Chulin 32 - SLAUGHTERING A
1) SLAUGHTERING A "PARAH ADUMAH" WITH ANOTHER ANIMAL
(a) (Rava): If Reuven slaughtered a Parah Adumah and another animal, all agree that the Parah is invalid;
(b) If another animal was slaughtered (unintentionally) with the Parah Adumah:
1. According to R. Noson, the Parah is invalid, the other animal is valid;
2. According to Chachamim, the Parah is valid, the other animal is invalid.
(c) Question: This is obvious!
(d) Answer: The case of another animal slaughtered unintentionally, according to R. Noson, is a Chidush.
1. One might have thought, "He will slaughter *it*" - not it and another - this only disqualifies slaughtering two Paros Adumos at once, but not one Parah and a Chulin animal;
2. Rava teaches, this is not so.
(e) If he cut a gourd while slaughtering a Parah Adumah, it is invalid; if a gourd was cut while slaughtering the Parah, it is valid.
2) PAUSING DURING SLAUGHTER
(a) (Mishnah): If a man paused during slaughter to pick up the knife or his clothes which fell, or to sharpen the knife; or, he grew weary and another man completed the slaughter - if the delay was the time needed for slaughter, the slaughter is invalid;
(b) R. Shimon says, if it was the time to check, it is invalid.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the time for slaughter?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav): The time to slaughter another animal (i.e. from the start).
(e) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): Is the permissible pause (when slaughtering a bird) the time to slaughter an animal, or the time to slaughter a bird?
(f) Response (Rav): When I learned this law from R. Chiya, the mood did not allow me to ask.
(g) (Rav): For an animal, we use the time to slaughter an animal; for a bird, we use the time to slaughter a bird.
(h) (Shmuel and Ravin): Also for a bird, we use the time to slaughter an animal.
(i) (R. Chanina): We use the time to bring an animal and slaughter it.
(j) Objection: If we must bring an animal - the time will vary, depending how far we must go to find one!
(k) Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, R. Chanina teaches that we must include the time to cast the animal to the ground, (which the other Amora'im do not include - Rashi, based on our text; the text of many Rishonim omits these words, for all agree to this).
(l) (Sages of Eretz Yisrael, citing R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): We use the time to pick up an animal, make it crouch down, and slaughter;
1. For a large animal, we use the times for a large animal; for a small animal, the times for a small animal.
(m) (Rava): If one slaughters with a blunt knife, even if he spends the whole day slaughtering one animal, it is valid.
(n) Question (Rava): Do small pauses join up (that if the total delay is the time for slaughter, the slaughter is invalid)?
1. Question: Rava should resolve his question from the law he just taught (that they do not join up)!
2. Answer: In that case, he was constantly cutting, he did not pause.
(o) Question (Rav Huna brei d'R. Noson): What is the law if he paused while cutting the minority of the Simanim (Rashi - after having cut the majority; R. Tam - before cutting the majority; R. Ushiya - he paused while cutting the remainder of the first Siman after having cut its majority)?
(p) These questions are unresolved.
3) A SLAUGHTER WHICH BECAME INVALID
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yeshevav): In the following cases, the animal is a Neveilah:
1. He slaughtered the Veshet and uprooted the Kaneh, or uprooted the Kaneh and (then - some delete this) slaughtered the Veshet;
2. He slaughtered one Siman and paused until the animal died, or inserted the knife under the second Siman and slaughtered it by Chaladah (when the knife was covered up);
3. R. Akiva says, it is a Treifah.
(b) (R. Yeshevav, citing R. Yehoshua): Any case in which the slaughter was invalidated, the animal is a Neveilah; if it was slaughtered properly but something else forbids the animal, it is a Treifah;
1. R. Akiva retracted and agreed to R. Yeshevav.
(c) (Gemara) Contradiction: In our Mishnah, R. Akiva retracted and agreed to R. Yeshevav; elsewhere, we see that they still disagree!
1. (Mishnah #2): The following are Treifos:
i. The Veshet was punctured, or the Kaneh was uprooted...
(d) Answer #1 (Rava): In our Mishnah, the Kaneh was uprooted after the Veshet was slaughtered - a disqualification occurred in the slaughter itself;
1. There, the Kaneh was uprooted before anything was slaughtered - the disqualification was not related to the slaughter.
2. Question (Rav Acha bar Huna - our Mishnah): If he slaughtered the Veshet and uprooted the Kaneh, or uprooted the Kaneh and slaughtered the Veshet, it is a Neveilah.
3. Answer (Rava): The latter clause really means, the Kaneh was uprooted after the Veshet was already slaughtered.
4. Objection #1 (Rav Acha bar Huna): But that is precisely the first clause!
5. Objection #2 (Rav Acha bar Huna - Beraisa): If he uprooted the Kaneh and *then* slaughtered the Veshet, it is a Neveilah;
i. If in our Mishnah he slaughtered the Veshet *afterwards*, it also would have specified!
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): Mishnah #2, really means, the following *forbid* an animal; some of them make it a Treifah, others, a Neveilah.
1. Question: If so, the Mishnah should also list the cases of Chizkiyah and R. Elazar!
i. (Chizkiyah): An animal cut in half is a Neveilah.
ii. (R. Elazar): If the thigh and its socket were removed, the animal is a Neveilah.
2. Answer: The Mishnah only lists animals that become Tamei (Neveilah) when they are fully dead; these two cases are Tamei even when the animal is still quivering.
(f) Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): In our Mishnah, he cut the Kaneh where its majority was already cut, this is a disqualification in the slaughter itself (only one Siman was slaughtered);
1. In Mishnah #2, he cut it where it was not already cut - the slaughter was proper, just the animal itself was a Treifah.
2. Question: But Reish Lakish himself taught, if he slaughtered the Kaneh and then punctured the lungs, it is Kosher - apparently, once a Siman is cut, it (or any organ dependent on it) no longer affects the animal's status;
i. Here also, if the Veshet was already cut, cutting it in a different place should not be considered slaughter, the animal should be Neveilah!
(g) Answer #4 (R. Chiya bar Aba): Mishnah #2 was taught by R. Akiva before he retracted; since Chachamim were used to the text of that Mishnah, it was not changed after he retracted.
4) PROBLEMS IN THE MIDDLE OF SLAUGHTER
(a) (Reish Lakish): If he slaughtered the Kaneh and then punctured the lungs, it is Kosher.
(b) (Rava): This only applies if the lungs were punctured, since their whole function depends on the Kaneh - but if the intestines were punctured (after cutting the Kaneh), it would not be Kosher.
(c) Objection (R. Zeira): If you permit it even though a wound which makes it a Treifah occurred after cutting one Siman, it makes no difference if the wound was in the lungs or intestines!
(d) Version #1 - Rashi: We may infer that R. Zeira retracted from his opinion (that any wound does not disqualify the slaughter, and agreed to Rava) from the following question he subsequently asked.
(e) Version #2 - Tosfos: From R. Zeira's objection, we may infer that he retracted from his *prior* opinion (that a wound anywhere makes the animal Treifah - we known he held this way from the following question he used to ask).(End of Version #2)
1. Question (R. Zeira): What is the law if the intestines were punctured after cutting one Siman - does the cutting of the first Siman join to the cutting of the second?
i. It is clear to R. Zeira that the animal is forbidden; his question is whether we consider the animal to be slaughtered (and only Treifah), or a Neveilah, similar to Ilfa's question.
ii. Question (Ilfa): After one Siman of a pregnant animal was slaughtered, the fetus inside stuck its foot outside; the second Siman was cut. Do we join the Simanim to say that it was included in the slaughter, and is not a Neveilah?
iii. There is no question that the foot is Treifah and forbidden to eat.