{"id":13850,"date":"2011-07-14T23:27:15","date_gmt":"2011-07-14T23:27:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_hulin_19a25b\/"},"modified":"2015-11-02T11:54:51","modified_gmt":"2015-11-02T16:54:51","slug":"masechet_hulin_19a25b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_hulin_19a25b\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Chullin 19a-25b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Chullin 19a-b: Contrasting ordinary ritual slaughter with Temple service<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on today’s daf<\/em> contrasts between two methods of ritual slaughter of birds \u2013 shechita<\/em> (ordinary ritual slaughter) and melikah<\/em> (slaughter performed as part of the Temple<\/a> service). According to the Mishnah if shechita<\/em> was performed by cutting the back of the neck, it is invalid, while if melikah<\/em> was performed in that manner, it is valid; on the other hand if melikah<\/em> was performed by cutting the front of the neck, it is invalid, while if shechita<\/em> was performed in that manner, it is valid.<\/p>\n

Sacrifices brought from fowl are not formally zevachim<\/em>, a category limited to animals that are slaughtered in an ordinary fashion. Birds are prepared for sacrifice by means of melikah<\/em>, where the kohen<\/a><\/em> pierces the neck of the bird with his fingernail (see Vayikra<\/a> 1:14-17<\/a> and 5:8-10<\/a>). The Gemara<\/a> in Masechet<\/a> Zevachim<\/a><\/em> (daf 64b<\/a><\/em>) describes melikah<\/em> as one of the most difficult of the services in the Temple, and explains what was involved.<\/p>\n

Rav Zutra bar Tuvia quotes Rav<\/a> as teaching that the kohen<\/em> would hold the wings with two fingers and the legs with two fingers<\/a> stretching out the bird’s neck, and the bird would be killed by means of the kohen<\/em>‘s thumbnail.\u00a0 According to the baraita<\/a><\/em>, the bird’s body was held in such a way that it was outside the hand of the kohen<\/em>, and \u2013 while holding the wings with two fingers and the legs with two fingers \u2013 the kohen<\/em> would kill the bird with his thumbnail.<\/p>\n

According to Rav Ovadia mi-Bartenura<\/a>, as well as the Rambam<\/a>, the kohen<\/em> would hold the bird in his left hand according to one of the two opinions, and would perform melikah<\/em> with the thumb of his right hand. This parallels cases of slaughter in the Temple, where both hands are used. The Shitah Mekubetzet<\/a><\/em> quotes Tosafot<\/a> as suggesting that the entire melikah<\/em> service was done with the right hand (as depicted in the above illustrations). According to this approach we can easily understand why this service is considered to be the most difficult one, since the bird had to be held and killed with a single hand.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 20a-b: Must birds be ritually slaughtered?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em><\/a> the laws of shechita<\/em> \u2013 ordinary ritual slaughter \u2013 and melikah<\/em> \u2013 the unique slaughter of birds as part of the Temple<\/a> service, stand in contrast to one another. While shechita<\/em> can only be performed on the front of the bird’s neck, melikah<\/em> can only be done on the back of the bird’s neck. Nevertheless, on today’s daf<\/em>, Rabbi Yirmiyah<\/a> quotes Shmuel<\/a> as teaching that there is one point of similarity between them. The area of the neck that is appropriate for shechita<\/em> and melikah<\/em> are identical.<\/p>\n

While comparing and contrasting these two methods of ritual slaughter, the Gemara<\/a> makes reference to the fact that whether or not shechita<\/em> is a Biblical requirement is, itself, a matter of disagreement (as we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em>, the Torah<\/a> is clear about the requirement of melikah<\/em> \u2013 see Vayikra<\/a><\/em> 1:14-17<\/a> and 5:8-10<\/a>). The source for this disagreement appears later on in Masechet<\/a> Chullin<\/a><\/em> (daf 27b<\/a><\/em>) where Rav Yehudah<\/a> quotes Rabbi Yitzhak ben Pinchas as teaching that the passage that commands kisui ha-dam<\/em> \u2013 requiring that the blood of a bird that was killed must be covered with dirt \u2013 should be understood to mean that the bird can be killed in any manner. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi<\/a> disagrees, arguing that the passage that teaches that animals must be killed “as you were commanded” (Devarim<\/a> 12:21<\/a>) refers specifically to the requirement that ritual slaughter involves the two simanim<\/em> \u2013 the windpipe and the esophagus \u2013 where the majority of both must be cut for animals and the majority of one must be cut for birds.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> points out that even according to the opinion that there is no Biblical requirement to perform shechita<\/em> on birds, nevertheless a bird that simply dies or is bludgeoned to death will not be kosher. The only argument is whether the rules and regulations of shechita<\/em> (see the five basic rules above, daf 4<\/a><\/em>) apply to the slaughter of birds as well as animals. In any case, it is clear that at least on a Rabbinic level, all agree that shechita<\/em> applies to fowl.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 21a-b: Determining “time of death”<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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<\/a> quotes Shmuel<\/a> 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<\/a> points to a case where it appears that this status can be attained when the neck is broken even if the flesh remains intact \u2013 the story of Eli ha-Kohen<\/a> 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<\/a><\/em> 4:18<\/a>) \u2013 it explains that this was due to Eli’s old age and heaviness.<\/p>\n

In the course of this discussion, the Gemara quotes a Mishnah<\/a> in Masechet<\/a> Oholot<\/a><\/em> (1:6) that if an animal’s head is cut off, then there is immediate ritual defilement; it is viewed like the tail of a salamander that continues to twitch even after it is removed from the body of the salamander.<\/p>\n

After the limb of a living creature is separated from the body, the nerves of that limb continue to operate in an uncontrolled manner for a short time due to the continued functioning of the neurotransmitters that still send out signals to the limb. Although the muscles continue to flex in response to these neurological signals, this is not necessarily an indication of life.<\/p>\n

In contemporary discussions about establishing a working definition of “time of death” and the possibility that “brain death” \u2013 a cessation of all recorded brain-stem activity \u2013 may be viewed as halakhic<\/a><\/em> death, the Mishnah in Masechet Oholot<\/em> that discusses the ramifications of cutting off one’s head serves as a key source from the Talmud, opening the possibility of harvesting organs for transplant purposes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 22a-b: Bringing sacrifices from fowl<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Torah<\/a> (Sefer<\/a> Vayikra<\/a><\/em> 1:14<\/a>), the two types of birds that can be brought as sacrifices are torim<\/em> and benei yonah<\/em> \u2013 turtledoves and pigeons. The tor<\/em> that is referred to is identified as Streptopelia turtur<\/a><\/em>, while the yonah<\/em> is identified as Columba livia domestica<\/a><\/em>. These birds are consistently referred to differently, the former are called torim<\/em>, while the latter are called benei<\/em><\/strong> yonah<\/em>. This is understood by the Sages to mean that a tor<\/em> is only qualified to be brought as a sacrifice when it is an adult bird, while the yonah<\/em> can only be brought when it is young, before it reaches adulthood. According to the Mishnah<\/a> on today’s daf<\/em>, 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\u2019s body becomes covered with plumage \u2013 gold in the case of torim<\/em> and yellow in the case of benei yonah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The ruling of the Mishnah is that torim<\/em> that are too small and benei yonah<\/em> that have already reached adulthood cannot be brought as sacrifices and therefore performing melikah<\/em> on them (see above, daf, or page 19<\/a><\/em>, for a description of melikah<\/em>) would not be effective in any way.<\/p>\n

In explanation of the difference between the two, the Rambam<\/a> in his Moreh Nevukhim<\/a><\/em> (3:46) argues that the meat of the turtledove is better when it is more mature, while that of the pigeon is better when the bird is young. The Ramban<\/a> in his Commentary to the Torah<\/a><\/em> (Vayikra 1:14) offers another suggestion, pointing to the different nature of each of these birds. Adult turtledoves are loyal to their mate to the extent that if one’s mate dies, the other will not choose another partner. This represents the relationship that exists between the Jewish People and God. In contrast, pigeons are jealous creatures that separate and switch mates, even as they are happy and content in their early stages of development.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 23a-b: An animal that is no longer a lamb but is not yet a ram<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

On today’s daf<\/em>, Rabbi Zeira<\/a> raises the following question: If a man commits himself to bringing a burnt-offering from a ram (an adult) or a lamb (a younger animal), but, in fact, brings a palges<\/em> \u2013 an “in-between” animal \u2013 what is the halacha<\/a><\/em>?<\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> points out that according to Rabbi Yohanan<\/a> it is clear that he can offer the palges<\/em> together with the libations that are appropriate for the larger animal. He believes that a palges<\/em> is a beriah bifnei atzmah<\/em> \u2013 that it has a unique status and situation, as it is neither a keves<\/em> nor an ayil<\/em> \u2013 and that the passage o la-ayil<\/em> “or for a ram” (see Bamidbar<\/a> 15:11<\/a>) should be understood as including a palges<\/em>. The Tosafot Yom Tov<\/a><\/em> explains that the word o<\/em> \u2013 “or” \u2013 refers to something aside from the ram and it is as though the Torah<\/a> had written “Thus shall it be done for each bullock, or for each palges<\/em> or for each ram.”<\/p>\n

The source for the word palges<\/em> is found in Greek, where it refers to someone who is no longer a child, but has not yet gained the status of an adult. In our case it refers to an animal that is an “in-between” stage of development. One the one hand, it is more than a year old, so it is no longer a keves<\/em> – a lamb. On the other hand it is not yet an ayil<\/em> – a ram – a status that it does not obtain until it is in its second year. Rashi<\/a> seems to extend this status to the animal during its thirteenth month; the Rambam<\/a> appears to give it this status only on the last day of the animal’s thirteenth month; according to other rishonim<\/a><\/em>, during the entire second year of the animal’s life it is considered a palges<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 24a-b: Is there mandatory retirement in the Temple?<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on today’s daf<\/em> teaches that the things that disqualify kohanim<\/a><\/em> do not disqualify levi’im<\/a><\/em>; similarly, the things that disqualify Levi\u2019im<\/em> do not disqualify kohanim<\/em>. This is explained by the baraita<\/a><\/em> as follows:<\/p>\n