Chullin 34: Treating Sacrifices as if they are Sanctified

We have learned that a slaughter without blood may be eaten by one who has not washed his hands.  This is because it was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through blood.  Rabbi Simon said that that had been reddened susceptible to ritual impurity through the act of slaughtering.

The law that limits ritual defilement of food only to something that has become wet due to one of seven liquids (Vayikra 11:38) which prepare the animal for possible defilement:

• wine
• blood
• oil
• dew
• honey
• water

The rabbis argue that there is no relevance if ordinary meat is touched by unwashed hands.  The mishna cannot be discussing kodashim, sanctified meat, since it specifically enumerates bird and wild animals which cannot be sacrificed.  One comment teaches that the case of the Mishna is chullin she-na'asu al taharat hakodesh, ordinary meat that is treated as if it is sanctified meat.  In that case, defilement from unwashed hands is significant.

Steinsaltz notes that in the times of the Temple, people kept the laws around ritual defilement even when eating ordinary food so that the would not make mistakes when they ate sanctified food.  Rashi taught that this practice was common to kohanim or Jerusalem residents because they were used to eating sanctified food.  The Meiri adds those people who were in constant contact with such food like merchants who supplied the Temple with wine and flour and oil.  People continued this practice after the destruction of the Temple hoping that the Temple would be rebuilt and the laws would be in practice again.

Chullin 33: Slaughter and Ritual Impurity

Today's daf includes a new Mishna which speaks of what happens when one slaughters certain animals. When one slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal or a bird and there was no blood during the slaughter, they are permitted for consumption.  In fact they do not require ritual washing of the hands; they may be eaten with ritually impure hands because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood.

Blood is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity.  Rabbi Shimon argues that they were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.

The Gemara focuses on stages of ritual impurity and the possibility that one might render oneself or another object ritually impure.  

Chullin 32: More Irregular Slaughter

There are two new Mishnayot in today's daf.  In yesterday's daf, we missed a new Mishna regarding a knife that fell and slaughtered an animal properly.  The rabbis debated whether or not such a slaughter was valid when it was not intentional and it was not done by the "you" in the directives.

Our first new Mishna states that when one is in the middle of slaughtering an animal and the knife falls, 

• if he lifted it and then completed the slaughter 
• if his clothing fell and he lifted them and then completed the slaughter 
• if he has readied the knife but became too tired and another came to complete the slaughter

Any of those interruptions invalidates the slaughter.  Rabbi Shimon says that the slaughter is not valid if the interruption is the same length of time as an interval of examination.

The second Mishna teaches us that 

• if one cuts the gullet in the standard manner of slaughter (with a back and forth motion)
• if the windpipe was severed in the standard manner, or if on severed the windpipe and then cut the gullet
• if one cut both simanim and waited for the animal to die 
• if one cut the siman and hid the knife beneath the second simon and severed from below,

the animal is ruled by Rabbi Yeshevav as being an unslaughtered carcass.  It thus imparts ritual impurity through contact with it or carrying ti.  Rabbi Akiva says that the animal is a treifa.  Thus eating it is prohibited but it does not transmit ritual impurity.

The Mishna ends with more from Rabbi Yeshevav who states a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua:  Any animal 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 be unfit as a treifa.  Rabbi Akiva agrees.

Chullin 30: Irregular Slaughter

Today’s daf is the last of several dapim focusing on the specifics of slaughtering.  We learn a new Mishna at the end of amud (b) that delves even deeper into the process of slaughter.

The rabbis’ discussion turns to the red heifer and then to other animals that might be slaughtered on Pesach.  Pesach was the Festival that pulled all diasporic Jews back to the Temple with promises of meat, family gatherings, and a view of the great Temple.  In the cases discussed, the rabbis wonder about the validity of the slaughter in many different circumstances.  For example, two men might complete the slaughter together; one person might use two different clothes in the process of slaughter, etc. etc.

The rabbis argue about whether or not cutting a siman, for example, the windpipe, several times invalidates the slaughter.  What if the cut is diagonal?  What if one person uses a knife from the top of the animal’s neck while the other uses a second knife from the bottom of the animal’s neck? The rabbis cannot decide whether or not a slaughter is valid if the knife is concealed in the neck or beneath a cloth.

Our new Mishna teaches that it is valid to slaughter by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously.  It is valid for two people to slaughter from different points in the neck of one animal. Decapitating an animal is one motion is not valid; however, if one accidentally decapitated an animal in one motion and the length of the knife is the same as the breadth of the animal’s neck, the slaughter is valid.   It is valid if one who was slaughtering two animals simultaneously and s/he decapitated them in one motion and the length of the knife was the same as the breadth of one animal’s neck.  The important piece is that the knife is drawn back and forth if possible.

Chullin 29: When is the Sacrifice of Birds Accomplished

Our rabbis continue their discussion about the sacrifice of birds.  Their conversation includes a number of questions:

• how much of the simanim are cut?
• to what degree have they been severed?
• whether or not the blood is required for sprinkling
• whether it is permitted or not to slaughter two birds simultaneously

The rabbis ask each other about when the slaughter is accomplished.  Reish Lakish teaches in the name of Levi the Elder that slaughter is complete at its conclusion.  Rabban Yochanan teaches that the act of slaughter is accomplished at each stage of the process.  Rava comments that all agree that when a Gentile cuts one siman and a Jew cuts the other, the slaughter is not valid at any point.  The Gentile makes the animal a treifa, disqualified from slaughter due to ritual impurity.  

Following up on this, the rabbis wonder about a siman pinched by a priest below the red line (which was drawn around the altar, demonstrating half of the hight of the alters and below which where sprinkling was done).  The other siman was pinched above the red line.  This sacrifice is invalid as well, due to pinching done above the red line.

We then learn that Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree only when an one cuts one siman outside of the Temple courtyard and one simon inside the Temple courtyard.  This would affect whether or not the slaughter is valid at its conclusion or during its process.  Concluding the slaughter in the Temple courtyard is the factor which determines the validity of the slaughter.  The rabbis clarify - performance of an act of slaughter outside of the Temple courtyard invalidates the slaughter and is punishable.

Chullin 28: Bird Sacrifice - Ritual Impurity, Surgical Knowledge & Culminating Mental Helath Problems

Today's daf continues yesterday's discussion regarding the slaughter of birds.  The rabbis agree that these sacrifices require precision and knowledge, both of halacha and of bird anatomy.  The conversation includes blood, surgical procedure, and comparisons with other halachic rituals.  One of the concerns about blood is that a bird might bleed in specific ways that render it ritually impure for sacrifice.  

The detail in which our rabbis describe both the ritual and the halacha behind the ritual is sometimes difficult to grasp.  Why must we turn the bird's neck inside out to check how much of the siminim have been severed?  Why not just believe that we have done a "good enough job"?  

These thought patterns suggest interesting possibilities about being Jewish.  We have a long-standing, solid history of checking small details, repeating patterns, following rules through understanding those rules most completely.  Jewish achievement today includes that same comfort with repetition, research, practice, and argument.  Then again, these though patterns also suggest the development of mental health problems - anxiety, OCD, depression, etc.  

Chullin 27: Slaughtering Birds

Today’s daf begins Perek II of Masechet Chullin.  Our first Mishna teaches that the slaughter is valid if one cuts one siman (either the windpipe or the gullet) of a bird, or two simanim (both the windpipe and the gullet) of an animal.  Cutting the majority of a siman is like cutting the entire siman.  Rabbi Yehuda teaches that the slaughter is not valid unti the chaveridin, veins, are cut.  If one cut half of one simon in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, the slaughter is not valid.  If one cuts the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal the slaughter is valid.

The Gemara begins by discussing the tense of the word “slaughter”.  If it is past tense, are we referring to allowing an action after the fact? Next the rabbis consider the word “bends”, and whether it might imply that the part of the animal cut must be a part through which the blood of the soul is spilled.  This might be the neck, or it might be the tongue, the rabbis argue. The rabbis believe that “you shall slaughter” may refer to the head never being severed from the body of a slaughtered animal.  Aaron and his sons were instructed to deal with the animal parts based on a whole, not broken, animal.  The Gemara compares birds to animals; it compares birds to fish.

Our daf ends with a discussion about the origin of birds.  Were they formed from mud?  Or from water?  The rabbis share a number of prooftexts to bolster their different claims.  Rabbis wonder if birds need to be slaughtered at all. Instead, the blood of birds could be spilled indiscriminately.  Would that be enough?   The rabbis consider the particulars of slaughtering birds and other undomesticated animals.

Chullin 26: Fathers' Rights to Fines, Girls' Rights to Refuse, Shofar/Havdalla on Shabbat and Festivals

 Today's daf includes three Mishnayot.

The first teaches that one's daughter is sold as a Hebrew maidservant (as a minor), there is no fine of fifty sela paid to her father if she is raped or seduced.  That fine is only paid when she is a becomes a na'ara, an adolescent.  If a fine is paid to the father when she is the younger age, there is no actual sale.

The second teaches that a minor girl married off by her mother or brothers has the right to refuse the marriage.  There is no chalitza because a minor girl whose husband died before she had children with him cannot perform chalitza.  Once she becomes a bogeret, reaches the age of majority, there is no right of refusal.

In the Gemara, Rav Yehuda quotes Rav who quotes Rabbi Meir and the rabbis who say there is the right of refusal in chalitza.  This is known to be true because a baraita teaches that a girl may refuse as long as she is a minor (grows two pubic hairs which signify puberty).  Rav Yehuda then says that she may refuse until the black hairs in the pubic are cover an area greater than the white skin of the area (uncovered by hair.  At that stage she is eligible to perform chalitza.

This means that a young girl, let's say a ten year old who is a maidservant or a wife, has a complicated path to follow if she is to take control of her life.  She might be denied a fine - well, her father might be denied that fine if she is seduced or raped beyond the interference of her husband.  In our times, a ten year old who is seduced or raped is seen as violated in the most heinous of ways; she has no capacity to consent.  A girl has to know that she has a small window of time to claim her rights.  Once a bogeret, a grown woman, her rights are returned to her male owner - her boss, husband or father.

The final Mishna is longer.  It teaches that when the sound of the shofar on Shabbat or a Festival evening stop people from working and mark a line between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala at the conclusion in prayer over wine.  When havdala is recited, there is no shofar.

How is this the case?  When a Festival falls on erev Shabbat, the shofar is sounded to stop people from working at tasks prohibited on Shabbat but permitted on the Festival.  Havdala is only performed when the transition from a sacred to a profane day or from a day of greater to lesser sanctity.  Shabbat is more holy than a Festival.  

When havdala marks the transition between a Festival and Shabbat, it ends with the following words, "Who distinguishes between  sacred and sacred" instead of the standard blessing, "Who distinguishes between sacred and profane".  Rabbi Dosa says that we should say,"Who distinguishes between greater sanctity and lesser sanctity."

Chullin 25: When Status Changes

Today's daf contains three Mishnayot.  The first two are short but the last one is quite long.  

The first Mishna teaches us that that which is ritually pure in wooden vessels is ritually impure in metal vessels.  That which is ritually pure in metal vessels is ritually impure in wooden vessels.

The second Mishna teaches us that regarding the obligation to separate teruma and tithes, the stage of development that is obligated in bitter almonds is exempt in sweet almonds.  The stage of development obligated in sweet almonds is exempt regarding bitter almonds.  

The third Mishna teaches us that temed, a drink made from grape residue soaked and fermented in water, may not be purchased with second-tithe money and consumed in Jerusalem because it is not wine.  Wine is subject to many laws.  If three log of temed falls into a ritual bath, the water has the status of drawn water and thus it is ritually invalid.  Once fermented, timed is considered to be wine.  As wine it may be purchased in Jerusalem and it will not invalidate ritually pure items.  Brothers who inherit from their father as partners are obligated to add the kalbon, premium, to their annual half-shekel payment to the Temple.  They are exempt from the animal tithe.  When they are obliged to separate the animal tithe, they are exempt from adding the premium.  When they pay the half-shekel they must add the premium  and they are exempt from the animal tithe.  If they are not true partners but their inheritance continues to belong to their father, they must separate the animal tithe.

These details regarding monetary obligations are important to understand because they change according to context.  In these mishnayot, we can see evidence of the rabbis' efforts to do what is just and fair toward all.

Chullin 23: Uncertainties

We begin with a reminder about what would disqualify a bird from sacrifice.  One of the disqualifies is bestiality - if someone sexually interfered with a bird.  The rabbis connect the notion of corruption with idol worship.

The rabbis consider other issues of uncertainty.  They ask about stringency regarding the age of an animal to be sacrificed.  What of a ram who is between one year and thirteen months old?   Similarly, the rabbis ask about whether or not one might eat matza that was not completely unleavened and still fill the mitzvah of eating unleavened bread.

At the end of our mitzvah we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It tells us that what is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken.  As well, what is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

Chullin 22: Difficulty with Severing Simanim; Immature, Mature Birds

The rabbis speak about the status of a bird whose neck was broken without the flesh being appropriately severed.  They talk of other animals who are lacking legs or are otherwise damaged and thus invalid for slaughter.  It seems that there is some debate about whether or not such animals might be considered valid.  For example, one rabbi recalls the story of a bird whose head was severed.  Both the head and the body were burned as an offering.  

The rabbis speak about the difficulty of sprinkling from the bird once its simanim are mostly severed.  

At the end of our daf, we learn a new Mishna.  It quotes Leviticus (1:14), "He shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons".  The age that is fit for sacrificing doves - mature birds - is unfit for sacrificing pigeons - immature birds.  The age that is fit for sacrificing pigeons is unfit for sacrificing doves.  When the bird's plumage begins to yellow in its middle years, both types of birds are unfit for slaughter.  At that point, birds are considered to be mature.

Chullin 20: Torah or Rabbinic Sources for Slaughtering Birds

Amud (a) focuses on the importance of slaughtering a bird through pinching without using a back and forth motion.  

Amud (b) walks us through an argument between those who believe that there is a Torah-based source for slaughtering birds and those who believe that the source is rabbinical.   In addition, some believe that slaughter must be done very specifically, while others believe that slaughter is valid if it is completed in a number of different ways.  

The rabbis consider the use of a knife, and whether that slaughter might be valid if done in certain ways.  We learn about the unimportance of skin - if skin is not significantly punctured, the slaughter might be valid anyway.  The rabbis also consider how one might validate an invalidated slaughter through pinching.

Chullin 19: Pinching and Slaughtering

The rabbis continue their conversation regarding the proper slaughter of an animal.  In particular, they discuss the placement of the blade on the neck of the animal.

A new Mishna teaches us that when we slaughter from the side of the throat, the slaughter is valid.  If one pinches the neck of a bird offering from the side, the slaughter is not valid.  It is valid to pinch from the nape of the neck or slaughters from the throat.  But if one pinches from the throat, the slaughter is not valid because the entire nape is valid for pinching and the entire throat is valid for slaughter.  What is valid for slaughter is not valid for pinching and what is valid for pinching is not valid for slaughter.

In their discussion, the rabbis note which third of the bird's neck may be used for slaughter.  They wonder about the exact location for valid pinching.  The rabbis teach us about pinching on the back of the neck and slaughtering at the corresponding locations on the front of the neck.  

Chullin18: Proper Blades, Proper Cutting

Before beginning a new Mishna, the rabbis end their conversation about blades.  Having an imperfect blade invalidates the slaughter.  And if one refuses to show his blade for inspection, he might be liable for punishment for the blade and/or for his disrespectful behaviour.

Our first new Mishna describes a slaughter with a serrated harvest sickle.  If its teeth are inclines in one direction, in a forward direction, whether the serrations do not tear the flesh, Beit Shammai say that the slaughter is invalid while Beit Hillel disagree.  They both agree that smoothing out the serrations makes the blade valid.

A second new Mishna teaches us about the physical slaughter of a sacrifice.  An animal should be slaughtered from within the cricoid cartilage that forms a ring at the top of the windpipe and then left a thread's breadth over the surface of that ring.  The knife should not go beyond the ring toward the animal's head.  Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says that it is valid even if a thread's breadth was left over the majority of the surface of the ring.  Steinsaltz offers images to better illustrate this process.

Chullin 16: Blades and Invalid Slaughter

Today's daf speaks to other methods of slaughter that are not permitted.  The rabbis focus on blades that are attached to water, or wheels, etc.  Further, if a handle is removed and replaced, there is a question as to the validity of the slaughter.  Interestingly the rabbis discuss the reed, a sharp, dry grass, which is not permitted because it might leave shards of itself in the offering.  For that same reason it is not permitted to use a reed for other purposes, including for wiping oneself after defecating.  

Chullin 15: Intention and Slaughter

The majority of today's daf focuses on the implications of things done unintentionally.  For example, the  rabbis discuss shechita that is done unintentionally.  Can such offerings be consumed? Sold?  Benefited from in any way?  Do these offerings result in punishments?  The rabbis also discuss one who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly. Can such food be eaten? By whom?  Does it make a difference if one is very sick?  During or after Shabbat?   

At the end of our daf we are introduced to a new Mishna.  It teaches that it is valid to slaughter an animal with:

• the smooth side of a hand sickle,
• a sharpened flint
• a reed that was cut lengthwise and sharpened

It is valid to slaughter using any item the cuts except for

• the serrated side of the harvest sickle
• a saw
• the teeth of an animal still attached to its jawbone
• a fingernail

This is because all of these things are serrated and may strangle the animal without cutting its windpipe and gullet, which are required.  

The Gemara discusses in-between cases; for example, is it valid to slaughter an animal with a tool where the handle fell off and then was reattached?  

Chullin 14: Preparing/Sacrificing on Shabbat

We learn a new Mishna that is short and sweet: If one sacrifices on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, it is permitted after the fact though one should be put to death for those prohibitions.

The Gemara notes that an animal must be prepared before these days to be consumed on those days.  Even if given to the dogs, a carcass must be prepared before Shabbat/ Yom Kippur begins.  It also considers wine that might be untithed and joining boundaries on Shabbat.  Some rabbis compare the prohibitions around preparation on Shabbat with those that apply to moving a broken vessel.

Our daf ends with a conversation about foods that are set aside, specifically, those that are squeezed.  It is prohibited to eat foods that might have leaked juice inadvertently simply because one might believe that squeezing fruit on Shabbat is permitted.   Further, once something is set aside, it stays in that state until after Shabbat.  Rabbis argue about whether or not a dirty lamp might be moved on Shabbat; its repugnance would keep it from being transferred to another place.  

Chullin 13: Kutim, Assumptions, and Continuity

Today's Mishna teaches us that when a non-Jew performs shechita, ritual slaughter, the animal is not kosher.  Are we permitted to use that meat for purposes other than consumption?  Are we assuming that a non-Jew is slaughtering animals for purposes of idolatry?  Usually we do not.  Although, we are taught, a min, Jewish heretic, is assumed to be slaughtering animals for purposes of idolatry.  

A baraita tell us that ritual slaughter performed by a min is assumed to be intended for idolatry.  His bread is the bread of Kutim, his wine is used for idolatrous purposes, his scrolls of the law are like the books of sorcerers and his fruit is untithed.  

Steinsaltz teaches us about the Kutim who were exiled to Israel by the kings of Assyria who wanted to repopulate the land.  Kutim were called gerei arayot, lion converts, because they were afraid of the lions who were attacking them.  They converted but they continued to worship idols.  As well, Because of this, the Kutim were treated with greater care than other non-Jews.  For example, their bread was treated as if it were pork even when Jews had difficulty making their own bread.

This is another example of the rabbis separating Jews and non-Jews.  The logic seems to be that social relationships will lead to romantic relationships which will be the downfall of our peoplehood.  We continue to struggle with fears about assimilation and continuity.  And yet we are still here.

Chullin 12: Supervising Shechita

Rav Nachman teaches Rav's ruling: As long as one watches someone performing shechita, ritual slaughter, from the start to the end, the animal can be eaten.  Simply watching half of the process done well is not enough to allow us to assume that the remainder will be done properly  If one does not witness the entire process, it cannot be eaten.  If the slaughterer is a professional that witness is not required.  

It seems that the rabbis wish to ensure that only those who are expert in shechita perform or witness the act of shechita.  The Tosafot HaRosh suggest that one situation might involve one who happened to see on performing shechita compared with one who is watching carefully.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger teaches that we might know with certainty that the slaughterer does not know the laws.  In addition, we might be unsure whether or not one was an expert, and so we insist on supervision.

Chullin 11: Majorities and What They're Good For

Today, in part we learn about the definitions of "majority":

• ruba d'ita kaman, a clearly defined majority 
• examples include the Sanhedrin where Sages would vote and the majority would rule
• one example is a case where nine stores sell kosher meat and one that sells non-kosher meat and unidentified meat is found between them
• 
  
• ruba d'leta kaman, a majority which is known but is not perfectly measurable
• examples include a young boy and girl who are meant to marry under the rules of levirate marriage and it is assumed that neither is sterile since the vast majority of the population is able to conceive

The Chatam Sofer teaches that the difference between these two majorities is whether or not we can check the situation.  Some of the rabbis say that it is the interaction between the majority and the minority that allows us to recognize the situation of doubt.  The weight of the majority leads us to conclude our debate.  In the second, the majority is not in competition against the minority.  Instead, the majority is used as a tool that helps us to measure the circumstance.

Acharonim teach an interesting argument.  The first case might seem to be more certain than the second, but this is not necessarily the case.  In the first situation, the "majority rules" is a legal tool that helps us to solve a problem based in doubt.  In the second situation, the majority offers us much greater certainty  regarding our conclusion.

Chullin 9: Torah Scholars' Skills, What is Permitted

Rav Yehuda quotes Rav, saying that a Torah scholar must learn three skills: writing, so that he can write texts for several occasions, ritual slaughter, and circumcision.  Rav Hanna bar Shelamya quotes Rav as well.  He says that Torah scholars must also be able to tie the knot of the tefilin, to recite the groom's blessing by heart with traditional intonation, and to tie the tzitzim. 

Rav Huna explains that the is an presumption of permissibility with animals.  Until they are selected for shechita, they are assumed to be permissible. Once selected, they are presumed to be permissible until they become treifa.  Even if there is a flaw, they are presumed permitted until checked and possibly declared ritually impure.  

The rabbis remind us that there is a difference between something that is not permitted because of danger and something not permitted because of ritual impurity.  If we are concerned about snake venom in a small hole bored into a fig, for example, that is a concern about danger.  We are reminded that we continue to wash our hands before eating based on the priestly requirement of hand washing to ensure that they are not transmitting ritual impurity.

Chullin 8: The Knife Used in Shechita

We begin today's daf with a description of using a white hot knife blade in the process of shechita.  This transitions rapidly into a conversation regarding the identification of white leprous marks.   The rabbis consider whether a leprous mark might be considered a wound or a burn if it formed after one was touched by a white hot knife.  Is it the blow or the heat that caused the wound?

The rabbis debate about using a knife that may have been used for unkosher purposes.  They discuss whether or not we are permitted to use a Gentile's knife.  Interestingly, the rabbis say that it is permissible to wipe the blade of a knife on a piece of cloth after using it to slaughter a tereifa.  They describe in detail the process of dipping a knife in different vats of water for different purposes.

Chullin 6: Trusting Kutim, Trusting Parents-in-Law

Today's daf tells us about "a certain elder": Rabbi Meir went to fetch some wine from the Kutim.  He was met by a certain elder who said, "Put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite".  This was a warning to leave the Kutim. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar returned and reported to Rabbi Meir.  He asked why.  Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak said that they found a figure of a dove on the top of Mount Gerizim and they worshipped.  

Who is the certain elder?  Tosafot say that this is Eliyahu HaNavi in some situations, for his words are respected.  The rabbis discuss the possibility that this story happened after the Bar Kochba revolt was quashed.  At that time a pagan temple was built on Mount Gerizim and some Kutim became idol worshippers.  The dove was probably a symbol of the goddess Aphrodite.  Because most Kutim assimilated into pagan culture, the Sages decided that they were not to have full Jewish status.  

Today's daf also shares a number of situations where mothers-in-law or fathers-in-law meddle in their children's lives with good intentions.  For example, a mother-in-law might replace her daughter-in-law's  vegetables for better vegetables so that they can eat better food.  Should we be concerned about the source of those vegetables and whether they might be forbidden because of the laws of terumah or other negative commandments?

Chullin 5: Rabbans Gamliel

Part of what is discussed in today's daf is the rabbinical court in the time of Rabban Gamliel.  They decided that the Kutim were not trustworthy enough to perform shechita.  Some believed that they could be trusted because they kept all Torah law including the laws surrounding shechita.

Steinsaltz teaches us about the three different leaders who were known as Rabban Gamliel:

• Rabban Gamliel the Elder, grandson of Hillel the Elder, nasi during the second Temple period
• Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, head of the academy in Yavne after the death of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zaikai, colleague of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua
• Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's eldest son

Limited information is available regarding Rabban Gamliel who was the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.  The rishonim wonder about which Rabban Gamiliel is which.   Based on past rulings, different rabbis suggest that they are reading the words of one of the Gamliels.

Chullin 4: Ritual Slaughter, Five Disqualifications from Slaughter of Fowl

The rabbis continue to discuss shechita, ritual slaughter.  We learned that the Kutim were permitted to slaughter animals with a number of restrictions.  Today's Gemara turns to the ritual slaughter of fowl.  Kutim believed that it was not required by Torah law to slaughter birds according to shechita.  To counter that claim, the rabbis suggest that the five basic disqualifications of shechita are not found in the Torah, either, but the Kutim accept them.  Thus, we read, the Kutim should accept these laws as well.

These are the disqualifications:

• She'chiya, interrupting: hesitation during the act of slaughter
• Derasa, pressuring: cutting the esophagus and windpipe of the animal using pressure and not a back and forth motion
• Chaladah, concealing: placing the knife between the esophagus and windpipe before the actual slaughter
• Hagrama, diverting: slaughtering on a different part of the neck
• Ikkur, ripping: pulling the esophagus and windpipe out of their proper place before slaughter or tearing the esophagus and windpipe because the knife has nicks in it

Chullin 3: The Kutim and the Samaritans

Yesterday's daf noted that Kutim, nations exiled to Israel by the kings of Assyria who wished to repopulate the Israel after they removed the Jews.  They converted to Judaism because people were afraid that lions were attacking them.  They continued to worship their many gods.  When the Jews returned to Israel around the building of the second Temple, the Kutim's descendants the Samaritans attempted to block returning Israelites to build the Temple or the inner walls of Jerusalem.  Some Jews married Samaritans, including priests.

The Gemara describes fights between the Israelites and the Samaritans over many years.  It also describes times when the two peoples cooperated.  For example, they helped each other through the Bar Kochba revolt.  Ultimately the Samaritans were ruled to be non-Jews because of their idol-worship.

In Massechet Yevamot, we learned that a bet din should not accept any potential convert who is taking that step for a reason other than a heartfelt desire to join the Jewish people.  However, the Gemara also teaches that if one goes through the full conversion process, s/he is considered to be Jewish.  Steinsaltz teaches us that today's community of Samaritans is often welcomed into the larger Jewish community.

Today's daf reminds us about the difficulties surrounding conversion in Israel.  The is someone Jeish and when are they not at all Jewish?  The Orthodox rabbis in Israel have monopolized decision-making around conversion, which means that people who convert according to Reform or Conservative halacha are not considered to be Jewish.  We continue to struggle with question s about who is Jewish and who is not.