Parallel
חולין 32
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
If another animal was [accidentally] slaughtered with it, according to R. Nathan, the Red Cow is invalid and the other animal valid; according to the Rabbis, the Red Cow is valid and the other animal invalid. This is surely obvious! — It was necessary to state the clause, ‘If another animal was [accidentally] slaughtered with it’ in order to set forth R. Nathan's view. For I might have said that the Divine Law [when it] said: And he shall slaughter it, implying ‘it’ but not it and another, referred to the slaughtering of two Red Cows simultaneously; but to slaughter a ‘common’ animal with it, I might have said, would not render it invalid. We are therefore taught [otherwise]. If, while slaughtering the Red Cow, he cut at the same time a pumpkin, according to all views the Red Cow is invalid. If a pumpkin was [accidentally] cut whilst the Red Cow was being slaughtered, according to all views the Red Cow is valid. MISHNAH. IF THE KNIFE FELL AND HE PAUSED [IN THE SLAUGHTERING IN ORDER] TO LIFT IT UP, IF HIS COAT FELL DOWN AND HE PAUSED TO LIFT IT UP, IF HE SHARPENED THE KNIFE AND GREW TIRED AND ANOTHER CAME AND SLAUGHTERED — [IN EACH CASE] IF THE PAUSE WAS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR SLAUGHTERING, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID. R. SIMEON SAID, [IT IS INVALID] IF THE PAUSE WAS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR EXAMINING [THE KNIFE]. GEMARA. What is meant by THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR SLAUGHTERING? — It means, said Rab, the of time required for slaughtering another animal. R. Kahana and R. Assi asked Rab: Is the test in the case of a beast to be the length of time required for slaughtering another beast, and in the case of a bird the length of time required for slaughtering another bird; or is the test always the length of time required for slaughtering a beast even in the case of a bird? — Rab answered: ‘I was not on such intimate terms with my uncle as to ask him this’. It was stated: Rab said: In the case of a beast the test is the length of time required for slaughtering a beast, and in the case of a bird the length of time required for slaughtering a bird. Samuel said: The test even in the case of a bird is the length of time required for slaughtering a beast. So, too, when R. Abin came [from Palestine] he reported R. Johanan's opinion that the test even in the case of a bird is the length of time required for slaughtering a beast. R. Hanina said, [The Mishnah means] the length of time required for fetching another animal and slaughtering it. Fetching! Why he might fetch an animal from anywhere! Then you have made the test to vary [with the circumstances of each case]! — R. Papa explained. The difference between them is as regards an animal that is ready for casting. In the West it was reported in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina: [The Mishnah means] the length of time required to lift up, lay on the ground and slaughter, in the case of small animals, a small animal, and in the case of large animals, a large animal. Raba said: If one spent the whole day slaughtering [one animal] with a blunt knife, the slaughtering is valid. Raba raised the question: Are several [short] pauses to be combined? But surely this can be solved from his preceding statement! — No, for there he did not pause at all. R. Huna the son of R. Nathan raised this question: What if he paused whilst cutting the lesser portion of the organs? — This remains undecided. R. SIMEON SAID, [IT IS INVALID] IF THE PAUSE WAS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR EXAMINING [THE KNIFE]. What is the meaning of THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED FOR EXAMINING? — R. Johanan said: It means the length of time required for a Sage to examine [the knife]. But this test would vary with the circumstances of each case! — It means the length of time required for the slaughterer, himself a Sage, to examine [the knife]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN FIRST CUT THE GULLET AND THEN TORE AWAY THE WINDPIPE, OR FIRST TORE AWAY THE WINDPIPE AND THEN CUT THE GULLET; OR IF HE CUT ONE OF THESE ORGANS AND PAUSED UNTIL THE ANIMAL DIED; OR IF HE THRUST THE KNIFE UNDERNEATH THE SECOND ORGAN AND CUT IT — [IN ALL THESE CASES] R. JESHEBAB SAYS, THE ANIMAL IS NEBELAH; R. AKIBA SAYS, IT IS TREFAH. R. JESHEBAB LAID DOWN THIS RULE IN THE NAME OF R. JOSHUA: WHENEVER AN ANIMAL IS RENDERED INVALID BY A FAULT IN THE SLAUGHTERING IT IS NEBELAH; WHENEVER AN ANIMAL HAS BEEN DULY SLAUGHTERED BUT IS RENDERED INVALID BY SOME OTHER DEFECT IT IS TREFAH. R. AKIBA [ULTIMATELY] AGREED WITH HIM. GEMARA. IF A MAN FIRST CUT THE GULLET etc. AND R. AKIBA AGREED WITH HIM. A contradiction was pointed out. We have learnt: The following defects render cattle trefah:
—
If the gullet was pierced, or the windpipe severed! — Raba answered: There is no contradiction. In the one case he first cut [the gullet] and then tore away [the windpipe]; in the other case he first tore away [the windpipe] and then cut the gullet. Where he first cut [the gullet] and then tore away [the windpipe] we regard it as a fault in the slaughtering, but where he first tore away [the windpipe] and then cut [the gullet] we regard it as invalidated by some other defect. R. Aha b. Huna raised the following objection against Raba: [It was taught:] If he first cut the gullet and then tore away the windpipe, or first tore away the windpipe and then cut the gullet, the animal is nebelah! — Render [the second clause] thus: [Or if he tore away the windpipe] having already cut the gullet. He retorted. There are two arguments against this. First, it is now identical with the first clause; and secondly, it expressly says. ‘And he then cut’. — Rather, said Raba: It must be interpreted thus: The following defects render the animal prohibited, some as nebelah and some as trefah. Then why does it not include also the case of Hezekiah? For Hezekiah taught: If one cut an animal into two it is nebelah [forthwith]. And also the case of R. Eleazar? For R. Eleazar taught: If the thigh of an animal was removed and the cavity was noticeable it is nebelah [forthwith]. — It includes such nebelah only as does not convey uncleanness whilst alive, but not such nebelah as conveys uncleanness whilst alive. R. Simeon b.) Lakish suggested. In the one case he cut [the windpipe] in the place where it was already lacerated; in the other case he did not cut [the windpipe] in the place where it was already lacerated. Where he cut it in the place where it was already lacerated we regard the animal as invalidated by a defect in the slaughtering; but where he did not cut it in the place where it was already lacerated we regard the animal as invalidated by some other defect. But did R. Simeon b. Lakish really say this? Surely R. Simeon b. Lakish has said that if the lung was pierced after he had cut the windpipe [but before he had cut the gullet], the slaughtering was valid. This proves, does it not, that [once the windpipe has been cut] the lung is regarded as though placed in a basket? Here also we should say, should we not, that [once the windpipe has been lacerated] it is regarded as though placed in a basket? — Rather, said R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan. There is no contradiction. There [the Mishnah represents the view of R. Akiba] before he retracted, here after he retracted; that Mishnah, however, was allowed to stand. The text above stated: ‘R. Simeon b. Lakish said: If the lung was pierced after he had cut the windpipe [but before he had cut the gullet], the slaughtering is valid’. Raba said: This decision of Resh Lakish applies only to the lung because the vitality of the lung is entirely dependent upon the windpipe, but it does not apply to the intestines. R. Zera demurred. Saying Since you declare [the animal] permissible wherever a defect occurred [after cutting one organ], what difference does it make whether the defect was in the lung or in the intestines? R. Zera, however, must have withdrawn his objection. For R. Zera had put the following question: What is the law if the intestines were perforated after the first organ but before the second organ [was cut]? Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render the animal clean, and not nebelah, or not? And we replied: Was not this question similar to that put by Ilfa, viz., What is the law if a foetus put forth its foreleg [out of the womb of its dam] after the first organ but before the second organ [was cut]?17
—