מפת הסוגיא — חולין ל״בSugya map — Chullin 32

משנה: נפלה הסכין מאליה תוך כדי שחיטה והגביההּ, או נפלו בגדיו והגביהן, או שהשחיז (חידד) את הסכין ונתעייף, ובא חברו והשלים את השחיטה — אם שהה (הפסיק) כדי זמן שחיטה, פסולה. רבי שמעון אומר: פסולה רק אם שהה כדי זמן בדיקת הסכין.

MISHNA: If, when one was in the middle of slaughtering an animal, the knife fell and he lifted it and then completed the slaughter, or if his garments fell and he lifted them and then completed the slaughter, or if he had honed the knife and grew weary before completing the slaughter and another came and slaughtered the animal, if he interrupted the slaughter in one of these ways or in a different way for an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination.

גמרא: מהו ׳כדי שחיטה׳? אמר רב: כדי זמן שחיטה של בהמה אחרת (לא הזמן הדרוש להשלמת השחיטה שנפסקה).

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter? Rav said: It means an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another animal, not the duration required to complete the act of slaughter that was interrupted.

שאלו רב כהנא ורב אסי את רב: ׳כדי שחיטה׳ — האם כדי שחיטת בהמה כששוחט בהמה ועוף כששוחט עוף, או שמא אף שיעור שחיטת בהמה (הגדול) אף בעוף?

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is the interruption that invalidates the slaughter an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another animal for an animal, i.e., in a case where an animal was being slaughtered, and an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another bird for a bird? Or perhaps it is an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of an animal even for a bird, and if the interruption is any shorter it does not invalidate the slaughter?

השיב להם רב: לא הייתי קרוב דיי אצל דודי האהוב (רבי חייא) כדי לשואלו — כלומר רב מסר את הדין אך לא ידע להכריע בספקם.

Rav said to them: When we studied this topic I did not feel sufficiently intimate with my beloved uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, such that I could ask him that question. Rav was able only to transmit that which he heard from Rabbi Ḥiyya, but was unable to resolve their dilemma.

נאמרה מחלוקת: רב — כדי שחיטת בהמה לבהמה ועוף לעוף; ושמואל — אפילו שיעור בהמה לעוף; וכן כשבא רבין אמר משום רבי יוחנן: אפילו שיעור בהמה לעוף.

It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to this matter. Rav said: An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another animal for an animal, and an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of another bird for a bird. And Shmuel said: An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of an animal even for a bird. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter of an animal even for a bird.

רבי חנניא אמר: כדי הזמן שיביא בהמה אחרת וישחטנה. מקשה הגמרא: יביא מכל מקום שהוא? אם כן ׳נתת דבריך לשיעורין׳ — השיעור משתנה לפי המרחק.

Rabbi Ḥananya said: An interval equivalent to the period in which one can bring another animal and slaughter it. The Gemara asks: Does that mean the time in which one can bring an animal even from anywhere else, regardless of the distance? Occasionally, there is no animal available in close proximity. If so, you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances; it does not apply uniformly to all cases.

אמר רב פפא: הנפקא מינה בין רבי חנניא לחכמים — בבהמה העומדת מוכנה לפניו וצריך רק להפילהּ ולשחטה. רבי חנניא משער בזמן ההפלה והשחיטה; וחכמים פוסלים כבר בשיעור שחיטה לבדה.

Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya and that of the other Sages is in a case where there is an animal standing before the slaughterer and it is necessary to cast it to the ground in order to slaughter it. Even Rabbi Ḥananya disregards the time required to bring the animal from elsewhere. But Rabbi Ḥananya holds that the slaughter is invalidated only if the interruption lasts an interval equivalent to the duration of the act of casting the animal to the ground and slaughtering it. The Rabbis invalidate the slaughter even if an interval has elapsed that is equivalent to the duration of the act of slaughtering the animal, without casting it to the ground.

אמרו במערב (ארץ ישראל) משום רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: כדי שיגביה את הבהמה, ירביצנה (ישכיבנה) וישחט — דקה (קטנה) לפי דקה, וגסה (גדולה) לפי גסה.

The Gemara cites an additional opinion with regard to the duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter. They said in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: The duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter is equivalent to the period in which he can lift the animal from the ground and then lay it back on the ground and slaughter it. The interval is calculated based on the size of the animal in question. The duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter of a small animal is equivalent to the period necessary to lift, lay down, and slaughter a small animal. And the duration of the interruption that invalidates slaughter of a large animal is equivalent to the period necessary to lift, lay down, and slaughter a large animal.

אמר רבא: השוחט בסכין רעה (קהה/פגומה) — אפילו נמשכה השחיטה כל היום כולו, כשרה, ובלבד שלא הפסיק באמצע.

§ Rava said: In the case of one who slaughters with a blunt knife, even if the completion of the slaughter lasts the entire day, the slaughter is valid provided there is no interruption in the midst of the slaughter.

הסתפק רבא: כמה הפסקות קצרות בשחיטה אחת — האם מצטרפות יחד לפסול, אם סך כולן עולה על שיעור ההפסק המותר?

Rava raises a dilemma: If there were several short interruptions during a single act of slaughter, what is the halakha in terms of whether they join together to invalidate the slaughter if the sum of the durations of all the interruptions is greater than the maximum permitted interruption?

ותפשוט לו מדבריו! (שהרי התיר שחיטה הנמשכת כל היום, ובה ודאי הפסקות קצרות) — משמע שאינן מצטרפות. ומשיב: שם מדובר שלא הפסיק כלל, אלא הוליך והביא את הסכין ברציפות.

The Gemara challenges: And let Rava resolve the dilemma from his own statement, as he permitted an act of slaughter that lasts the entire day, during which there were presumably brief interruptions throughout. Apparently, the interruptions do not join together. The Gemara responds: There, Rava was referring to a case where there was no interruption, as the slaughterer drew the knife back and forth throughout.

הסתפק רב הונא בריה דרב נתן: שהה לאחר שחתך את מיעוט הסימנים (טרם השלים את רובם) — מהו? תיקו (לא הוכרע).

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, raises a dilemma: If one cut the majority of the simanim and then interrupted the slaughter before proceeding to cut the minority of the simanim, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

המשנה: רבי שמעון אומר ׳אם שהה כדי ביקור׳. מהו ׳כדי ביקור׳? אמר רבי יוחנן: כדי בדיקת הסכין בידי חכם. ומקשים: אם כן ׳נתת דבריך לשיעורין׳ (לפי קרבת החכם)! אלא: כדי בדיקת טבח שהוא חכם, ואין מחשבים את זמן ההליכה אליו.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination. The Gemara asks: What is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination of the knife by a Sage prior to the slaughter of the animal. The Gemara objects: If so, you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances, as sometimes the Sage is near and sometimes the Sage is far, and the time required for examination varies accordingly. The Gemara responds: Rather, the reference is to an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination performed by a slaughterer who is a Sage. In that case, travel time is not factored in; only the time of the examination itself is considered, and this does not vary.

משנה: שחט את הוושט (כדרכו) ופסק (חתך שלא כדרך שחיטה) את הגרגרת, או שפסק את הגרגרת ואחר כך שחט את הוושט, או ששחט אחד מן הסימנים והמתין עד שמתה הבהמה, או שהחליד (הטמין) את הסכין תחת הסימן השני ופסקו מלמטה — רבי ישבב אומר: נבילה (ומטמאה במגע ובמשא); רבי עקיבא אומר: טריפה (אסורה באכילה אך אינה מטמאה).

MISHNA: If one cut the gullet in the standard manner of slaughter with a back-and-forth movement, and he severed the windpipe not in the standard manner, or if one severed the windpipe and thereafter cut the gullet, or if one cut one of the simanim and waited until the animal died, or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it from below, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity.

כלל אמר רבי ישבב משום רבי יהושע: כל שנפסלה בעת שחיטתה (מחמת השחיטה עצמה) — נבילה; וכל ששחיטתה נעשתה כראוי ודבר אחר גרם לפסילתה — טריפה. והודה לו רבי עקיבא.

Rabbi Yeshevav stated a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Any animal that was rendered unfit during its slaughter because the slaughter was not performed properly is an unslaughtered carcass; any animal whose slaughter was performed properly and another matter caused it to become unfit is a tereifa. And Rabbi Akiva conceded to his opinion.

גמרא: ׳שחט את הוושט … והודה לו רבי עקיבא׳. ומקשים מן המשנה (תחילת פרק ׳אלו טרפות׳, מב ע״א): ׳אלו טרפות בבהמה …׳

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If one cut the gullet…and Rabbi Akiva conceded to his opinion. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna at the beginning of the next chapter (42a): These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal:

׳נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת׳ — הרי שפסוקת הגרגרת עושה טריפה ולא נבילה! ואם חזר בו רבי עקיבא והודה לרבי ישבב — כדברי מי אותה משנה?

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 (משנתנו) — ששחט את הוושט ולבסוף פסק את הגרגרת, ונפסלה בשחיטתה — נבילה; כאן (מב ע״א) — שפסק את הגרגרת תחילה ולבסוף שחט את הוושט, ודבר אחר גרם — טריפה.

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.

הקשה רב אחא בר הונא לרבא מברייתא: ׳שחט את הוושט ופסק את הגרגרת, פסק את הגרגרת ואחר כך שחט את הוושט — נבילה׳! משמע שאין הסדר קובע, ואף בפסק הגרגרת תחילה — נבילה.

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.

אמר רבא: אֵימָא (פרש) שהבבא השנייה אינה ׳ואחר כך שחט׳, אלא שכבר שחט את הוושט מתחילה (ורק אז פסק את הגרגרת).

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 לו רב אחא: שתי תשובות בדבר — אחת, שאם כן היינו הבבא הראשונה (כפילות); ועוד, הרי שנינו במפורש ׳ואחר כך׳!

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 (ולא ׳טרפות׳ דווקא) — התנא מונה דברים האוסרים את הבהמה, ויש בהם נבילות (כפסוקת הגרגרת) ויש בהם טריפות.

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.

מקשים: אם מונה אף נבילות — ימנה גם דין חזקיה (עשאה גיסטרא, חתכה לשניים לרוחבה — נבילה) ודין רבי אלעזר (ניטל הירך וחלל שלה ניכר — נבילה)!

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.

מתרצים: כשמנה ׳נבילה׳ — נבילה שאינה מטמאה מחיים; אבל נבילה המטמאה כבר מחיים (כחזקיה ורבי אלעזר) — לא מנה.

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 imparts 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 תירץ: כאן (נבילה) — ששחט את הוושט במקום החתך של הגרגרת; כאן (טריפה) — שלא במקום החתך. במקום החתך נפסלה בשחיטתה — נבילה; שלא במקום החתך — כדבר אחר שגרם — טריפה.

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.

ומקשים: וכי אמר ריש לקיש כך? והרי אמר ריש לקיש: שחט את הקנה ואחר כך ניקבה הריאה — כשרה, ׳כמאן דמנחא בדיקולא דמיא׳ (כאילו הריאה מונחת בסל, בטלה)! אם כן אף כאן, משנפסק הקנה הוי כסימן אחד בלבד — ולא תיפסל בנבילה.

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 (מב ע״א, טריפה) קודם שחזר בו רבי עקיבא; כאן (משנתנו, נבילה) לאחר שחזר בו. ואף שחזר בו — ׳משנה לא זזה ממקומה׳ (משנשנתה נשארה כפי שהיא).

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 — הדיון בעצמו) אמר ריש לקיש: שחט את הקנה ואחר כך ניקבה הריאה — כשרה. אמר רבא: לא אמר ריש לקיש אלא בריאה, שחיי הריאה תלויים בקנה (ומשנשחט הקנה כאילו ניטלה); אבל בבני מעיים (שאינם תלויים בקנה) — לא, ונעשית טריפה.

§ 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 רבי זירא: מאחר שמשנולדו סימני טריפה לאחר תחילת השחיטה התרת — מה לי ריאה ומה לי בני 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.

וחזר בו רבי זירא, כפי שהסתפק: ניקבו בני מעיים בין חיתוך סימן ראשון לסימן שני — מהו? האם מצטרף הסימן הראשון לסימן השני לטהרהּ מידי נבילה, 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?

ואומרים: הלוא זו שאלת אילפא: הוציא העובר את ידו בין סימן לסימן (ונעשתה היד טריפה) — 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?

כלומר: האם מצטרף הסימן הראשון לשני לטהר מידי טומאת נבילה, או לא?

The Gemara clarifies this dilemma: Does the first siman join together with the second siman to purify the animal from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass or not? In both cases the dilemma is: Does the cutting of the first siman, which serves the dual purpose of being a component of permitting consumption and preventing impurity of the animal, join together with the cutting of the second siman, which serves only the purpose of preventing impurity, in order to constitute a single act of slaughter and thereby prevent the animal from assuming the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass? Or perhaps because the cutting of each siman is performed for a different purpose they do not join together?

מכל מקום — לא נסתפקנו אלא לטהר מטומאת נבילה; אבל באכילה — אסורה (טריפה), והכל מודים, ואף רבי זירא חוזר בו.

In any event, we raise the dilemma only in order to purify the foreleg from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. But with regard to eating the slaughtered animal, all agree that it is forbidden, as even Rabbi Zeira concedes that the animal is a tereifa and retracts his objection to the distinction that Rava proposed between the lungs and the innards.

אמר רב אחא בר רב לרבינא: שמא לעולם לא חזר בו רבי זירא, אלא אמר את השגתו לפי שיטת רבא, ולדידיה (לעצמו) אינו סובר כן — אין חילוק בין ריאה לבני מעיים.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: Perhaps Rabbi Zeira actually did not retract his opinion, as even initially he held that there is no distinction between lungs and innards. If either is perforated after one siman was cut, the animal is a tereifa. And Rabbi Zeira stated his objection to the distinction of Rava in accordance with the statement of Rava, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב: שמע מינה מדברי ריש לקיש — מזמנין ישראל זה את זה על בני מעיים (לאוכלם בעוד הבהמה מפרכסת), ואין מזמנין גוי על בני מעיים, שאסורים לו.

The Gemara continues its analysis of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said that after the windpipe is cut, the lung is considered as though it was placed in a basket, and if it is perforated before the slaughter is completed, the animal does not become a tereifa. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Learn from the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that one may invite Jews to eat the innards of an animal that was slaughtered, but one may not invite gentiles to eat the innards of an animal that was slaughtered, because they are forbidden to gentiles.

מאי טעמא? ישראל — הכשר הבשר תלוי בשחיטה, ומשנעשתה שחיטה כשרה הותר אף בעודה מפרכסת; אבל גוי — די לו בנחירה והכשרו תלוי במיתה, ולכן בני המעיים (לאחר חיתוך שני הסימנים) כאבר מן החי הם לו, ואסורים.

What is the reason? For Jews the matter of rendering the meat of the animal fit for consumption is dependent upon the performance of a valid act of slaughter. Once there is full-fledged slaughter and both simanim are cut, the innards are permitted to them even if the animal is convulsing. But with regard to gentiles, for whom stabbing is sufficient and slaughter is not required, the innards are permitted only after the animal is completely dead, since the matter of rendering the meat of the animal fit for consumption is dependent upon its death. Therefore, if the animal is still convulsing, these innards, which are considered to be outside the body after the cutting of the two simanim, are considered like a limb from a living animal and it is forbidden for gentiles to eat them.

אמר רב פפא: ישבתי לפני רב אחא בר יעקב ורציתי לשואלו — וכי יש דבר המותר לישראל ואסור לגוי? אך לא אמרתי לו, שאמרתי בלבי: הרי טעם נתן לדבריו (ואין להקשות).

Rav Pappa said: I was sitting before Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov and I sought to say to him that his statement is difficult: Is there anything that is permitted for a Jew but prohibited for a gentile? But I did not say that to him, as I said to myself: Didn’t he say a reason for his ruling? Therefore, there is no reason to ask the question.

שנינו ברייתא שלא כרב אחא בר יעקב: הרוצה לאכול מן הבהמה קודם שתצא נפשה — חותך כזית בשר מבית השחיטה (מאזור החתך), מולחו היטב היטב, מדיחו היטב היטב, ממתין עד שתצא נפשה, ואוכלו; ואחד גוי ואחד ישראל מותרים בו (ללא חילוק).

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov: One who seeks to eat from the meat of an animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and the blood, and wait until the animal’s soul departs, and eat it. It is permitted for both a gentile and a Jew to eat it. Contrary to the statement of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile.

מסייעת ברייתא זו לרב אידי בר אבין, שאמר משום רב יצחק בר אשיאן: הרוצה להבריא (מחוליו) — חותך כזית בשר מבית שחיטתה של הבהמה, מולחו היטב, מדיחו היטב, וממתין עד שתצא נפשה; ואחד גוי ואחד ישראל מותרים בו.

This baraita supports the statement of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says: One who seeks to recuperate from an illness should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of slaughter, i.e., the neck, of an animal, and salt it very well, and rinse it very well, and wait until the animal’s soul departs, and eat it. It is permitted for both a gentile and a Jew to eat it.