Chullin 38a — the Talmud in English

They said to him: This is what Rav said:

A dangerously ill animal, if it performed one of these three actions at the time of slaughter:

it mooed

[it cried],

and it excreted, and it wagged its ear, this is pirchus,

like the movement of a hand or foot, which proves that it possessed vitality at the completion of slaughter, and it is permitted even according to Rabban Gamliel.

He said to them:

And is it so that

Father needed

to move its ear? [Did Rav rule stringently and require such a great movement that he required the animal’s ears to move?]

I do not rule this way;

for I say: anything that

the animal

does that a dying animal does not do [that is, excluding actions that an animal ordinarily performs at the time of its death] is pirchus, and this is the view of the Sages.

And we clarify:

What are

the things that a dying animal does?

[What are they?]

Rav Anan said: For me, it was explained to me by Mar Shmuel himself

[Shmuel himself explained it to me], that his statement was said regarding a small animal: if

it

had its foreleg bent and straightened it,

this is

a thing that a dying animal does,

and it is not pirchus even according to the Sages. And if its foreleg was

straight and it bent it,

this is

a thing that a dying animal does not do,

and it is pirchus.

And we object: If so,

what is Shmuel teaching us

? Yet

we already learned: A small animal that extended its foreleg and did not retract it—

it is unfit, for this is nothing but the departure of the soul.

But if it retracted

its foreleg—

it is fit!

And we answer:

If [we derived it] from the Mishna, I would have said

that there is no difference between extending its foreleg and retracting its foreleg, and that one movement indicates only the departure of the soul, whereas pirchus is

specifically, for example, that its foreleg was bent, and it extended it, and then bent it back,

such that it performed two movements;

but

if its foreleg was

straight, and it bent it, it is not [pirchus].

He teaches us

that Shmuel teaches that every movement unlike the one mentioned in the Mishna, which is the departure of the soul, is considered pirchus.

He raised an objection

from a beraita against Rav, as it was taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: Rabbi Meir would say, [if] it mooed at the time of slaughter—

this is not pirchus. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei says in his name

of Rabbi Yosei his father:

even if

it performed one of these actions:

it excreted, or it wagged its tail—

this is not pirchus.

And we object: Granted, according to Shmuel, this is not difficult, because he rules in accordance with the Sages, while Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with Rabban Gamliel. But according to Rav, who ruled in accordance with Rabban Gamliel,

the case of mooing contradicts the case of mooing.

For Rabbi Yosei prohibits, whereas Rav permits, considering this pirchus. And likewise,

the case of excretion contradicts the case of excretion!

And we answer:

The case of mooing does not contradict the case of mooing: Here, [it was] with a deep voice

[its voice was deep and strong], which certainly came through the force of vitality;

there, [it was] with a faint voice

[its voice was weak].

The case of excretion likewise does not contradict the case of excretion. Here, [it was] dribbling

the excrement close to it;

there, [it was] projecting

it from a distance, and this is vitality.

And now the Gemara discusses when the pirchus indicating the animal’s vitality must occur: whether it must move after slaughter so that we know that it was alive throughout the slaughter, or whether even movement at the beginning of slaughter indicates vitality throughout the entire slaughter, and we do not say that perhaps it died immediately afterward. Rav Hisda said:

I heard from my teachers that the

movement that they said

the tannaim referred to is

at the end of slaughter.

And Rav Hisda explains:

What is meant by ‘at the end of slaughter’

that I heard? It does not mean after slaughter, but rather

in the middle of slaughter,

and when they said “the end of slaughter,” this serves only

to exclude

[to exclude] movement at the

beginning of slaughter, which is not

pirchus.

Rav Hisda said: From where do I say this?

[From where do I derive that] it is not necessary for there to be movement at the end of slaughter?

As we learned: A small animal that extended its foreleg and did not retract it—

it is unfit.

And Rav Hisda clarifies:

When

[when] was this law stated?

If you say [it was] at the end of slaughter, would it live and go on in every manner!

[Does it need to live so long after slaughter?] Is extending the foreleg not enough!

Rather, is it not

that movement is required

in the middle of slaughter,

and then it is reasonable that extending the foreleg alone is insufficient.

Rava said to him: In fact

the movement is

at the end of slaughter,

and there is no wonder that it must retract its foreleg,

for

I say: whenever it does not do so at the end of slaughter

but merely extends its foreleg, this is a sign that the departure of the soul occurred. And

it is known that its soul had been taken from it beforehand 349.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: The movement that they said

is even

at the beginning of slaughter.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: From where do I say this?

As we learned: Rabbi Shimon said: One who slaughters at night and on the following day finds the walls full of blood—

it is fit, for [the blood] spurted, and in accordance with the measure of Rabbi Eliezer.

And Shmuel said:

This does not refer to the walls of the house; rather,

we learned [the case of] the walls of the slaughterhouse.

And from where will we know that the blood did not emerge at the beginning of slaughter? If we explained that the case concerned the walls of the house, we could say that the slaughterer changed the direction of the neck in the middle of slaughter, and on this basis he knows when the blood spurted onto this wall .

And Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak proves:

If you grant that

the movement is

at the beginning of slaughter, it is well

that Rabbi Shimon said this, since every spurt is effective.

But if you say

that the spurt must be specifically

at the end of slaughter, let us be concerned that perhaps it spurted at the beginning of slaughter,

and this spurt is ineffective!

And we refute:

Perhaps

one should distinguish between the movements, and say:

a spurt is different, for it is superior

to the movement of limbs. It proves even at the beginning of slaughter that the animal was alive until the completion of slaughter, whereas the movement of limbs proves only its vitality at that time.

And we object to this refutation:

Is it superior

to spurt?

Yet we learned: Rabbi Eliezer says: It is enough if it spurted.

This implies that a spurt suffices even though it is not a strong sign of vitality!

And we answer: It may be said that

the spurt is a

kal va-chomer

from

movement of the hand and foot

of Rabban Gamliel,

whose words Rabbi Eliezer’s words concern,

and it is superior

to

the movement of the hand or foot

of the Sages.

Nevertheless, it can still be said that the Sages, who were more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer, were lenient only when the movement occurred at the end of slaughter.

Ravina said: Sama bar Hilkai said to me: The father of bar Avuvram raised an objection concerning it

to the rejection of the proof,

and some say, the brother of bar Av and Uvram:

But according to the Sages, is the spurt superior

The father of Bar Avuvaram was named Avuvaram. The reason it does not say, “Avuvaram raised this objection,” is that Avuvaram was not known to the amoraim; rather, they knew his son, who was referred to as Bar Avuvaram, and they used the son as an identifying designation for his father. Rashi.

? And can it still be said that their pirchus is specifically at the completion of slaughter, thereby rejecting Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak’s proof?

But we learned: And the Sages say:

It is ineffective

until it moves either its foreleg or its hind leg.

And Ravina clarifies:

With regard to what do the Sages stand?

[Toward whom are the words of the Sages directed?]

If you say, [they are directed] against Rabban Gamliel,

meaning that they are more lenient than he is, if so, the wording

“once it moved,” it should have said

, and not “until it moves,” whose implication is stringency!

Rather, obviously

the words of the Sages were stated

against Rabbi Eliezer.

And if [the spurt] is superior

to movement of the hand or foot, then the Sages are more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer. If so,

what is meant by “until

it moves,” whose implication is stringency? This proves that the spurt is the lenient form of movement, and if even it is effective at the beginning of slaughter, all the more so the other movements are effective at the beginning of slaughter, and Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak’s proof remains.

Rava said: The movement that they said is at the end of slaughter,

and no proof can be brought from Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the Mishna .

Rava said: From where do I say this?

As it was taught

in the Sifra: It is written in the Torah, “An ox or a sheep or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother” [Leviticus 22:27]. From this verse several disqualifications for offering can be learned.

As it was taught

in the Sifra: The Torah states, “An ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born, shall remain for seven days under its mother” [Leviticus 22:27]. Several disqualifications from being offered can be learned from this verse.