## Chullin Daf 85b

###### Chullin 85b:1
[Chullin 85b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:1)

לֹא לַכֹּל אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאֵין מַתִּירָתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה; וְלֹא לַכֹּל אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמְּטַהַרְתָּהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Not with regard to all** *halakhot* did **Rabbi Meir say** an act of **slaughter that is not fit,** e.g., where one slaughters a *tereifa*, **is considered** an act of **slaughter,** as **Rabbi Meir** does **concede that** such an act of slaughter **does not render** the meat of the animal **permitted for consumption. And not with regard to all** *halakhot* did **Rabbi Shimon say** an act of **slaughter that is not fit is not considered** an act of **slaughter,** as **Rabbi Shimon** does **concede that** such an act of slaughter **renders** the animal **pure from** having the impure status of an unslaughtered **animal carcass.**


###### Chullin 85b:2
[Chullin 85b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:2)

אָמַר מָר: לֹא לַכֹּל אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאֵין מַתִּירָתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! טְרֵפָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה מִי מִישְׁתַּרְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this statement: **The Master said** that **not with regard to all** *halakhot* did **Rabbi Meir say** an act of **slaughter that is not fit is considered** an act of **slaughter,** as **Rabbi Meir concedes that** such an act of slaughter **does not render** the meat of the animal **permitted for consumption.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious? Can a *tereifa* become permitted** for consumption **through slaughter?**


###### Chullin 85b:3
[Chullin 85b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:3)

לָא צְרִיכָא, לְשׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, תַּהֲנֵי לֵיהּ שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ וְלָא לִיבְעֵי שְׁחִיטָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** this statement of Rabbi Abba **is necessary in** a case where **one slaughtered a *tereifa* and found a living nine-month-old** fetus **inside it.** It might **enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Meir said** an act of **slaughter that is not fit** to render the meat permitted **is considered** an act of **slaughter, the slaughter of its mother should be effective to** render the meat of the fetus permitted for consumption, as it normally does when the mother is not a *tereifa*; and the fetus, after it is born, **should not require** its own **slaughter.** Rabbi Abba therefore **teaches us** that according to Rabbi Meir, slaughter that does not render the meat of the mother permitted for consumption does not render the fetus permitted either.


###### Chullin 85b:4
[Chullin 85b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:4)

וְתִסְבְּרָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בֶּן פְּקוּעָה טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how can **you understand** that without Rabbi Abba’s statement, one would have thought that according to Rabbi Meir, the fetus does not require its own slaughter? **But doesn’t Rabbi Meir say** that **a fetus removed from its mother’s womb after the mother was properly slaughtered [*ben pekua*], requires slaughter,** as the slaughter of the mother does not permit the fetus?


###### Chullin 85b:5
[Chullin 85b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:5)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן. סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The statement of Rabbi Abba **is not necessary** for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but it is for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is **because Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir** in one instance, **and holds in accordance with** the opinion of the Rabbis in another. In a case where one slaughtered a mother and its offspring on the same day **he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** an act of **slaughter that is not fit** to render the meat permitted **is considered** an act of **slaughter. And** with regard to a *ben pekua*, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say the** proper **slaughter of the mother renders** the fetus **kosher,** i.e., the fetus does not require its own ritual slaughter.


###### Chullin 85b:6
[Chullin 85b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:6)

כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, תַּהֲנֵי לֵיהּ שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ וְלָא לִיבְעֵי שְׁחִיטָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **since the Rabbis say the** proper **slaughter of the mother renders** the fetus **kosher,** one might conclude that with regard to a *tereifa* as well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds **the slaughter of the mother should be effective to** render the meat of the fetus permitted for consumption, **and it should not require** its own **slaughter.** In light of this, Rabbi Abba **teaches us** that although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees with Rabbi Meir that an ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the case of a *tereifa* the slaughter of the mother is not effective for the fetus.


###### Chullin 85b:7
[Chullin 85b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:7)

וְלֹא לַכֹּל אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁמְּטַהַרְתָּהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״, מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה וּמִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה, וְאֵי זוֹ זוֹ – טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses the second statement of Rabbi Abba: **And not with regard to all** *halakhot* did **Rabbi Shimon say** an act of **slaughter that is not fit is not considered** an act of **slaughter,** as **Rabbi Shimon concedes that** such an act of slaughter **renders** the animal **pure from** having the impure status of an unslaughtered **animal carcass.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious? As Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says, and some say it was taught in a *baraita*:** The verse states with regard to an animal carcass: **“And if there dies of the animals**…he that touches its carcass shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:39). The word “of” indicates that **some animals transmit impurity** as a carcass **and some animals do not transmit impurity. And which** animal does not? **That is a *tereifa* that** one **slaughtered.**


###### Chullin 85b:8
[Chullin 85b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:8)

לָא צְרִיכָא, לְשׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וְהִיא חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה. דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה, וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה, זֶה וָזֶה חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר בַּהֲנָאָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** Rabbi Abba’s statement **is necessary in** the case of **one who slaughters a *tereifa*, and it is a non-sacred** animal **in the Temple courtyard. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who slaughters** a known ***tereifa*, and likewise one who slaughters** an animal **and it was found** to be **a *tereifa*,** and **this and that** were **non-sacred** animals slaughtered **in the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon permits** one **to** derive **benefit** from them, as one is not considered to have transgressed the prohibition against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard. **And the Rabbis prohibit** one to derive benefit from them.


###### Chullin 85b:9
[Chullin 85b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:9)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַלְמָא לָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל, אֵימָא: מִידֵי נְבֵלָה נָמֵי לָא מְטַהֲרָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, it might **enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says** it is **permitted to derive benefit** from such an animal, **evidently** slaughtering a *tereifa* **is not considered slaughter at all.** Therefore, **say** that slaughter **does not** have the ability to **purify** the *tereifa* **from** having **the status of** a ritually impure **animal carcass either.** Rabbi Abba therefore **teaches us** that even according to Rabbi Shimon, the slaughter is effective to remove it from the status of a carcass.


###### Chullin 85b:10
[Chullin 85b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, וְהָתְנַן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה יִשָּׂרְפוּ בָּאֵשׁ, וְכֵן חַיָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בָּעֲזָרָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הַיְינוּ דְּגָזְרִינַן חַיָּה אַטּוּ בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And** does **Rabbi Shimon hold** that the prohibition against deriving benefit from **non-sacred** animals slaughtered **in the Temple courtyard is by Torah law?** Abaye **said to** Rav Pappa: **Yes** he does. **And we learned** in a mishna (*Temura* 33b) that **Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred** animals **that were slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard shall be burned in the fire. And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard** shall be burned in the fire. Abaye continues: **Granted, if you say** the meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is forbidden **by Torah law, this is** the reason why **we decree** that the meat of **an undomesticated animal** is prohibited as well, **due to** the Torah prohibition against deriving benefit from the meat of **a domesticated animal.**


###### Chullin 85b:11
[Chullin 85b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:11)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן, בְּהֵמָה מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, הִיא גּוּפַהּ גְּזֵרָה, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזוֹר גְּזֵירָה לִגְזֵירָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** the meat of domesticated animals is forbidden **by rabbinic law** then the mishna is difficult: **What is the reason** the meat of a non-sacred **domesticated animal** is forbidden? It is forbidden **lest one** see someone consuming this meat outside the Temple courtyard and **arrive** at the erroneous conclusion that it is permitted **to partake of sacrificial** meat **outside** the Temple courtyard. If so, the prohibition against deriving benefit from the meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal is itself a rabbinic **decree, and will we** then **proceed to issue a decree** prohibiting one to derive benefit from a non-sacred undomesticated animal in order **to** prevent the violation of **a decree?**


###### Chullin 85b:12
[Chullin 85b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:12)

רַבִּי חִיָּיא נְפַל לֵיהּ יָאנִיבָא בְּכִיתָּנֵיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל עוֹפָא וּשְׁחוֹט עַל בּוּבִיתָא דְּמַיָּא, דְּמוֹרַח דְּמָא וְשָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that one who stabs an undomesticated animal or bird, or who tears loose its windpipe and gullet, is exempt from covering the blood. With regard to this the Gemara relates: **Moths infested the flax of Rabbi Ḥiyya. He came before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi to ask how to get rid of the moths. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him: Take a bird and slaughter** it **over the tub of water** in which the flax was soaked, **as** the moths will **smell the blood and leave** the flax.


###### Chullin 85b:13
[Chullin 85b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:13)

הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְצָרִיךְ לַדָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה? אוֹ נוֹחֲרוֹ, אוֹ עוֹקְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **How could** Rabbi Ḥiyya **do this? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **One who slaughters** a bird or an undomesticated animal, **and** does so only because he **needs the blood, is** nevertheless **obligated to cover** the blood and may not use it for any other purpose? Rather, **how should** one who needs the blood **act?** He **either stabs it or tears loose** its windpipe and its gullet, so that it is not killed with an act of slaughter. How, then, could Rabbi Ḥiyya use the blood of the bird that he slaughtered to rid his flax of the moths?


###### Chullin 85b:14
[Chullin 85b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:14)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: ״צֵא טְרוֹף״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר: ״צֵא נְחוֹר״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael, **he said** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to** Rabbi Ḥiyya: **Go out** and **render** the bird **a *tereifa*,** and then slaughter it, as the mishna teaches that one who slaughters a *tereifa* is not required to cover its blood. **When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, **he said** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to** Rabbi Ḥiyya: **Go out** and **tear loose** the bird’s windpipe and gullet.


###### Chullin 85b:15
[Chullin 85b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:15)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״צֵא טְרוֹף״, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר ״צֵא נְחוֹר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to the one who says** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: **Go out** and **render** the bird **a *tereifa*, what is the reason** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **did not say: Go out** and **tear loose** its windpipe and gullet?


###### Chullin 85b:16
[Chullin 85b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85b:16)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, קָסָבַר אֵין שְׁחִיטָה לָעוֹף מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וּנְחִירָתוֹ זוֹ הִיא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה מֹשֶׁה עַל הַוֶּשֶׁט וְעַל הַקָּנֶה, וְעַל רוֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְעַל רוֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** the reason is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that **slaughter of a bird is not** obligatory **by Torah law, and** consequently **the tearing loose** of **its** windpipe and gullet **is** considered **its slaughter** such that he would be required to cover the blood, this is untenable. As **isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The verse states: “And you shall slaughter…**as I have commanded you”** (Deuteronomy 12:21). This **teaches that Moses was** previously **commanded** concerning the mitzvot of slaughter, i.e., he was taught **about the gullet and the windpipe,** that the cutting of these *simanim* constitutes slaughter, **and about** the requirement to cut the **majority of one** *siman* **of a bird, and about** the requirement to cut **the majority of two** *simanim* **of an animal.** If so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the slaughter of a bird is obligatory by Torah law.