Chullin 37b — the Talmud in English

And we say:

And if it enters your mind that tereifa is the same as a dangerously ill animal,

then the entire nature of the prohibition of tereifa is only because of the proximity of death and its ultimately becoming a carcass , and with a carcass, in which the death has already occurred, the Torah was more stringent and added a prohibition, according to this the Torah did not need to say that the prohibition of a carcass takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat, for this can be learned from tereifa. Rather,

let the Merciful One write: “The fat of a carcass shall be used for every manner of work”

for through this the Torah teaches that the fat of the carcass does not convey the impurity of a carcass , and afterward let it be written

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

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

And I would reason: Just as while it is alive

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

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

Rather, since the Merciful One wrote “carcass”

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

by implication, tereifa is not the same as a dangerously ill animal,

and the prohibition of tereifa is because of a defect that exists in the animal and not because of the proximity of death , and the prohibitions of a carcass and a tereifa are not fundamentally connected to one another .

Mar bar Rav Ashi challenges it: But perhaps I can always say to you, tereifa is the same as a dangerously ill animal,

and the prohibition of tereifa is because of the proximity of death.

And as for what you say: Why do I need the carcass that the Merciful One wrote,

since the entire prohibition of a carcass is only an additional stringency upon the prohibition that already took effect while it was alive? It can be said that the teaching that the prohibition of a carcass takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat is needed

for that carcass which does not come by way of a dangerously ill animal

([that is,] for such a carcass that did not become a carcass because it had been dangerously ill), concerning which one cannot say that its entire prohibition is only an additional stringency upon the prohibition of tereifa !

And what are the circumstances?

And how is such a thing possible? For example, when

he made it

a

gistera,

that is, he divided it into two pieces; and in this state, even if it is still moving, it is already considered a carcass, and it was not dangerously ill even for a moment.

And we answer:

There too, it is impossible that it was not slightly dangerously ill before he severed the majority 337 . [There too, it is impossible that it was not in a state of being dangerously ill for a short time before he cut through the majority of the animal’s width.]

[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 may say:

In truth, one cannot learn from the verse “the fat of a carcass and the fat of a tereifa” that the dangerously ill animal is permitted, in the manner in which we learned it, because of Mar bar Rav Ashi’s objection. But one can learn by another method from this verse that the dangerously ill animal is permitted: if it were prohibited,

if so, let the verse say

the following:

“The fat of a carcass and a tereifa”—why do I need “fat” repeated?

To duplicate it? Rather, it is to tell you:

This is

the tereifa

whose fat is not divided from its flesh,

but both of them are prohibited;

and you have another one

similar to this one, which is close to death,

whose fat is divided from its flesh,

for the fat is prohibited while the flesh is permitted;

and which one is this? The dangerously ill animal.

Alternatively, you may say:

The permission of the dangerously ill animal can be learned

from Ezekiel.

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

“And I said, Alas, Lord God, behold, my soul has not been defiled, and a carcass and a tereifa I have not eaten from my youth until now, and no abominable flesh has entered my mouth.” [Ezekiel 4:14]

[Ezekiel 4:14]

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

“Behold, my soul has not been defiled”—

that I did not contemplate during the day

a woman

and come to impurity

of a seminal emission

at night.

338. “And a carcass and a tereifa I have not eaten from my youth”—

that I did not eat the flesh

of a dangerously ill animal, concerning which its owners say to the slaughterer:

“Cut, cut,”

([that is,] slaughter, slaughter quickly before the animal dies)

ever.

“And no abominable flesh has entered my mouth”—

that I did not eat from an animal in which

a doubt arose and

a sage ruled concerning it

permission on the basis of reasoning .

In the name of Rabbi Natan they said

another interpretation:

that I did not eat from an animal whose gifts had not been separated

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, and I treated it as though there were a prohibition in it, although the flesh is not prohibited before the priestly gifts have been separated from it .

And we say:

Granted, if you say:

the dangerously ill animal

is permitted, this was Ezekiel’s greatness,

([that is,] this was Ezekiel’s greatness) that he did not eat it .

But if you say:

the dangerously ill animal

is prohibited, what was Ezekiel’s greatness?

Now the Gemara teaches the sign of the dangerously ill animal.

What are the circumstances of a dangerously ill animal?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Any one that they set upright

by shouting at it or striking it with a stick

and it does not stand,

but if it stands, it is not dangerously ill and does not require movement.

Rav Ḥanina bar Shelemya

adds

in the name of Rav

and

said: Even if it eats splinters

([that is,] pieces of wood) it does not leave the presumption of being dangerously ill if it does not stand.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said: Even if it eats beams

it remains presumed to be dangerously ill.

In Sura they taught it this way,

whereas

in Pumbedita they taught

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

this way

they taught:

What are the circumstances of a dangerously ill animal?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Any one that they set upright and it does not stand, even if it eats splinters.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said: Even if it eats beams.

Samuel found

them,

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

laws of

a dangerously ill animal?