Chullin 65
עד כאן לא איבעיא לן אלא לטהרה מידי נבלה אבל באכילה אסורה
Now the question put [by R'Zera] was only as to whether or not the animal was to be regarded as clean, and not nebelah, but [admittedly] it is forbidden to be eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this cannot be reconciled with the objection he raised against Raba. It is therefore right to say that R. Zera withdrew his objection.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
א"ל רב אחא בר רב לרבינא
R'Aha B'Rab said to Rabina: It may very well be that R'Zera did not withdraw his objection at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he is of the opinion that any defect that occurs to any limb in the course of the slaughtering will not affect the validity of the slaughtering, and the animal would even be fit for food.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
דלמא לעולם לא הדר ביה ור' זירא לדבריו דרבא קאמר וליה לא סבירא ליה
but he merely formulated his question from the point of view of Raba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Raba's view who stated above that Resh Lakish's ruling did not apply to the case where the intestines were pierced after the cutting of the first organ, the question arises: Would the animal be free from the uncleanness of nebelah or not?');"><sup>3</sup></span>
עובדי כוכבים דבנחירה סגי להו ובמיתה תליא מילתא הני כאבר מן החי דמו
To the gentile, however, everything depends upon the death of the animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that the animal may be fit for food.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אמר רב פפא
[and not upon the slaughtering], for even stabbing would be sufficient; therefore the intestines [of an animal slaughtered by an Israelite] would be regarded as a limb [cut off] from a living animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by the cutting of the organs only the animal is not absolutely dead, and at this stage the intestines are regarded, according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, as having been taken out from the living (!) animal and placed in a basket; hence they are forbidden to a gentile as a limb cut off from a living animal.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ולא אמרי ליה דאמינא
There was taught [a Baraitha] which contradicts the view of R'Aha B'Jacob: 'If a person desires to eat the meat of an animal before it has actually died, he may cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the animal expires,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 63a. Sonc. ed., p. 430.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
מסייע ליה לרב אידי בר אבין דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר ר' יצחק בר אשיאן
For R'Idi B'Abin said in the name of R'Isaac B'Ashian: If a person wishes to be in good health he should cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from around the throat, salt it well, rinse it well, wait until the animal expires, and then eat it.
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט בהמה חיה ועוף ולא יצא מהן דם כשרים ונאכלין בידים מסואבות לפי שלא הוכשרו בדם
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED CATTLE OR A WILD BEAST OR A BIRD AND NO BLOOD CAME FORTH, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID AND IT MAY BE EATEN BY HIM WHOSE HANDS HAVE NOT BEEN WASHED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with unclean hands'. Hands that have not been washed are regarded by the Rabbis as unclean in the second degree. There is no fear here of the hands defiling the meat for the reason stated in the Mishnah, namely, that the flesh of the animal has not been made wet by water or blood or any other liquid, in conformity with the rule laid down in Lev. XI, 38.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
הוכשרו בשחיטה:
R'SIMEON SAYS, IT HAS BEEN RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS BY THE SLAUGHTERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the slaughtering renders the animal fit for food it will likewise render it, as a food, susceptible to uncleanness without the necessity of water or other liquid to moisten it.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דלא יצא מהן דם הא יצא מהן דם אין נאכלים בידים מסואבות
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Now this is so only because no blood came forth, but if blood did come forth [it follows that] it may not be eaten by one with unwashed hands.
ידים שניות הן ואין שני עושה שלישי בחולין
Are not [unwashed] hands unclean in the second degree and that which is unclean in the second degree cannot render 'common' food unclean in the third degree? - But whence do you gather that we are dealing with common food? - For it reads [in the Mishnah].
וממאי דבחולין עסקינן
OR A WILD BEAST, and if it is dealing with consecrated animals [it is unintelligible, for] is there such a thing as a consecrated wild beast?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wild beasts, like the gazelle and the hart, were not permitted to be offered as sacrifices.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
(דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים דם שנשפך כמים מכשיר שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מכשיר
Surely it would be susceptible to uncleanness because of its sacred esteem, for it is established that sacred esteem will render [consecrated] matter susceptible to uncleanness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 35a. The very sanctity of consecrated things renders them susceptible to uncleanness without the necessity of any moistening by water.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ותו אי בקדשים כי לא יצא מהם דם לא מתכשרי ליתכשרי בחיבת הקדש דקיי"ל
R'Nahman said in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: Here [in our Mishnah] we are dealing with unconsecrated animals that were bought [in Jerusalem] with Second Tithe money, and the ruling is not in accordance with R'Meir's view.