Chesed Club World Wide Center & Discussion Groups
Kitzurdaf

Back

08-03-2011
Title:
Chulin 28 - DOES THE TORAH REQUIRE SLAUGHTER OF BIRDS? (cont.)

Message:
1) DOES THE TORAH REQUIRE SLAUGHTER OF BIRDS? (cont.)

(a) Question (Mishnah): If Melikah was done with a knife (the bird is Neveilah), one who eats the bird and his clothing become Tamei.
1. Surely, since the spinal cord and neckbone were cut before the Simanim, the bird is Treifah. However, if the Torah does not require slaughter of birds, the subsequent cutting of the Simanim is no worse than Nechirah, the bird should not be Neveilah!
(b) Answer: Indeed, that Tana holds that mid'Oraisa, birds require slaughter; Rav Yehudah holds like the following Tana.
1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar ha'Hakapar): "As you will eat deer..." - what do we learn from deer and wild goats?
2. Rather, the verse teaches that deer and wild goats have the law of blemished Korbanos, i.e. they must be slaughtered.
i. The Torah does not require slaughter of birds; this is only mid'Rabanan.
(c) Question: Which Tana argues with R. Elazar ha'Hakapar?
(d) Answer: Rebbi argues with him.
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): "You will slaughter like I commanded you" - this teaches that Moshe received laws of slaughter - that both the Kaneh (windpipe) and Veshet (foodpipe) of animals must be slaughtered, and in birds, one of them.
2) WHICH "SIMAN" IS SLAUGHTERED IN BIRDS?
(a) (Mishnah): In birds, one Siman must be slaughtered.
(b) (Rav Nachman): Either Siman may be slaughtered.
(c) (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The Veshet must be slaughtered.
1. The Mishnah says one Siman - it means, the special one (that even a tiny hole in it makes the bird Treifah).
(d) Question (Beraisa): If the Veshet was slaughtered, and afterwards the Kaneh was uprooted - the slaughter is Kosher;
1. If the Kaneh was uprooted before the Veshet was slaughtered, it is invalid;
2. A case occurred in which the Veshet was slaughtered, and the Kaneh was found to be uprooted; it was not known if it was uprooted before or after the slaughter - the ruling was, this is invalid, like all doubtful cases of slaughter.
3. (Culmination of question): The Mishnah omits the case of cutting the Kaneh, and finding the Veshet uprooted - this suggests, it does not suffice to cut the Kaneh!
(e) Answer: It only taught the case of slaughtering the Veshet, for it is common for the Kaneh to become uprooted, not for the Veshet to become uprooted.
(f) Question (Beraisa): If half of each Siman of a bird was slaughtered, the slaughter is invalid - all the more so, regarding an animal;
1. R. Yehudah says, the Veshet and veins of a bird must be slaughtered.
(g) Answer: R. Yehudah only mentioned the Veshet because it is near the veins (but one could just as well slaughter the Kaneh and veins).
(h) Question (Beraisa): If one slaughtered half the Kaneh, paused the amount of time needed for slaughter, and completed the slaughter, it is valid.
1. Suggestion: This discusses a bird; he finished cutting the Kaneh.
(i) Answer: No, it discusses an animal; he completed the entire slaughter (the Veshet and the other half of the Kaneh).
(j) Question (Beraisa): If half the Kaneh was already cut before slaughtering, and he cut a drop more and completed the slaughter, it is valid.
1. Suggestion: This discusses a bird; cutting a drop more of the Kaneh completes the slaughter.
(k) Answer: No - it discusses an animal; 'he completed the slaughter' refers to cutting the Veshet.
(l) Question (Beraisa): Melikah of a Chatas - he cuts the spinal cord and neckbone without cutting the majority of surrounding flesh, until he reaches the Veshet or Kaneh; he then cuts one Siman, and the majority of surrounding flesh with it.
1. In an Olah, he cuts both Simanim or the majority of each Siman.
i. Rav Ada bar Ahavah is refuted.
(m) Question: What was the conclusion of the argument between Rav Nachman and Rav Ada bar Ahavah?
1. Question: We just said that Rav Ada was refuted!
2. Answer: That was only regarding Melikah, since the spinal cord and neckbone are also cut (it suffices to cut either Siman with them - regarding slaughter, perhaps the Veshet must be cut!)
(n) Answer: We derive the final ruling from the case of a goose that was found in Rava's house; its neck was full of blood.
1. Rava: How can we try to permit the goose?
28b---------------------------------------28b

i. Suggestion: If we will slaughter it and then check (if the Simanim were already cut) - perhaps the knife will cut where there was already a hole, and we will not know that there was a hole there before the slaughter!
ii. Suggestion: We will check the Simanim and then slaughter it.
iii. Rejection: Rabah taught, one cannot check the Veshet from the outside (for it is red, perhaps there is a tiny hole that was filled with a drop of blood and is not noticeable), only by turning it inside out.
2. Rav Yosef, son of Rava: We can check the Kaneh, slaughter the Kaneh, and then turn the Veshet inside out to check it!
i. This shows that either Siman is valid for slaughter.
3) CUTTING THE VEINS
(a) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, he must (also slaughter the veins).
(b) (Rav Chisda): R. Yehudah only said this regarding birds, for it is normal to roast them whole; animals are normally dissected into pieces, the veins need not be cut.
1. He holds that R. Yehudah requires cutting the veins in order that the blood will exude at the time of slaughter.
(c) Question (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, he must *slaughter* the veins (it should suffice to puncture them)!
(d) Answer: Indeed, R. Yehudah means, he must puncture them!
1. He said 'slaughter' to show that they must be punctured at the time of slaughter.
(e) Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah) The veins are part of the slaughter.
(f) Answer: R. Yehudah means, they must be punctured at the time of slaughter.
(g) Question (Beraisa - Chachamim (to R. Yehudah): Since the veins must be cut solely to remove the blood, what difference does it make whether they are slaughtered or cut?
1. Inference: R. Yehudah holds that they must be slaughtered!
(h) Answer: Chachamim asked, what difference does it make whether they are punctured at the time of slaughter or later;
1. R. Yehudah holds, the blood only exudes if they are cut at the time of slaughter, for it is warm then.
(i) Question (R. Yirmeyah): According to R. Yehudah, if one paused during the cutting of the veins or cut them by Drasah, what is the law?
(j) Answer (An elder citing R. Elazar or R. Yochanan): They may be punctured with a thorn (i.e. the laws of slaughter do not apply).
(k) Support (for Rav Chisda - Beraisa): If half of each Siman of a bird was cut, the slaughter is invalid; obviously, the same applies to animals;
1. R. Yehudah says, in a bird he must cut the Veshet and the veins.
4) CUTTING HALF A "SIMAN"
(a) (Mishnah): Cutting half a Siman of a bird (is invalid).
(b) (Rav): Exactly half is considered like a majority. (We are thinking that he said this regarding slaughter.)
(c) (Rav Kahana): It is not like a majority.
1. Rav understands, the tradition about slaughter says that the majority cannot be left uncut.
2. Rav Kahana understands, the tradition says that the majority must be cut.
(d) Question #1 (Mishnah): Half of one Siman by a bird, one and a half Simanim by an animal - the slaughter is invalid.
1. According to Rav, this is like cutting the majority, the slaughter should be valid!
(e) Answer #1: Mid'Oraisa, the slaughter is valid; the Mishnah teaches a stringency mid'Rabanan, lest a person will slaughter less than half.
(f) Question #2 (Rav Katina - Mishnah): (If an oven broke and one of the pieces comprises the majority, it is Tamei.) If an oven was divided into two equal parts, they are Tamei, for it is impossible to make them exactly equal (we cannot discern which is the majority, so we are stringent).
1. Inference: If they could be made exactly equal, they would be Tahor.
2. According to Rav, each should be considered like the majority, both should be Tamei!
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): A shard is Tamei only if it is the majority, it cannot be that each of the two halves is the majority. (Rav only said that the Torah does not require slaughtering more than half, there is nothing contradictory about this.)

Back