## Chullin Daf 32a

###### Chullin 32a:1
[Chullin 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:1)

נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ, לְרַבִּי נָתָן – פָּרָה פְּסוּלָה בְּהֵמָה כְּשֵׁרָה, לְרַבָּנַן – פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּהֵמָה פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if **another animal was** inadvertently **slaughtered** together **with** the red heifer in the same action, **according to Rabbi Natan,** who holds that the slaughter of non-sacred animals without intent is valid, the red **heifer is disqualified,** because an additional labor was performed with its slaughter, and the other **animal is fit** for consumption, as its slaughter was valid. **According to the Rabbis,** who hold that slaughter of non-sacred animals without intent is not considered slaughter, the red **heifer is fit** for use in the purification rite because no other labor was performed with its slaughter, and **the** other **animal is unfit** for consumption.


###### Chullin 32a:2
[Chullin 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:2)

פְּשִׁיטָא! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לְרַבִּי נָתָן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה דְּחוּלִּין אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: That is **obvious;** why did Rava have to teach that? The Gemara answers: It **was necessary for** Rava to teach the *halakha* **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan** in the case where **another animal was** inadvertently **slaughtered** in the same action with the red heifer. It may **enter your mind to say: The Merciful One states** with regard to the slaughter of the red heifer: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest…**and he shall slaughter it** before him” (Numbers 19:3), from which it is inferred: One may slaughter it, **but not it and another** animal simultaneously. **And what are the circumstances** of that prohibition? It is a case **where one slaughtered two** red **heifers at the same time. But** in a case where one slaughtered a red heifer together with **a non-sacred animal, say no,** that it does **not** disqualify the red heifer. Therefore, Rava **teaches us** that even slaughter with a non-sacred animal disqualifies the red heifer.


###### Chullin 32a:3
[Chullin 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:3)

חָתַךְ דַּלַּעַת עִמָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, נֶחְתְּכָה דַּלַּעַת עִמָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava adds: If one slaughtered a red heifer and in the same action **cut a gourd** together **with it, everyone agrees** that the red heifer **is disqualified.** If one slaughtered a red heifer and **a gourd was** inadvertently **cut** together **with it** in the same action, **everyone agrees** that the red heifer is **fit** for use in the purification rite, as that is not labor that disqualifies a red heifer and it is also not excluded by the derivation from the verse “And he shall slaughter it.”


###### Chullin 32a:4
[Chullin 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָפְלָה סַכִּין וְהִגְבִּיהָהּ, נָפְלוּ כֵּלָיו וְהִגְבִּיהָן, הִשְׁחִיז אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְעָף, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁחַט, אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה – פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If, when one was in the middle of slaughtering an animal, **the knife fell and he lifted it** and then completed the slaughter, or if **his garments fell and he lifted them** and then completed the slaughter, or if **he had honed the knife and grew weary** before completing the slaughter and **another came and slaughtered** the animal, **if he interrupted** the slaughter in one of these ways or in a different way for an interval **equivalent** to the duration of an act of **slaughter,** the slaughter is **not valid. Rabbi Shimon says:** The slaughter is not valid **if he interrupted** the slaughter for an interval **equivalent** to the duration of **an examination.**


###### Chullin 32a:5
[Chullin 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of an interval **equivalent** to the duration of an act of **slaughter? Rav said:** It means an interval **equivalent** to the duration of an act of **slaughter of another animal,** not the duration required to complete the act of slaughter that was interrupted.


###### Chullin 32a:6
[Chullin 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:6)

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְעוֹף לְעוֹף, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַף בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:** Is the interruption that invalidates the slaughter an interval **equivalent** to the duration of an act of **slaughter of** another **animal for an animal,** i.e., in a case where an animal was being slaughtered, **and** an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter **of** another **bird for a bird? Or perhaps** it is an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter **of an animal even for a bird,** and if the interruption is any shorter it does not invalidate the slaughter?


###### Chullin 32a:7
[Chullin 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:7)

אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא הֲוָה בְּדִיחְנָא בֵּיהּ בְּחַבִּיבִי, דֶּאֱישַׁיְּילֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **said to them:** When we studied this topic **I** did **not** feel sufficiently **intimate with my beloved** uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, such **that I** could **ask him** that question. Rav was able only to transmit that which he heard from Rabbi Ḥiyya, but was unable to resolve their dilemma.


###### Chullin 32a:8
[Chullin 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:8)

אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְעוֹף לְעוֹף, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף, וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. **Rav said:** An interval **equivalent** to the duration of an act of **slaughter of** another **animal for an animal, and** an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter **of** another **bird for a bird. And Shmuel said:** An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter **of an animal even for a bird. And likewise, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter **of an animal even for a bird.**


###### Chullin 32a:9
[Chullin 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:9)

רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיא בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת וְיִשְׁחוֹט. יָבִיא אֲפִילּוּ מֵעָלְמָא? נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥananya said:** An interval **equivalent** to the period in **which one can bring another animal and slaughter** it. The Gemara asks: Does that mean the time in which **one can bring** an animal **even from anywhere else,** regardless of the distance? Occasionally, there is no animal available in close proximity. If so, **you have rendered your statement** subject **to circumstances;** it does not apply uniformly to all cases.


###### Chullin 32a:10
[Chullin 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:10)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: עוֹמֶדֶת לְהַטִּיל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** The practical difference **between** the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya and that of the other Sages is in a case where there is an animal **standing** before the slaughterer and it is necessary **to cast** it to the ground in order to slaughter it. Even Rabbi Ḥananya disregards the time required to bring the animal from elsewhere. But Rabbi Ḥananya holds that the slaughter is invalidated only if the interruption lasts an interval equivalent to the duration of the act of casting the animal to the ground and slaughtering it. The Rabbis invalidate the slaughter even if an interval has elapsed that is equivalent to the duration of the act of slaughtering the animal, without casting it to the ground.


###### Chullin 32a:11
[Chullin 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:11)

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחוֹט, דַּקָּה לְדַקָּה וְגַסָּה לְגַסָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an additional opinion with regard to the duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter. **They said in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:** The duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter is **equivalent** to the period in **which he can lift** the animal from the ground **and** then **lay it** back on the ground **and slaughter** it. The interval is calculated based on the size of the animal in question. The duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter of **a small** animal is equivalent to the period necessary **to** lift, lay down, and slaughter **a small** animal. **And** the duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter of **a large** animal is equivalent to the period necessary **to** lift, lay down, and slaughter **a large** animal.


###### Chullin 32a:12
[Chullin 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said:** In the case of **one who slaughters with a blunt knife, even** if the completion of the slaughter lasts **the entire day,** the slaughter is **valid** provided there is no interruption in the midst of the slaughter.


###### Chullin 32a:13
[Chullin 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:13)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: שְׁהִיּוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma:** If there were several short **interruptions** during a single act of slaughter, **what is** the *halakha* in terms of whether **they join** together to invalidate the slaughter if the sum of the durations of all the interruptions is greater than the maximum permitted interruption?


###### Chullin 32a:14
[Chullin 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:14)

וְתִפְשׁוֹט לַהּ מִדִּידֵיהּ! הָתָם בִּדְלָא שְׁהָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And let** Rava **resolve** the dilemma **from his own** statement, as he permitted an act of slaughter that lasts the entire day, during which there were presumably brief interruptions throughout. Apparently, the interruptions do not join together. The Gemara responds: **There,** Rava was referring to a case **where there was no interruption,** as the slaughterer drew the knife back and forth throughout.


###### Chullin 32a:15
[Chullin 32a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:15)

בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: שָׁהָה בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִין, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, raises a dilemma:** If one cut the majority of the *simanim* and then **interrupted** the slaughter before proceeding to cut the **minority of the *simanim*, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara answers: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 32a:16
[Chullin 32a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:16)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה [כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר]. מַאי כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי בִּיקֻּרוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם. אִם כֵּן, נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין! אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר טַבָּח חָכָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Shimon says:** The slaughter is not valid **if he interrupted** the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination. The Gemara asks: **What** is an interval **equivalent** to the duration of **an examination? Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** It is an interval **equivalent** to the duration of **an examination** of the knife **by a Sage** prior to the slaughter of the animal. The Gemara objects: **If so, you have rendered your statement** subject **to circumstances,** as sometimes the Sage is near and sometimes the Sage is far, and the time required for examination varies accordingly. The Gemara responds: **Rather,** the reference is to an interval **equivalent** to the duration of **an examination** performed by **a slaughterer** who is **a Sage.** In that case, travel time is not factored in; only the time of the examination itself is considered, and this does not vary.


###### Chullin 32a:17
[Chullin 32a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, אוֹ פָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט, אוֹ שָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהִמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ – רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר: נְבֵלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: טְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one cut the gullet** in the standard manner of slaughter with a back-and-forth movement, **and he severed the windpipe** not in the standard manner, **or** if **one severed the windpipe and thereafter cut the gullet, or** if **one cut one of** the *simanim* **and waited until** the animal **died, or** if one cut one *siman* and **concealed the knife beneath the second** *siman* **and severed it** from below, **Rabbi Yeshevav says:** The animal is **an unslaughtered carcass** and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. **Rabbi Akiva says:** The animal is **a *tereifa*,** and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity.


###### Chullin 32a:18
[Chullin 32a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:18)

כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ – נְבֵלָה, כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ כָּרָאוּי וְדָבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל – טְרֵפָה, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yeshevav stated a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Any** animal **that was rendered unfit during its slaughter** because the slaughter was not performed properly **is an unslaughtered carcass; any** animal **whose slaughter was** performed **properly and another matter caused it to become unfit is a *tereifa*. And Rabbi Akiva conceded to his** opinion.


###### Chullin 32a:19
[Chullin 32a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/32a:19)

**גְּמָ׳** שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְכוּ׳. וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: If **one cut the gullet…and Rabbi Akiva conceded to his** opinion. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (42a): **These** wounds constitute ***tereifot* in an animal:**