Chullin 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

And we say:

And if it enters your mind that tereifa means an animal in mortal danger,

then the entire basis of the prohibition of tereifa is its proximity to death and the fact that it will ultimately become a neveila . And with regard to a neveila, in which death has already occurred, the Torah was more stringent and added a prohibition. Accordingly, the Torah would not have needed to state that the prohibition of neveila takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat, since this can be derived from tereifa. Rather,

let the Merciful One write: “The fat of a neveila may be used for any labor,”

for through this the Torah teaches that the fat of a neveila does not contract the ritual impurity of a neveila . And afterward let it write

“And you shall not eat the fat of a tereifa”

to teach that the prohibition of tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat .

And I would say: Just as while it is alive

when the basis of the prohibition is only its proximity to death ,

the prohibition of tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat, after death is it not obvious!

Rather, from the fact that the Merciful One wrote neveila

to say that its prohibition takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat,

by inference, tereifa does not mean an animal in mortal danger,

and the prohibition of tereifa is due to a defect in the animal and not to its proximity to death . And the prohibitions of neveila and tereifa are not fundamentally connected to one another .

Mar bar Rav Ashi challenges this: Perhaps I can say to you that, in fact, tereifa means an animal in mortal danger,

and the prohibition of tereifa is due to its proximity to death.

And as for what you said—why do I need the neveila written by the Merciful One?

Since the entire prohibition of neveila is merely an additional stringency to the prohibition that had already taken effect while the animal was alive, one may say that the teaching that the prohibition of neveila takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat is necessary

for that neveila that does not result from an animal in mortal danger

[for such a neveila that did not become a neveila because it had been in mortal danger], for one cannot say with regard to it that its entire prohibition is merely an additional stringency to the prohibition of tereifa !

And what are the circumstances?

[And how could such a case occur?] For example,

when a person made it

at once into a

gistera,

that is, he divided it into two pieces. In this state, even if it is still twitching, it is already considered a neveila, and it was not in mortal danger even for a moment.

And we answer:

There too, it is impossible that it was not in a state of mortal danger for a short while before he severed the majority 337 .

[There too, it is impossible that it was not in a state of mortal danger for a short time before he cut through most of the animal’s width].

Alternatively, you can say:

In truth, one cannot derive that an animal in mortal danger is permitted from the verse “the fat of a neveila and the fat of a tereifa” by the method we have learned, because of Mar bar Rav Ashi’s challenge. But one can learn by another method from this verse that an animal in mortal danger is permitted. If it were prohibited,

then let the verse say

“the fat of a neveila and a tereifa”;

why do I need “the fat of the fat” to be repeated?

Rather, this repetition comes to tell you:

This is

the tereifa

whose fat is not distinguished from its flesh,

but both are prohibited.

And you have another

that resembles it, being close to death,

whose fat is distinguished from its flesh,

as the fat is prohibited but the flesh is permitted.

And which is this? An animal in mortal danger.

Alternatively, you can say:

One can derive that an animal in mortal danger is permitted

from what?

It is written in the Book of Ezekiel that the prophet was commanded by God to eat a barley cake baked in dung, and Ezekiel complained:

“And I said, Ah, Lord God! Behold, my soul has never been defiled, and from my youth until now I have never eaten a neveila or a tereifa, nor has abominable flesh ever entered my mouth.”

[Ezekiel 4:14]

The Gemara explains that all these things were practices of sanctity and piety that Ezekiel observed, and not things that every observant person observes.

“Behold, my soul has never been defiled”—

that I never contemplated

a woman

during the day and thereby came to ritual impurity

of a seminal emission

at night 338 .

“And from my youth I have never eaten a neveila or a tereifa”—

that I never ate the flesh

of an animal in mortal danger, whose owners say to the slaughterer,

“Cut, cut”

[Slaughter it, slaughter it] quickly, before the animal dies—

ever.

“And no repulsive meat has entered my mouth” —

that I never ate from an animal in which

a doubt arose, and

a sage ruled concerning it

that it was permitted on the basis of reasoning.

In the name of Rabbi Natan they said

another explanation:

“That I never ate from an animal whose required portions had not been separated,”

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach, and I treated it as though it were prohibited, although the flesh is not prohibited before the priestly portions are separated.

And we say:

Granted, if you say:

an animal in mortal danger

is permitted, this was Ezekiel’s greatness,

[This is Ezekiel’s greatness] that he did not eat it .

But if you say:

an animal in mortal danger

is prohibited, what was Ezekiel’s greatness?

Now the Gemara teaches the identifying sign of an animal in mortal danger.

What are the circumstances of an animal in mortal danger?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any animal that can be made to stand

by shouting at it or striking it with a stick

but does not stand,

and if it stands, it is not an animal in mortal danger and does not require twitching.

Rav Ḥanina bar Shelemya

adds

in the name of Rav

and

said: Even if it eats splinters

[pieces of wood] , it does not lose its presumptive status as an animal in mortal danger if it does not stand.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said: Even if it eats beams

it retains the presumptive status of an animal in mortal danger.

In Sura they taught it this way,

whereas

in Pumbedita they taught

in the name of Rav Yehuda the statements that Rav Ḥanina had said according to the tradition of Sura, and

this

they taught:

What are the circumstances of an animal in mortal danger?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any animal that can be made to stand but does not stand, even if it eats splinters.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said: Even if it eats beams.

Samuel found

[He found]

Rav’s students and said to them: What did Rav say about the

laws of

an animal in mortal danger?