Chullin 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

And he raises an objection:

This contradicts what we learned in the Mishna below [42a]:

These are the cases of tereifa in an animal:

A perforation of the esophagus and a severed windpipe.

The Mishna states that a severed windpipe renders the animal a tereifa, but not a neveila !

Rava said: This is not difficult. Here,

our Mishna is referring to a case in which one

slaughtered and then severed; here,

the Mishna below is referring to a case in which one

severed and then slaughtered.

The Gemara explains:

He slaughtered

the esophagus and began the slaughter

and then severed

the windpipe;

it became disqualified through the slaughter

the animal.

He severed and then slaughtered,

and when he began the slaughter there was no disqualification in the slaughter;

because

[like]

it is comparable to a case in which another factor caused it to become disqualified,

and it is a tereifa.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava

from our Mishna, which states:

He slaughtered the esophagus and severed the windpipe; he severed the windpipe and slaughtered

the esophagus—

it is a neveila.

This indicates that the order of the actions is irrelevant!

Rava answers: The Mishna does not mean that he slaughtered the esophagus after severing the windpipe, but rather:

Say: He had already slaughtered the esophagus initially.

But if he slaughtered the esophagus last, it is a tereifa.

He said to him,

Rav Aḥa bar Huna:

There are two answers

that refute this interpretation of the Mishna

in the matter.

One: For

if so, there are not two cases here; rather, the second case

is identical to the first

[that is, it is the first case ]!

Furthermore:

There is a beraita that states the law of the Mishna, and in this beraita

it is taught

explicitly:

“And then”

he slaughtered the esophagus. It is impossible to interpret this as meaning “he had already slaughtered it,” as you said!

Rather, Rava said:

In truth, whenever both simanim have not been slaughtered, this is not a valid slaughter, and the animal is a neveila. And the Mishna below enumerates all the defects in an animal that prohibit it, and

“these are prohibited,” it teaches, “and some of them are neveilot,

and some of them are tereifot.”

The Gemara asks: If the Mishna enumerates neveilot as well,

let it also enumerate

this case

of Ḥizkiya

among the neveilot!

For Ḥizkiya said: If he made it

the animal

a gistera,

that is, he split it into two parts, for example, by cutting through the entire neck, it is

a neveila,

and it conveys impurity as a neveila even if it is still convulsing.

Likewise, if the Mishna enumerates neveilot,

let it also enumerate

this case

of Rabbi Elazar

among the neveilot!

For Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh was removed

[the upper bone of the leg] from the place where it is joined to the buka de-atisma [the pelvic socket] ,

and its cavity

is visible , and no skin or flesh remains there to cover the wound, but the body is visible at the site of the cut , it is

a neveila.

The Gemara answers: In truth, the Mishna enumerates neveilot, but

when it taught, “a neveila that does not convey impurity while alive,”

such as a severed windpipe, in which slaughter is ineffective because it is impossible to slaughter both simanim,

but a neveila that conveys impurity while alive,

because its state of being alive is not considered life,

it did not teach.

For it does not resemble a tereifa at all.

The Gemara presents another resolution of the contradiction, according to which the Mishna of “these are the tereifot” enumerates specifically tereifot.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Here,

our Mishna is referring to a case in which he

slaughtered

the esophagus

at the site of the cut

in the windpipe, and did not perform any slaughter in the windpipe.

Here,

the Mishna below is referring to a case in which he

slaughtered

the windpipe, which had been severed before the slaughter,

not at the site of the cut.

The Gemara explains his statement:

If he slaughtered at the site of the cut

in the windpipe, it is as though he slaughtered only the esophagus, and

it became disqualified through the slaughter.

But if he slaughtered

not at the site of the cut,

he has slaughtered the windpipe, and the slaughter of both simanim has taken place. As for the fact that the windpipe had been severed before the slaughter,

it is comparable to a case in which another factor caused it to become disqualified.

But the Gemara asks:

Did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish really say this,

that slaughter can be effective for a windpipe that was severed, so as to purify the animal from the status of a neveila!?

But didn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: If he slaughtered the windpipe and afterward the lung was perforated

between the slaughter of the windpipe and the slaughter of the esophagus, the animal is

fit,

and although an animal becomes a tereifa through a perforation in the lung, here, since the windpipe—which supports the lung—was slaughtered before the perforation, this did not render it a tereifa?

And we learn from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Apparently

[we see] that after the windpipe has been slaughtered, the lung

is considered comparable to something placed in a basket

[it is considered as though it were already lying in a basket], and therefore it can no longer be rendered a tereifa on account of its perforation .

The Gemara asks:

Here too

[when the windpipe was severed, it] is

considered comparable to something placed in a basket,

and in this state slaughter takes place only in the esophagus !

Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult. Here,

the Mishna below reflects the view of Rabbi Akiva

before his retraction,

when he held that the slaughter of one siman purifies the animal from the impurity of a neveila;

here,

our Mishna reflects the view

after his retraction,

when he conceded to Rabbi Yishbav that if both simanim were not slaughtered, the animal is a neveila,

and the Mishna did not move from its place

from the way it had stood before the retraction.

The Gemara cites a dispute among the amoraim concerning the understanding of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement.

In the body of the matter, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one slaughtered the windpipe and afterward the lung was perforated—

the animal is fit.

Rava said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said

that the animal is fit

only in the case of a lung

that was perforated after the windpipe was slaughtered,

since the life of the lung depends on the windpipe,

and when the windpipe is slaughtered, it is as though it and the lung dependent upon it have been severed from the animal,

but in the case of the intestines

that were perforated after the windpipe was slaughtered,

he did not

have Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish declare the animal fit, because they do not depend on the windpipe but on the esophagus .

Rabbi Zeira challenged this: Once

in the lung

signs of tereifa developed in it, you permitted it,

the rationale can only be that a tereifa is a defect that develops during the animal’s life and not at the time of its death. Since, when the windpipe was slaughtered, it was no longer fully alive, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that there is no tereifa during partial life. If so,

what difference is there

between a tereifa

in the lung and one in the intestines!

According to Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s rationale is not that the lung is considered comparable to something placed in a basket. Rather, it is that there is no tereifa during partial life, and there is no distinction based on the location where the tereifa developed. The Gemara above, which refuted Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s statement by citing another statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, follows Rava’s understanding of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s rationale.

And we say:

And Rabbi Zeira retracted

[and changed his mind]

from his view

to Rava’s view, holding that if the intestines were perforated after the windpipe was slaughtered, the animal is a tereifa. The proof for this is from Rabbi Zeira’s own question.

For Rabbi Zeira raised the following question:

If the intestines were perforated between

the slaughter of

the first siman

which is the windpipe

and the second siman,

what is the law?

Is the animal a tereifa, like any animal whose intestines were perforated before slaughter, with the slaughter purifying it from the status of a neveila? Or is slaughter ineffective for this animal, because the slaughter of the simanim is not comparable: the slaughter of the first siman serves to permit the animal for consumption, since at that point it had not yet become a tereifa, whereas the slaughter of the second siman serves only to purify the animal from the status of a neveila?

And Rabbi Zeira raised another question:

Does the first siman join with the second siman to purify the animal from the status of a neveila,

since the slaughter of the first siman also purifies it from the impurity of a neveila,

or not

does the first siman not join with it, since its primary function is to permit the animal?

The Gemara cites a similar question to Rabbi Zeira’s question.

The law is that through the slaughter of a pregnant animal, the fetus inside its womb becomes permitted. However, if the fetus extended a limb outside before the slaughter, that limb has the status of a tereifa: it is forbidden to eat, but it does not convey impurity.

And we say: Is this not

[the same question]

that Ilfa raised: If a fetus extended its limb between one siman and the other, what is the law?