Chullin

Now1 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,2 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.3 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.4 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]5 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,6 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.)7 [We know it from here.] Since the Divine Law ordains that nebelah8 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?9 But perhaps the term nebelah includes a dying animal!10 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,11 that is to say, when it is dead the Divine Law terms it nebelah, but whilst still alive it is not termed nebelah.12 But perhaps [the term] of nebelah, I still maintain, includes the dying animal,13 but whereas the animal is still alive [one who partakes of it transgresses] a positive law,14 after death [one who partakes of it transgresses] a prohibition [as well]!15 Rather we must derive it from here. Since the Divine Law ordains that trefah16 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?17 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!18 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!19 — 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.20 And a Master said: For what purpose is this stated?21 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 foodstuffs that have been rendered unclean on its account. completed, hence it is necessary to ascertain, by means of the tests of vitality suggested, that the animal was still alive up to the end of the slaughtering. Gemara. therefore remains. would be superfluous. Lev. XI, 2, and also the express prohibition of Deut. XIV, 21. is superfluous. commandment. prohibition) of Lev. XI, 2. prohibition of trefah from Ex. XXII, 30, and of nebelah from Deut. XIV, 21. 17. trefah), and likewise one who eats the fat of a nebelah.