Chullin 37a — the Talmud in English

And from now on, Reish Lakish asks him:

what

[what is] the law of the Torah?

And the sides of the doubt are:

For the affection of sacredness is effective to disqualify the body, but to count in it a first-degree and a second-degree [source of impurity], no. Or perhaps, it makes no difference.

And we conclude:

teyku.

Mishna:

Our Mishna teaches the law of the dangerously ill animal.

An animal that is ill because its strength has weakened and it is inclined to die, since no blow occurred to any of its limbs that would cause its death, is permitted, for the Torah prohibited only something resembling the torn animal of the wild beast, since a blow causing its death was inflicted upon it. [The wording of Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Foods, chapter 4, halakha 11].

The dangerously ill animal is permitted on condition that it convulses, and that we have proof that it was alive during the time of slaughter. And if it did not convulse—it is known to us that its soul departed from it before the completion of the slaughter, and one is flogged for eating it .

The tannaim disputed the details of the convulsing that is required.

The Mishna says:

The one who slaughters

the dangerously ill animal, Rabban Gamaliel

says:

it is not permitted

until it convulses with its foreleg and hind leg.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

There is no need for this; rather,

it is sufficient for it if it spurts

[streams] and forcefully expels blood from the place of slaughter.

Rabbi Shimon said: One who slaughters at night

a dangerously ill animal and does not know whether it convulsed or not,

and on the following day rose early and found walls

of the neck of the animal, near the place of slaughter,

full of blood—

it is fit,

because we see

that it spurted, and

that is sufficient

according to the measure of Rabbi Eliezer 320.

And the Sages say:

The measure of Rabbi Eliezer is not sufficient; rather, it is not permitted

until it convulses either with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or until it shakes its tail,

and it need not convulse with both its foreleg and its hind leg, as Rabban Gamaliel holds.

Both a small animal and a large animal

are included in this law and in this dispute between the tannaim. However, in this detail there is a difference between them:

a small animal that extended its foreleg

at the completion of its slaughter

and did not withdraw it—

it is unfit

because

this

action

is not

a convulsion testifying to life,

but

the way of an animal at the time of

the expulsion of the soul alone,

but it is not the way of a large animal to do this at the time of the expulsion of the soul .

In what case are these words said

that convulsing is required? With regard to an animal

that had the presumption of being dangerously ill, but if it had the presumption of being

healthy, even if it has none of all these signs—

it is fit,

and we are not concerned that perhaps it was dangerously ill. The Gemara explains what the sign of a dangerously ill animal is.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters a dangerously ill animal—it is permitted if it convulsed.

And we ask:

From what [basis] is a dangerously ill animal permitted?

[From where do we know that a dangerously ill animal is permitted?]

And we answer:

And from what [basis] would it enter our minds that it is forbidden?

[And why would it enter our minds that it is forbidden?] Surely it has no defect in its body, as a tereifa has.

And we explain the question: From what can one learn that a dangerously ill animal is forbidden?

For it is written: “This is the animal that you may eat

from among all the animals that are upon the earth” [Leviticus 11:2]. This implies that an animal that

is alive

with complete vitality—

eat it, and one that is not alive

with complete vitality—

do not eat it; and this dangerously ill animal is not alive

but is inclined to die. And we must find proof from the Torah that a dangerously ill animal is permitted, and then reject this simple exposition and expound in another manner .

And we say: It can be learned that the dangerously ill animal is permitted

from the fact that the Merciful One said: “You shall not eat an unslaughtered carcass”; by inference, a dangerously ill animal is permitted, for if it enters your mind that a dangerously ill animal is forbidden,

it follows that upon every unslaughtered carcass there was a prohibition before its death, when it was dangerously ill ; and why does the Torah need to prohibit the unslaughtered carcass?

Now that it is forbidden while alive, is it necessary [to state that it is forbidden] after death,

when there is no reason that the prohibition should disappear with death!

And we reject this:

But perhaps, it is

the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass

it is

the prohibition

of a dangerously ill animal,

and the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass takes effect while it is alive, from the moment the animal becomes dangerously ill; and we learn that it has a prohibition of a positive commandment from “this is the animal,” and a prohibition of a negative commandment from “you shall not eat an unslaughtered carcass.”

And we say:

It should not enter your mind

[do not suppose] that the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass takes effect while it is alive,

for it is written: “And when an animal dies, of the animal that is for you to eat, the one who touches its unslaughtered carcass

shall be impure until evening” [Leviticus 11:39]. Thus,

only after death does the Merciful One call it an unslaughtered carcass; while alive, He does not call it an unslaughtered carcass 326,

and the question returns: Why did the Torah prohibit the unslaughtered carcass after death if a prohibition had already taken effect while it was alive? It is proven that a dangerously ill animal is permitted, and that a prohibition does not take effect upon the unslaughtered carcass while it is alive.

And we reject this:

But perhaps I will always say to you: it is

the unslaughtered carcass, it is

the dangerously ill animal 327,

that same animal which had previously been forbidden by the prohibition of a dangerously ill animal; and the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass takes effect only after death. And as to your question, why is it necessary to prohibit it after death, when it was already forbidden while alive? One can say:

While alive

the animal was forbidden only

by a

prohibition

of a positive commandment,

and the Torah added

after death

a prohibition

by a

prohibition

of a negative commandment,

and there is flogging for it.

And we say:

Rather,

there is proof that a dangerously ill animal is permitted

from the fact that the Merciful One said: “You shall not eat a tereifa”; by inference, a dangerously ill animal is permitted, for if it enters your mind that a dangerously ill animal

because of illness

is forbidden,

why did the Torah write the prohibition of a tereifa?

Now that a dangerously ill animal, which has no defect

in its body,

is forbidden, a tereifa

which is destined to die because of a defect in its body

is it necessary [to state that it is forbidden]!

And we reject this:

But perhaps, it is

the prohibition

of a tereifa, it is

the prohibition

of a dangerously ill animal,

and the meaning of the name “tereifa” is not that it was torn by an animal and is lacking [a limb], but “tereifa” is one whose mind and health were torn because of illness and it is the dangerously ill animal,

and

the Torah wrote the prohibition twice

in order to transgress it by a positive commandment

of “eat the living animal”

and a negative commandment

of “the tereifa”!

And we say:

If so,

that there is a prohibition of a negative commandment upon a dangerously ill animal and not only a prohibition of a positive commandment, the question returns:

Why do I need the unslaughtered carcass that the Merciful One wrote? And if while alive a negative commandment and a positive commandment apply to it, is it necessary [to state this] after death,

and what did the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass add? Surely one is flogged for an unslaughtered carcass because of the negative commandment of a tereifa!

And we reject this:

But perhaps it is the unslaughtered carcass, it is

that animal upon which there was the prohibition

of a tereifa,

and the prohibition of a tereifa

is

literally the prohibition

of a dangerously ill animal

329, and

the Torah made the unslaughtered carcass more stringent

so that one transgresses it with two negative commandments and a positive commandment,

and one is flogged for an unslaughtered carcass with eighty lashes!

And we say:

Rather, from here

it can be learned that the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass also takes effect upon something that had been permitted before the prohibition took effect, when the animal was dangerously ill, and the negative commandment of an unslaughtered carcass did not come merely to add stringency.

It is written in the Torah:

“And the fat of an unslaughtered carcass and the fat of a tereifa may be used for any labor, but you shall surely not eat it”

[Leviticus 7:24], and it is already written in the Torah, “You shall not eat any fat or any blood” [Leviticus 3:17].

And the Master said: For what halakhic purpose?

[For the sake of which halakha] did the Torah repeat the prohibition of fat in unslaughtered carcasses and tereifot? The answer is:

The Torah said: Let the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition of fat,

and one who eats the fat of an unslaughtered carcass is flogged with eighty lashes, and we do not say that a prohibition cannot take effect upon another prohibition; and likewise,

let the prohibition of a tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition of fat.