Chullin 121b — the Talmud in English

And it does not require preparation.

Rather, even without the preparation of water it becomes susceptible to impurity, yet food does not render itself susceptible to impurity without being prepared to receive impurity!?

Because ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

its end

of the carcass of a kosher bird

is to impart severe impurity!

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

And if so, since an object whose end is to impart severe impurity does not require preparation, why did those tannaim say that an animal in convulsions requires preparation, when its end is to impart severe impurity?

And we answer:

Hezekiah said:

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

since he can drag it apart,

for he 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 no more than less than an olive-bulk, which does not impart impurity as a carcass; and since it is not certain that its end is to impart severe impurity, it requires preparation by water . The carcass of a kosher bird is different, since it is dead, and already now it is fit to impart severe impurity in the house of swallowing.

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

That its end is not to impart severe impurity since he can drag it apart? It follows that now, while it is in convulsions, it is obvious that it does not impart carcass impurity,

But it was stated: If he slaughtered it

an impure animal

two

signs,

or the greater part of two, and it is still in convulsions—

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

There is no prohibition of a limb from a living animal in it, and a gentile is permitted to eat it.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is still subject to the prohibition of limbs.

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

And we explain:

Hezekiah said: It is not subject to the prohibition of limbs,

since

it is dead.

Although it is still in convulsions.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is subject to the prohibition of limbs,

for an animal in convulsions

is not dead. 92 .

Thus it is explicit that Hezekiah holds that an animal in convulsions is considered dead with regard to a limb from a living animal. If so, the same law should apply: it is considered dead with regard to carcass impurity. Why did Hezekiah say that it requires preparation by water in order to receive food impurity because he can drag it apart, when carcass impurity already exists now ?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Yirmeya: Hezekiah agrees that it does not impart carcass impurity while it is in convulsions, and although there is no longer a prohibition of a limb from a living animal in 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 the dead.”

That is, it has left the category of a living animal, so that there is no prohibition of a limb from a living animal upon it, but it has not entered the category of the dead, so that there is no carcass impurity in it, for with regard to carcass impurity it is written, “and when it dies,” indicating specifically after death.

But Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is considered entirely like a living animal [except that it receives food impurity]; therefore he transgresses concerning it because of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

The essential text: If he slaughtered it two signs or the greater part of two signs, and it is still in convulsions. Hezekiah said: It is not subject to the prohibition of limbs. Rabbi Yohanan said: It is subject to the prohibition of limbs.

Rabbi Elazar said: Take this statement of Rabbi Yohanan in your hand.

And the halakha is in accordance with him, because

Rav Oshaya taught in accordance with him,

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 two

signs

or the greater part of two, and it is

still

in convulsions,

it is

susceptible to food impurity!

It has the status of food with regard to food impurity: if a creeping creature touched it, it is impure and renders another food impure.

But not

susceptible to

carcass impurity,

for it has not yet died.

A limb that separates from it

from the animal in convulsions—its law is

like

a limb that

separates from a living animal.

With regard to the fact that the limb immediately imparts carcass impurity, like a limb from a living animal.

And flesh that separates from it—

like flesh that separates from a living animal, and it is forbidden

for consumption

by the descendants of Noah

because of a limb from a living animal [but there is no impurity in flesh from a living animal; rather, the practical difference concerns only the prohibition of consumption, while 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 under its prohibition, since it separated from the animal while it was alive.

Thus it is explicit that an animal in convulsions is like a living animal even with regard to a limb from a living animal, and this is the view of Rabbi Yohanan.

And the beraita continues:

If he slaughtered it [

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

or the greater part of

one

sign

and it is in convulsions—

it is not susceptible to food impurity.

For even a kosher animal does not become food except through slaughter according to its law, of the two signs.

And all the more so if he

cut its throat

and it is still in convulsions, that

there is no impurity of any kind in it.

That is, it does not impart 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 is susceptible to food impurity, but not to carcass impurity. A limb that separates from it—

like one that separates from a living animal. And flesh that separates from it—

like one that separates from a living animal. And it is forbidden to the descendants of Noah, even after its soul departs.

If he slaughtered one or the greater part of one—

it is not susceptible to food impurity. If he cut its throat—

there is no impurity of any kind in it!

If a gentile slaughtered in a place that does not render it a tereifa,

such as where he slaughtered only half of the windpipe [for the animal does not become a tereifa until the greater part of the windpipe is cut],

and an Israelite came and completed it,

adding and slaughtering something more—the slaughter is

valid,

because the animal’s vitality departed, which occurs when the greater part of the sign is cut, through the act of the Israelite, and it is considered as though the entire slaughter had been performed by him .

If an Israelite slaughtered, whether in a place that renders it a tereifa,

where he slaughtered the greater part of the windpipe,

or in a place that does not render it a tereifa,

where he slaughtered only half of the windpipe,

and a gentile came and completed it,

slaughtering the remainder of the windpipe and the esophagus—

his slaughter is invalid.

For through the gentile the measure of slaughter was completed.

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

since this is beneficial for health,

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

for he need not strip the skin from it and can cut it immediately, even before its soul departs,

and salts it very well

to extract its blood. [And he must salt it more than other flesh, since after slaughter the animal releases much blood, and from this olive-bulk that he cut immediately the blood did not have enough time to leave it].

And washes it very well

from the salt and from the blood that came out of it,

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

since before the departure of its soul it is forbidden to eat from the animal. Not because of a limb from a living animal, for it has already been slaughtered, but by rabbinic law, and they based the prohibition on the verse, “You shall not eat over the blood” .

And

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

For although with regard to the gentile the prohibition of a limb from a living animal is not removed until it dies, nevertheless, with regard to this animal, which was slaughtered according to the law and is permitted to an Israelite [for in his case everything depends upon slaughter], we say that there is no matter that is permitted to an Israelite and forbidden to a gentile.

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

supports Rav Idi bar Avin.

For Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak bar Ashyan: One who wishes to become healthy—

cuts an olive-bulk of flesh from the place of slaughter, salts it very well, washes it very well, and waits for it 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 slaughter similar to theirs that permits consumption,

if he paused during its slaughter

or

pressed the knife upon it [

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

what is the law?

Must the slaughter be valid in all its particulars [although it does not permit consumption, but only gives the flesh the status of food], so that anything invalid in slaughter is considered as though he cut the animal’s throat, [as we learned above in the second chapter, that pausing in the middle of slaughter or pressing the knife invalidates the slaughter], and it again does not impart food impurity? Or perhaps, since this slaughter is only for the sake of food, even if he slaughters it not according to its law, it is considered slaughter?

A certain elder said

to Rabbi Elazar:

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

like a kosher animal.

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

And we examine it: Rabbi Yohanan, who extends his wording and says

“validity”

of slaughter like a kosher animal—

for what purpose

did he say it? That is, what law is he coming to teach us by this?

And we answer:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak said:

to say—that even

the inspection of the knife

is required. And without this, it does not become susceptible to the impurity of foods.

Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet:

An Israelite slaughtered an impure animal, and a gentile slaughtered a pure animal, and it is convulsing. And the convulsing animal is found in the tent of the dead, and in its belly are pure vessels that it swallowed before the slaughter—

what is the law: can

the convulsing animal

protect

the vessels

swallowed within it

so that they should not become impure from the tent of the dead?

And this is the question: Is this animal still considered alive, so that it protects the vessels swallowed within it, which do not become impure from the tent of the dead; or perhaps it is considered dead and cannot protect what is swallowed within it?

He said to him

Rav Sheshet to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is convulsing,

it becomes susceptible to the impurity of foods,

and it follows that it is considered dead, for if it were considered alive, it would not be considered food,

and

how is it possible to say that it

protects?!

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira to Rav Sheshet: But, on the other hand, it

does not become impure with the impurity of carcasses,

and if so, it is considered alive,

and

how is it possible to say that it

does not protect?!

Abaye said:

This is the determination of the law:

It does not protect what is swallowed within it—

for it does become susceptible to the impurity of foods.

And

a person who

has intercourse with it is liable

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

for it does not become impure with the impurity of a carcass 97 .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: The collected

flesh, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place, one is liable on its account.

Rav Huna said: And this is when he collected it

a person , for by doing so he revealed his intention: from the outset, when he cut the hide together with the flesh, he did not wish to subordinate the flesh to the hide. But if the flesh collected by itself, we say that from the outset, when he cut the hide together with the flesh, he wished to subordinate the flesh to the hide; and therefore it does not become impure with the impurity of carcasses .

And Rav Huna said: Two half-olive-bulks

of separate 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 does not have the status of flesh, but rather the status of hide, which does not impart impurity as a carcass.