Chullin

is already accounted as cut up.1 According to whom is this teaching? [Is it only] according to R. Meir? For we have learnt: vessels that have very long handles which are to be cut down need be immersed only as far as the measure2 [that has been determined]. R. Judah3 says: The whole of it must be immersed! — You can even say that [the teaching of our Mishnah] is in accordance with the view of the Sages, for a mass of foodstuffs is always to be regarded as separated into parts and [the parts] as touching each other. Now according to Ulla it is well that [the Mishnah] states: AND THEN CUT IT OFF,4 but according to Rabina why does it state, AND THEN CUT IT OFF?5 — Since it states, in the first clause, AND CUT IT OFF, it states in the second clause too, AND THEN CUT IT OFF. BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS UNCLEAN LIKE THAT WHICH HAD TOUCHED A SLAUGHTERED TREFAH ANIMAL. But does a slaughtered trefah animal render anything unclean? It does indeed, as stated by Samuel's father. For Samuel's father stated: A trefah animal that was slaughtered renders holy things unclean.6 FOR JUST AS WE FIND THAT THE SLAUGHTERING OF A TREFAH [ANIMAL] RENDERS IT CLEAN, SO THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE ANIMAL SHOULD RENDER THE [PROTRUDING] LIMB CLEAN. It was taught: R. Meir said to them, But what was it that rendered this limb clean, so that it be not nebelah? Was it not the slaughtering of its dam? Then it should also render it permitted to be eaten! They replied: It is often the case that an act has a greater effect upon that which is not part of itself than upon that which is part of itself; for we have learnt: ‘Whatsoever is cut off from the foetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or the kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten.7 What does this mean? — Raba, others say Kadi,8 replied: There is an omission here, and this is the real teaching. R. Meir said to them, But what was it that rendered this limb clean so that it be not nebelah? Was it not the slaughtering of its dam? Then it should also render it permitted to be eaten! They replied: The case of a trefah [animal] proves otherwise, for the slaughtering renders it clean, so that it be not nebelah, and yet does not render it permitted to be eaten. He retorted: It is not so. For when you say that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean, you are concerned with [the animal] itself; but can it render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? They replied: It is often the case that an act has a greater effect upon that which is not part of itself than upon that which is part of itself; for we have learnt: Whatsoever is cut off from the foetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or the kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. There is [also a Baraitha] taught which expressly states it so. R. Meir said to them, But what was it that rendered this limb clean so that it be not nebelah? They replied: The slaughtering. Then, said he, it should also render it permitted to be eaten. They replied: The case of a trefah [animal] proves otherwise, for the slaughtering renders it clean, so that it be not nebelah, and yet does not render it permitted to be eaten. He retorted: When you say that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean or [that the slaughtering of an animal renders clean] the limb that hangs loose,9 you are concerned with [the animal] itself; but can it render clean the [limb of the] foetus which is not part of [the animal] itself? They replied: It is often the case that an act’ has a greater effect upon that which is not part of itself than upon that which is part of itself; for we have learnt: Whatsoever is cut off from the foetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or the kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Just as they10 differ with regard to the [limb of the] foetus so they differ with regard to loose limbs.11 R. Johanan said: They differ only with regard to the limb of the foetus, but with regard to a loose limb of the animal all agree that at the slaughtering it is accounted as detached.12 R. Jose b. Hanina said: What reason does R. Johanan suggest for the view of the Rabbis?13 — In this case [of the foetus] there is a remedy for it by withdrawal [into the womb],14 but in that case [of the loose limb] there is no remedy for it by withdrawal. An objection was raised. R. Meir said to them: It is not so. When you say that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean, or [that the slaughtering of an animal renders clean] the loose limb, you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can it render clean the [limb of the] foetus which is not part of the animal itself? X, 5 from where the Mishnah is quoted. It is true, however, that the first opinion, although reported anonymously, is that of R. Meir. by virtue of contact with the unclean limb. rendered unclean by its contact. was slaughtered still renders unclean. the animal was subsequently slaughtered, the slaughtering has the effect of rendering this limb clean, so that it be not regarded as a limb detached from a living animal which is, like nebelah, a source of uncleanness that renders men and vessels unclean. Sages it will. as having already become detached or having already fallen away from the animal prior to the slaughtering, and is therefore unclean like nebelah. the slaughtering of the dam is rendered permitted to be eaten by the slaughtering.