Chullin 85bחולין פ״ה ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 85b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
85bפ״ה ב

לא לכל אמר ר' מאיר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה מודה ר"מ שאין מתירתה באכילה ולא לכל אמר ר"ש שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה מודה רבי שמעון שמטהרתה מידי נבלה

Not with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Meir say an act of slaughter that is not fit, e.g., where one slaughters a tereifa, is considered an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Meir does concede that such an act of slaughter does not render the meat of the animal permitted for consumption. And not with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Shimon say an act of slaughter that is not fit is not considered an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon does concede that such an act of slaughter renders the animal pure from having the impure status of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

אמר מר לא לכל א"ר מאיר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה מודה רבי מאיר שאין מתירתה באכילה פשיטא טרפה בשחיטה מי מישתריא

The Gemara analyzes this statement: The Master said that not with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Meir say an act of slaughter that is not fit is considered an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Meir concedes that such an act of slaughter does not render the meat of the animal permitted for consumption. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Can a tereifa become permitted for consumption through slaughter?

לא צריכא לשוחט את הטרפה ומצא בה בן ט' חי סד"א הואיל דאמר רבי מאיר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה תהני ליה שחיטת אמו ולא ליבעי שחיטה קמשמע לן

The Gemara answers: No, this statement of Rabbi Abba is necessary in a case where one slaughtered a tereifa and found a living nine-month-old fetus inside it. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Meir said an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is considered an act of slaughter, the slaughter of its mother should be effective to render the meat of the fetus permitted for consumption, as it normally does when the mother is not a tereifa; and the fetus, after it is born, should not require its own slaughter. Rabbi Abba therefore teaches us that according to Rabbi Meir, slaughter that does not render the meat of the mother permitted for consumption does not render the fetus permitted either.

ותסברא והאמר ר"מ בן פקועה טעון שחיטה

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand that without Rabbi Abba’s statement, one would have thought that according to Rabbi Meir, the fetus does not require its own slaughter? But doesn’t Rabbi Meir say that a fetus removed from its mother’s womb after the mother was properly slaughtered [ben pekua], requires slaughter, as the slaughter of the mother does not permit the fetus?

לא צריכא דרבי סבר לה כר' מאיר וסבר לה כרבנן סבר לה כרבי מאיר דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה וסבר לה כרבנן דאמרי שחיטת אמו מטהרתו

The Gemara responds: The statement of Rabbi Abba is not necessary for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but it is for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in one instance, and holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in another. In a case where one slaughtered a mother and its offspring on the same day he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is considered an act of slaughter. And with regard to a ben pekua, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say the proper slaughter of the mother renders the fetus kosher, i.e., the fetus does not require its own ritual slaughter.

כיון דאמור רבנן שחיטת אמו מטהרתו תהני ליה שחיטת אמו ולא ליבעי שחיטה קמ"ל

Therefore, since the Rabbis say the proper slaughter of the mother renders the fetus kosher, one might conclude that with regard to a tereifa as well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds the slaughter of the mother should be effective to render the meat of the fetus permitted for consumption, and it should not require its own slaughter. In light of this, Rabbi Abba teaches us that although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with Rabbi Meir that an ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the case of a tereifa the slaughter of the mother is not effective for the fetus.

ולא לכל אמר רבי שמעון שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה מודה ר"ש שמטהרתה מידי נבלה פשיטא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא (ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה מקצת בהמה מטמאה ומקצת בהמה אינה מטמאה ואי זו זו טרפה ששחטה

The Gemara addresses the second statement of Rabbi Abba: And not with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Shimon say an act of slaughter that is not fit is not considered an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon concedes that such an act of slaughter renders the animal pure from having the impure status of an unslaughtered animal carcass. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to an animal carcass: “And if there dies of the animals…he that touches its carcass shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:39). The word “of” indicates that some animals transmit impurity as a carcass and some animals do not transmit impurity. And which animal does not? That is a tereifa that one slaughtered.

לא צריכא לשוחט את הטרפה והיא חולין בעזרה דתניא השוחט את הטרפה וכן השוחט ונמצאת טריפה זה וזה חולין בעזרה ר"ש מתיר בהנאה וחכמים אוסרין

The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Abba’s statement is necessary in the case of one who slaughters a tereifa, and it is a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters a known tereifa, and likewise one who slaughters an animal and it was found to be a tereifa, and this and that were non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits one to derive benefit from them, as one is not considered to have transgressed the prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. And the Rabbis prohibit one to derive benefit from them.

סד"א הואיל וא"ר שמעון מותר בהנאה אלמא לאו שחיטה היא כלל אימא מידי נבלה נמי לא מטהרה קמ"ל

Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says it is permitted to derive benefit from such an animal, evidently slaughtering a tereifa is not considered slaughter at all. Therefore, say that slaughter does not have the ability to purify the tereifa from having the status of a ritually impure animal carcass either. Rabbi Abba therefore teaches us that even according to Rabbi Shimon, the slaughter is effective to remove it from the status of a carcass.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי וסבר ר"ש חולין בעזרה דאורייתא היא א"ל אין והתנן ר' שמעון אומר חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו באש וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה אי אמרת בשלמא דאורייתא היינו דגזרינן חיה אטו בהמה

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is by Torah law? Abaye said to Rav Pappa: Yes he does. And we learned in a mishna (Temura 33b) that Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned in the fire. And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned in the fire. Abaye continues: Granted, if you say the meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is forbidden by Torah law, this is the reason why we decree that the meat of an undomesticated animal is prohibited as well, due to the Torah prohibition against deriving benefit from the meat of a domesticated animal.

אלא אי אמרת דרבנן בהמה מאי טעמא דילמא אתי למיכל קדשים בחוץ היא גופה גזרה ואנן ניקום ונגזור גזירה לגזירה

But if you say the meat of domesticated animals is forbidden by rabbinic law then the mishna is difficult: What is the reason the meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal is forbidden? It is forbidden lest one see someone consuming this meat outside the Temple courtyard and arrive at the erroneous conclusion that it is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat outside the Temple courtyard. If so, the prohibition against deriving benefit from the meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal is itself a rabbinic decree, and will we then proceed to issue a decree prohibiting one to derive benefit from a non-sacred undomesticated animal in order to prevent the violation of a decree?

רבי חייא נפל ליה יאניבא בכיתניה אתא לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה שקול עופא ושחוט על בוביתא דמיא דמורח דמא ושביק ליה

§ The mishna teaches that one who stabs an undomesticated animal or bird, or who tears loose its windpipe and gullet, is exempt from covering the blood. With regard to this the Gemara relates: Moths infested the flax of Rabbi Ḥiyya. He came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to ask how to get rid of the moths. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Take a bird and slaughter it over the tub of water in which the flax was soaked, as the moths will smell the blood and leave the flax.

היכי עביד הכי והתניא השוחט וצריך לדם חייב לכסות כיצד יעשה או נוחרו או עוקרו

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Ḥiyya do this? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a bird or an undomesticated animal, and does so only because he needs the blood, is nevertheless obligated to cover the blood and may not use it for any other purpose? Rather, how should one who needs the blood act? He either stabs it or tears loose its windpipe and its gullet, so that it is not killed with an act of slaughter. How, then, could Rabbi Ḥiyya use the blood of the bird that he slaughtered to rid his flax of the moths?

כי אתא רב דימי אמר צא טרוף אמר ליה כי אתא רבין אמר צא נחור אמר ליה

The Gemara responds: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go out and render the bird a tereifa, and then slaughter it, as the mishna teaches that one who slaughters a tereifa is not required to cover its blood. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go out and tear loose the bird’s windpipe and gullet.

למאן דאמר צא טרוף מאי טעמא לא אמר צא נחור

The Gemara asks: According to the one who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go out and render the bird a tereifa, what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not say: Go out and tear loose its windpipe and gullet?

וכי תימא קסבר אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה ונחירתו זו היא שחיטתו והתניא רבי אומר (דברים יב, כא) כאשר צויתיך מלמד שנצטוה משה על הושט ועל הקנה ועל רוב אחד בעוף ועל רוב שנים בבהמה

And if you would say the reason is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, and consequently the tearing loose of its windpipe and gullet is considered its slaughter such that he would be required to cover the blood, this is untenable. As isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states: “And you shall slaughter…as I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This teaches that Moses was previously commanded concerning the mitzvot of slaughter, i.e., he was taught about the gullet and the windpipe, that the cutting of these simanim constitutes slaughter, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one siman of a bird, and about the requirement to cut the majority of two simanim of an animal. If so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the slaughter of a bird is obligatory by Torah law.