Bava Kamma 143

דלא אכלי בשרא דתורא

was because I had not yet partaken of [a dish of] beef [and felt too feeble to arrive at a carefully thought out conclusion]. But why then this difference between the earlier clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where liability is stated. ');">¹</span> and the later clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stating exemption, since 'five oxen' imply also 'five halves' of oxen why then should he not pay the part due to his coheirs? ');">²</span>

ואלא מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא

— He replied: In the earlier clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where liability is stated. ');">¹</span> we can rightly apply to the offence [the words] <i>'and he slaughters it'</i>, [in the sense that] the whole act is unlawful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the slaughter took place while the father was still alive. ');">³</span>

א"ל רישא קרינא ביה וטבחו כולו באיסורא סיפא לא קרינא ביה וטבחו כולו באיסורא:

whereas in the concluding clause we cannot apply to the offence [the words] <i>'and he slaughters it'</i> [in the sense that] the whole act is unlawful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For at the time of the slaughter the thief was already a joint owner of the animal. ');">⁴</span> IF HE SLAUGHTERS AND FINDS THE ANIMAL <i>TREFA</i> [OR WHERE HE SLAUGHTERS IT AS UNCONSECRATED IN THE 'AZARAH HE HAS TO MAKE FOUR-FOLD OR FIVE-FOLD PAYMENT]. R. Habibi of Huzna'ah said to R. Ashi: This shows that [from the legal point of view] the term 'slaughter' applies to the act only at its completion for if it applied to the whole process from the beginning to the end, would he not as soon as he started the act of slaughtering in the slightest degree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the precincts of the Temple. ');">⁵</span>

השוחט ונמצאת טריפה וכו': א"ל רב חביבי מחוזנאה לרב אשי ש"מ אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף

render the animal ritually forbidden for any use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. 22a. ');">⁶</span> so that what follows the beginning would amount to slaughtering an animal no more belonging to the owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For surely after it becomes forbidden for any use, there would be no practical use in retaining ownership. ');">⁷</span>

דאי ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף כיון דשחט בה פורתא אסרה אידך לא דמריה קא טבח

— R. Huna, the son of Raba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MS.M., 'R. Aba b. Raba' as on p. 414, v. D.S. a.l.] ');">⁸</span> said to him: The liability might have been just for that commencement in the slightest degree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the animal became forbidden for any use. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרבא כי קא מחייב אההוא פורתא א"ל רב אשי לא תידחי וטבחו כולו בעינן וליכא

R. Ashi, however, said to him: This is no refutation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the proof suggested by R. Habibi. ');">¹⁰</span> [since it says]<i> 'and he slaughters it'</i>, we require the whole act of the slaughter, which is absent here. But what about the original difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, since the animal became forbidden for any use at the commencement of the slaughter, there should be no liability to pay the fine. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא קשיא א"ל הכי אמר רב גמדא משמיה דרבא כגון ששחט מקצת סימנין בחוץ וגמרן בפנים

— He thereupon said to him: R. Gamda stated thus in the name of Raba: We are dealing here with a case where, for instance, he cut a part of the organs of the animal outside of the 'Azarah, but completed the slaughter inside of the<i> 'Azarah<i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the animal became forbidden for any use only at the completion of the slaughter, for which the thief has to pay the fine. ');">¹²</span></i></i> </i></i>

איכא דמתני לה אהא א"ר שמעון משום דרבי לוי סבא אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף ור' יוחנן אמר ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף א"ל רב חביבי מחוזנאה לרב אשי לימא קסבר רבי יוחנן חולין שנשחטו בעזרה לאו דאורייתא

<i><i> Some attach this argument to the following statement: R. Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read 'Simeon b. Lakish', v. D.S. a.l.] ');">¹³</span></i></i> said in the name of R. Levi the Elder: The term 'slaughter' applies to the act only at its very completion. R. Johanan, however, said it applies to the whole process from the beginning to the end. R. Habibi of Huzna'ah thereupon said to R. Ashi: Are we to say that R. Johanan held that [the prohibition of slaughtering] unconsecrated animals in the 'Azarah is not based on Scripture?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 413, n. 4. ');">¹⁴</span> </i></i>