Chullin 242:1

שסופה לטמא טומאה חמורה

it will ultimately convey the graver uncleanness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, when dead, it renders unclean the person that eats it and his clothes; therefore it does not require to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by contact with a liquid.');">¹</span>

אמר חזקיה

- Hezekiah answered, [The case In our Mishnah is different] since he could cut it up into pieces each smaller than an olive's bulk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be remembered that our Mishnah deals with an animal not quite dead but still struggling, at which stage it certainly cannot convey the uncleanness of nebelah; moreover it is by no means certain that ultimately it will convey the graver uncleanness, i.e., the uncleanness of nebelah, for it is possible that the animal will be cut up into bits, each piece smaller than an olive's bulk.');">²</span>

הואיל ויכול לגוררה ולהעמידה על פחות מכזית

Said R'Jeremiah to R'Zera, But could Hezekiah really have said so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That while the animal still struggles it is not deemed nebelah and does not convey uncleanness as such.');">³</span>

א"ל ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא

Behold it has been reported: If a man cut ritually, both, or the greater part of both [organs of the throat of an unclean animal], and the animal was still struggling: Hezekiah said: It is no more subject to the prohibition of limbs [from the living animal];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A gentile bound by the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah (cf. Sanh. 56a) , is forbidden to eat a limb torn from a living animal. According to Hezekiah the animal is regarded as dead, and therefore is not subject to the aforementioned prohibition, not so according to R. Johanan.');">⁴</span>

ומי אמר חזקיה הכי

but R'Johanan said: It is sti subject to the prohibition of limbs [from the living animal].'

והא איתמר שחט בה שנים או רוב שנים ועדיין היא מפרכסת

Hezekiah said: It is no more subject to the prohibition of limbs', because it is now considered as dead.

חזקיה אמר

R'Johanan said: It is still subject to the prohibition of limbs', because it is not actually dead!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We thus see that according to Hezekiah even while the animal is still struggling it is presumably regarded as dead since the prohibition of limbs no longer applies.');">⁵</span>

אינה לאברים ר' יוחנן אמר

- He replied: It is really out of the category of living animals but has not yet come within the category of dead animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that Hezekiah holds that it is not subject to the prohibition of 'limbs' since it can no longer be considered as living, neither can it be considered as dead to' convey the graver uncleanness.');">⁶</span>

ישנה לאברים

The text above stated: 'If a man cut ritually both or the greater part of both [organs of the throat of an unclean animal], and the animal was still struggling: Hezekiah said: It is no more subject to the prohibition of limbs [from the living animal]; but R'Johanan said: It is still subject to the prohibition of limbs'.

חזקיה אמר אינה לאברים מתה היא

R'Ele said: Hold fast to this view of R'Johanan for R'Oshaia has taught in agreement with him.

רבי יוחנן אמר ישנה לאברים לאו מתה היא

For R'Oshaia taught: If an Israelite slaughtered an unclean animal for a gentile, as soon as he has cut both or the greater part of both organs of the throat, even though it still struggles, it conveys food uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it came into contact with unclean matter it will convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs, for it is regarded as a foodstuff immediately on the cutting of the organs; the reason being that the ritual slaughtering performed by the Israelite expressly on behalf of the gentile renders the animal a foodstuff forthwith, just as the slaughtering by an Israelite of a clean animal certainly renders it a foodstuff forthwith.');">⁷</span>

א"ל

but not the uncleanness of nebelah.

יצתה מכלל חיה ולכלל מתה לא באת

A limb severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And defiles forthwith like nebelah.');">⁸</span>

גופא שחט בה שנים או רוב שנים ועדיין היא מפרכסת

and flesh severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal, and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the limb or the flesh that was severed.');">⁹</span>

חזקיה אמר

may not be eaten by a gentile even after the life of the animal has departed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was severed from the 'living' animal, hence in agreement with R. Johanan that while struggling, the animal is still considered living.');">¹⁰</span>

אינה לאברים

If he only cut one or the greater part of one organ, it does not convey food uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as it still struggles. For the animal at this moment is permitted neither to Israelite nor to gentile.');">¹¹</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר

If he stabbed it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the throat.');">¹²</span>

ישנה לאברים

it has no uncleanness whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as it still struggles. For the animal at this moment is permitted neither to Israelite nor to gentile.');">¹¹</span>

אמר ר' אלעזר

If a gentile slaughtered a clean animal for an Israelite, as soon as he has cut both or the greater part of both organs, even though it sti struggles, it conveys food uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as when an Israelite slaughters an animal, as soon as the organs are cut through it is rendered a foodstuff forthwith, so it is when a gentile slaughters it expressly on behalf of an Israelite.');">¹³</span>

נקוט להא דר' יוחנן בידך דתני רב אושעיא כוותיה

but not the uncleanness of nebelah.

דתני רב אושעיא

A limb severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal, and flesh severed from it is regarded as severed from the living animal, and it may not be eaten by a gentile even after the life of the animal has departed.

ישראל ששחט בהמה טמאה לעובד כוכבים שחט בה שנים או רוב שנים ומפרכסת מטמאה טומאת אוכלין אבל לא טומאת נבלות

If he only cut one or the greater part of one organ, it does not convey food uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as it still struggles. For the animal at this moment is permitted neither to Israelite nor to gentile.');">¹¹</span>

אבר הפורש ממנה כפורש מן החי ובשר הפורש ממנה כבשר הפורש מן החי ואסור לבני נח ואפי' לאחר שתצא נפשה

If he stabbed it, it has no uncleanness whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as it still struggles. For the animal at this moment is permitted neither to Israelite nor to gentile.');">¹¹</span>

שחט בה אחד או רוב אחד אינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין נחרה אין בה טומאה של כלום

If the gentile cut only so much as does not render the animal trefah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the gentile only cut half through the windpipe, so that if the gentile were to stop at this stage the animal would not be trefah. Cf. supra 59b.');">¹⁴</span>

ועובד כוכבים ששחט בהמה טהורה לישראל ומפרכסת מטמאה טומאת אוכלין אבל לא טומאת נבלה

and an Israelite came and finished it, the slaughtering is valid.

אבר הפורש ממנה כפורש מן החי ובשר הפורש ממנה כפורש מן החי

If an Israelite slaughtered, whether he had cut so much as would render the animal trefah or not, and a gentile came and finished it, the slaughtering is invalid.

ואסור לבני נח ואפילו לאחר שתצא נפשה

If a person desires to eat the flesh of an animal before the life has departed from it, he should cut o an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the life departs [from animal], and then eat it.

שחט בה אחד או רוב אחד אינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין

Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this manner.

נחרה אין בה טומאה של כלום

This [Baraitha]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which states that even the gentile may eat of it.');">¹⁵</span>

שחט עובד כוכבים במקום שאין עושה אותה טרפה ובא ישראל וגמרה כשרה

lends support to the view of R'Idi B'Abin.

שחט ישראל בין במקום שעושה אותה טרפה ובין במקום שאין עושה אותה טרפה ובא עובד כוכבים וגמר שחיטתו פסולה

For R'Idi B'Abin said in the name of R'Isaac B'Ashian: If a person desires to in good health he should cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, w until the life departs [from the animal], and then eat it.

הרוצה שיאכל מבהמה קודם שתצא נפשה חותך כזית בשר מבית שחיטתה ומולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה וממתין לה עד שתצא נפשה ואוכלו

Both Israelite and gentile may eat it in this manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 177.');">¹⁶</span>

אחד עובד כוכבים ואחד ישראל מותרין בו

R'Eleazar raised the question: What is the law if he paused or pressed down [the knife whilst cutting the organs]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the aforementioned cases, where an Israelite slaughtered an unclean animal for a gentile, or a gentile slaughtered a clean animal for an Israelite, the question is raised as to whether the slaughtering must be entirely in accordance with ritual, free from such invalidating acts as pausing or pressing (cf. supra 9a) , for otherwise it is like stabbing, or not.');">¹⁷</span>

מסייע ליה לרב אידי בר אבין דאמר רב אידי בר אבין א"ר יצחק בר אשיין

- Thereupon a certain old man answered: Thus said R'Johanan, It requires the same ritual acts of slaughtering as in the case of a clean animal.

הרוצה שיבריא חותך כזית בשר מבית שחיטה ומולחו יפה יפה ומדיחו יפה יפה וממתין לה עד שתצא נפשה אחד עובד כוכבים ואחד ישראל מותרים בו

To what extent are the ritual acts essential? - R'Samuel B'Isaac said: Even to the examination of the knife.

בעי ר' אלעזר

R'Zera enquired of R'Shesheth: Can the animal protect the articles that are swallowed within it [from becoming unclean or not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where an Israelite slaughtered an unclean animal for a gentile, or a gentile a clean animal for an Israelite, and the animal whilst alive had swallowed certain articles, and after it was slaughtered, while still struggling, was brought under the same roof or 'tent' as a corpse. V. supra ');">¹⁸</span>

שהה בה דרס בה מהו

- He replied: It already conveys food uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently because it is considered as dead.');">¹⁹</span>

א"ל ההוא סבא

is it then possible that i should afford protection! The other retorted: It does not yet convey the uncleanness of nebelah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is then not considered as dead.');">²⁰</span>

הכי א"ר יוחנן צריכה הכשר שחיטה כבהמה טהורה

why then should it not afford protection? - Abaye said: It does not protect the articles that are within it from becoming unclean since it already conveys food uncleanness, and he who commits an unnatural crime upon it is culpable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He suffers the death penalty if he committed the crime deliberately, or if inadvertently, is obliged to bring a sin-offering. According to Rashi, hhct Abaye always considers the animal in that status which produces the more stringent result; but v. Tosaf., s.v. .');">²¹</span>

הכשר למאי

since it does not yet convey the uncleanness of nebelah.

אמר רב שמואל בר יצחק

R'JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED etc. R'Huna said: Provided he collected it together [of set purpose].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 672, n. 7.');">²²</span>

בדיקת סכין

R'Huna also said: If there were two pieces of flesh on the hide, each a half-olive's bulk, the hide renders them negligible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They cannot be reckoned together as one whole olive's bulk of nebelah so as to convey uncleanness by carrying.');">²³</span>

בעא מיניה רבי זירא מרב ששת

מהו שתציל על הבלועין שבתוכה

א"ל

מטמאה טומאת אוכלין ומצלת

א"ל

אינה מטמאה טומאת נבלות ולא תציל

אמר אביי

אינה מצלת על הבלועים שבתוכה דהא מטמאה טומאת אוכלין והרובעה חייב דהא אינה מטמאה טומאת נבלה:

רבי יהודה אומר האלל [וכו']:

אמר רב הונא

והוא שכנסו

ואמר רב הונא

שני חצאי זיתים שישנן על גבי העור העור מבטלן