Chullin 32b — the Talmud in English

And we raise a contradiction:

a contradiction to this from what we learned in the Mishna below [42a]]:

These are the terefot in an animal: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column location")

A perforation of the esophagus and a severed windpipe.

And the Mishna says that a severed windpipe is a tereifa and not a nevela !

Rava said: It is not difficult. Here,

our Mishna is speaking of a case

in which he slaughtered and afterward severed; here,

the Mishna below is speaking of a case

in which he severed and afterward slaughtered.

And the Gemara explains:

He slaughtered

the esophagus and began the slaughter

and afterward severed

the windpipe,

it becomes disqualified through the slaughter—

the animal.

If he severed and afterward slaughtered

and when he began to slaughter there was no disqualification in the slaughter,

because

as

it resembles a case in which another matter caused it to become disqualified

and it is a tereifa.

Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava

from our Mishna, which says:

If he slaughtered the esophagus and severed the windpipe; if he severed the windpipe and slaughtered

the esophagus—

it is a nevela.

Here, then, the order of the matters is not significant!

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

say: He had already slaughtered the esophagus at the outset.

But if he slaughtered the esophagus at the end, 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 the first one

this is the first case !

And furthermore:

there is a beraita that teaches the law of the Mishna, and in this beraita

it is explicitly taught

explicitly:

and afterward

he slaughtered the esophagus. And it is not possible to interpret it as “he had already slaughtered,” as you say!

Rather, Rava said:

In truth, in every case in which the two סימנים have not been slaughtered, this is not slaughter, and the animal is a nevela. And the Mishna below enumerates all the defects in an animal that prohibit it, and

it teaches, “These are prohibited,” and some of them are nevelot,

and some of them are terefot.

And the Gemara discusses: If the Mishna also enumerates nevelot,

it should also count

this

of Ḥizkiya,

among the nevelot!

For Ḥizkiya said: If he made

the animal

a gistra,

that is, he divided it into two parts, for example, he cut the entire neck, it is

a nevela,

and it imparts impurity like a nevela even if it is still quivering.

And likewise, if the Mishna enumerates nevelot,

it should also count

this

of Rabbi Elazar,

among the nevelot!

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-atma ,

and its cavity

is visible , and no skin or flesh remains there covering the wound, but its body is visible at the place of the cut , it is

a nevela.

And we answer: In truth, the Mishna enumerates nevelot, but

when it teaches, it teaches a nevela that does not impart impurity during life,

such as a severed windpipe, in which slaughter is not effective, because it is impossible to slaughter two סימנים in it.

But a nevela that imparts impurity during life,

because its living state is not considered life,

it does not teach.

For it is not at all similar to a tereifa.

And the Gemara brings another answer to the contradiction, according to which the Mishna “These are the terefot” enumerates specifically terefot.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Here,

in our Mishna, it is speaking of a case

in which he slaughtered

the esophagus

at the place of the cut

of the windpipe, and he performed no slaughter at all in the windpipe.

Here,

in the Mishna below, it is speaking of a case

in which he slaughtered

the windpipe that had been severed before the slaughter

not at the place of the cut.

And the Gemara explains his words:

If he slaughtered at the place of the cut

of the windpipe, this is like slaughtering only the esophagus, and

it becomes disqualified through the slaughter.

But if he slaughtered

not at the place of the cut,

then he is slaughtering the windpipe, and there is slaughter of two סימנים here; and the fact that the windpipe was severed before the slaughter,

resembles a case in which another matter caused it to become disqualified.

But the Gemara wonders:

And did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say this,

that slaughter can be effective for a windpipe that was severed, to purify it from the status of a nevela?!

But Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: 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 every animal becomes a tereifa through a perforation in the lung, here, since the windpipe—to which the lung is attached—was slaughtered before the perforation, it did not become a tereifa through it.

And we learn from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

apparently

we see that after the slaughter of the windpipe, the lung

resembles something placed in a basket

for it is regarded as though it were lying in a basket, and therefore it can no longer be rendered a tereifa because of its perforation .

And we object:

here too

where the windpipe was severed, it

resembles something placed in a basket,

and in this state slaughter is effective only in the esophagus !

Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is not difficult. Here,

in the Mishna below, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva

before his retraction,

who held that slaughtering one סימן purifies from the impurity of a nevela;

here,

in our Mishna, this is

after his retraction,

when he conceded to Rabbi Yoshevav that if the two סימנים were not slaughtered, the animal is a nevela,

and the Mishna did not move from its place

from the way it had been before the retraction.

The Gemara brings a dispute among amoraim in understanding the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

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

it is fit.

Rava said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said

that the animal is fit

only concerning a lung

that was perforated after the slaughter of the windpipe

since the life of the lung depends on the windpipe,

and when it is slaughtered, it is as though it is severed from the animal together with the lung attached to it,

but concerning the intestines

that were perforated after the slaughter of the windpipe,

he did not

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

Rabbi Zeira strongly objected to this: Since there developed in it

in the lung

signs of a tereifa, you permitted it,

for the reason for the matter can only be that a tereifa is a defect that developed during the animal’s life and not at its death; and since, when he slaughtered the windpipe, 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 to me

whether the tereifa is

in the lung, or what difference is there to me if it is in the intestines!

According to Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s reason is not that the lung resembles something placed in a basket; rather, it is that there is no tereifa during partial life, and there is no distinction according to the place in which the tereifa developed. And the Gemara above, which refuted Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s words from Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s own words, follows Rava in the reason it assigns to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

And we say:

And Rabbi Zeira retracted

and withdrew

Rabbi Zeira

from his own view to Rava’s view, and holds that if the intestines were perforated after the slaughter of the windpipe, it is a tereifa. The proof of this is from Rabbi Zeira’s question.

For he asked

Rabbi Zeira: If the intestines were perforated between

the slaughter of

the first סימן,

which is the windpipe,

and the second סימן,

the second one,

what is the law?

Is the animal a tereifa, like any animal whose intestines were perforated before slaughter, so that slaughter purifies it from the status of a nevela? Or is slaughter not effective for this animal, because the slaughter of the סימנים is not comparable: the slaughter of the first סימן comes to permit the animal for eating, since at that time it had not yet become a tereifa, while the slaughter of the second סימן comes only to purify the animal from the status of a nevela?

And Rabbi Zeira asks:

Does the first סימן join with the second סימן to purify from the status of a nevela,

since the slaughter of the first סימן also purifies from the impurity of a nevela,

or not

does the first סימן not join, since its primary purpose is to permit?

And the Gemara brings a question similar to Rabbi Zeira’s question.

The law is that through the slaughter of a pregnant animal, the fetus inside it is permitted; but if the fetus extended a limb before the slaughter, that limb has the status of a tereifa, which is prohibited for eating but is not impure.

And we say: Is this not

the same question

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