Chullin 170
הואיל דאמר רבי מאיר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה תהני ליה שחיטת אמו ולא ליבעי שחיטה קמשמע לן
Now I might have argued, since R'Meir maintains that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, that the slaughtering of its dam should serve for it too, and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].
והאמר ר"מ
Does not R'Meir hold that a living animal extracted [out of its slaughtered dam's womb] requires slaughtering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if this is so where its dam was permitted to be eaten by the slaughtering, a fortiori where the dam was a trefah.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה וסבר לה כרבנן דאמרי שחיטת אמו מטהרתו
And he agrees with the Rabbis that the slaughtering of its dam renders it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the animal which had been extracted alive out of the slaughtered dam's womb.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
שחיטת אמו מטהרתו תהני ליה שחיטת אמו ולא ליבעי שחיטה קמ"ל
Now since the Rabbis hold that the slaughtering of its dam renders it permitted, then [in this case, too, where the dam was a trefah I would say that] the slaughtering of the dam should serve for it too and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].'
הואיל וא"ר שמעון מותר בהנאה אלמא לאו שחיטה היא כלל אימא
For it was taught: If one slaughtered a trefah animal, or if one slaughtered an animal and it was found to be trefah, both being unconsecrated, in the Temple Court, R'Simeon permits to derive benefit therefrom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the animal is trefah and the slaughtering thereof does not render it permitted to be eaten there was no 'slaughtering' in the Temple Court; hence one may derive a benefit from the carcass.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי
Now I might have argued, since R'Simeon holds that one is permitted to derive benefit therefrom, that there was no slaughtering at all, consequently it is not even rendered clean that it be not nebelah; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].
א"ל
Is R'Simeon of the opinion that unconsecrated [animals slaughtered] in the Temple Court are [forbidden] Biblically?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This appears to be R. Simeon's view from the foregoing argument. For if he were to hold that an unconsecrated animal slaughtered in the Sanctuary may be eaten according to Biblical law, but was forbidden by Rabbinic enactment because of the apprehension that people, seeing one eat the flesh of such an animal outside the Sanctuary, might be misled in believing that one may eat consecrated meat outside the Sanctuary - then there is no valid reason to differentiate (v. supra) between the slaughtering that renders the animal fit for food and the one that does not');"><sup>8</sup></span>
חולין שנשחטו בעזרה ישרפו באש וכן חיה שנשחטה בעזרה
R'Simeon says: Unconsecrated [animals which were slaughtered] in the Temple Court must be burned by fire; so, too, a wild animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it is clear to all that the wild animal slaughtered in the Sanctuary is unconsecrated for there can be no consecrated wild animals.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אי אמרת בשלמא דאורייתא היינו דגזרינן חיה אטו בהמה
Now, if you say that they are forbidden Biblically, we therefore forbid wild animals on account of cattle;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A statement made in anticipation of the alternative view which follows, for strictly both kinds are forbidden by the same Biblical text.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
רבי חייא נפל ליה יאניבא בכיתניה אתא לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה
This in itself is a precautionary measure; shall we come and superimpose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To forbid wild animals on account of cattle. Surely not. One must therefore conclude that the prohibition is Biblical.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
צא טרוף מאי טעמא לא אמר
If you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinio that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and therefore stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the law of 'covering up' applies to stabbing.');"><sup>16</sup></span>