Bava Kamma — Daf 72a

דלא אכלי בשרא דתורא

ואלא מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא

א"ל רישא קרינא ביה וטבחו כולו באיסורא סיפא לא קרינא ביה וטבחו כולו באיסורא:

השוחט ונמצאת טריפה וכו': א"ל רב חביבי מחוזנאה לרב אשי ש"מ אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף

דאי ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף כיון דשחט בה פורתא אסרה אידך לא דמריה קא טבח

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרבא כי קא מחייב אההוא פורתא א"ל רב אשי לא תידחי וטבחו כולו בעינן וליכא

אלא קשיא א"ל הכי אמר רב גמדא משמיה דרבא כגון ששחט מקצת סימנין בחוץ וגמרן בפנים

איכא דמתני לה אהא א"ר שמעון משום דרבי לוי סבא אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף ור' יוחנן אמר ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף א"ל רב חביבי מחוזנאה לרב אשי לימא קסבר רבי יוחנן חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לאו דאורייתא

was because I had not yet partaken of [a dish of] beef [and felt too feeble to arrive at a carefully thought out conclusion]. But why then this difference between the earlier clause  and the later clause?  — He replied: In the earlier clause  we can rightly apply to the offence [the words] 'and he slaughters it', [in the sense that] the whole act is unlawful,  whereas in the concluding clause we cannot apply to the offence [the words] 'and he slaughters it' [in the sense that] the whole act is unlawful. IF HE SLAUGHTERS AND FINDS THE ANIMAL TREFA [OR WHERE HE SLAUGHTERS IT AS UNCONSECRATED IN THE 'AZARAH HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT]. R. Habibi of Huzna'ah said to R. Ashi: This shows that [from the legal point of view] the term 'slaughter' applies to the act only at its completion for if it applied to the whole process from the beginning to the end, would he not as soon as he started the act of slaughtering in the slightest degree  render the animal ritually forbidden for any use,  so that what follows the beginning would amount to slaughtering an animal no more belonging to the owner?  — R. Huna, the son of Raba,  said to him: The liability might have been just for that commencement in the slightest degree.  R. Ashi, however, said to him: This is no refutation,  [since it says] 'and he slaughters it', we require the whole act of the slaughter, which is absent here. But what about the original difficulty?  — He thereupon said to him: R. Gamda stated thus in the name of Raba: We are dealing here with a case where, for instance, he cut a part of the organs of the animal outside of the 'Azarah, but completed the slaughter inside of the 'Azarah. Some attach this argument to the following statement: R. Simeon  said in the name of R. Levi the Elder: The term 'slaughter' applies to the act only at its very completion. R. Johanan, however, said it applies to the whole process from the beginning to the end. R. Habibi of Huzna'ah thereupon said to R. Ashi: Are we to say that R. Johanan held that [the prohibition of slaughtering] unconsecrated animals in the 'Azarah is not based on Scripture?