## Chullin Daf 16b

###### Chullin 16b:1
[Chullin 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:1)

תָּלוּשׁ וּלְבַסּוֹף חִבְּרוֹ לְעִנְיַן שְׁחִיטָה מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of a blade that was **detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to slaughter, what** is the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 16b:2
[Chullin 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה צוֹר יוֹצֵא מִן הַכּוֹתֶל, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קָנֶה עוֹלֶה מֵאֵלָיו וְשָׁחַט בּוֹ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from a *baraita*: If there **was a flint emerging from a wall or a reed arising** from the ground **on its own and he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is not valid.** Since the wall itself was made from stones that were detached and subsequently reattached, the slaughter is not valid.


###### Chullin 16b:3
[Chullin 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּכוֹתֶל מְעָרָה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי דּוּמְיָא דְּ״קָנֶה עוֹלֶה מֵאֵלָיו״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing **with** the case of **the wall of a cave** that was always attached. The language of the *baraita* **is also precise** in support of that explanation, **as** the *tanna* **teaches** the case of the flint emerging from a wall juxtaposed to, and therefore **similar to,** the case of **a reed arising** from the ground **on its own,** which was also always attached. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, **learn from it** that this is the case.


###### Chullin 16b:4
[Chullin 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: נָעַץ סַכִּין בַּכּוֹתֶל וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. שָׁאנֵי סַכִּין, דְּלָא מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from a *baraita*: If **one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid.** The knife was detached and then reattached, and the slaughter is valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: The reason that the slaughter is valid is that **a knife is different, as he does not subsume it** to the wall.


###### Chullin 16b:5
[Chullin 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. דִּלְמָא פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ לַהּ – מַאי ״מְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע״? סַכִּין, דְּלָא מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from an earlier point in that *baraita*: If one slaughtered **with** an item that is **attached to the ground, his slaughter is valid.** This is a case where it was detached and then attached, as later in the *baraita* a case is cited when the blade was always attached and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: **Perhaps** the phrase that follows in the *baraita*: If one embedded a knife in a wall, **is explaining** the previous case. And accordingly, **what** is the meaning of **attached to the ground?** It is in the case of **a knife, as he does not subsume it** to the wall. But if he embedded a flint in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter would be valid. Therefore, there is no proof from this *baraita*.


###### Chullin 16b:6
[Chullin 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:6)

אָמַר מָר: נָעַץ סַכִּין בַּכּוֹתֶל וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב עָנָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהַסַּכִּין לְמַעְלָה וְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַטָּה, אֲבָל סַכִּין לְמַטָּה וְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה – חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא יִדְרוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the *baraita*: If **one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. Rav Anan says** that **Shmuel says:** The *tanna* **taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case where **the knife is above and** the **animal’s neck is below,** and he raises the animal’s head and draws it back and forth on the blade. But in a case where the **knife is below and** the **animal’s neck is above,** the slaughter is not valid because **we are concerned lest he press** the knife, due to the weight of the animal, thereby cutting the *simanim* without drawing the knife back and forth, which invalidates the slaughter.


###### Chullin 16b:7
[Chullin 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:7)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי: בֵּין שֶׁהַסַּכִּין לְמַטָּה וְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה, בֵּין שֶׁהַסַּכִּין לְמַעְלָה וְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַטָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** explicitly in the *baraita*: With any item that cuts, one may slaughter, whether with a blade that is attached to the ground or with a blade that is detached from the ground; **whether the knife is below and** the **neck of the animal is above or the knife is above and** the **neck of the animal is below?**


###### Chullin 16b:8
[Chullin 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:8)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי, סַכִּין לְמַטָּה וְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה – בְּתָלוּשׁ, סַכִּין לְמַעְלָה וְצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה לְמַטָּה – בִּמְחוּבָּר. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: בְּעוֹפָא דְּקַלִּיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said:** The *baraita* **is taught disjunctively:** In the case where the **knife is below and** the **neck of the animal is above,** the slaughter is valid **when** the blade is **detached.** In the case where the **knife is above and** the **neck of the animal is below,** the slaughter is valid even **when** the blade is **attached. Rav Pappa said:** The *baraita* that teaches that one may slaughter even when the attached knife is below is referring **to** slaughter of **a bird, which is light,** and there is no concern that the weight of the bird will cause the slaughterer to press the bird’s neck onto the knife.


###### Chullin 16b:9
[Chullin 16b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:9)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קָנֶה: אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין מָלִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין מְחַתְּכִין בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֵין מְחַצְּצִין בָּהּ שִׁינַּיִם, וְאֵין מְקַנְּחִים בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak says, and some say it was taught in a *baraita*: Five matters were said with regard to the stalk of a reed,** which is used for cutting due to its sharpness. **One may neither slaughter with it,** due to the concern that splinters will be separated and become embedded in the *simanim*, invalidating the slaughter; **nor circumcise with it** for the same reason, due to the potential danger; **nor cut meat with it,** lest splinters become embedded in the meat and endanger one who eats it; **nor pick** one’s **teeth with it,** lest he wound himself; **nor wipe with it** after relieving oneself.


###### Chullin 16b:10
[Chullin 16b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:10)

אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, בֵּין בְּצוֹר, בֵּין בִּזְכוּכִית, בֵּין בִּקְרוּמִית שֶׁל קָנֶה! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּסִימוֹנָא דְּאַגְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: One may neither slaughter with it. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in another *baraita*: **With any** sharp object **one may slaughter** an animal, **whether with a flint, or with glass** shards, **or with the stalk of a reed? Rav Pappa said:** There, the reference is **to** a specific type of **reed** that grows **in a marsh,** which becomes a smooth, hard surface when it dries.


###### Chullin 16b:11
[Chullin 16b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:11)

וְאֵין מְחַתְּכִין בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. רַב פָּפָּא מְחַתֵּךְ בַּהּ קִרְבֵי דָגִים, דְּזִיגִי. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְחַתֵּךְ בַּהּ עוֹפָא דְּרַכִּיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: **Nor cut meat with it. Rav Pappa cuts with** the stalk of a reed **the innards of fish, which are transparent,** such that any splinters would be obvious. **Rabba bar Rav Huna cuts with it** the meat of **a bird, which is soft** and will not cause the stalk of the reed to splinter.


###### Chullin 16b:12
[Chullin 16b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:12)

וְאֵין מְקַנְּחִין בַּהּ, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר מָר: הַמְקַנֵּחַ בְּדָבָר שֶׁהָאוּר שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ שִׁינָּיו נוֹשְׁרוֹת. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קִינּוּחַ פִּי מַכָּה קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: **Nor wipe with it** after relieving oneself. The Gemara objects: **Derive** that one may not wipe with it **because the Master said: One who wipes with an object that is flammable, his** lower **teeth,** i.e., the rectum that holds the intestines in place, **fall out. Rav Pappa said** in explanation: The reference in the *baraita* is not to wiping after relieving oneself. Rather, **we are speaking** with regard to **wiping** the blood or dirt from **the opening of a wound.**


###### Chullin 16b:13
[Chullin 16b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:13)

הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, וּלְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין. הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין – הַכֹּל בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ עוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **All slaughter [*hakkol shoḥatin*] and one may always slaughter.** The Gemara interprets the phrase: **All slaughter [*hakkol shoḥatin*],** to mean **all** animals are included in the mitzva **of slaughter, and even a bird.**


###### Chullin 16b:14
[Chullin 16b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:14)

לְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין, מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבוּלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר וְגוֹ׳״, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר לָהֶם בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the statement: **One may always slaughter, who** is the *tanna* who **taught** this *halakha*? **Rabba said:** It **is Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“When the Lord your God shall expand your border, as He has promised you, and you shall say: I will eat flesh…**you may eat flesh with all the desire of your soul” (Deuteronomy 12:20), **Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse comes only to permit** consumption of the non-sacrificial **meat of desire to** the Jewish people.


###### Chullin 16b:15
[Chullin 16b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:15)

שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה, נֶאֱסַר לָהֶם בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה, מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ הוּתַּר לָהֶם בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As, at the outset,** the **meat of desire was forbidden to them,** and anyone who wanted to eat meat would sacrifice the animal as an offering. After the priest sprinkled the blood, it was permitted for one to eat the meat. **When they entered into Eretz** Yisrael, the **meat of desire was permitted for them,** and they could slaughter and eat meat wherever they chose.


###### Chullin 16b:16
[Chullin 16b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:16)

וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁגָּלוּ, יָכוֹל יַחְזְרוּ לְאִיסּוּרָן הָרִאשׁוֹן? לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ: לְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba added: **And now that** the Jewish people **were exiled, might** one have thought that **they return to their initial prohibition? Therefore, we learned** in the mishna: **One may always slaughter** non-sacrificial meat.


###### Chullin 16b:17
[Chullin 16b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/16b:17)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי ״לְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין״, ״לְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין וְאוֹכְלִין״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְעוֹד, מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי טַעְמָא אִיתְּסַר – מִשּׁוּם דְּהָווּ מְקָרְבִי לְמִשְׁכָּן, וּלְבַסּוֹף מַאי טַעְמָא אִישְׁתְּרוֹ – דַּהֲווֹ מְרַחֲקִי מִמִּשְׁכָּן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef objects to this.** If so, **this** phrase: **One may always slaughter,** is inappropriate; the *tanna* **should have** taught: **One may always slaughter and eat,** as the matter of permission primarily relates to eating the meat, not to slaughtering the animal. **And furthermore, initially, what is the reason** that the meat of desire **was forbidden?** It was **because** in the wilderness, **they were proximate to the Tabernacle** and could partake of sacrificial meat from the table of God. **And ultimately, what is the reason** that the meat of desire **was permitted?** The reason was **that** in Eretz Yisrael **they were distant from the Tabernacle.**