Commentary for Chullin 31:2
אלא לאו ש"מ
- This proves that there is a distinction between that which was always attached and that which was first loose and subsequently attached.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the second clause the implement was first loose and subsequently attached to the ground, in which case the slaughtering is valid, whilst in the last clause it was always so attached by nature, and so the slaughtering is invalid.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Chullin 31:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.