Parallel
חולין 38
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It is an adequate sign of vitality if it lows or excretes or moves its ear’. He thereupon remarked: ‘Does Abba really require the moving of the ear? I am of the opinion that whatever movement [the animal makes], provided it is not a movement brought about by the expiration of its life, [is a sufficient sign of vitality]’. And what are the movements brought about by the expiration of life? — Said R. ‘Anan: Mar Samuel explained it to me thus: If its foreleg was bent and it stretched it out — this is a movement brought about by the expiration of life; if its foreleg was outstretched and it bent it — this is a movement not brought about by the expiration of life. But what does he teach us? We have learnt it [already]: IF A SMALL ANIMAL STRETCHED OUT ITS FORELEG [AT THE END OF THE SLAUGHTERING] BUT DID NOT WITHDRAW IT, IT IS INVALID, FOR THIS WAS BUT AN INDICATION OF THE EXPIRATION OF ITS LIFE. Now it follows from this, does it not, that if it did withdraw it, it is valid? — No. From our Mishnah I might have concluded that only if its foreleg was bent and it stretched it out and then bent it again it is valid, but not if it was first outstretched and it merely bent it; he therefore teaches us [that this latter is a sufficient sign of vitality]. An objection was raised: [It was taught:] R. Jose said: R. Meir used to say that the lowing of an animal while it was being slaughtered was not a sign of vitality. R. Eliezer son of R. Jose reported in the name of R. Jose. Even if it excreted or moved its tail to and fro it is not a sign of vitality. Is there not here a contradiction in regard to lowing and also in regard to excreting? — In regard to lowing there is no contradiction because in the one case the noise was loud and in the other case the noise was faint. And also in regard to excreting there is no contradiction for in the one case the animal discharged excrement feebly and in the other case it discharged vigorously. R. Hisda said: [It has been reported that] the indications of vitality which the Rabbis require must occur at the end of the slaughtering. But ‘at the end of the slaughtering’, [I say], really means the middle of the slaughtering, and it excludes only the case where the indications occur at the beginning of the slaughtering. R. Hisda added: Whence do I know this? From [our Mishnah] which we learnt: IF A SMALL ANIMAL STRETCHED OUT ITS FORELEG BUT DID NOT WITHDRAW IT, IT IS INVALID. Now when did it do so? Shall I say at the end of the slaughtering? How long then must it continue to live? We must, therefore, say that it did so in the middle of the slaughtering. Raba thereupon said to him, Indeed [I maintain that] it must do so at the end of the slaughtering, for I am of the opinion that if the animal did not do so at the end of the slaughtering one may be certain that life had expired some time previously. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The indications of vitality which [the Rabbis] require may occur at the beginning of the slaughtering. R. Nahman b. Isaac added: Whence do I know this? From [our Mishnah] which we have learnt: R. SIMEON SAID, IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED [A DYING ANIMAL] BY NIGHT AND EARLY THE FOLLOWING MORNING FOUND THE SIDES [OF THE THROAT] FULL OF BLOOD, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID, FOR THIS PROVES THAT IT SPURTED [THE BLOOD], WHICH IS SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TO R. ELIEZER'S VIEW. And Samuel explained that the Mishnah referred to the sides of the throat. Now if you say that the indication of vitality may occur at the beginning of the slaughtering, it is well; but if you say that it must occur at the end of the slaughtering, [then why is the slaughtering valid?] it might have spurted the blood only at the beginning of the slaughtering! But perhaps the spurting of blood indicates a greater measure of vitality! — But is it greater? Have we not learnt: R. ELIEZER SAYS, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF IT SPURTED [THE BLOOD]? — It is a measure of vitality less than that required by Rabban Gamaliel but greater than that required by the Rabbis. Rabina said: Sama B. Hilkia told me that the father of Bar Abubram (others read: the brother of Bar Abubram) raised this question: But is it [the spurting of blood] greater than that required by the Rabbis? Does it not read in the Mishnah, THE SAGES SAY, [THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID] UNLESS IT JERKED EITHER ITS FORELEG OR ITS HIND LEG? Now with whom do the Sages argue? With R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? Then they should have said: ‘If only it jerked’. Clearly therefore they are arguing with R. Eliezer. Now if you say that it [the spurting of blood] is a greater measure of vitality [than that required by the Sages], why [do they say] UNLESS? Raba said: The indications of vitality which the Rabbis require must occur at the end of the slaughtering. Raba added: Whence do I know this? From [the following Baraitha] which was taught: [It is written,] When a bullock,
—
[or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam]. ‘Or a sheep’ — this excludes a cross-breed. ‘Or a goat’ — this excludes a goat looking like a lamb. ‘Is brought forth’ — this excludes that which was extracted from the side. ‘It shall be seven days’ — this excludes an animal which is too young. ‘Under the dam’ — this excludes an orphan. Now what is meant by ‘an orphan’? Does it mean that the mother-beast brought forth its young and died immediately after? Must it then continue to live on for ever! Or, again, does it mean that the mother-beast died and immediately after the young was brought forth? But this would be excluded from the words, ‘Is brought forth’. It can only mean that the one expired at the same moment that the other came into life. Now if you say that the mother-beast must show signs of life after bringing forth, it is therefore necessary to employ a verse in order to exclude this case [of an orphan]; but if you say that it need not show signs of life after bringing forth, why then is a verse employed to exclude this case? It surely is excluded from the words, ‘Is brought forth’! Raba said: The law is as stated in the following Baraitha: ‘If a small animal stretched out its foreleg and did not withdraw it, the slaughtering is invalid; [but if it did withdraw it, it is valid.] These rules apply only to the foreleg, but with regard to the hind leg the rule is that whether it stretched it out but did not bend it, or bent it but did not stretch it out, it is valid. Moreover all this applies to a small animal, but with regard to a large animal the rule is that whether it was the foreleg or the hind leg, whether it stretched it out but did not bend it or bent it but did not stretch it out, it is valid. With regard to a bird, even if it merely twitched its wing or flapped its tail, it is a sufficient sign of vitality’. What does he [Raba] teach us? Surely these rules are all implied in our Mishnah: IF A SMALL ANIMAL STRETCHED OUT ITS FORELEG BUT DID NOT WITHDRAW IT, IT IS INVALID, FOR THIS WAS BUT AN INDICATION OF THE EXPIRATION OF ITS LIFE. Now it is clear that this applies to the foreleg and not to the hind leg to a small animal and not to a large animal! — It was necessary for him to teach it with regard to a bird, which is not stated in our Mishnah. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED A BEAST FOR A HEATHEN, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID; R. ELIEZER DECLARES IT INVALID. R. ELIEZER SAID, EVEN IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A BEAST WITH THE INTENTION THAT A HEATHEN SHOULD EAT OF THE MIDRIFF THEREOF, THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID, FOR THE THOUGHTS OF A HEATHEN ARE USUALLY DIRECTED TOWARDS IDOLATRY. R. JOSE EXCLAIMED, IS THERE NOT HERE AN A FORTIORI ARGUMENT? FOR IF IN THE CASE OF CONSECRATED ANIMALS, WHERE A WRONGFUL INTENTION CAN RENDER INVALID, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT EVERYTHING DEPENDS SOLELY UPON THE INTENTION OF HIM WHO PERFORMS THE SERVICE, HOW MUCH MORE IN THE CASE OF UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS, WHERE A WRONGFUL INTENTION CANNOT RENDER INVALID, DOES EVERYTHING DEPEND SOLELY UPON THE INTENTION OF HIM WHO SLAUGHTERS! GEMARA. These Tannaim accept the view of R. Eliezer son of R. Jose. For it has been taught: R. Eliezer son of R. Jose says: I am informed that the owners can render the sacrifice piggul. The first Tanna, however, is of the opinion that only if we heard him [the heathen] express an [idolatrous] intention [with regard to the animal] does it become invalid but not otherwise, for we do not say that the thoughts of a heathen are usually directed towards idolatry; whereas R. Eliezer is of the opinion that even if we did not hear him express an [idolatrous] intention [it is invalid], for we say that the thoughts of a heathen are usually directed towards idolatry. And R. Jose comes to say that even if we heard him express an [idolatrous] intention [it does not become invalid], for we do not hold that one man's wrongful intention should affect another's acts. According to another version they differ even in the case where we heard him [the heathen] express an [idolatrous] intention [with regard to the animal]. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the view that one man's wrongful intention may affect another's acts, applies only as regards acts performed inside [the Temple], but not outside, and we cannot draw any inference as to acts performed outside from acts performed inside;
—