דאפילו לגוים נמי לא מזדבן.

ההוא טבחא דלא סר סכינא קמיה דרבא בר חיננא, שמתיה ועבריה, ואכריז אבשריה דטרפה היא. אקלעו מר זוטרא ורב אשי לגביה, אמר להו: ליעיינו רבנן במלתיה,

There was a certain slaughterer who did not present his knife before Rava bar Ḥinnana. Rava bar Ḥinnana ostracized him, and removed him from his position, and proclaimed about meat from an animal that he slaughtered that it is tereifa. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi happened before Rava bar Ḥinnana in his place of residence. Rava bar Ḥinnana said to them: Let the Sages examine the matter of the slaughterer, as small children are dependent upon him.

דתלו ביה טפלי.

בדקה רב אשי לסכיניה, ונמצאת יפה, ואכשריה. אמר ליה מר זוטרא: ולא ליחוש מר לסבא? אמר ליה: שליחותיה קא עבדינן.

Rav Ashi examined his knife and it was discovered intact, and he deemed his meat fit for consumption. Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi: And shouldn’t the Master be concerned for the honor of the elder, Rava bar Ḥinnana, who removed him from his position and you restored him? Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: We are carrying out his agency, as he requested that we examine the matter of the slaughterer.

אמר רבה בר הונא: שן תלושה וצפורן תלושה מותר לשחוט בה לכתחלה. והא אנן תנן: חוץ ממגל קציר והמגירה והשינים והצפורן, מפני שהן חונקין.

§ Rabba bar Huna says: With a detached tooth and a detached fingernail, it is permitted to slaughter ab initio. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (15b): Except for the harvest sickle, and the saw, and the teeth, and the fingernail, because they strangle?

שן אשן – לא קשיא: הא בחדא, הא בתרתי. צפורן אצפורן – לא קשיא: הא בתלושה, הא במחוברת.

The Gemara answers that the contradiction between this statement with regard to a tooth and that statement with regard to a tooth is not difficult: This statement of Rava bar Huna that one may slaughter with a tooth is referring to slaughter with one tooth. That mishna that prohibits slaughter with teeth is referring to slaughter with two teeth, as due to the gap between them they rip the simanim. The contradiction between the statement with regard to a fingernail and the statement with regard to a fingernail is not difficult: This statement of Rava bar Huna that one may slaughter with a fingernail is referring to slaughter with a detached fingernail. That mishna that prohibits slaughter with a fingernail is referring to slaughter with an attached fingernail, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (15b), who invalidates slaughter performed with an item attached to the ground or a living animal.

מתני׳ השוחט במגל קציר, בדרך הליכתה – בית שמאי פוסלין, ובית הלל מכשירין. ואם החליקו שיניה – הרי היא כסכין.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal with a harvest sickle, which is serrated with its teeth inclined considerably in one direction, in a forward direction, where the serrations do not tear the flesh, Beit Shammai deem the slaughter not valid and Beit Hillel deem it valid. And they both agree that if they smoothed its serrations so that they do not tear the flesh, its halakhic status is like that of a knife and one may slaughter with it.

גמ׳ אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: אף כשהכשירו בית הלל, לא הכשירו אלא לטהרה מידי נבילה, אבל באכילה אסורה. אמר רב אשי: דיקא נמי,

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even when Beit Hillel deemed the slaughter valid, they deemed it valid only to purify it from the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass; but its consumption is prohibited. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Beit Shammai deem the slaughter not valid and Beit Hillel deem it valid, and he does not teach: Beit Shammai prohibit and Beit Hillel permit its consumption. The Gemara objects: But according to your reasoning, let the tanna teach: Beit Shammai deem the carcass ritually impure and Beit Hillel deem it ritually pure. Rather, the terms deem it not valid and deem it valid and the terms prohibit and permit are all one matter, and no inferences may be drawn from that phrasing.

דקתני ״בית שמאי פוסלין ובית הלל מכשירין״, ולא קתני ״בית שמאי אוסרין ובית הלל מתירין״. וליטעמיך, ליתני ״בית שמאי מטמאין ובית הלל מטהרין״! אלא,

פוסלין ומכשירין ואוסרין ומתירין – חדא מילתא היא.

מתני׳ השוחט מתוך הטבעת, ושייר בה מלא החוט על פני כולה – שחיטתו כשרה. רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: מלא חוט על פני רובה.

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters an animal from within the cricoid cartilage that forms a complete ring at the top of the windpipe and left a thread breadth over the surface of the ring in its entirety intact, as the knife did not go beyond the ring toward the head of the animal, his slaughter is valid. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is valid even if he left a thread breadth over the majority of the surface of the ring.

גמ׳ רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו: הלכה כרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה, ואף רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה לא אמר אלא בטבעת הגדולה, הואיל ומקפת את כל הקנה,

GEMARA: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says his statement only with regard to the large upper ring, since it encircles the entire windpipe, but with regard to the rest of the rings, which are incomplete and where a strip of flesh connects their edges, he did not state his halakha. Therefore, his slaughter is not valid, as he is required to slaughter in the space between those rings and not in the rings themselves.

אבל בשאר טבעות – לא.

ובשאר טבעות לא? והתניא: רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר:

The Gemara objects: And with regard to the rest of the rings, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not state his halakha; but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

השוחט בשאר טבעות, אף על פי שאין מקיפות את כל הקנה, הואיל ומקיפות את רוב הקנה – שחיטתו כשרה, ומוגרמת פסולה.

With regard to one who slaughters from within the rest of the rings, even though they do not encircle the entire windpipe, since they encircle the majority of the windpipe his slaughter is valid. The baraita adds: And in a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified about a case where the knife is diverted from the area of slaughter above the ring that in such a case the slaughter is valid. Contrary to that which Rav and Shmuel said with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he holds that slaughter from within the other rings is valid.

העיד רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס על מוגרמת שהיא כשרה.

אמר רב יוסף: רבי יוסי בר יהודה תרתי קאמר. רב ושמואל סברי כוותיה בחדא, ופליגי עליה בחדא.

Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is saying two statements; Rav and Shmuel hold in accordance with his opinion with regard to one matter, that if one cuts a majority of the windpipe within the large ring the slaughter is valid, and disagree with him with regard to one matter, as in their opinion if one cuts the windpipe within the other rings, the slaughter is not valid.

והא ״לא אמר״ קאמרי? הכי קאמר: הלכה כמותו בטבעת הגדולה, ואין הלכה כמותו בשאר טבעות.

The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rav and Shmuel say: And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said his statement only with regard to the large upper ring and not with regard to the other rings, indicating that in their opinion, this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains that this is what Rav and Shmuel are saying: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, with regard to cutting the majority of the windpipe within the large ring, and the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion with regard to the other rings that since they encircle a majority of the windpipe, one may slaughter within them as well.

כי סליק רבי זירא, אכל מוגרמת דרב ושמואל. אמרי ליה: לאו מאתריה דרב ושמואל את? אמר להו: מאן אמרה? יוסף בר חייא! יוסף בר חייא מכולי עלמא גמיר.

When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he ate meat from an animal during whose slaughter the knife was diverted from the place of slaughter, with regard to which Rav and Shmuel ruled that the slaughter is not valid, and in Eretz Yisrael the ruling was that the slaughter is valid. The Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael said to Rabbi Zeira: Aren’t you from Babylonia, the place where Rav and Shmuel are the halakhic authorities? You should follow their ruling. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Who said this halakha citing Rav and Shmuel? It was Yosef bar Ḥiyya, referring to Rav Yosef. Yosef bar Ḥiyya learns from everyone, even from students of Rav and Shmuel who misquote their statements.

שמע רב יוסף, איקפד, אמר: אנא מכולי עלמא גמירנא? אנא מרב יהודה גמירנא, דאפילו ספיקי דגברי גריס. דאמר רב יהודה: אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא, ספק משמיה דרב,

Rav Yosef heard the comment of Rabbi Zeira and was angry. He said: Do I learn from everyone? I learn from Rav Yehuda, who is so meticulous in citing the statements of Rav and Shmuel that he cites even uncertainties with regard to attribution of statements to the men who said them. As Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says, and it is uncertain whether it is in the name of Rav and uncertain whether it is in the name of Shmuel: A tribunal of three permits slaughter of a blemished firstborn animal outside of the Temple in a place where there is no expert Sage to consult.

ספק משמיה דשמואל: שלשה מתירין את הבכור במקום שאין מומחה.

ורבי זירא, לית ליה נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם?

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Zeira not accept the principle that when a person travels from place to place, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he emerged and the stringencies of the place to which he went?

אמר אביי: הני מילי מבבל לבבל, ומארץ ישראל לארץ ישראל, אי נמי מארץ ישראל לבבל, אבל מבבל לארץ ישראל, כיון דאנן כייפינן להו – עבדינן כוותייהו.

Abaye said: That statement applies when one travels from one place in Babylonia to another place in Babylonia, or from one place in Eretz Yisrael to another place in Eretz Yisrael, or alternatively, when one descends from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. But when one ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, this principle does not apply. Since we, the residents of Babylonia, are subordinate to them in terms of halakha, we act in accordance with their custom.

רב אשי אמר: אפילו תימא מבבל לארץ ישראל, הני מילי היכא דדעתו לחזור, רבי זירא אין דעתו לחזור הוה.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that when one travels from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he is required to act stringently in accordance with the custom of the place from which he emerged, that statement applies only in a case where his intent is to return. Rabbi Zeira was not one whose intent was to return. Therefore, he was not obligated to observe the Babylonian stringencies.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף: והא רבנן דאתו ממחוזא אמרי, אמר רבי זירא משמיה דרב נחמן: מוגרמת כשרה! אמר ליה: נהרא נהרא ופשטיה.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But didn’t the Sages who came from Meḥoza say that Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav Naḥman: In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is valid? Rav Yosef said to him: Each river and its unique course, i.e., each place follows its custom, and in Meḥoza the custom was not in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אכשר בחודא דכובעא, קרי עליה רבי יוחנן: גיסא גיסא, אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא: פגע בחיטי – טרפה.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish deemed the slaughter valid in a case where one cut the windpipe at the tip of the thyroid cartilage that is above the large ring. Rabbi Yoḥanan proclaimed about Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: He greatly exaggerated the limits of valid slaughter. Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: If one cut the windpipe and encountered the arytenoid cartilage that is adjacent to the upper ring in the direction of the jaw and covered by the tip of the thyroid cartilage, the animal is a tereifa, i.e., forbidden. Since the arytenoid cartilage is outside the area of slaughter, the slaughter is invalid.

איבעיא להו: פגע ונגע בהן, דכתיב ״ויפגע בו וימת״, או דלמא פגע ולא נגע, כדכתיב ״ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלהים״?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does encountered mean encountered and touched it, as it is written: “And he encountered him and he died” (I Kings 2:25); or perhaps it means encountered but did not touch, like that which is written: “And the angels of God encountered him” (Genesis 32:2)?

איתמר, אמר רב פפא משמיה דרבא: שייר בחיטי – כשרה. אמר רב אמימר בר מר ינוקא: הוה קאימנא קמיה דרבי חייא בריה דרב אויא, ואמר לי:

It was stated that Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, i.e., if he cut it in the middle, the slaughter is valid. Rav Ameimar bar Mar Yenuka said: I was standing before Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, and he said to me: If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, the slaughter is valid. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Shemen of Suvara said to me that Mar Zutra happened to come to our place and taught: If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, the slaughter is valid. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: If one encountered the arytenoid cartilage, the slaughter is valid. If one left part of the arytenoid cartilage, the animal is a tereifa.

שייר בחיטי – כשרה. אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי: אמר לי רב שמן מסוברא, איקלע מר זוטרא לאתרין ודרש: שייר בחיטי – כשרה. מר בר רב אשי אמר:

פגע בחיטי – כשרה, שייר בחיטי – טרפה.