נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת
An animal that has a perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or one with a severed windpipe. According to this mishna, the severed windpipe renders the animal a tereifa and not an unslaughtered carcass. If Rabbi Akiva reconsidered his opinion and conceded to Rabbi Yeshevav, in accordance with the opinion of which tanna is that mishna?
אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן ששחט ולבסוף פסק כאן שפסק ולבסוף שחט שחט ולבסוף פסק נפסלת בשחיטה היא פסק ולבסוף שחט כי דבר אחר גרם לה ליפסל דמיא
Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a case where one cut the gullet and ultimately severed the windpipe not in the standard manner. There, the mishna in the next chapter is referring to a case where he severed the windpipe not in the standard manner, and ultimately cut the gullet. If he cut the gullet and ultimately severed the windpipe, the animal was rendered unfit during its slaughter; therefore, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass, according to the principle of Rabbi Yeshevav. But if he severed the windpipe and ultimately cut the gullet, it is as though another matter caused the animal to become unfit; therefore, it assumes the status of a tereifa.
איתיביה רב אחא בר הונא לרבא שחט את הוושט ופסק את הגרגרת פסק את הגרגרת ואחר כך שחט את הוושט נבלה
Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If one cut the gullet and then severed the windpipe, or if one severed the windpipe and cut the gullet thereafter, the animal is an unslaughtered carcass. Apparently, contrary to Rava’s statement, the order is irrelevant, and even if the windpipe is severed first, the animal assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass.
אימא וכבר שחט את הוושט מעיקרא
Rava said: Say that the latter case in the baraita means not that he cut the gullet thereafter; rather, it is a case where one severed the windpipe and had already cut the gullet at the outset.
אמר ליה שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דהיינו קמייתא ועוד הא תנן ואח"כ
Rav Aḥa bar Huna said to him: There are two refutations of the statement, i.e., of your attempt to answer the difficulty from the baraita: One is that if the second case in the baraita is one where he initially cut the gullet, then that is identical to the first case in the baraita. And furthermore, didn’t we learn explicitly in the baraita: Or if one severed the windpipe and cut the gullet thereafter, the animal is an unslaughtered carcass?
אלא אמר רבא אלו אסורות קתני ויש מהן נבלות ויש מהן טרפות
Rather, Rava said: The use of the term: Tereifot, in the mishna in the next chapter is not to the exclusion of unslaughtered carcasses; rather, the tanna teaches that term in a general sense, meaning: These wounds serve to render an animal forbidden; and there are some of them that are unslaughtered carcasses, e.g., an animal with a severed windpipe, and there are some of them that are tereifot.
וליחשוב נמי דחזקיה דאמר חזקיה עשאה גיסטרא נבלה וליחשוב נמי דרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר נטלה ירך וחלל שלה נבלה
The Gemara objects to that interpretation: If the mishna is listing those circumstances that render the animal an unslaughtered carcass, let the tanna consider the circumstance of Ḥizkiyya as well, as Ḥizkiyya says: If one rendered the animal like a shard by cutting it into two widthwise, its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass even while it is convulsing before its death. And let the tanna consider the circumstance of Rabbi Elazar as well, as Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh, the hind leg of the animal, was removed and its recess is obvious (see 21a), it is an unslaughtered carcass.
כי קתני נבלה דלא מטמאה מחיים אבל נבלה דמטמאה מחיים לא קתני
The Gemara explains: When the mishna teaches the case of an unslaughtered carcass, it is a case where the animal does not assume that status and impart impurity while alive. But the tanna does not teach the case of an unslaughtered carcass where the animal assumes that status and imparts impurity while alive, e.g., the cases of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Elazar.
רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר כאן ששחט במקום חתך כאן ששחט שלא במקום חתך שחט במקום חתך נפסלה בשחיטה היא שלא במקום חתך כי דבר אחר גרם לה ליפסל דמיא
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish resolved the apparent contradiction between the mishna here and the mishna on 42a, and said: Here, the tanna is referring to a case where one cut the gullet in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe. There, on 42a, the tanna is referring to a case where he cut the gullet not in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe. The reason for the distinction is that if one cut the gullet in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe, it is an animal that was rendered unfit during its slaughter and it assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass. By contrast, if he cut the gullet not in the same place as the initial cut in the windpipe it is like a case where another matter caused the animal to become unfit. Therefore, cutting the gullet renders it a tereifa and prevents it from imparting ritual impurity.
ומי אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכי והאמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש שחט את הקנה ואח"כ ניקבה הריאה כשרה אלמא כמאן דמנחא בדיקולא דמיא הכא נמי כמאן דמנחא בדיקולא דמיא
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say this, that slaughter can be effective to prevent impurity after the windpipe was severed? But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: If one cut the windpipe and the lung was perforated thereafter before he cut the gullet, the animal is fit for consumption? Apparently, after cutting the windpipe, the status of the lungs, whose existence is dependent upon the windpipe, is like that of an item that is placed in a basket; they are irrelevant to the determination of the animal’s status. Here too, when the windpipe is severed at the beginning of the slaughter the windpipe should be considered like an item that is placed in a basket in the sense that the animal is considered to have only one siman, the gullet, and cutting of one siman does not affect the animal’s status.
אלא אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה
Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The apparent contradiction is not difficult. There (42a), where it is stated that an animal with a severed windpipe is a tereifa, the mishna presents the opinion of Rabbi Akiva before retraction of his opinion. Here, the mishna presents the opinion of Rabbi Akiva after retraction of his opinion. And even though Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion, a mishna does not move from its place. Once this version of the mishna was learned in the study hall, it remained valuable, even though it is no longer current.
גופא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש שחט את הקנה ואח"כ ניקבה הריאה כשרה אמר רבא לא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש אלא בריאה הואיל וחיי ריאה תלויה בקנה אבל בבני מעיים לא
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself that was cited previously. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: If one cut the windpipe and the lung was perforated thereafter before he cut the gullet, the animal is fit for consumption. Rava said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish states this principle only with regard to a lung, since the function of the lung is dependent upon the windpipe. Once the windpipe is severed it is as though the lungs were removed from the animal. But with regard to innards that were perforated after the windpipe was cut but before the slaughter was completed, no, the animal becomes a tereifa, because the function of the innards is not dependent on the windpipe.
מתקיף לה רבי זירא מאחר שנולדו בה סימני טרפה התרת מה לי בריאה מה לי בבני מעיים
Rabbi Zeira objects to Rava’s distinction. Since when signs of being a tereifa developed in the animal after the slaughter began, you permitted the animal and deemed the slaughter valid, what difference is there to me if the perforation was in the lung, and what difference is there to me if the perforation was in the innards? In either case, the animal should not be deemed a tereifa if the signs developed once the slaughter began.
והדר ביה רבי זירא דבעי רבי זירא ניקבו בני מעיים בין סימן לסימן מהו מי מצטרף סימן ראשון לסימן שני לטהרה מידי נבלה או לא
But Rabbi Zeira retracted his objection, as Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If the innards were perforated between the cutting of the first siman and the second siman what is the halakha? Does the first siman join together with the second siman to purify the animal from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass or not?
ואמרינן לאו היינו דבעי אילפא הוציא עובר את ידו בין סימן לסימן מהו
And we say: Isn’t this the dilemma that Ilfa raises: If a fetus extended its foreleg outside the womb while the mother was being slaughtered, between the cutting of the first siman, the windpipe, and the second siman, the gullet, thereby causing the foreleg to have the status of a tereifa, what is the halakha?