Chullin

it will ultimately convey the graver uncleanness!1 — Hezekiah answered, [The case In our Mishnah is different] since he could cut it up into pieces each smaller than an olive's bulk.2 Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera, But could Hezekiah really have said so?3 Behold it has been reported: If a man cut ritually, both, or the greater part of both [organs of the throat of an unclean animal], and the animal was still struggling: Hezekiah said: It is no more subject to the prohibition of limbs [from the living animal];4 but R. Johanan said: It is still subject to the prohibition of limbs [from the living animal]. ‘Hezekiah said: It is no more subject to the prohibition of limbs’, because it is now considered as dead. ‘R. Johanan said: It is still subject to the prohibition of limbs’, because it is not actually dead!5 — He replied: It is really out of the category of living animals but has not yet come within the category of dead animals.6 The text above stated: ‘If a man cut ritually both or the greater part of both [organs of the throat of an unclean animal], and the animal was still struggling: Hezekiah said: It is no more subject to the prohibition of limbs [from the living animal]; but R. Johanan said: It is still subject to the prohibition of limbs’. R. Eleazar said: Hold fast to this view of R. Johanan for R. Oshaia has taught in agreement with him. For R. Oshaia taught: If an Israelite slaughtered an unclean animal for a gentile, as soon as he has cut both or the greater part of both organs of the throat, even though it still struggles, it conveys food uncleanness,7 but not the uncleanness of nebelah. A limb severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal,8 and flesh severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal, and it9 may not be eaten by a gentile even after the life of the animal has departed.10 If he only cut one or the greater part of one organ, it does not convey food uncleanness.11 If he stabbed it,12 it has no uncleanness whatsoever.11 If a gentile slaughtered a clean animal for an Israelite, as soon as he has cut both or the greater part of both organs, even though it still struggles, it conveys food uncleanness,13 but not the uncleanness of nebelah. A limb severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal, and flesh severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal, and it may not be eaten by a gentile even after the life of the animal has departed. If he only cut one or the greater part of one organ, it does not convey food uncleanness.11 If he stabbed it, it has no uncleanness whatsoever.11 If the gentile cut only so much as does not render the animal trefah,14 and an Israelite came and finished it, the slaughtering is valid. If an Israelite slaughtered, whether he had cut so much as would render the animal trefah or not, and a gentile came and finished it, the slaughtering is invalid. If a person desires to eat the flesh of an animal before the life has departed from it, he should cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the life departs [from the animal], and then eat it. Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this manner. This [Baraitha]15 lends support to the view of R. Idi b. Abin. For R. Idi b. Abin said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: If a person desires to be in good health he should cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the life departs [from the animal], and then eat it. Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this manner. 16 R. Eleazar raised the question: What is the law if he paused or pressed down [the knife whilst cutting the organs]?17 — Thereupon a certain old man answered: Thus said R. Johanan, It requires the same ritual acts of slaughtering as in the case of a clean animal. To what extent are the ritual acts essential? — R. Samuel b. Isaac said: Even to the examination of the knife. R. Zera enquired of R. Shesheth: Can the animal protect the articles that are swallowed within it [from becoming unclean or not]?18 — He replied: It already conveys food uncleanness,19 is it then possible that it should afford protection! The other retorted: It does not yet convey the uncleanness of nebelah,20 why then should it not afford protection? — Abaye said: It does not protect the articles that are within it from becoming unclean since it already conveys food uncleanness, and he who commits an unnatural crime upon it is culpable21 since it does not yet convey the uncleanness of nebelah. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED etc. R. Huna said: Provided he collected it together [of set purpose].22 R. Huna also said: If there were two pieces of flesh on the hide, each a half-olive's bulk, the hide renders them negligible.23 susceptible to uncleanness by contact with a liquid. certainly cannot convey the uncleanness of nebelah; moreover it is by no means certain that ultimately it will convey the graver uncleanness, i.e., the uncleanness of nebelah, for it is possible that the animal will be cut up into bits, each piece smaller than an olive's bulk. from a living animal. According to Hezekiah the animal is regarded as dead, and therefore is not subject to the aforementioned prohibition, not so according to R. Johanan. since the prohibition of limbs no longer applies. living, neither can it be considered as dead to’ convey the graver uncleanness. foodstuff immediately on the cutting of the organs; the reason being that the ritual slaughtering performed by the Israelite expressly on behalf of the gentile renders the animal a foodstuff forthwith, just as the slaughtering by an Israelite of a clean animal certainly renders it a foodstuff forthwith. is still considered living. forthwith, so it is when a gentile slaughters it expressly on behalf of an Israelite. not be trefah. Cf. supra 59b. a clean animal for an Israelite, the question is raised as to whether the slaughtering must be entirely in accordance with ritual, free from such invalidating acts as pausing or pressing (cf. supra 9a), for otherwise it is like stabbing, or not. the animal whilst alive had swallowed certain articles, and after it was slaughtered, while still struggling, was brought under the same roof or ‘tent’ as a corpse. V. supra 71b where it is stated that a living person or animal can protect from the uncleanness of the ‘tent’ the articles that are swallowed within them. The question is: Is the animal whilst still struggling regarded as living or not? sin-offering. According to Rashi, Abaye always considers the animal in that status which produces the more stringent result; but v. Tosaf., s.v. hhct.