OPINIONS: The Mishnah (117b) states that "Alal" does not convey Tum'as Ochlin unless it is combined with other foods. Reish Lakish explains that this refers to small pieces of flesh that remain stuck to the hide. These pieces of flesh are not Metamei by themselves, but they are Metamei when they join other food.
The Gemara asks why such pieces of meat are not Metamei by themselves. If the owner intended to eat them, then they certainly should be Metamei. If, on the other hand, he did not intend to eat them, then they should be entirely Batel and not be Metamei even when combined with other food.
Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meisha give two explanations for why the Alal is not Metamei by itself but combines with other food to be Metamei. One Amora answers that the Mishnah is discussing a person who planned to eat only part of the Alal, thus giving only part of it the status of food. The other Amora answers that part of the Alal was torn from the animal (while attached to the hide) by a wild animal that bit the animal before it was slaughtered, while another part of the Alal was torn from the animal by the knife of the person skinning it.
How do these answers explain why the Alal combines to make a Shi'ur Tum'ah, but by itself it is not Metamei?
(a) RASHI explains that since the person gave significance to part of the Alal by intending to eat part of it (or, according to the second answer, it retains its significance since he did not expressly remove it from his intent to eat it), his intention is able to make the entire Alal fit to join with another food to combine to make a Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah. His "partial intention" does not make the Alal itself fit to be Metamei (even if it is a k'Beitzah in size), but it does make it fit to join with another food to make the size of a k'Beitzah.
(b) The MAHARSHAL quotes another version of Rashi in which Rashi explains that when the owner had intention to eat part of the Alal, and he did not have intention to eat the other part, his intention on one part works to make even the other part have the significance of food, and it therefore can be combined with another food (or, as the Maharshal writes, with the other half-k'Beitzah of Alal) to make a Shi'ur Tum'ah. (This seems to be the intention of the Maharshal. Although he mentions only combining the half of the Alal that the owner intended to eat with the other half that he did not intend to eat, it seems logical that if his intention to eat half is able to give the other half significance, then that half also combines with another food to make a Shi'ur of a k'Beitzah. By combining the second half (that he did not intend to eat) with the first half or with any other edible food, the owner demonstrates his intention to use that half as food.)
2) THE "TUM'AH" OF "BASAR MIN HA'CHAI"
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a Jew slaughtered a non-Kosher animal for a Nochri and it is still quivering (Mefarcheses), it is Mekabel Tum'as Ochlin but not Tum'as Neveilah. If a limb or piece of flesh separates from it, it is considered as though it has separated from a living animal.
RASHI (DH k'Poresh and DH u'Vasar) explains that a limb removed from an animal that is Mefarcheses "is Metamei immediately, like Ever Min ha'Chai," while flesh that is removed is not Metamei, but it is forbidden to a Nochri.
What does Rashi mean when he adds that the limb is Metamei "immediately"?
(a) The TIFERES YAKOV suggests a novel explanation. Rashi means to say that a limb is Metamei immediately, while flesh of a live animal is not Metamei immediately, but it is Metamei after a certain amount of time has passed. When the animal ceases to be Mefarcheses and is considered a Neveilah, even flesh removed from it while it was Mefarcheses is Metamei as part of a Neveilah.
The Gemara later supports the Tiferes Yakov's suggestion. The Gemara says that when a Jew wants to eat meat from a slaughtered animal while it is Mefarcheses, he may cut some meat from where it was slaughtered, salt it very well and rinse it very well, and wait to eat it until the animal dies. It is evident from the Gemara there that after the animal dies, the meat taken from the animal while it was Mefarcheses has the same status as the rest of the meat of the dead animal (and is permitted to be eaten).
(b) However, the Tiferes Yakov's suggestion contradicts the Mishnah later (127b) which asserts that Basar Min ha'Chai is not Metamei even after the animal dies (see Rashi there, DH Meisah). The case of a Jew who eats meat from a Mefarcheses is not comparable to the Tum'ah of flesh taken from a non-Kosher Mefarcheses, because the reason why one must wait for the Mefarcheses to die in order to eat the meat is the verse, "Lo Sochlu Al ha'Dam" (Vayikra 19:26), as Rashi (DH u'Mamtin) explains, and not because the Shechitah takes effect at that moment on the meat that was detached while the animal was still Mefarcheses.
Accordingly, it seems that Rashi adds the word "immediately" for exactly the opposite reason. Rashi wants to show that an Ever Min ha'Chai is Metamei even before the death of the animal from which it was taken, while the rest of the animal becomes Tamei only when it dies. (M. KORNFELD)
3) "EIN BAH TUM'AH SHEL KLUM"
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a Jew slaughtered one Siman of a non-Kosher animal for a Nochri and it is still quivering (Mefarcheses), it does not become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin. If the Jew killed the animal through Nechirah (he cut the Simanim but without a proper act of Shechitah), the animal has no Tum'ah.
Why does the Beraisa change its wording from "the animal does not become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin" (in a case of Shechitah done to one Siman) to "it is not Tamei at all" (in a case of Nechirah)? There is no difference between an animal that was killed with Nechirah and one that was killed by having one Siman slaughtered!
(a) TOSFOS (DH Nachrah) explains that there indeed is no difference between an act of Shechitah that was done to only one Siman, and an act of Nechirah. The Beraisa uses a different wording only because it is more obvious to most people that an animal is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin after it is killed with Nechirah.
(b) The TIFERES YAKOV explains that when one of the Simanim was cut, the Shochet still may complete the Shechitah. The Beraisa is teaching that even though the animal is going to become food after the Shechitah, nevertheless at the present moment it is not Mekabel Tum'ah as food. In contrast, when the animal is killed with Nechirah, it will never be Metamei with Tum'as Ochlin. (Z. Wainstein)
4) SHECHITAH THAT WAS STARTED BY A JEW AND FINISHED BY A NOCHRI
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if a Jew started the Shechitah of an animal and a Nochri finished it, the Shechitah is invalid whether or not the Jew cut enough to make the animal a Tereifah.
Does this ruling apply even when the Jew slaughtered a majority of the Simanim, which itself is considered a valid Shechitah?
ANSWER: The DERISHAH (YD 23:4) writes that in such a case the Shechitah is valid, even though the Nochri finished the Shechitah.
However, he asks that this does not seem to be the opinion of RASHI
earlier (32a, DH Teiku). The Gemara there discusses Shehiyah (pausing in the middle of the act of Shechitah), which is one of the things which render an act of Shechitah invalid. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nasan asks what the Halachah is in a case in which the Shochet was "Shahah b'Mi'ut Simanim" -- he cut most of the Simanim, waited, and then cut the rest. The Gemara leaves his question unanswered ("Teiku"). Rashi there understands that the question is whether we consider the animal to be properly slaughtered already, since a majority of its Simanim was cut, or whether the Shehiyah still invalidates the Shechitah (see Insights to Chulin 32:1
). Since the Gemara there leaves the question unanswered, we must be stringent and invalidate such a Shechitah. Accordingly, in the case of the Gemara here, we also should be stringent and invalidate the Shechitah, even though a majority of the Simanim was cut by a Jew.
The Derishah suggests an answer to this question, to explain how even Rashi will agree that in the case of the Gemara here the Shechitah is valid. The Acharonim understand the Derishah in two different ways.
1. The BACH in KUNTRUS ACHARON (YD 23) understands that the Derishah's question is that if the Jew cut most of the Simanim and a Nochri cut the rest, then according to Rashi the Shechitah should be invalid because of Shehiyah, just as the Shechitah is invalid when a Jew cuts the most of the Simanim, pauses, and then cuts the rest. The Bach understands that the Derishah answers that there is a problem of Shehiyah only when one person cuts, pauses, and cuts the rest. There is no problem of Shehiyah when the cut is done by two different people.
The Bach does not accept the Derishah's answer. He asserts that it is possible that Shehiyah applies when two people slaughter as well. Nevertheless, we still may infer from the Gemara that when a Jew cuts most of the Simanim and a Nochri cuts the rest, the Shechitah is valid, since a Nochri has no warning against doing Shehiyah (that is, if he slaughters an animal with Shehiyah, the animal is permitted to him), and thus he cannot render the Shechitah invalid because of Shehiyah. Only when a Jew cuts the remaining part of the Simanim after a pause is the Shechitah invalid.
2. The SHACH (YD 2:27) disagrees with the Bach's understanding of the Derishah. The Gemara here makes no mention of any pause between the Jew's act of cutting and the Nochri's act of cutting. How, then, can one infer from the Gemara any Halachah about Shehiyah?
The Shach explains that the Derishah is asking a different question altogether. The Derishah is asking that according to Rashi earlier (32a), who rules that even when most of the Simanim were cut there still is a problem of Shehiyah in the remaining minority of the Simanim, the law should be that even when one who is fit to slaughter (i.e. a Jew) cuts most of the Simanim, and a Nochri cuts the rest, the Shechitah is invalid because it is considered as though the Nochri performed the Shechitah.
The Derishah answers that the second act of cutting is considered Shechitah only when one person does both parts of the Shechitah. The two actions together constitute one act of Shechitah. However, when one person cuts most of the Simanim and a second cuts the rest, there is no reason why the second action should be called Shechitah. That second act of cutting is no different from cutting the leg of the animal. In contrast to the Bach's understanding, the Shach understands that the Derishah might maintain that if the Nochri cuts the last minority of the Simanim after the amount of time of Shehiyah has passed, then he would render the Shechitah invalid. (Y. MONTROSE)
5) MEAT TAKEN FROM A "MEFARCHESES"
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that when one wants to eat meat from a slaughtered animal before it completely dies (while it is still quivering), he may cut some meat from where it was slaughtered, salt it very well and rinse it very well, and wait to eat it until the animal dies.
RASHI (DH Yafeh Yafeh) explains that meat from an animal that is Mefarcheses must be salted and rinsed more than ordinary meat. Normally, at the time that the animal completely dies after Shechitah, its life leaves it entirely and its blood is forced out of the meat. When one takes meat from the animal before its life leaves it entirely, there is more blood in that meat since the blood did not have a chance to leave the meat.
Rashi's comment is difficult to understand. When the Gemara earlier (113a) describes how ordinary meat should be salted, it uses the same expression, "Salt it very well and rinse it very well"! Why, then, does Rashi explain that meat from an animal that is Mefarcheses is salted differently from other meat?
ANSWER: TOSFOS (33a, DH Molcho) and the RAN (7b of the pages of the Rif, DH Echad) explain that the Gemara here refers to one who wants to eat the meat of a Mefarcheses by roasting it, and not by cooking it. Tosfos proves this from the fact that the Gemara does not say that the meat needs to be washed before salting (which is required for cooking but not for roasting). The Ran proves this from the fact that the Gemara says that one must wait until the animal dies in order to eat the meat. If the person is cooking the meat, then it is obvious that the animal is dead by the time he eats the meat, because it takes a long time to prepare the meat (since it must be salted for a lengthy period) and then to cook it. It must be that the Gemara is discussing meat that one wants to roast, which takes much less time to prepare.
However, if the meat is being roasted, then why must it be salted and rinsed? Salting and rinsing it well is required only in order to cook it; it is not necessary to salt and rinse meat that one wants to roast, since roasting itself removes the blood from the meat (111a)! It must be that the meat of a Mefarcheses is treated differently from ordinary meat, for the reason that Rashi gives. (The Ran writes that it must be salted even though it is going to be roasted, because the meat was taken from the area where the Shechitah was performed, and in that area there is a concentration of blood.) (M. KORNFELD, Z. Wainstein)