חולין לב

חולין לב

נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ, לְרַבִּי נָתָן – פָּרָה פְּסוּלָה בְּהֵמָה כְּשֵׁרָה, לְרַבָּנַן – פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּהֵמָה פְּסוּלָה.

But if another animal was inadvertently slaughtered together with the red heifer in the same action, according to Rabbi Natan, who holds that the slaughter of non-sacred animals without intent is valid, the red heifer is disqualified, because an additional labor was performed with its slaughter, and the other animal is fit for consumption, as its slaughter was valid. According to the Rabbis, who hold that slaughter of non-sacred animals without intent is not considered slaughter, the red heifer is fit for use in the purification rite because no other labor was performed with its slaughter, and the other animal is unfit for consumption.

פְּשִׁיטָא! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לְרַבִּי נָתָן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ וַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה דְּחוּלִּין אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: That is obvious; why did Rava have to teach that? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rava to teach the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan in the case where another animal was inadvertently slaughtered in the same action with the red heifer. It may enter your mind to say: The Merciful One states with regard to the slaughter of the red heifer: “And you shall give it to Elazar the priest…and he shall slaughter it before him” (Numbers 19:3), from which it is inferred: One may slaughter it, but not it and another animal simultaneously. And what are the circumstances of that prohibition? It is a case where one slaughtered two red heifers at the same time. But in a case where one slaughtered a red heifer together with a non-sacred animal, say no, that it does not disqualify the red heifer. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even slaughter with a non-sacred animal disqualifies the red heifer.

חָתַךְ דַּלַּעַת עִמָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלָה, נֶחְתְּכָה דַּלַּעַת עִמָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרָה.

Rava adds: If one slaughtered a red heifer and in the same action cut a gourd together with it, everyone agrees that the red heifer is disqualified. If one slaughtered a red heifer and a gourd was inadvertently cut together with it in the same action, everyone agrees that the red heifer is fit for use in the purification rite, as that is not labor that disqualifies a red heifer and it is also not excluded by the derivation from the verse “And he shall slaughter it.”

מַתְנִי׳ נָפְלָה סַכִּין וְהִגְבִּיהָהּ, נָפְלוּ כֵּלָיו וְהִגְבִּיהָן, הִשְׁחִיז אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְעָף, בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וְשָׁחַט, אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה – פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה? אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת.

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.

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְעוֹף לְעוֹף, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַף בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף?

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?

אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא הֲוָה בְּדִיחְנָא בֵּיהּ בְּחַבִּיבִי, דֶּאֱישַׁיְּילֵיהּ.

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.

אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְעוֹף לְעוֹף, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף, וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף.

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.

רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבִיא בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת וְיִשְׁחוֹט. יָבִיא אֲפִילּוּ מֵעָלְמָא? נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין!

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.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: עוֹמֶדֶת לְהַטִּיל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

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.

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחוֹט, דַּקָּה לְדַקָּה וְגַסָּה לְגַסָּה.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – כְּשֵׁרָה.

§ 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.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: שְׁהִיּוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?

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?

וְתִפְשׁוֹט לַהּ מִדִּידֵיהּ! הָתָם בִּדְלָא שְׁהָה.

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.

בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: שָׁהָה בְּמִיעוּט סִימָנִין, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה [כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר]. מַאי כְּדֵי בִיקּוּר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי בִּיקֻּרוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם. אִם כֵּן, נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין! אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר טַבָּח חָכָם.

§ 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.

מַתְנִי׳ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, אוֹ פָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט, אוֹ שָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהִמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ – רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר: נְבֵלָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: טְרֵפָה.

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.

כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ – נְבֵלָה, כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ כָּרָאוּי וְדָבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל – טְרֵפָה, וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

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.

גְּמָ׳ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וְכוּ׳. וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה

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:

נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת!

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?

אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁשָּׁחַט וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּסַק, כָּאן שֶׁפָּסַק וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁחַט. שָׁחַט וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּסַק – נִפְסֶלֶת בִּשְׁחִיטָה הִיא, פָּסַק וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁחַט – כִּי דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל דָּמְיָא.

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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְרָבָא: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, פָּסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט – נְבֵלָה!

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.

אֵימָא: וּכְבָר שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּושֶׁט מֵעִיקָּרָא.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא דְּהַיְינוּ קַמַּיְיתָא, וְעוֹד הָא תְּנַן ״וְאַחַר כָּךְ״!

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?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת קָתָנֵי, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן נְבֵלוֹת, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן טְרֵפוֹת.

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.

וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי דְּחִזְקִיָּה, דְּאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: עֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא – נְבֵלָה, וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נִטְּלָה יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ – נְבֵלָה.

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.

כִּי קָתָנֵי נְבֵלָה, דְּלָא מְטַמְּאָה מֵחַיִּים, אֲבָל נְבֵלָה דִּמְטַמְּאָה מֵחַיִּים – לָא קָתָנֵי.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כָּאן – שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ, כָּאן – שֶׁשָּׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ. שָׁחַט בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ – נִפְסְלָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה הִיא, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ – כִּי דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִיפָּסֵל דָּמְיָא.

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.

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שָׁחַט אֶת הַקָּנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיקְּבָה הָרֵיאָה כְּשֵׁרָה! אַלְמָא כְּמַאן דְּמַנְּחָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמְיָא, הָכָא נָמֵי כְּמַאן דְּמַנְּחָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא דָּמְיָא.

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן קוֹדֶם חֲזָרָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר חֲזָרָה, וּמִשְׁנָה לֹא זָזָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ.

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.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: שָׁחַט אֶת הַקָּנֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִיקְּבָה הָרֵיאָה – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֶלָּא בְּרֵיאָה, הוֹאִיל וְחַיֵּי רֵיאָה תְּלוּיִן בַּקָּנֶה, אֲבָל בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים – לָא.

§ 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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: מֵאַחַר שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בָּהּ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה הִתַּרְתָּ, מָה לִי בְּרֵיאָה, מָה לִי בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים!

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.

וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: נִיקְּבוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, מַהוּ? מִי מִצְטָרֵף סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְסִימָן שֵׁנִי לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אוֹ לָא?

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?

וְאָמְרִינַן: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּבָעֵי אִילְפָא: הוֹצִיא עוּבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, מַהוּ?

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?