Chullin 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

They said to him: This is what Rav said:

With regard to an animal in danger of dying, if, at the time of slaughter, it performed one of these three actions:

it lowed

[it cried out],

and it defecated, or shook its ear, this is a convulsive movement,

like a movement of its hand or foot, which demonstrates that it was alive at the completion of the slaughter, and it is permitted even according to Rabban Gamliel.

He said to them:

Is it the case that

Father needed

to move its ears? [Does Rav adopt a stringent position and require such a significant convulsive movement that the animal’s ears must move?]

I do not rule in this manner.

Rather, I say: Any animal that performs

actions

that a dead animal does not perform

[i.e., excluding actions that an animal characteristically performs at the time of its death]—this is a convulsive movement, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

And we clarify:

What are they

[i.e., what are]

the actions that a dead animal performs?

Rav Anan said: As for me, Mar Shmuel himself explained it to me

[Shmuel himself explained it to me]: His statement was said with regard to a small domesticated animal. If

its hand was bent and it straightened it,

this is

an action that a dead animal performs,

and it is not a convulsive movement even according to the Sages. But if its hand was

straight and it bent it,

this is

an action that a dead animal does not perform,

and it is a convulsive movement.

And we challenge this: If so,

what is Shmuel teaching us?

But

we already learned: If a small domesticated animal extended its hand and did not retract it—

it is unfit, as this is nothing other than the departure of the soul.

If it retracted

its hand,

it is fit!

And we answer:

If it were derived from the Mishna, I would have said

that there is no difference between extending its hand and retracting its hand: one movement indicates only the departure of the soul, whereas a convulsive movement is

specifically when its hand was bent, it straightened it, and then bent it again,

as it performed two movements.

But if its hand was

straight

and it bent it, it would not be considered a convulsive movement.

Shmuel teaches us

that every movement unlike the one mentioned in the Mishna, which is the departure of the soul, is considered a convulsive movement.

The Gemara raises an objection

from a beraita against Rav, as it was taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: Rabbi Meir would say: If it lowed at the time of slaughter—

this is not a convulsive movement. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in his name

[in the name of Rabbi Yosei, his father]:

Even if it performed one of these actions:

it performed one of these actions:

it defecated or shook its tail—

this is not a convulsive movement.

And we challenge this: This works well according to Shmuel, since 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,

there is a difficulty concerning one instance of lowing in relation to another instance of lowing.

Rabbi Yosei prohibits it, whereas Rav permits it, considering it a convulsive movement. And likewise,

there is a difficulty concerning one instance of defecation in relation to another instance of defecation!

And we answer:

The difficulty concerning one instance of lowing in relation to another is not difficult: Here, it is when its voice was thick

[its voice was deep and strong],

and here, it is when its voice was thin

[its voice was weak].

The difficulty concerning one instance of defecation in relation to another is also not difficult. Here, it is when it discharged

the feces immediately beside itself;

here, it is when it evacuated

at a distance, which is an indication of life.

The Gemara now discusses when the convulsive movement demonstrating that the animal was alive must occur: Is it necessary that it convulse after the slaughter so that we will know that it was alive throughout the slaughter, or does even a convulsive movement at the beginning of the slaughter demonstrate that it was alive throughout the slaughter, and we do not say that perhaps it died immediately afterward?

Rav Hisda said:

I heard from my teachers that the

convulsive movement that the

tannaim

spoke of is at the end of the slaughter.

And Rav Hisda explains:

What is meant by “at the end of the slaughter”

as I heard it? It does not mean after the slaughter, but rather

in the middle of the slaughter.

And when they said “at the end of the slaughter,” this was only

to exclude

[to exclude] a convulsive movement at the

beginning of the slaughter, which does not

constitute a convulsive movement.

Rav Hisda said: From where do I say this

[from where do I derive] that a convulsive movement is not required at the end of the slaughter?

As we learned: If a small domesticated animal extended its hand and did not retract it—

it is unfit.

And Rav Hisda clarifies:

When

[when] was this ruling stated?

If you say it was at the end of the slaughter, how long must it live and move about!

[Does it have to remain alive for so long after the slaughter?] Is extending the hand not sufficient?

Rather, is it not

that we require a convulsive movement

in the middle of the slaughter,

in which case it is reasonable that extending the hand alone is insufficient?

Rava said to him: Actually,

the convulsive movement is

at the end of the slaughter,

and there is nothing surprising about the requirement that it retract its hand.

Rather, I say: Any animal that does not do this at the end of the slaughter

but merely extends its hand—this is a sign that the soul departed. And

it is certain that its soul had already been taken from it 349 .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The convulsive movement that they spoke of

is even

at the beginning of the slaughter.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: From where do I say this?

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

it is fit, as the blood spurted, and this is in accordance with the measure of Rabbi Eliezer.

And Shmuel said:

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

we learned it with regard to the walls of the slaughterhouse.

And from where will we know that the blood did not emerge at the beginning of the slaughter? Had we interpreted the passage as referring to the walls of the house, we could have said that the slaughterer changed the direction of the neck in the middle of the slaughter, and he knows accordingly when the blood spurted onto this wall.

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak proves:

If you say

that the convulsive movement is

at the beginning of the slaughter, this works well.

Rabbi Shimon said this because every spurt is effective.

But if you say

that the spurt must occur specifically

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

and this spurt is ineffective!

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

one can distinguish between the convulsive movements and say

that a spurt is superior

to the movement of limbs. It demonstrates even at the beginning of the slaughter that the animal remained alive until the completion of the slaughter, whereas movement of the limbs demonstrates only that it was alive at the time of that movement.

And we challenge this objection:

Is it superior,

the spurt?

But we learned: Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient if it spurted.

This implies that a spurt is sufficient even though it is not a strong indication of life!

And we answer: One can say that

it is a

leniency with regard to the spurt

relative to

a convulsive movement of the hand or foot

according to Rabban Gamliel,

for it was with regard to his statement that Rabbi Eliezer’s words were said,

and it is superior

to

a convulsive movement of the hand or foot

according to the Rabbis.

Nevertheless, it is still possible to say that the Rabbis, who were more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer, were lenient only when the convulsive movement occurred at the end of the slaughter.

Nevertheless, it is still possible to say that the Sages, who were more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer, were lenient only when the convulsive movement occurred at the end of the slaughter.

Ravina said: Sama bar Ḥilqai said to me: The father of Bar Avuvaram raised this objection

to the answer rejecting the proof,

and some say, the brother of Bar Av and Baram:

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 some say: the brother of Av and Avram:

And according to the Rabbis, is the spurt superior

to the other movements? Can one still say that their convulsive movement occurs specifically at the completion of the slaughter, thereby rejecting Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s proof?

But we learned: And the Sages say:

It is ineffective

until it convulses either with its hand or with its foot.

And Ravina clarifies:

With regard to what did the Rabbis state their opinion?

[In relation to whom are the words of the Rabbis directed?]

If you say they were stated in relation to Rabban Gamliel,

who is more lenient than they are, then the wording

“Once it convulsed” would have been required

to be stated, rather than “until it convulses,” whose implication is stringency!

Rather, it is obvious

that the statement of the Sages was made

in relation to Rabbi Eliezer.

And if

a spurt is superior to a convulsive movement of the hand or foot, then the Sages are more lenient than Rabbi Eliezer. If so,

what is meant by “until

it convulses,” whose implication is stringency? This demonstrates that a spurt is the least significant of the convulsive movements. And if even it is effective at the beginning of the slaughter, all the more so the other convulsive movements are effective at the beginning of the slaughter, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s proof remains valid.

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

and no proof may 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: The Torah states: “An ox or a sheep or a goat, when it is born, shall be for seven days under its mother” [Leviticus 22:27]. Several cases of animals unfit for sacrifice can be derived from this verse.