חולין 37 — parallel

37:1

Now the question [to R. Simeon b. Lakish] is this: Is the conception of sacred esteem effectual to the extent only of rendering the matter invalid but not of enabling it to transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees, or is there no such distinction? The question remains undecided. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED A DYING ANIMAL, R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS. [THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID] UNLESS IT JERKED ITS FORELEG AND ITS HIND LEG. R. ELIEZER SAYS, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF IT SPURTED [THE BLOOD]. R. SIMEON SAID. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED [A DYING ANIMAL] BY NIGHT AND EARLY THE FOLLOWING MORNING FOUND THE SIDES [OF THE THROAT] FULL OF BLOOD, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. FOR THIS PROVES THAT IT SPURTED [THE BLOOD], WHICH IS SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TO R. ELIEZER'S VIEW. THE SAGES SAY, [THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID] UNLESS IT JERKED EITHER ITS FORELEG OR ITS HIND LEG, OR IT MOVED ITS TAIL TO AND FRO; AND THIS IS THE TEST BOTH WITH REGARD TO LARGE AND SMALL ANIMALS. IF A SMALL ANIMAL STRETCHED OUT ITS FORELEG [AT THE END OF THE SLAUGHTERING]. BUT DID NOT WITHDRAW IT, [THE SLAUGHTERING] IS INVALID. FOR THIS WAS BUT AN INDICATION OF THE EXPIRATION OF ITS LIFE. THESE RULES APPLY ONLY TO THE CASE OF AN ANIMAL WHICH WAS BELIEVED TO BE DYING. BUT IF IT WAS BELIEVED TO BE SOUND, EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT SHOW ANY OF THESE SIGNS, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. GEMARA. How do you know that a dying animal [which was slaughtered] is permitted to be eaten? (But why should you assume that it is forbidden? Because it is written: These are the living things which ye may eat, that is to say, that which can live you may eat, but that which cannot live you may not eat, and a dying animal cannot live.) [We know it from here.] Since the Divine Law ordains that nebelah is forbidden to be eaten, it follows that a dying animal is permitted; for if you were to say that a dying animal is forbidden, [then it will be asked:] if it is already forbidden whilst still alive, is there any doubt after death? But perhaps the term nebelah includes a dying animal! This cannot be, for it is written: And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die, he that touches the carcass [nebelah] thereof shall be unclean until the even, that is to say, when it is dead the Divine Law terms it nebelah, but whilst still alive it is not termed nebelah. But perhaps [the term] of nebelah, I still maintain, includes the dying animal, but whereas the animal is still alive [one who partakes of it transgresses] a positive law, after death [one who partakes of it transgresses] a prohibition [as well]! Rather we must derive it from here. Since the Divine Law ordains that trefah is forbidden to be eaten, it follows that a dying animal is permitted; for if you were to Say that a dying animal is forbidden, [then it will be asked:] if a dying animal which is not physically deficient is forbidden, is there any doubt about a trefah? But perhaps the term trefah includes a dying animal, [yet trefah was expressly prohibited] to teach that one [who partakes thereof] transgresses a positive law as well as a prohibition! If so, wherefore does the Divine law expressly prohibit nebelah? For if while the animal is yet alive one [who partakes of it] transgresses a positive law as well as a prohibition, is there any doubt after death? But perhaps the term nebelah includes a trefah and also a dying animal, and the law now provides that one [who partakes of a dying trefah animal after its death] transgresses two prohibitions and one positive law! — Rather derive it from here. It is written: And the fat of that which dieth of itself [nebelah], and the fat of that which is torn of beasts [trefah], may be used for any other service, but you shall in no wise eat of it. And a Master said: For what purpose is this stated? The Torah says: Let the prohibition of nebelah come and be superimposed upon the prohibition of fat, and likewise let the prohibition of trefah come and be superimposed upon the prohibition of fat.22

—

37:2

Now if you were to say that the term trefah includes a dying animal, the Divine Law then should have ordained: ‘And the fat of nebelah may be used for any other service and the fat of trefah you shall in no wise eat’. And I should have argued that if while the animal is yet alive the prohibition of trefah is superimposed upon the prohibition of the fat,is there any question of this after death? But since the Divine Law expressly stated nebelah in the verse, it follows that the term trefah does not include a dying animal. Mar son of R. Ashi demurred: Perhaps in truth the term trefah does include a dying animal. And if you ask: Why then does the Divine Law expressly state nebelah.? [I reply,] It refers only to a case of nebelah which was not preceded by the animal being in a dying state, as in the case where the animal was [suddenly] cut into two! — Even in that case it is impossible for the animal to have died without first being in a dying state for the short while, before the greater portion of the animal had been cut through. Alternatively I can argue thus: If it is so, the verse should have stated: ‘And the fat of nebelah and of trefah’. Wherefore is the word ‘fat’ repeated? [To teach you that] in this case [sc. trefah] there is no distinction between the fat and the flesh, but there is another in which there is a distinction between the fat and the flesh, and that is the case of a dying animal. Alternatively we can derive it from the following: [It is written,] Then said I, ‘Ah Lord God! behold my soul hath not been polluted for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself [nebelah], or is torn of beasts [trefah]; neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth’. [And it has been interpreted as follows:] ‘Behold my soul hath not been polluted’, for I did not allow impure thoughts to enter my mind during the day so as to lead to pollution at night. ‘For from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of nebelah or trefah’, for I have never eaten of the flesh of an animal concerning which it had been exclaimed: ‘Slaughter it! Slaughter it’! ‘Neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth’, for I did not eat the flesh of an animal which a Sage pronounced to be permitted. In the name of R. Nathan it was reported that this means: I did not eat of an animal from which the priestly dues had not been set apart. Now if you say that the flesh of a dying animal [which was slaughtered] is permitted to be eaten, then in this lay the pre-eminence of Ezekiel, but if you say that it is forbidden to be eaten, wherein lay the pre-eminence of Ezekiel? What do you call ‘a dying animal’? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If when it is made to stand it does not remain upstanding, [it is a sign that it is dying]. R. Hanina b. Shelemia said in the name of Rab, [And this is so] even if it can bite logs of wood. Rami b. Ezekiel said: Even if it can bite tree trunks. This was the version taught in Sura; in Pumbeditha, however, it was taught as follows: What do you call ‘a dying animal’? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If when it is made to stand it does not remain upstanding, [it is a sign that it is dying], even though it can bite logs of wood. Rami b. Ezekiel said: Even though it can bite tree trunks. Samuel once met Rab's disciples and asked them: ‘What did Rab teach you with regard to [the signs of] a dying animal’? — They replied: ‘This is what Rab said:

—