Commentary page

Chullin 18b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Chullin 18b

Chullin 18b. The full printed text of this folio side — 12 numbered segments, about 313 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּשְׁאָר טַבָּעוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַקִּיפוֹת אֶת כׇּל הַקָּנֶה, הוֹאִיל וּמַקִּיפוֹת אֶת רוֹב הַקָּנֶה – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וּמוּגְרֶמֶת פְּסוּלָה. הֵעִיד רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס עַל מוּגְרֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה.

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.

Segment 2

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה תַּרְתֵּי קָאָמַר. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבְרִי כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

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.

Segment 3

וְהָא ״לֹא אָמַר״ קָאָמְרִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּטַבַּעַת הַגְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁאָר טַבָּעוֹת.

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.

Segment 4

כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲכַל מוּגְרֶמֶת דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לָאו מֵאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל אַתְּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאן אַמְרַהּ? יוֹסֵף בַּר חִיָּיא! יוֹסֵף בַּר חִיָּיא מִכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא גְּמִיר.

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.

Segment 5

שְׁמַע רַב יוֹסֵף, אִיקְּפַד, אֲמַר: אֲנָא מִכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא גְּמִירְנָא? אֲנָא מֵרַב יְהוּדָה גְּמִירְנָא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ סְפֵיקֵי דְּגַבְרֵי גָּרֵיס. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, סָפֵק מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, סָפֵק מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁלֹשָׁה מַתִּירִין אֶת הַבְּכוֹר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מוּמְחֶה.

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.

Segment 6

וְרַבִּי זֵירָא, לֵית לֵיהּ נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא מִשָּׁם וְחוּמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָלַךְ לְשָׁם?

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?

Segment 7

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָנֵי מִילֵּי מִבָּבֶל לְבָבֶל, וּמֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִי נָמֵי מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבָבֶל, אֲבָל מִבָּבֶל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דַּאֲנַן כַּיְיפִינַן לְהוּ – עָבְדִינַן כְּוָותַיְיהוּ.

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.

Segment 8

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא מִבָּבֶל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזוֹר, רַבִּי זֵירָא אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לַחֲזוֹר הֲוָה.

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.

Segment 9

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וְהָא רַבָּנַן דַּאֲתוֹ מִמָּחוֹזָא אָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מוּגְרֶמֶת כְּשֵׁרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַהֲרָא נַהֲרָא וּפְשָׁטֵיהּ.

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.

Segment 10

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אַכְשַׁר בְּחוּדָּא דְּכוֹבָעָא, קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גִּיסָא גִּיסָא, אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: פְּגַע בְּחִיטֵּי – טְרֵפָה.

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.

Segment 11

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פָּגַע וְנָגַע בָּהֶן, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּפְגַּע בּוֹ וַיָּמֹת״, אוֹ דִלְמָא פָּגַע וְלֹא נָגַע, כְּדִכְתִיב ״וַיִּפְגְּעוּ בוֹ מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים״?

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)?

Segment 12

אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: שַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב אַמֵּימָר בַּר מָר יָנוֹקָא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא, וְאָמַר לִי: שַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי רַב שֶׁמֶן מִסּוּבְרָא, אִיקְּלַע מָר זוּטְרָא לְאַתְרִין וּדְרַשׁ: שַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי – כְּשֵׁרָה. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: פְּגַע בְּחִיטֵּי – כְּשֵׁרָה, שַׁיַּיר בְּחִיטֵּי – טְרֵפָה.

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 .

Chullin 18b

Chullin 18b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text