Chullin

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 service1 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 trefah2 is superimposed upon the prohibition of the fat,is there any question of this after death?3 But since the Divine Law expressly stated nebelah in the verse, it follows that the term trefah does not include a dying animal.4 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!5 — 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,6 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,7 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. 8 Alternatively we can derive it9 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’.10 [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’!11 ‘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.12 In the name of R. Nathan it was reported that this means: I did not eat of an animal from which the priestly dues13 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,14 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.15 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: Pes. 23a by two prohibitions, and so too the fat of a nebelah (which means here, an animal which died a natural death and not because of some physical defect). trefah can he superimposed upon the prohibition of fat. ordinary nebelah for this is expressly forbidden in the Torah.