Talmud zu Chullin 6:8

Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated³⁰³Babli Soṭah 16b; Sifry Deut. #122.: At three places teaching circumvents Scripture and at another place the interpretation.The Torah said, “in a scroll”³⁰⁴This is a wrong quote, referring to Num. 6:23, the text of the incantations required in the rite of the wife suspected of infidelity. But that text has to be written on a scroll; cf. Soṭah 2:4, Notes 143-144. Here, it should say סֵפֶר "book", referring to the divorce document mentioned in Deut. 24:1 which can be written on anything not connected to the ground; Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3. The quote is correct in the sources quoted in the preceding Note., but practice said on anything separated from the ground. The Torah said, “in dust”³⁰⁵Lev. 17:13. The blood of slaughtered wild animals or birds has to be covered “in dust”., but practice said in anything on which plants grow³⁰⁶Mishnah Ḥulin 6:6.. The Torah said, “with an awl”, but practice said, even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass. And at one place the interpretation³⁰⁷R. Ismael’s own hermeneutical rules.: Rebbi Ismael stated: “It shall be on the seventh day that he shave all his hair³⁰⁸Lev. 14:9, speaking of the ritual purification of the healed sufferer from skin disease. All the quotes are from this verse.,” inclusion. “His head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” detail. Since it continues “and all his hair he shall shave,” it repeats inclusion. Inclusion, detail, and inclusion is judged only by what is similar to the detail³⁰⁹By the seventh hermeneutical rule one has to try to find an intensional definition of the properties common to the examples given as detail; these then are the properties referred to by the inclusions.. Since the detail is explained as place of bunching and exposed, it should refer only [hair growing] in bunches at exposed places. But practice is that he shaves to be like a gourd³¹⁰Shaving completely every exposed hair; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4. (Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2 disagrees with the baraita here and the Mishnah and holds that the insistence on the shaving of all hair in both inclusions requires that any single one of the properties mentioned in the analysis of the detail, hair growing in bunches or visible, has to be shaved but nothing else. The Tanna of Sifra holds that practice follows interpretation closely.). “With an awl”, since an awl is made of metal, so anything made of metal³¹¹In Babylonian sources, Babli 21b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Sifry Deut # 122, this is an argument of Rebbi, in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, of R. Yose ben Jehudah: Any metal implement which can be used for piercing is called “awl”. The most detailed analysis of the verse is in the Babli, 21b, (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) where the inclusion-exclusion methodology of R. Ismael is shown to lead to the admissibility of any metal piercing instrument and the addition-subtraction methodology of R. Aqiba to the inclusion of all mechanical and the exclusion of chemical means.. Rebbi Yose said, this is a large drill³¹²In Sifry Deut # 122, Midrash Haggadol Deut. on Deut. 15:17: This is the large awl. The Yerushalmi text seems to be the original.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, that is the engraving-knife. “He shall bring him to the door.³¹³Ex. 21:6; cf. Deut. 15:17.” I could think, even if it was lying flat. The verse says, “or to the door-post”. Since the door-post is upright, so also the door has to be upright³¹⁴Babli 22b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.: a shame to him and to his family³¹⁵They violated their obligation to support their relative when he could not fend for himself..

An old man asked the rabbis of Caesarea: Does the breaking of its neck clear its ṭerefa from its impurity¹²⁰In all cases of ritual slaughter except for the calf, cutting the throat שחיטה is required. The same is prescribed for profane slaughter of animals intended as food (Deut. 12:21). Any animal which is killed in any other way becomes a carcass whose impurity is original and severe (Lev. 11:39-40). The question arises naturally whether the carcass of the calf is severely impure, not having been slaughtered in the required form, or maybe is pure since its neck was broken by divine decree.? They said to him, is that not a Mishnah: “He who cuts the throat and it turns out to be ṭerefa.¹²¹Mishnah Ḥulin 6:2. This refers to the obligation to cover a wild animal’s blood with earth if it was slaughtered for food (Lev. 17:13). R. Meïr holds that the intent is all that counts, even if it should turn out in the end that the animal could not be used as food. The argument here is that the animal was slaughtered in the way prescribed and the fact that it is forbidden for consumption (or for any use) should be irrelevant.” He said to them, but I asked about breaking the neck and you answer me cutting the throat! They said to him, but did not Rebbi Yannai say¹²²This is quoted in full in Halakhah 6. The statement refers to Lev. 22:28: “Cattle or sheep, you should not cut their and their calves throats on the same day”. There is one opinion which holds that guilt is incurred only if both animals are validly slaughtered as food on the name day. It is generally acknowledged in both Talmudim that R. Meïr considers even ineffective cutting the throat as falling under all rules of “cutting the throat.” In Halakhah 6, the reading of the mss. is אפילו עריפה חײב “even for breaking its neck he is guilty.” It seems that this should be the reading here also, but unfortunately the Genizah fragment is illegible at this spot. Since the reading as written is not impossible, it is better not to disturb the text., the words of Rebbi Meïr, even if it was ṭerefa he is guilty? He said to them, you answer me from that of Rebbi Yannai¹²³In Halakhah 6, R. Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with R. Yannai. Therefore, there is no proof along these lines.
The Babli, Zebaḥim 70b, argues that the dead calf must be pure since “purification is written there as for sacrifices” (Note 110).?