Talmud - Hullin 17a חולין י״ז א׳

And, if so, all the more so now, in exile, when they are even more distant from the Temple, the meat of desire should be permitted. Consequently, it is unnecessary for the mishna to teach this halakha.

Rather, Rav Yosef said: The tanna who teaches this halakha is Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “If the place that the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:21), Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to prohibit for them consumption of meat of an animal killed by means of stabbing rather than valid slaughter, as, initially, the meat of stabbing was permitted for them. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of stabbing was forbidden to them, and it was permitted to eat the meat of an animal only after valid slaughter.

Rav Yosef added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that stabbed animals are restored to their initial permitted state? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One must always slaughter the animal to eat its meat.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva holds: The meat of desire was not forbidden at all, and Rabbi Yishmael holds: The meat of stabbing was not permitted at all.

The Gemara asks a series of questions: Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the burnt offerings sacrificed in the Tabernacle: “And he shall slaughter the young bull” (Leviticus 1:5). But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: “And he shall slaughter”? Why would he slaughter it if stabbing is permitted? The Gemara answers: Sacrificial animals are different, as slaughter is required in that case. By contrast, there was no obligation to slaughter non-sacrificial animals to eat their meat.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written: “Will flocks and herds be slaughtered for them” (Numbers 11:22), indicating that they slaughtered the animals in the wilderness. But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: “Will flocks and herds be slaughtered for them”? Ostensibly, the words: Be stabbed for them, should have been written. The Gemara answers: In the wilderness, their stabbing is their slaughter.

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, that is the meaning of that which we learned in a mishna (85a) with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and the slaughter is not valid and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand, and one who stabs an animal, and one who rips the simanim from their place before cutting them, invalidating the slaughter, is exempt from covering the blood. One must cover the blood of only an animal whose slaughter was valid. But according to Rabbi Akiva, why is one exempt from covering the blood of an animal that was stabbed, since in his opinion when they were commanded to cover blood, animals that were stabbed were permitted?

The Gemara answers: Since the meat of stabbing was forbidden, it was forbidden, and the halakhic status of stabbing is no longer that of slaughtering.

Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of desire was not forbidden at all, that is the meaning of that which is written before they entered Eretz Yisrael: “However, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it, the pure and the impure may eat of it alike” (Deuteronomy 12:22). This means that just as it is permitted to eat the meat of a gazelle and a deer in the wilderness in a state of ritual impurity, so may you eat them when you enter Eretz Yisrael, although at that point it will be prohibited to stab them and eat their meat, as their meat will be permitted only through slaughter. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of desire was forbidden in the wilderness, were the gazelle and the deer themselves permitted in the wilderness? They are not brought as offerings.

The Gemara answers: When the Merciful One rendered the meat of desire forbidden, that was specifically the meat of a domesticated animal that is fit for sacrifice. But the Merciful One did not render forbidden undomesticated animals that are not fit for sacrifice.

§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status?

The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things…and you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 6:10–11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei daḥazirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted?

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§ Rabba says: You explained the phrases in the mishna: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter. In what way do you explain the phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts?

And if you would say that it means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed, but isn’t this phrase taught in a manner similar to those other phrases in the mishna? If these phrases: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter, are referring to those that slaughter, this phrase too is referring to those that slaughter; and if those phrases are referring to those that are slaughtered, this phrase too is referring to those that are slaughtered. The first two phrases in the mishna were explained as referring to the animals that are slaughtered. The first phrase was interpreted to include birds, and the second phrase was interpreted as referring to the halakha that meat may be eaten only through slaughter of the animal.

Rather, Rava said that the entire mishna is referring to those that slaughter. The initial phrase means everyone [hakkol] slaughters. Although an identical phrase was used in the first mishna (2a), both are necessary: One is to include a Samaritan and one is to include a Jewish transgressor. The second phrase: One may always slaughter, means both during the day and at night, both on a rooftop and atop a ship, and there is no concern that it will appear that he is slaughtering in an idolatrous manner to the hosts of heaven or to the god of the sea. The phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed.

The mishna states: Except for the serrated side of the harvest sickle, and the saw. Shmuel’s father would notch a knife and send it to Eretz Yisrael to ask if it is fit for slaughter, and would notch a knife in a different manner and send it to Eretz Yisrael in order to determine the type of notch that invalidates slaughter. They sent to him from Eretz Yisrael that the principle is: We learned that the notch that invalidates slaughter is like a saw, whose teeth point upward, as it rips the simanim with every draw of the knife back and forth.

The Sages taught in a baraita:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 17a explores Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael's dispute over whether stabbing animals for meat was ever permitted before proper slaughter became required.