Chullin

If the gullet was pierced, or the windpipe severed!1 — 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,2 but where he first tore away [the windpipe] and then cut [the gullet] we regard it as invalidated by some other defect.3 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: It4 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].5 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].5 — It includes such nebelah only as does not convey uncleanness whilst alive, but not such nebelah as conveys uncleanness whilst alive.6 R. Simeon b.) Lakish suggested.7 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;8 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.9 This proves, does it not, that [once the windpipe has been cut] the lung is regarded as though placed in a basket?10 Here also we should say, should we not, that [once the windpipe has been lacerated] it is regarded as though placed in a basket?11 — Rather, said R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan. There is no contradiction. There12 [the Mishnah represents the view of R. Akiba] before he retracted, here after he retracted; that Mishnah,12 however, was allowed to stand.13 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.14 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]?15 Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render the animal clean, and not nebelah, or not?16 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 merely trefah, whereas in our Mishnah, if the slaughterer tore away (i.e., severed) the windpipe, the animal is stated to be nebelah by R. Jeshebab, and R. Akiba ultimately also concurred. before the commencement of the slaughtering. animal still shows signs of life by the convulsive movements of its limbs. in Chap. III. which occurs subsequently in any organ which is directly connected with or attached to the windpipe is of no consequence. forbidden to be eaten, for the intestines are dependent upon and connected with the gullet and this has not yet been cut. Tosaf. ad loc. not nebelah; and, it is suggested, in order that the slaughtering be valid each organ must serve this twofold purpose. In our case, however, whereas the cutting of the first organ tends to produce this twofold effect the cutting of the second organ does not, for the defect that has occurred in the intestines before the cutting of the second organ has already precluded (a); the slaughtering therefore should be invalid absolutely. On the other hand, it might be argued that the slaughtering should be effective at least with regard to (b), since this purpose is common to both organs. slaughtering of the dam; if, however, part of the embryo protruded out of the womb before the slaughtering, such part will not be rendered fit for food by the valid slaughtering of the dam, although it will be rendered clean by such slaughtering. The question here raised is whether or not the slaughtering of the dam will render clean that part which protruded out of the womb after the first organ had been cut. The argument is similar to that in the preceding note. For the slaughtering of the first organ serves a twofold purpose, namely, to render the limb which protruded later clean and also fit for food, whereas the slaughtering of the second organ serves only the single purpose of rendering the limb clean. The question therefore is. Can the first organ be reckoned together with the second in order to effect the purpose common to both, namely, to render the limb clean?