The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz
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.
Chullin 33a-b: A lack of blood during ritual slaughter
Must every case of ritual slaughter include a flow of blood from the neck of the animal?
According to the Mishnah on today’s daf the answer to this question is an emphatic “no.” The Mishnah teaches:
If a man slaughtered cattle or a wild beast or a bird and no blood came forth, the slaughtering is valid and it may be eaten by him whose hands have not been washed, for it has not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by blood. Rabbi Simon says, it has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the slaughtering.
The simplest explanation for the Mishnah is that it is teaching about a case where the person performing the slaughter did not cut the veins and arteries together with the trachea and the esophagus (see above, daf 28). The Mishnah teaches that this does not affect the status of the animal as far as the laws of kashrut are concerned, since, as the Ri”d explains, the blood will be removed when the meat is salted or as the Rashba explains, blood is only forbidden once it separates and is no longer absorbed in the meat. The Rambam suggests that the point of the Mishnah is to teach that we do not suspect that an animal was already dead or dying just because no blood came out at the time of slaughter.
The Rashba also notes that the Mishnah emphasizes that this law is true regarding wild animals and birds, as well as domesticated animals. This is important since the law of kisui ha-dam – the halakha that requires the blood of the animal be covered after ritual slaughter – applies only to wild animal and birds (see Vayikra 17:13). It is, therefore, important to teach that even if there is no blood to cover, the slaughter is nevertheless acceptable.
Chullin 34a-b: Ritual defilement and ordinary meat
As we learned on yesterday’s daf, the Mishnah teaches that ritual slaughter is valid even if there is no blood that flows from the animal at the time of slaughter. The Mishnah continued with another law regarding ritual defilement:
If a man slaughtered cattle or a wild beast or a bird and no blood came forth, the slaughtering is valid and it may be eaten by him whose hands have not been washed, for it has not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by blood. Rabbi Simon says, it has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the slaughtering.
The issue at hand is the law that limits ritual defilement of food only to that which has become wet by means of one of seven liquids – wine, blood, oil, milk, dew, honey or water (see Vayikra 11:38) – which “prepares” the item for possible defilement. Ordinarily, the blood from the slaughter will play this role, and if someone with unwashed hands touches the meat it will become defiled. In the case of the Mishnah, where there is no blood, the meat would remain undefiled. Rabbi Shimon’s position is that the act of slaughter itself raises the status of the animal which “prepares” the animal for possible defilement.
The Gemara on today’s daf grapples with the fact that there is no significance to ritual defilement when discussing ordinary meat that is touched by unwashed hands, yet the Mishnah cannot be discussing kodashim – sanctified meat – since it specifically enumerates birds and wild animals, which cannot be sacrificed. One suggestion raised is that the case of the Mishnah is chullin she-na’asu al taharat hakodesh – ordinary meat that is treated as sanctified meat. In that case, even defilement from unwashed hands is significant.
During Temple times, many people were careful to keep the laws of ritual defilement even when eating ordinary food, so that they would not make mistakes when eating sanctified food. Rashi teaches that this was especially common among people who frequently ate consecrated food, like kohanim or Jerusalem residents; the Me’iri adds those people who were in constant contact with such food, like merchants who supplied the Temple with wine, flour and oil. Even after the destruction of the Temple, there were those who continued this practice, in the hope that the Temple would soon be rebuilt and its laws reinstated.
Chullin 35a-b: Raising the importance of meat by means of ritual slaughter
As we learned in the Mishnah (daf 33), ritual slaughter is valid even if no blood flows from the animal at the time of slaughter. With regard to the question of ritual defilement, the Mishnah quotes a difference of opinion:
If a man slaughtered cattle or a wild beast or a bird and no blood came forth, the slaughtering is valid and it may be eaten by him whose hands have not been washed, for it has not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by blood. Rabbi Simon says, it has been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the slaughtering.
We learned on yesterday’s daf that the difference of opinion between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon relates to the law that limits ritual defilement of food only to that which has become wet by means of one of seven liquids – wine, blood, oil, milk, dew, honey or water (see Vayikra 11:38) – which “prepares” the item for possible defilement. While ordinarily the blood that flows during slaughter will “prepare” the item for possible defilement, in the case of the Mishnah, where there is no blood, the meat would remain undefiled if touched by someone with unwashed hands. Rabbi Shimon’s position is that the act of slaughter itself raises the status of the animal which “prepares” the animal for possible defilement.
The Gemara on today’s daf discusses Rabbi Shimon’s ruling at some length.
Although the Ran suggests that Rabbi Shimon’s position applies only on a Rabbinic level, other commentaries offer explanations explaining why he believes that the act of shechita itself suffices to “prepare” the meat to be defiled if touched with unwashed hands. Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz suggests that it is similar to chibbat kodashim – literally “the love of consecrated objects.” When something is set aside as consecrated to the Temple, the importance that that object attains causes it to become sensitive and susceptible to ritual defilement. Similarly, in our case, where the animal that cannot be eaten is slaughtered and becomes kosher food, there is an element of chibbat shechita stemming from the change of status that causes it to become susceptible to ritual defilement.
Chullin 36a-b: The status of different kinds of blood
As we have learned on the previous dapim of the Gemara, according to the Torah (see Vayikra 11:38) ritual defilement of food will only take place when someone or something that is tamei comes into contact with food that has been made wet. Although the passage in Vayikra mentions specifically that the wetness comes from placing water on the food, the Gemara explains that the “wetness” necessary to “prepare” the food for defilement can only be by means of one of seven liquids – wine, blood, oil, milk, dew, honey or water.
On today’s daf we learn a baraita that was taught in the School of Rabbi Yishmael that not all blood will be able to serve this purpose. Based on the passage in Sefer Bamidbar(23:24) that compares the Jewish people to a lion that drinks the blood of its victims, i.e. like water, the baraita concludes that only blood from a dead creature – dam chalalim – will serve this purpose; if the blood comes from a live animal, then it is dam kilu’ah – “flowing blood” – that cannot “prepare” food for potential defilement.
Rashi explains that dam chalalim refers specifically to blood that flows from the animal at the moment of death; Tosafot argue that that blood would still be considered dam kilu’ah – blood from a living animal and that it is only blood that comes from the animal at a later stage that is considered to be dam chalalim. Both would agree that any blood that is collected from the animal when it is alive, e.g. from an injury or from bloodletting, would not meet the criteria for dam chalalim and such blood would not “prepare” food for potential defilement.
The Gemara does consider the possibility that any blood from ritual slaughter should be considered like water for this law, based on the passage in Sefer Devarim (12:16) that forbids eating blood and requires that it be “poured upon the earth as water.” Nevertheless, the Gemara rejects that suggestion, arguing that that passage is used as a source for other laws.
Chullin 37a-b: Can an animal be slaughtered if it appears to be dying?
Generally speaking, only healthy animals can be slaughtered for kosher food. Thus, a treifah – an animal that has a terminal condition – cannot be used. Nevertheless, if an animal is merely a mesukenet – it is ill – and its owner wants to slaughter it so that he can benefit from its meat, the Mishnah teaches that such shechita would be kosher, assuming that the animal shows a sign of vitality when killed. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel this would require movement of the animal’s limbs; according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is enough if blood spurted out at the time of shechita.
In searching for a source for this ruling, one suggestion raised by the Gemara is that it is based on a passage in Sefer Yechezkel (4:14) where we find this statement of the navi:
Then said I, ‘Ah Lord God! behold my soul has not been polluted, for from my youth up even until now have I not eaten of that which died of itself [neveilah], or is torn of beasts [treifah]; neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth.’
This statement was made after God commanded Yechezkel to eat disgusting things, and the prophet’s response was to object that he had always been careful to avoid anything that was not pure and untainted. The simple explanation is that Yechezkel was arguing that as a kohen he had to be even more careful than ordinary Jews regarding the food that he ate, as neveilah and treifah are not only unkosher, but ritually impure, as well. Nevertheless, the Sages of the Gemara understood that the prophet could not possibly have prided himself in simply keeping the straightforward halacha. They therefore interpreted the passage as follows:
‘Behold my soul has not been polluted,’ for I did not allow impure thoughts to enter my mind during the day so as to lead to pollution at night.
‘For from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of neveilah or treifah,’ for I have never eaten of the flesh of an animal concerning which it had been exclaimed: ‘Slaughter it! Slaughter it!’ – i.e., the flesh of a dying animal, which was slaughtered with haste before it died.
‘Neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth,’ for I did not eat the flesh of an animal which a Sage pronounced to be permitted.
Thus we find that avoiding such meat is a stringency that Yechezkel kept, but that others are not obligated to keep.
Chullin 38a-b: Slaughtering on behalf of non-Jews
If someone performs ritual slaughter on an animal belonging to a non-Jew, is its meat kosher for Jews to eat?
The Mishnah on today’s daf asks this question, and although the Tanna Kamma rules that the animal is kosher, Rabbi Eliezer argues that the shechita is not acceptable. His argument is that even if the non-Jew did plan to eat a small portion of the animal – indicating, apparently, that his intention was truly for food – nevertheless we suspect that the non-Jew intended that the animal be slaughtered on behalf of idolatry.
In response to Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling, the Mishnah brings the argument of Rabbi Yosi who explains why the non-Jew’s thoughts could not affect the status of the animal. He points to the case of kodashim – of Temple sacrifices – where we find that inappropriate thoughts would affect the status of the animal being slaughtered, and yet only the thoughts of the person performing the service are significant; the thoughts of the owner standing on the side are not taken into account. It is therefore logical to conclude that in ordinary slaughter, where the thoughts of the participants are not usually significant, we certainly would not take into account the thoughts of the non-Jew who is not involved in the actual slaughter.
Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning is that if we do take into account the intent of the owner of the animal, then the ritual slaughter effectively becomes tikrovet avodah zara – a sacrificial offering to idolatry – from which a Jew cannot derive any benefit. According to the Gemara in Masechet Avodah Zara (daf 29b) this is derived from the passage in Sefer Tehillim (106:28) that describes the behavior of the Israelites in the desert as people who “joined themselves unto Baal of Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead,” which is understood by the Sages as teaching that just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from the dead, similarly it is forbidden to derive benefit from idol worship.
Chullin 39a-b: Ecumenical interaction in Caesarea
In the context of the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer that we learned about on yesterday’s daf, the Gemara brings a baraita that teaches that if someone slaughters an animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood for idolatry or sacrifice its fats to an idol, that animal is forbidden; it is as if one ate “sacrifices of the dead.” If it was slaughtered without any particular plans and afterwards the decision was made to sprinkle its blood for idolatry or sacrifice its fats to an idol – this case occurred in the city of Caesarea, and the Sages refused to rule one way or another. Rav Chisda explains that they did not want to forbid it out of respect for the Sages who do not assume that every non-Jewish slaughter was intended for idolatry, and they did not want to permit it out of respect for Rabbi Eliezer who insists that we must assume that every non-Jewish slaughter is intended for idolatry.
Caesarea is an ancient city on the Mediterranean coast. The city was established at the beginning of the second Temple era by the king of Sidon. Over the generations it became less and less important, and Alexander Yannai captured it and included it in the Kingdom of Judea. By the end of the second Temple period, King Herod had once again built it into an important port city. Nevertheless, from its beginning it was a city with a non-Jewish and even pagan quality to it. Caesarea became the administrative center of the Roman rule in Israel in the year 6 CE, and although many Jews lived there at that time, there was constant tension between them and their non-Jewish neighbors.
With the destruction of Jerusalem, Caesarea grew in importance until it became the de facto capital of the country until the Muslim capture of the country. During the Talmudic period, many of the Sages were residents of the city, including Rabbi Hoshaya and Rabbi Abahu. It remained a wealthy and important city until its destruction in the 13th century, CE.
In addition to his monumental translation and commentary on the Talmud, Rabbi Steinsaltz has authored dozens of books and hundreds of articles on a variety of topics, both Jewish and secular. For more information about Rabbi Steinsaltz’s groundbreaking work in Jewish education, visit www.steinsaltz.org or contact the Aleph Society at 212-840-1166.
The words of this author reflect his/her own opinions and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Orthodox Union.