Chullin 64

נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת

If the gullet was pierced, or the windpipe severed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the opening Mishnah of Chap. III, infra 42a. It is there stated that if the windpipe was severed the animal is merely trefah, whereas in our Mishnah, if the slaughterer tore away (i.e., severed) the windpipe, the animal is stated to be nebelah by R. Jeshebab, and R. Akiba ultimately also concurred.');">¹</span>

אמר רבא לא קשיא

- Raba answered: There is no contradiction.

כאן ששחט ולבסוף פסק כאן שפסק ולבסוף שחט

In the one case he first cut [the gullet] and then tore away [the windpipe]; in the other case he first tore away [the windpipe] and then cut the gullet.

שחט ולבסוף פסק נפסלת בשחיטה היא פסק ולבסוף שחט כי דבר אחר גרם לה ליפסל דמיא

Where he first cut [the gullet] and then tore away [the windpipe] we regard it as a fault in the slaughtering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the case of our Mishnah, and the animal is nebelah.');">²</span>

איתיביה רב אחא בר הונא לרבא

but where he first tore away [the windpipe] and then cut [the gullet] we regard it as invalidated by some other defect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the case of the Mishnah in Chap. III, and the animal is merely trefah, since it was rendered invalid actually before the commencement of the slaughtering.');">³</span>

שחט את הוושט ופסק את הגרגרת פסק את הגרגרת ואחר כך שחט את הוושט נבלה

R'Aha B'Huna raised the following objection against Raba: [It was taught:] If he first cut the gullet and then tore away the windpipe, or first tore away the windpipe and then cut the gullet, the animal is nebelah! - Render [the second clause] thus: [Or if he tore away the windpipe] having already cut the gullet.

אימא

He retorted.

וכבר שחט את הוושט מעיקרא

There are two arguments against this.

אמר ליה שתי תשובות בדבר

First, it is now identical with the first clause; and secondly, it expressly says.'

חדא דהיינו קמייתא

And he then cut'.

ועוד הא תנן

- Rather, said Raba: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah infra 42a.');">⁴</span>

ואח"כ

must be interpreted thus: The following defects render the animal prohibited, some as nebelah and some as trefah.

אלא אמר רבא

Then why does it not include also the case of Hezekiah?

אלו אסורות קתני ויש מהן נבלות ויש מהן טרפות

For Hezekiah taught: If one cut an animal into two it is nebelah [forthwith].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 21a.');">⁵</span>

וליחשוב נמי דחזקיה דאמר חזקיה

And also the case of R'Eleazar?

עשאה גיסטרא נבלה

For R'Eleazar taught: If the thigh of an animal was removed and the cavity was noticeable it is nebelah [forthwith].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 21a.');">⁵</span>

וליחשוב נמי דרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר

- It includes such nebelah only as does not convey uncleanness whilst alive, but not such nebelah as conveys uncleanness whilst alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the cases of Hezekiah and R. Eleazar the animal is at once regarded as nebelah for all purposes even though the animal still shows signs of life by the convulsive movements of its limbs.');">⁶</span>

נטלה ירך וחלל שלה נבלה

R'Simeon b.)

כי קתני נבלה דלא מטמאה מחיים אבל נבלה דמטמאה מחיים לא קתני

Lakish suggested.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reconcile the contradiction pointed out at the beginning of the discussion between our Mishnah and the Mishnah in Chap. III.');">⁷</span>

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר

In the one case he cut [the windpipe] in the place where it was already lacerated; in the other case he did not cut [the windpipe] in the place where it was already lacerated.

כאן ששחט במקום חתך כאן ששחט שלא במקום חתך

Where he cut it in the place where it was already lacerated we regard the animal as invalidated by a defect in the slaughtering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal is therefore nebelah.');">⁸</span>

שחט במקום חתך נפסלה בשחיטה היא שלא במקום חתך כי דבר אחר גרם לה ליפסל דמיא

but where he did not cut it in the place where it was already lacerated we regard the animal as invalidated by some other defect.

ומי אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכי

But did R'Simeon B'Lakish really say this?

והאמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש

Surely R'Simeon B'Lakish has said that if the lung was pierced after he had cut the windpipe [but before he had cut the gullet], the slaughtering was valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as the windpipe has been cut the slaughtering has been completed with regard to it; hence any defect which occurs subsequently in any organ which is directly connected with or attached to the windpipe is of no consequence.');">⁹</span>

שחט את הקנה ואח"כ ניקבה הריאה כשרה

This proves, does it not, that [once the windpipe has been cut] the lung is regarded as though placed in a basket?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And any lesion of the lung now will not affect the validity of the animal.');">¹⁰</span>

אלמא כמאן דמנחא בדיקולא דמיא הכא נמי כמאן דמנחא בדיקולא דמיא

Here also we should say, should we not, that [once the windpipe has been lacerated] it is regarded as though placed in a basket?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the result that the animal has virtually only one organ fit to be slaughtered and it must therefore be nebelah.');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא

- Rather, said R'Hiyya B'Abba in the name of R'Johanan.

כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה

There is no contradiction.

גופא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש

There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Chap. III Mishnah I. Infra 42a.');">¹²</span>

שחט את הקנה ואח"כ ניקבה הריאה כשרה

[the Mishnah represents the view of R'Akiba] before he retracted, here after he retracted; that Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Chap. III Mishnah I. Infra 42a.');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא

however, was allowed to stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though its decision had been overruled.');">¹³</span>

לא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש אלא בריאה הואיל וחיי ריאה תלויה בקנה אבל בבני מעיים לא

The text above stated: R'Simeon B'Lakish said: If the lung was pierced after he had cut the windpipe [but before he had cut the gullet], the slaughtering is valid'.

מתקיף לה רבי זירא

Raba said: This decision of Resh Lakish applies only to the lung because the vitality of the lung is entirely dependent upon the windpipe, but it does not apply to the intestines.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the intestines had been pierced after the windpipe, but before the gullet had been cut, the animal would be forbidden to be eaten, for the intestines are dependent upon and connected with the gullet and this has not yet been cut.');">¹⁴</span>

מאחר שנולדו בה סימני טרפה התרת מה לי בריאה מה לי בבני מעיים

R'Zera demurred.

והדר ביה רבי זירא

Saying Since you declare [the animal] permissible wherever a defect occurred [after cutting one organ], what difference does it make whether the defect was in the lung or in the intestines?

דבעי רבי זירא

R'Zera, however, must have withdrawn his objection.

ניקבו בני מעיים בין סימן לסימן מהו

For R'Zera had put the following question: What is the law if the intestines were perforated after the first organ but before the second organ [was cut]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the windpipe, for that is always the first organ to be cut, but before the gullet had been cut (Rashi) ; v. however Tosaf. ad loc.');">¹⁵</span>

מי מצטרף סימן ראשון לסימן שני לטהרה מידי נבלה או לא

Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render the animal clean, and not nebelah, or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The effect of slaughtering, it must be remembered, is twofold: (a) the animal is permitted to be eaten, and (b) it is not nebelah; and, it is suggested, in order that the slaughtering be valid each organ must serve this twofold purpose. In our case, however, whereas the cutting of the first organ tends to produce this twofold effect the cutting of the second organ does not, for the defect that has occurred in the intestines before the cutting of the second organ has already precluded (a) ; the slaughtering therefore should be invalid absolutely. On the other hand, it might be argued that the slaughtering should be effective at least with regard to (b) , since this purpose is common to both organs.');">¹⁶</span>

ואמרינן לאו היינו דבעי אילפא

And we replied: Was not this question similar to that put by Ilfa, viz. , What is the law if a foetus put forth its foreleg [out of the womb of its dam] after the first organ but before the second organ [was cut]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is established law (v. infra 68ff.) that the embryo within the womb of its dam is rendered fit for food by the valid slaughtering of the dam; if, however, part of the embryo protruded out of the womb before the slaughtering, such part will not be rendered fit for food by the valid slaughtering of the dam, although it will be rendered clean by such slaughtering. The question here raised is whether or not the slaughtering of the dam will render clean that part which protruded out of the womb after the first organ had been cut. The argument is similar to that in the preceding note. For the slaughtering of the first organ serves a twofold purpose, namely, to render the limb which protruded later clean and also fit for food, whereas the slaughtering of the second organ serves only the single purpose of rendering the limb clean. The question therefore is. Can the first organ be reckoned together with the second in order to effect the purpose common to both, namely, to render the limb clean?');">¹⁷</span>

הוציא עובר את ידו בין סימן לסימן מהו