Siman 27

Since the majority of the simanim were slaughtered, and in a bird the majority of one siman, even though the animal and the bird are still alive—and in a human being in such a case he is judged literally as living, as we established in Even HaEzer at the end of siman 121 that his get is a get, see there; and similarly regarding an impure animal, we do not judge it as dead regarding the tumah of nevelot [beginning of the chapter HaOr VeHaRotev]—nevertheless, regarding pure animals and birds, since they were slaughtered with a valid shehitah, it is a Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai that they are considered as dead, and it is permitted to cut from their meat, and we do not judge it as ever min hahai, for the Torah permitted them through such a shehitah.

Nevertheless, even though it is permitted to cut meat from it, nonetheless, to eat the meat is forbidden until its soul departs, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said [Sanhedrin 63a]: From where do we know that one who eats from an animal before its soul departs violates a negative commandment? As it is said, "You shall not eat over the blood." And according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 1, it is a complete negative commandment from the Torah, but one is not lashed for it because it is a general negative commandment, as he wrote in chapter 18 of Sanhedrin. And according to the opinion of Rashi [121a, s.v. "HaShochet"], the prohibition is rabbinic and the verse is a mere support. He proved this from that which we established that any living creature does not contract the impurity of foods while it is alive [Chullin 75a], and these contract the impurity of foods: even an Israelite who slaughtered an impure animal and a gentile who slaughtered a pure one contract the impurity of foods, as we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter "HaOr VeHaRotev." We see from this that by Torah law we judge them as dead [this is the intent of Rashi]. And according to the Rambam, one must say that from the impurity of foods there is no proof, for anything that is destined to die contracts the impurity of foods even while it is still alive, as is proven in the Mishnayot of chapter 3 of Ukzin, see there [according to Rabbi Akiva regarding fish and according to the Sages regarding a branch of a fig tree; and regarding fish in which signs of treifah appeared, it is also a query in the Gemara Chullin 75a whether they contract impurity while alive, and see the Rambam in chapter 2 of the Laws of Impurity of Foods, Halacha 6, and it can be said that this is his intent; and the Lechem Mishneh in chapter 1 of the Laws of Shechitah and the Pri Megadim in this siman labored much to resolve the words of the Rambam, and in my humble opinion it seems clear as I have written]:

It is a known matter that the gentiles were not commanded regarding shechitah, and ever min hachai is forbidden to them by the Torah, as this is one of the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach. If so, by law it should be forbidden for a gentile to cut from the animal after it was slaughtered before its soul has departed, for regarding them, the shechitah does not raise or lower anything, and it would be ever min hachai. Nevertheless, thus the sages taught [33a]: One who wishes to eat from an animal before its soul departs cuts a kezayit of meat from the place of the slaughter, salts it very well, and rinses it very well, and waits for it until its soul departs; both a gentile and an Israelite are permitted in it. See there.

The reason for the matter is proven from what they said previously, because there is nothing that is permitted to an Israelite and forbidden to a gentile. For so we say there, that even according to the one who holds that the lung after the slaughter of the windpipe is considered as if it were placed on its own, as was written in the previous siman, and according to this it would have been appropriate to forbid giving the lung to a gentile from an animal that was slaughtered, since for him it would be like a limb from a living animal; nevertheless, because of the reason that there is nothing that is permitted to an Israelite and forbidden to a gentile, it is permitted, see there. And so ruled the Tur and most of the poskim. Consequently, according to this, when it becomes nevelah through slaughter, such that it is forbidden to an Israelite, it is forbidden for the gentile to cut from it while it is still alive until it dies, and it is forbidden for an Israelite to give it to him because of "before the blind do not place a stumbling block." And so too when an Israelite slaughters an impure animal, or a gentile slaughters a pure animal, it is forbidden for an Israelite to cut from it while it is still alive and give it to a gentile [Rashba in Torat HaBayit]. And so too, to invite a gentile for the innards of a kosher animal is permitted for the reason that was explained, but in an impure animal or one that became nevelah through slaughter, it is forbidden [ibid.]. But when it did not become nevelah through slaughter and became treifah from some treifot in the other limbs, it is permitted to give it to a gentile; even though it is forbidden to an Israelite for eating, nevertheless, since for the Israelite it left the prohibition of a limb from a living animal by means of the slaughter, consequently it is also permitted to a gentile for the reason that was explained [Pri Megadim].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 9 of Laws of Kings, law 12: One who slaughters an animal, even if he slaughtered both simanim, as long as it is convulsing, a limb or meat that separates from it is forbidden to the children of Noah as a limb from a living animal. Thus far his words. And this is against an explicit Gemara, and all the sages of the generations have already wondered about him. There is one who wished to resolve this by saying it deals with a case where the animal does not belong to an Israelite, therefore we do not follow the slaughter regarding it [Yam Shel Shlomo]. But it is impossible to say so, for since the Israelite slaughtered it and it is pure, what does it matter to me if the animal belongs to an Israelite or does not belong to an Israelite [Pri Chadash]. And there is one who wrote that the Rambam rejected this sugya from the halacha because of certain difficulties they raised against it [Lechem Mishneh]. And this too is impossible to say, to reject an explicit Gemara in a matter where there is no disputant.

In my humble opinion, it appears that the Rambam explains that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said—that both a non-Jew and a Jew are permitted in it—this refers to a piece that the Jew cut for himself, and the prohibition of eiver min hachai was removed from it; it is permitted to give from this piece to the non-Jew as well, for it is impossible that this piece should return to the prohibition of eiver min hachai since it was already removed from it. Therefore, the Gemara was precise specifically with this language, "that the Jew cut it for himself." And similarly, before the Gemara inquired whether it is permitted to invite a non-Jew for the innards, the Gemara was also precise: to invite the non-Jew for the innards of his animal that he slaughtered for himself. And the one who prohibits, prohibits even in such a case, and the one who permits, only permitted in such a case, for the reason that "is there anything that is permitted to a Jew and prohibited to a non-Jew?" That is to say, since this piece was already permitted to a Jew, it is impossible for it to return to its prohibition when he wishes to honor the non-Jew. And he was forced to explain thus because, in truth, we find several places where it is permitted to a Jew and prohibited to a non-Jew, as our teachers the authors of the Tosafot wrote. And regarding the law of inviting a non-Jew for the innards, he wrote nothing because he follows his reasoning that we wrote in the previous siman, for he does not hold of this logic that "it is considered as if it were placed separately." And that which he did not write in the first chapter of Hilkhot Shechitah that the non-Jew is also permitted in this piece is because there he only deals with the laws of a Jew [however, we find this logic "is there anything etc." two more times in the Gemara, in Sanhedrin 58b and 59a, and see there in Tosafot; and it is a wonder that the Tosafot here did not cite this].

The Tur wrote: Anything that was disqualified during shechitah is a nevelah, and anything that was slaughtered properly but another factor caused it to be disqualified is a tereifah. If the neck was broken and the majority of the flesh with it, it is a nevelah. Thus far his words. It is not the way of the Tur to mention matters that are not practiced in this time, and regarding eating, there is no difference between a tereifah and a nevelah [Beit Yosef]. There is a practical difference regarding "it and its offspring," for with a nevelah it is permitted and with a tereifah it is forbidden, as written in siman 16 [Bach]. And it seems simple to me that it refers to what was said above regarding the matter that it is permitted to feed a gentile that which was cut from the animal after the shechitah while it is still struggling; and we explained in section 4 that when it became a nevelah during shechitah it is forbidden to give to him, but with other tereifot it is permitted. For this matter, the Tur also wrote what is a nevelah and what is a tereifah. And that which he wrote "the neck was broken," even though there are other types of nevelot in the Shas [21a] such as a gistra or one torn like a fish and the like, it is because in all of these, when they become nevelah their vitality is severed and there is no practical difference in the previous law. But if the neck was broken and the majority of the flesh with it, it is still alive as if after shechitah, and it is forbidden to cut from it to give to a gentile; therefore he wrote this law. However, since it conveys the tumah of nevelot, we learn from this that it is considered as dead even though it is struggling, as Rashi explained regarding this [20b]. Therefore, it seems correct to say the opposite: that the intention of the Tur is that if the neck was broken and the majority of the flesh, it is permitted to cut from it to give to a gentile even though it is struggling, because it is a nevelah and is considered as dead. And regarding other nevelot, he did not need to write them because they do not struggle at all, and it is obvious that they are considered as dead. And know that some say specifically when the spinal cord was also severed, for then it is a nevelah, and without the severing of the cord it is not a nevelah [Taz and his brother], and there are those who disagree on this.