Chullin

It is an adequate sign of vitality if it lows or excretes or moves its ear’. He thereupon remarked: ‘Does Abba1 really require the moving of the ear?2 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 case3 the noise was loud and in the other case4 the noise was faint. And also in regard to excreting there is no contradiction for in the one case4 the animal discharged excrement feebly and in the other case3 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.5 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?6 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.7 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!8 But perhaps the spurting of blood indicates a greater measure of vitality!9 — 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 Gamaliel10 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’.11 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?12 Raba said: The indications of vitality which the Rabbis require must occur at the end of the slaughtering.13 Raba added: Whence do I know this? From [the following Baraitha] which was taught: [It is written,] When a bullock, but see Tosaf. s.v. lhrymt slaughtering. insufficient? it would not be difficult to ascertain on the following morning at what stage of the slaughtering the spurting of blood occurred; for if it happened at the beginning of the slaughtering when the animal had more vitality the blood would be found higher up on the wall or further away from the animal than if it occurred in the middle of the slaughtering. On the other hand, according to Samuel's interpretation of the Mishnah there are obviously no means of ascertaining at what stage in the slaughtering the animal spurted blood. other indications must occur either in the middle or at the end of the slaughtering. author of this view is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and not Rabban Gamaliel, though in many MSS. the reading in the Mishnah is also Rabban Gamaliel passage. Now if the Sages are less stringent than R. Gamaliel they should merely have said: ‘If only it jerked’ etc.