Chullin

Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render [the foreleg] clean, and not nebelah, or not? Now the question put [by R. Zera] was only as to whether or not the animal was to be regarded as clean, and not nebelah, but [admittedly] it is forbidden to be eaten.1 R. Aha b. Rab said to Rabina: It may very well be that R. Zera did not withdraw his objection at all,2 but he merely formulated his question from the point of view of Raba,3 though he himself did not agree with it. R. Aha b. Jacob said: One may conclude from the ruling of R. Simeon b. Lakish that an Israelite may be invited to partake of the intestines, but not a gentile. Why is this? — Because to an Israelite everything depends upon the slaughtering;4 therefore, since here the animal has been properly slaughtered he may partake of the intestines. To the gentile, however, everything depends upon the death of the animal4 [and not upon the slaughtering], for even stabbing would be sufficient; therefore the intestines [of an animal slaughtered by an Israelite] would be regarded as a limb [cut off] from a living animal.5 R. Papa said: ‘As I was Sitting before R. Aha b. Jacob I thought of putting the question to him: Is there anything which is permitted to an Israelite and forbidden to a gentile? But I did not ask him this, for I said to myself: "He has himself suggested the reason for it"’. There was taught [a Baraitha] which contradicts the view of R. Aha b. Jacob: ‘If a person desires to eat the meat of an animal before it has actually died, he may cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the animal expires,6 and then eat it. Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this way’. This [Baraitha] on the other hand Supports the view of R. Idi b. Abin. For R. Idi b. Abin said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian: If a person wishes 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 animal expires, and then eat it. Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this way. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED CATTLE OR A WILD BEAST OR A BIRD AND NO BLOOD CAME FORTH, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID AND IT MAY BE EATEN BY HIM WHOSE HANDS HAVE NOT BEEN WASHED,7 FOR IT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY BLOOD. R. SIMEON SAYS, IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING.8 GEMARA. Now this is so only because no blood came forth, but if blood did come forth [it follows that] it may not be eaten by one with unwashed hands. But why? Are not [unwashed] hands unclean in the second degree and that which is unclean in the second degree cannot render ‘common’ food unclean in the third degree? — But whence do you gather that we are dealing with common food? — For it reads [in the Mishnah]. OR A WILD BEAST, and if it is dealing with consecrated animals [it is unintelligible, for] is there such a thing as a consecrated wild beast?9 Furthermore, if it is dealing with consecrated animals, can it be said that the slaughtering is valid where no blood came forth? The whole purpose [of the slaughtering] is to obtain the blood!10 Furthermore, if [it is dealing] with consecrated animals, can it be said that in the case where blood did come forth it would render [the animal] susceptible to uncleanness? Surely R. Hiyya b. Abba has said in the name of R. Johanan: ‘Whence do we know that the blood of consecrated animals cannot render anything susceptible to uncleanness? From the verse: Thou shalt poor it out upon the earth as water,11 which implies that blood which is poured out as water can render susceptible to uncleanness, but blood which is not poured Out as water cannot’. Furthermore, if [it is dealing] with consecrated animals, can it be said that where no blood came forth the animal would not be rendered susceptible to uncleanness? Surely it would be susceptible to uncleanness because of its sacred esteem, for it is established that sacred esteem will render [consecrated] matter susceptible to uncleanness!12 R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Here [in our Mishnah] we are dealing with unconsecrated animals that were bought [in Jerusalem] with Second Tithe money, and the ruling is not in accordance with R. Meir's view. For we have learnt, 13 withdrew his objection. validity of the slaughtering, and the animal would even be fit for food. were pierced after the cutting of the first organ, the question arises: Would the animal be free from the uncleanness of nebelah or not? according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, as having been taken out from the living(!) animal and placed in a basket; hence they are forbidden to a gentile as a limb cut off from a living animal. degree. There is no fear here of the hands defiling the meat for the reason stated in the Mishnah, namely, that the flesh of the animal has not been made wet by water or blood or any other liquid, in conformity with the rule laid down in Lev. XI, 38. without the necessity of water or other liquid to moisten it. of any moistening by water.