Chullin 32: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה, אֲפִילּוּ כל הַיּוֹם כוּלּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned (see above, daf 4) that one of the basic rules of ritual slaughter prohibits she’hiyah, or hesitating, during the act of sheḥita. The Mishna and Gemara on our daf attempt to clarify and define the parameters of the hesitation that would be forbidden. We find, for example, that Rava teaches that a person who is using a dull blade may continuously move the knife back-and-forth “all day long,” but this would not be considered she’hiyah as long as he did not pause in the middle.

The Mishna describes cases where the knife fell in the course of sheḥita, or even where the slaughterer’s clothing fell, and he stopped to pick up the knife or the clothing and continued with sheḥita. In such cases, as long as the pause was not equal to the time of slaughter, it is not considered to be she’hiyah.

We explore the relative halachic weight of breathing versus ingesting i.e. the windpipe vs the esophagus and their phylogenetic connections.

Chullin 31: וְזָבַחְתָּ֥ שְׁלָמִ֖ים וְאָכַ֣לְתָּ שָּׁ֑ם

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf presents a situation where a knife falls and slaughters an animal. According to the Mishna, such slaughter is not sufficient and the animal is not kosher. The source for this ruling is the passage in Sefer Devarim (27:7) that teaches that a person must slaughter and eat. Only after you slaughter the animal are you permitted to eat its meat.

The case in the Mishna must be understood where the animal is lying on its side and the knife falls in such a manner that it cuts through the trachea and esophagus perfectly, with none of the problems with sheḥita (see above, daf 4) occurring.

The Gemara points out that the law of the Mishna is only true in cases where the knife fell on its own. If, however, the knife was directed by the person, then it is acceptable as ritual slaughter, even without specific intent to perform sheḥita.

We explore the act and agency on the slaughtering process and acts or an event?

Chullin 30: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתֵּן עָפָר לְמַטָּה וְעָפָר לְמַעְלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Generally speaking, we anticipate that sheḥita – ritual slaughter – is a single cut of the simanim – the trachea and the esophagus.

Nevertheless, we find that Rav Yehuda quotes Rav as teaching that if sheḥita is performed “in two or three places,” it is acceptable. Although Shmuel objected that this is not a clear slaughtering, which he deems necessary, nevertheless it appears that the Gemara’s conclusion follows Rav Yehuda’s teaching in the name of Rav, given that it closes by the relating the story of Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta who ate the choice part of an ox that was slaughtered “in two or three places,” thereby indicating his position on the matter.

Our new Mishna teaches that it is valid to slaughter by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously. It is valid for two people to slaughter from different points in the neck of one animal. Decapitating an animal is one motion is not valid; however, if one accidentally decapitated an animal in one motion and the length of the knife is the same as the breadth of the animal’s neck, the slaughter is valid. It is valid if one who was slaughtering two animals simultaneously and s/he decapitated them in one motion and the length of the knife was the same as the breadth of one animal’s neck. The important piece is that the knife is drawn back and forth if possible.

We return to chullin 21 and the description of sacrificing pigeons, how the color of both doves and pigeons changes from or to a yellow. This leads us on a muse as to the treatment (even currently in certain places whereby a pigeon is placed on the belly of the yellow patient. After a few minutes, the jaundice is drawn out of the patient and enters the bird, which promptly dies.

Chullin 29: אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּסּוֹף

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis ask each other about when the slaughter is accomplished. Reish Lakish teaches in the name of Levi the Elder that slaughter is complete at its conclusion. Rabban Yochanan teaches that the act of slaughter is accomplished at each stage of the process. Rava comments that all agree that when a Gentile cuts one siman and a Jew cuts the other, the slaughter is not valid at any point. The Gentile makes the animal a treifa, disqualified from slaughter due to ritual impurity.

We explore further the gentile bans on shechita past and present.

Chullin 28: מִשּׁוּם דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עֲבִידָא לְאִישְׁתְּמוֹטֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, according to Rabbi Yehuda, beyond cutting the esophagus and trachea, sheḥita – ritual slaughter – also requires severing the veins in the neck. On our daf,Rav Ḥisda limits Rabbi Yehuda’s teaching to sheḥita performed on a bird, since a bird is often roasted whole. Larger animals, however, that are invariably cut into pieces, do not need to have their veins severed.

The Gemara concludes from this that Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling is not connected with sheḥita per se, so much as it is a response to a potential problem with blood becoming congealed in the body of the animal. Therefore, it is not essential that the veins be cut during the act of ritual slaughter, in fact it is sufficient if they are punctured after slaughter, as well.

We explore the hierarchy of trachea vs esophagus for slaughter comparing to late anti knowledge of life/death.

Chullin 27: שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר – מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf – the opening Mishna of the second perek in Massekhet Ḥullin – teaches one of the most basic rules of ritual slaughter. When performing sheḥita the slaughterer must cut two simanim – the esophagus and trachea – in an animal, and a single siman – either the esophagus or the trachea – in a bird. In both cases, it would be sufficient to cut the majority of the simanim (or one of the simanim in the case of a bird). Rabbi Yehuda requires that the veins should be cut, as well.

The Gemara discusses the source for these laws and for the difference between the requirements for kosher slaughter for an animal in contrast to those of a bird. Aside from Biblical passages that are brought, the Gemara also quotes a teaching from a certain Galilean traveler who suggested that animals were created by God from the dirt of the earth, so the requirement for their slaughter is two simanim. Fish were created from water, so there is no need for any sort of slaughter. Birds, which were created from mud, need a single siman for ritual slaughter.

We explore exotic birds and animals…

Chullin 26: הַמַּבְדִּיל בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְקוֹדֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our final Mishnah teaches that when the sound of the shofar on Shabbat or a Festival evening stop people from working and mark a line between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala at the conclusion in prayer over wine. When havdala is recited, there is no shofar.

How is this the case? When a Festival falls on erev Shabbat, the shofar is sounded to stop people from working at tasks prohibited on Shabbat but permitted on the Festival. Havdala is only performed when the transition from a sacred to a profane day or from a day of greater to lesser sanctity. Shabbat is more holy than a Festival.

When havdala marks the transition between a Festival and Shabbat, it ends with the following words, "Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred" instead of the standard blessing, "Who distinguishes between sacred and profane". Rabbi Dosa says that we should say,"Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity.”

Chullin 25: אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּלֵי עֶצֶם

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf continues the comparisons and contrasts between parallel situations in Jewish law. Thus we learn that a wooden utensil that is still in its golem state can become ritually defiled, even as simple wood slats cannot become defiled; metal, on the other hand cannot become ritually defiled in its golem state, while a simple piece of metal – e.g. a pin – is considered important enough to become ritually defiled.

The Gemara asks: What is different about these unfinished wooden vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that provided they are fit for use they are susceptible to impurity, and what is different about those unfinished metal vessels, with regard to which the halakha is that even if they are fit for use they are not susceptible to impurity until their crafting is complete? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The difference is that since metal vessels are crafted foruses of honor, they are not considered vessels until their completion. Rav Naḥman said: The difference is that since the worth of metal vessels is expensive, they cannot be sold at that price unless they are complete.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between their opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to bone vessels crafted from horns, which are expensive but are not crafted for uses of honor. And Rav Naḥman follows his line of reasoning, as Rav Naḥman says: The halakhic status of bone vessels with regard to impurity is like that of metal vessels.

We explore the history of bone vessels in antiquity.

Chullin 24: שָׁאנֵי לְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים, דְּקַלִּיל

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that the things that disqualify kohanim do not disqualify levi’im; similarly, the things that disqualify levi’im do not disqualify kohanim. This is explained by the baraita as follows:

Physical blemishes disqualify kohanim from performing the Temple service (see Vayikra 21:16-23), but there is no age limit for them.

Levi’im remain unaffected by physical blemishes and can continue their work in the Temple, but they can only serve between the ages of 25-50 (see Bamidbar 8:24-25).

These laws, however, are limited by our Gemara only to the Tabernacle in the desert, based on the passage in Sefer Bamidbar (4:47) that restricts the age limitation only to carrying the Tabernacle. The Gemara concludes that in Shiloh as well as in the permanent Temple, these age restrictions did not apply.

We explore how levites in their scribal role initiated the tradition of torah study.

Chullin 23: הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

At the end of our daf we are introduced to a new Mishna. It tells us that what is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken. As well, what is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

The Gemara then juxtaposes the parah adumah and the eglah arufah, detouring into the Yom Kippur lottery, as a sustained meditation on the limits of human agency in the production of atonement. הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת

The Tannaitic source insists that the lottery (goral)—not verbal designation (shem)—constitutes the goat as a sin-offering.

The Amoraic discussion refuses to permit kal va-chomer to extend ritual logic across categories, invoking chok and lexical exclusion to interrupt inferential continuity.

Taken together, these textual moves disclose a theology in which the decisive transformations of sacred status occur outside the psychic economy of the subject.

Chullin 22: אֶפְרוֹחָיו יְעַלְעוּ דָם

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Torah (Sefer Vayikra 1:14), the two types of birds that can be brought as sacrifices are torim and benei yona – turtledoves and pigeons. The tor that is referred to is identified as Streptopelia turtur, while the yona is identified as Columba livia domestica. These birds are consistently referred to differently, the former are called torim, while the latter are called benei yona.

This is understood by the Sages to mean that a tor is only qualified to be brought as a sacrifice when it is an adult bird, while the yona can only be brought when it is young, before it reaches adulthood. According to the Mishna on our daf, these two periods are mutually exclusive, and what would be an appropriate sacrifice in a pigeon would be inappropriate in a dove, and vice versa. The cut-off point between the two is just four or five days after hatching, when the bird’s body becomes covered with plumage – gold in the case of torim and yellow in the case of benei yona.

The ruling of the Mishna is that torim that are too small and benei yona that have already reached adulthood cannot be brought as sacrifices and therefore performing melika on them (see above, daf 19, for a description of melika) would not be effective in any way.

And yet the same lexical field that animates the sugya—efroach (chick), blood, the cut, the body-on-the-edge—is precisely the material out of which classical aggadah builds one of its most disturbing theological claims. The verse Job 39:30—וְאֶפְרֹחָיו יְעַלְעוּ־דָם וּבַאֲשֶׁר חֲלָלִים שָׁם הוּא ("his young suck blood, and where the slain are, there is he")—appears across at least seven distinct rabbinic compositions, where it is read against its peshat to mean not predation but Indwelling. The eagle of the verse becomes Aaron the High Priest; the chicks become Nadav and Avihu; the corpses become the bodies in the sanctuary on the day of its dedication; and the "He" of שָׁם הוּא—the simple deictic pronoun—is identified with the Shekhinah herself!!!

Chullin 21: עֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא – נְבֵלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

There are a number of circumstances where it is clear that an animal (or a person) is dead, even though there still may be some spontaneous movement of the limbs of the animal.

Thus, Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel as saying that when someone’s neck is broken and the majority of the flesh in that area is torn, that person will already have the status of a dead body that ritually defiles the area where it is found.

Although the Gemara points to a case where it appears that this status can be attained when the neck is broken even if the flesh remains intact – the story of Eli HaKohen who falls backwards and breaks his neck upon hearing that the Holy Ark was taken captive in a war with the Philistines (see I Shmuel 4:18) – it explains that this was due to Eli’s old age and heaviness.

We explore the death of Eli the High Priest as well as the deeper meaning of talmudic definitions of death.

Chullin 20: אֵין עִיקּוּר סִימָנִין בָּעוֹף

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf the laws of sheḥita – ordinary ritual slaughter – and melika – the unique slaughter of birds as part of the Temple service – stand in contrast to one another. While sheḥita can only be performed on the front of the bird’s neck, melika can only be done on the back of the bird’s neck. Nevertheless, on today’s daf, Rabbi Yirmeya quotes Shmuel as teaching that there is one point of similarity between them. The area of the neck that is appropriate for sheḥita and melika are identical.

While comparing and contrasting these two methods of ritual slaughter, the Gemara makes reference to the fact that whether or not sheḥita is a Biblical requirement is, itself, a matter of disagreement (as we learned on yesterday’s daf, the Torah is clear about the requirement of melika – see Vayikra 1:14-17 and 5:8-10).

We explore the slaughtering of birds and the biblical rational as to why predators are prohibited, yet ducks kosher?

Chullin 19: מַחֲזִיר סִימָנִים לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעוֹרֶף וּמוֹלֵק

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us that when we slaughter from the side of the throat, the slaughter is valid. If one pinches the neck of a bird offering from the side, the slaughter is not valid. It is valid to pinch from the nape of the neck or slaughters from the throat. But if one pinches from the throat, the slaughter is not valid because the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter. What is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and what is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.

We explore shechita of fowl and Halacha.

Chullin 18: לִיעַיְּינוּ רַבָּנַן בְּמִלְּתֵיהּ, דִּתְלוּ בֵּיהּ טַפְלֵ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The slaughter knife needs to be absolutely smooth, without notches. It needs be examined using the flesh and the nail of a finger. In addition, the appointed slaughterer needs to show his knife for inspection to the local Sage, as a way of expressing the honor due the Sage.

The correct place for the slaughter cut is the front of the neck of the animal, and the knife should cut more than half of the trachea and esophagus. The trachea itself is encircled by many successive rings of cartilage, which are horseshoe shaped. The uppermost ring is a complete ring, and it forms the upper limit of the cut. If he cut above the upper ring, the shechitah is not kosher.

We explore the halachot and physiology of shechitah.

Chullin 17: נְחִירָה שֶׁלָּהֶן זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתָ

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Jewish people were permitted to eat meat in the Midbar even without Shechitah, and even from an animal that was killed with Nechirah (cutting the animal lengthwise). Rebbi Yirmeyah asks whether leftovers from this period were permitted once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael.

How is it possible that such meat could be permitted, when the Torah explicitly prohibits meat from an animal that was not killed through Shechitah?

(a) RASHI (DH she'Hichnisu) writes that Rebbi Yirmeyah's question is solely theoretical and has no practical application. (Indeed, Rebbi Yirmeyah is known to ask such questions; see Bava Basra 23b.)

(b) The ROSH (1:23) disagrees with Rashi. He points out that the Gemara does not discuss Halachic questions which have no practical application.

We explore the halachot of meat especially during wartime.

Chullin 16: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמוּכְנִי μηχανή שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf unfolds along a deceptively technical path. Beginning with the question of whether ritual slaughter may be effected through a knife attached to a turning wheel, the discussion modulates with characteristic suddenness from the mechanics of force to the metaphysics of biblical exegesis. Rav sits behind Rabbi Chiyya, who sits before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi—the very seating arrangement encoding a transmission of knowledge across three generations of the rabbinic academy—and Rebbe begins to expound. From where, he asks, do we derive that ritual slaughter must be performed with a detached blade? And he answers from the verse: "And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son" (Genesis 22:10).

Chullin 15: מַאן דְּכַפְתֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ וְאַשְׁקֵיל עֲלֵיהּ בִּידְקָא דְּמַיָּא וּמִית

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Regarding the implements that may be used for sheḥita – ritual slaughter – the Mishna on our daf teaches:

If one slaughtered with the smooth edge of a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; with any implement one may slaughter, excepting a harvest sickle, a saw, teeth or a fingernail, since these strangle.

The Gemara points out that the expression used by the Mishna, that slaughtering with the abovementioned implements is valid, indicates that the sheḥita is valid ex post-facto, but that ideally it should not be used. In the case of a hand sickle, or magel yad, the Gemara suggests that the reason for this is obvious – we fear lest the slaughterer might use the wrong side of the sickle, which would be invalid. According to Rashi, the wrong side of the magel yad has a serrated edge, while according to the Ra’avad, the magel yad is a type of axe, and the wrong side is sharp, but pointed and not long enough to perform sheḥita.

We explore how our mishna and its accompanying gemara enclose a remarkable amount of conceptual machinery. They oscillate between the materiality of the cutting edge and the metaphysics of the agent who wields it; between the ancient repertoire of Iron Age and Roman-period implements and the abstract question of when an act of severance counts as a human act. Our daf has migrated from blades to mechanical contrivances — the mukhni, the potter’s wheel, the waterwheel — and from the slaughter of beasts to the killing of men, with Rav Pappa’s celebrated ruling on the bound captive and the diverted water (bidka de-maya).

Chullin 14: אֵין אָדָם מַתְנֶה עַל שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים כְּאֶחָד

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf if someone performs sheḥita (ritual slaughter) on an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although the act of killing an animal on those days is forbidden and the person who performs sheḥita is liable to receive a death penalty, nevertheless the animal is kosher and can be eaten.

Rav Huna quotes Ḥiyya bar Rav in the name of Rav as teaching that the animal may be kosher, but it still cannot be eaten on that day. This was understood by the Sages as an indication that Rav understood the Mishna as following the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Our Daf confronts a question whose apparent simplicity belies its conceptual depth: what is the ontological and halakhic status of a living animal during its lifetime? Is it intrinsically directed toward eventual consumption — baʽalei chayim be-chayeihem omedim le-akhilah — such that even while alive it is already, in some legally meaningful sense, prepared for the table? Or is its primary teleological orientation breeding, growth, and continued life — omedim le-giddul, or, as some authorities frame it, omedim le-velad — such that slaughter, when it occurs, constitutes a categorical disruption of the animal’s standing designation rather than its fulfilment?

We explore this them as well as Karate interpretations.

Chullin 13: אֵין מִינִין בָּאוּמּוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Chullin 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishna teaches us that when a non-Jew performs shechita, ritual slaughter, the animal is not kosher. Are we permitted to use that meat for purposes other than consumption? Are we assuming that a non-Jew is slaughtering animals for purposes of idolatry? Usually we do not. Although, we are taught, a min, Jewish heretic, is assumed to be slaughtering animals for purposes of idolatry.

A baraita tell us that ritual slaughter performed by a min is assumed to be intended for idolatry. His bread is the bread of Kutim, his wine is used for idolatrous purposes, his scrolls of the law are like the books of sorcerers and his fruit is untithed.

"The Master said in the mishna: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara challenges this: And let us be concerned that perhaps he is a heretic who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world."

We explore the attitudes shaping Jewish Gentile relations through the eyes of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.