Chullin 121b (קכא:) — the Talmud in English

And it does not require preparation.

Rather, even without being prepared by water, it can contract impurity; yet food cannot contract impurity unless it has been prepared to contract impurity

because

its end

of the carcass of a kosher bird

is to convey severe impurity!

For when a person eats it, he becomes impure through it. Therefore, it already contracts food impurity now and does not require preparation by water.

If so, if an item whose end is to convey severe impurity does not require preparation, why did those tannaim say that an animal in convulsions requires preparation? After all, its end is to convey severe impurity.

And we resolve:

Ḥizkiya said:

The case of an animal in convulsions is different, since it is not certain that its end is to convey severe impurity,

since one can drag it away,

as one can cut it into small pieces while it is still in convulsions,

and reduce it to less than an olive-bulk.

That is, each piece will contain less than an olive-bulk, and such a piece does not convey impurity as carrion. Since it is not certain that its end is to convey severe impurity, it requires preparation by water. The case of the carcass of a kosher bird is different, since it is dead, and already now it is fit to convey severe impurity in the throat.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Did Ḥizkiya really say this?

That its end is not to convey severe impurity since one can drag it away. By inference, now, while it is in convulsions, it is obvious that it does not convey carcass impurity.

But it was stated: If one slaughtered it

an impure animal

with two

of the identifying signs,

or with most of the two, and it is still in convulsions—

Ḥizkiya said: It is no longer subject to the prohibition of limbs.

The prohibition of a limb from a living animal does not apply to it, and a gentile is permitted to eat it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It remains subject to the prohibition of limbs.

It is forbidden to a gentile because of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

And we explain:

Ḥizkiya said: It is not subject to the prohibition of limbs

since

it is dead.

Even though it is still in convulsions.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It remains subject to the prohibition of limbs,

because an animal in convulsions

is not dead 92 .

Thus, Ḥizkiya holds that an animal in convulsions is considered dead with regard to a limb from a living animal. If so, the same should apply with regard to carcass impurity: it should be considered dead, and why did Ḥizkiya say that it requires preparation by water in order to contract food impurity, because one can drag it away? Carcass impurity should already apply now.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Ḥizkiya agrees that while it is in convulsions it does not convey carcass impurity, even though the prohibition of a limb from a living animal no longer applies to it, because the definition of an animal in convulsions is that it

“has left the category of a living animal but has not entered the category of a dead animal.”

That is, it has left the category of a living animal, so that the prohibition of a limb from a living animal does not apply to it, but it has not entered the category of a dead animal, so that carcass impurity does not apply to it, since with regard to carcass impurity it is written, “and when it dies,” which indicates specifically after death.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that it is considered entirely like a living animal, [although it can contract food impurity], and therefore one violates the prohibition of a limb from a living animal because of it.

The fundamental text: If one slaughtered it with two signs or with most of the two signs, and it is still in convulsions. Ḥizkiya said: It is not subject to the prohibition of limbs. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It remains subject to the prohibition of limbs.

Rabbi Elazar said: Take Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling in your hand.

The halakha follows him, because

Rav Oshaya taught in accordance with his view,

that an animal in convulsions is forbidden to the descendants of Noah.

Rav Oshaya taught: If an Israelite slaughtered an impure animal for a gentile, and slaughtered it with two

signs

or with most of two, and

it is still

in convulsions,

it

contracts food impurity!

It has the status of food with regard to food impurity: if a creeping creature touches it, it becomes impure and renders other food impure.

But it does not

convey

carcass impurity,

since it has not yet died.

A limb that separates from it

from the animal in convulsions—its status

is that of

a limb that

separates from a living animal.

That is, the limb immediately conveys carcass impurity, like a limb from a living animal.

And flesh that separates from it—

has the status of flesh that separates from a living animal, and is forbidden

for consumption

by the descendants of Noah

because of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal. [But flesh from a living animal does not convey impurity; the practical difference applies only to the prohibition of consumption, whereas in the case of a limb there is also a practical difference with regard to impurity],

and even after its soul departs

from the animal, the flesh remains forbidden, since it separated from the animal while it was alive.

It is explicit, then, that an animal in convulsions is like a living animal even with regard to a limb from a living animal, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view.

And the beraita continues:

If one slaughtered it

[the Israelite in the case of the impure animal, and the gentile in the case of the kosher animal] one sign,

or most

of one

sign,

and it is in convulsions—

it does not contract food impurity.

For even a kosher animal does not become food except through valid slaughter of both signs.

And all the more so if it

was stabbed

and is still in convulsions,

it has no impurity whatsoever.

That is, it does not convey even food impurity.

And

the same law applies to

a gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for an Israelite, and it is in convulsions—

it contracts food impurity, but not carcass impurity. A limb that separates from it—

has the status of one that separates from a living animal. And flesh that separates from it—

has the status of flesh that separates from a living animal, and is forbidden to the descendants of Noah, even after its soul departs.

If he slaughtered one sign or most of one sign—

it does not contract food impurity. If it was stabbed—

it has no impurity whatsoever!

If a gentile slaughtered it in a place that does not render it an animal with a fatal defect,

for example, he slaughtered only half the windpipe, [since the animal is not rendered trefa until most of the windpipe has been severed],

and an Israelite came and completed it

by slaughtering a little more—the slaughter is

valid,

since the animal’s life departed, which occurs when most of the sign is severed, at the hands of the Israelite, and it is considered as though the entire slaughter had been performed by him.

If an Israelite slaughtered it, whether in a place that renders it an animal with a fatal defect,

by severing most of the windpipe,

or in a place that does not render it an animal with a fatal defect,

by severing only half the windpipe,

and a gentile came and completed it,

by severing the remainder of the windpipe and the gullet—

his slaughter is invalid.

For the required measure of slaughter was completed by the gentile.

One who wishes to eat from an animal before its soul departs,

as this is beneficial to one’s health,

cuts an olive-bulk of flesh from the place of its slaughter,

without needing to strip the hide from it, and he may cut it immediately, even before its soul departs,

and salts it thoroughly

to extract its blood. [He must salt it more than other flesh, since after slaughter the animal releases a great deal of blood, and the blood has not had time to leave this olive-bulk that was cut immediately.]

And he rinses it thoroughly

to remove the salt and the blood that emerged from it,

and waits for the animal until its soul departs, and eats it,

since before the soul departs it is forbidden to eat from the animal. This is not because of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal, since it has already been slaughtered, but rabbinically; the prohibition was based on the verse, “You shall not eat over the blood.”

And

both a gentile and an Israelite are permitted to eat it!

Although, with regard to the gentile, the prohibition of a limb from a living animal is not lifted until the animal dies, nevertheless, in this animal, which was slaughtered properly and is permitted to an Israelite [for whom everything depends on slaughter], we say that there is no matter that is permitted to an Israelite but forbidden to a gentile.

And this ruling of the beraita, which teaches that even a gentile is permitted,

supports Rav Idi bar Avin.

For Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ashyan: One who wishes to recover—

cuts an olive-bulk of flesh from the place of slaughter, salts it thoroughly, rinses it thoroughly, and waits for the animal until its soul departs. Both a gentile and an Israelite are permitted to eat it 96 .

Rabbi Elazar raised a question:

Regarding what we said, that when an Israelite slaughters an impure animal, or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, even while it is in convulsions it has the status of food with regard to food impurity, since we find a slaughter similar to theirs that permits it for consumption:

If he paused during its slaughter

or

pressed the knife into it

[the Israelite in the slaughter of the impure animal, or the gentile in the slaughter of the kosher animal]—

what is the law?

Must the slaughter be valid in every detail [despite the fact that it does not permit the animal for consumption, but only gives the flesh the status of food], so that anything invalid in slaughter is considered as though he had stabbed the animal, [as we learned above in the second chapter, that pausing in the middle of slaughter or pressing the knife invalidates the slaughter], and it consequently does not convey food impurity? Or perhaps, since this slaughter is only for the sake of establishing food status, even if he slaughters it improperly, it is still considered slaughter?

A certain elder said

to Rabbi Elazar:

This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It requires valid slaughter—

as does a kosher animal.

That is, specifically valid slaughter; but when he paused or pressed the knife, it does not contract food impurity.

We inquire about this: Rabbi Yoḥanan, who extends his wording and says

valid preparation

of slaughter as with a kosher animal—

for what purpose

did he say this? That is, what law is he teaching us by this?

And we answer:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak said:

This is to say—that even

the inspection of the knife

is required. And without this, it does not impart ritual impurity of food.

Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet:

In the case of an Israelite who slaughtered an impure animal, or a gentile who slaughtered a pure animal, and it is still convulsing—and the convulsing animal is found in a tent containing a corpse, with pure vessels in its belly that it had swallowed before the slaughter—

what is the halakha: can

the convulsing animal

protect

the vessels

swallowed inside it

so that they do not become impure through being in the tent containing the corpse?

That is, does this animal still have the status of a living creature, so that it protects the vessels swallowed inside it and they do not become impure through being in the tent containing the corpse? Or perhaps it has the status of a dead creature and cannot protect what is swallowed inside it?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since a convulsing animal

imparts ritual impurity of food,

which indicates that it is considered dead, for if it were considered alive, it would not be considered food,

then

how can one say that it

protects them!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Sheshet: On the other hand, it

does not impart ritual impurity of carcasses,

and therefore it is considered alive,

so

how can one say that it

does not protect them?!

Abaye said: This is the resolution of the halakha:

It

does not protect what is swallowed inside it

as it imparts ritual impurity of food.

But

a person who

has intercourse with it is liable

to death, as is the law with one who has intercourse with an animal while it is alive—

as it does not impart ritual impurity of carcasses 97 .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The allel,

the collected flesh, if it contains an olive-bulk in one place, one is liable for it.

Rav Huna said: And this is when a person gathered it

[ ^98 ] thereby revealing his intention: Initially, when he cut the hide together with the flesh, he did not intend to subordinate the flesh to the hide. But if the flesh gathered by itself, we say that initially, when he cut the hide together with the flesh, he intended to subordinate the flesh to the hide; therefore, it does not impart impurity of carcasses .

And Rav Huna said: Two half-olive-bulks

of separate pieces of carcass flesh

that are upon the hide—

the hide nullifies them.

For each of the two half-olive-bulks is subordinate to the hide, and it has no status of flesh, but rather the status of hide, which does not impart impurity as a carcass.