MAY ONE FEED INNARDS TO A NOCHRI? [Ever Min ha'Chai :Nochri: intestines]
32b (Reish Lakish): If one slaughtered the Kaneh and then punctured the lungs, it is Kosher.
(Rava): This is only if the lungs were punctured, since their whole function depends on the Kaneh. If the innards were punctured (after cutting the Kaneh), it would not be Kosher.
(Rav Acha bar Yakov): We learn from Reish Lakish that a Yisrael may eat innards, but a Nochri may not;
This is because for a Yisrael, the Shechitah is necessary to permit the animal. Shechitah permits the innards.
Shechitah is not needed for a Nochri. It depends only on whether the animal is dead. Therefore, for him, the innards are forbidden, like Ever Min ha'Chai (a limb from a living animal).
(Rav Papa): I thought to ask that that we never find something permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Nochri! I did not ask, for Rav Acha gave a good reason why this is an exception.
Question (Beraisa): One eat meat taken from an animal after Shechitah, before it died. After the animal dies, it is permitted to Yisraelim and Nochrim. (Rav Acha would hold that since Shechitah does not apply to Nochrim, it is Ever Min ha'Chai for them.)
Rav Idi bar Avin taught just like the Beraisa.
Sanhedrin 63a (Beraisa): One who eats from an animal before it dies transgresses a Lav, "Lo Sochlu Al ha'Dam."
Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 9:13): Anything forbidden to Yisrael due to Ever Min ha'Chai is forbidden to Nochrim. In some cases a Nochri is liable but a Yisrael is not. Nochrim are liable for Ever Min ha'Chai and Basar Min ha'Chai (meat taken from a living animal), whether it is a Tahor or Tamei animal, and a limb or meat that separate from a quivering animal even if a Yisrael slaughtered both Simanim.
Kesef Mishneh: The Rambam should have explained that regarding a Tahor animal, what separated after Shechitah is permitted even to Nochrim! One opinion forbids to Nochrim, but a Beraisa refutes him. The Rashba says 'a Nochri may eat meat taken from a living animal only if it is Tahor, so Shechitah applies to it, and a Yisrael, to whom Shechitah applies, (already) slaughtered it. if not, it is forbidden even after the animal dies. Even though the Rambam permits only to Yisrael, but not to a Nochri, I do not understand him.'
Lechem Mishneh: The Rambam rejects the Beraisa, because it says that anything permitted to Yisraelim is permitted to Nochrim. Sanhedrin 59a challenged this from Eshes Yafes To'ar (a beautiful woman that one desires during a war), and answers that this is because conquest does not apply to Nochrim. Likewise, Shechitah does not apply to them (so it can permit to Yisrael what is forbidden to Nochrim). The Rambam rules like Sanhedrin, against Rav Acha bar Yakov.
Tosfos (Me'ilah 20b DH Kirbayim): The Gemara says that innards are not meat, and one who eats them is not a person. This is relevant to one who sold innards, and they were proper only for dogs to eat, but not for people. It is not a Mekach Ta'os, for people do not normally eat them.
Question: Reuven slaughtered an animal and did not check the Simanim. He thought that they were slaughtered, and left them. The owner sold the innards, on condition that the buyer will pay six Zuz, whether it is Kosher or Tereifah. Later, it was found that the Shechitah was improper. Do we say that since it is a Neveilah, the buyer did not accept this? Or, do we say that he bought the innards however they are, and his bad fortune caused this?
Answer (Rivash 403): Commerce depends on the way people speak. People do not distinguish whether it was Tereifah or slaughtered improperly. If one said 'I sell to you a Beis Kor' and really it was only half this size, it is a valid sale if people call it a Beis Kor. Here, it is as if he stipulated also about a Neveilah. Rava (32b) explained that some cases in the Mishnah are Neveilah, yet the Tana calls them all Tereifah! Even if you will say that only a minority of people call it Tereifah, the seller has the upper hand, since he is Muchzak in his money. Regarding money, we do not follow the majority to take from a Muchzak (Bava Kama 27b). If the buyer was particular not to accept a Neveilah, he should have specified. This is Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents), which are invalid. The seller need not swear that he did not know that it was Neveilah. Even if he knew, since he explicitly stipulated, he is exempt, just he acted improperly. It was forbidden to deceive the buyer. However, if the difference in value is more than a sixth, the sale is Batel due to this.
Ketzos ha'Choshen (1): The Rivash connotes that if the buyer did not yet pay, and a minority would not call a Neveilah 'Tereifah', he need not pay, since he stipulated only about a Tereifah. Even though most hold that a Neveilah is included, we do not follow the majority to take from a Muchzak. I do not understand why the buyer can say that he accepted only a Tereifah. Both are forbidden! Even if one gave a different species than he said, this disqualifies a sale only because some prefer one over the other. Why would one prefer Tereifah over Neveilah? Perhaps we can explain according to the Rashba. He permits inviting a Nochri to eat innards only if the animal was slaughtered properly, for anything permitted to Yisrael is permitted to Nochrim. If the animal became a Neveilah during the Shechitah, the innards are Ever Min ha'Chai. The Shach (YD 27:2) brings this. If so, surely it is a blemish that it is a Neveilah, for he cannot sell it to a Nochri. However, if 'Tereifah' includes Neveilah, he stipulated to accept this. Had he bought a different part of the meat, there would be no difference between Tereifah and Neveilah, and in any case the buyer would have to pay. Tosfos (Me'ilah 20b) says that if one sold innards, and they were proper only for dogs to eat, it is not a Mekach Ta'os. If so, in any case it is not a Mekach Ta'os. However, this depends on the custom of people in the region, whether people are particular about this blemish. Nowadays people eat innards, and they care whether they are Kosher or Tereifah, so this is a blemish is he stipulated only about Tereifah.
Rebuttal (Nesivos ha'Mishpat Bi'urim 4): If one sold an animal and said that it is Tereifah, and it was really Neveilah, this is not Mekach Ta'os. However, here he stipulated only 'even if it is Tereifah', you have no claim due to this blemish. Whatever is not included in the Tanai, he can claim, even if it is just like a blemish in the Tanai. Surely, if he stipulated about Tereifos of the lungs, and it was found that the spinal cord snapped, he has a claim, even though both are just Tereifah. The buyer accepted only one Safek (if it is Tereifah in the lungs, he loses), but not two. The same applies to Neveilah, if it is not included in Tereifah, based on the way people speak.
Shulchan Aruch (YD 27:1): If one cut a piece from an animal after proper Shechitah while it was quivering, one may not eat from it until the animal dies.
Beis Yosef (DH Chatach): The Tur says that after it dies one may eat it or feed it to a Nochri, and one may feed innards to a Nochri. Rashi explains that Rav Acha bar Yakov forbids to give innards to a Nochri, due to the lungs. (Maharam 33a - the lungs are just like the innards.) It is as if they were removed from the animal while it was quivering. Shechitah is not needed for a Nochri. It is Ever Min ha'Chai until the animal dies. For a Yisrael, after Shechitah it is not Ever Min ha'Chai. In Sanhedrin, we forbid eating from an animal before it dies.
Taz (1): Since the piece was cut before the animal died, one might have thought that regarding a Nochri, death does not permit it, since it was cut before it was permitted. Rather, since Shechitah helps for Yisrael to permit the meat after the animal dies, so it helps also for a Nochri. The same applies to innards. The Tur says that after the Simanim are cut, we do not say that it is as if they are in a basket.
Shach (2): The Heter to eat after it dies is only if it was slaughtered properly. If not, surely it is Ever Min ha'Chai for Yisrael and for Nochrim. If one cut meat from a Tamei animal that was quivering, even if it was slaughtered properly, one may not feed it to a Nochri, for Shechitah does not apply to Tamei animals. The Rashba, Kesef Mishneh and Rashi (121b DH Einah) say so. The Yam Shel Shlomo (2:17) says that even if a Yisrael slaughtered a Nochri's animal, since he (the owner) is not commanded about Shechitah, Shechitah does not permit his animal. It is as if a Nochri slaughtered it (so meat removed before it died is always forbidden). He uses this to resolve the Rambam.
Pischei Teshuvah (1): The Pri Chodosh holds that even if it became a Neveilah during the Shechitah, one may sell the innards (to a Nochri). The Tevu'os Shor forbids, for we cannot apply 'whatever is permitted to Yisrael is permitted to Nochrim.' The Pri Megadim says so regarding invalid Shechitah, but permits the four cases in which the animal has Tum'as Neveilah while it is alive. Dagul me'Revavah says that in any case one may sell to them blood that comes out at the time of Shechitah while it is quivering, even though we cannot apply 'whatever is permitted to Yisrael is permitted to Nochrim.' In any case blood of a living animal is not forbidden to Nochrim (Rambam Hilchos Melachim 9:10).
Suggestion: Before Shechitah, we should sell the animal to a Nochri, so in case it is Neveilah, we will not transgress selling the intestines to a Nochri!
Rejection (Chasam Sofer YD 19): This loses more than it gains. In many cases we are more lenient about Treifos for a Yisrael's animal than for a Nochri's. And if the Nochri is suspected of eating Ever Min ha'Chai, there is still a problem of Lifnei Iver, just like one may not sell an animal to a Nochri suspected of bestiality. To justify the custom to sell the intestines to Nochrim, I answer that not one out of 1000 animals that we forbid due to Neveilah or Treifah are Vadai forbidden. Even if the knife was nicked, perhaps it did not tear the Simanim. For Yisrael, the animal had Chezkas Isur, so if it is a Safek if it became permitted, it is still Vadai Asur. For a Nochri, it had Chezkas Heter, and it is still permitted after a Safek arose.