Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 3, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 37

It is permitted to slaughter an animal that is in danger of imminent death as long as the animal stays alive until the end of the shechita. From where do we derive that it is permitted to slaughter an animal in this state?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讗讬 讻讬 诪讛谞讬讗 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诇驻住讜诇讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪谞讗 讘讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara asks: What is the resolution of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it only to disqualify that item itself, but to count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity, it is not effective; or perhaps once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids? The Gemara answers: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛诪住讜讻谞转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转驻专讻住 讘讬讚 讜讘专讙诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讗诐 讝讬谞拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讻转诇讬诐 诪诇讗讬诐 讚诐 讻砖专讛 砖讝讬谞拽讛 讜讻诪讚转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转驻专讻住 讗讜 讘讬讚 讗讜 讘专讙诇 讗讜 注讚 砖转讻砖讻砖 讘讝谞讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal that is in danger of imminent death, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slaughter is valid only in a case where after the slaughter it convulses with its foreleg and with its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient if blood spurted from the neck. Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who slaughters at night and the next day he awoke and found walls full of blood, the slaughter is valid, as it is clear that the blood spurted, and this is in accordance with the rule of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is valid only in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or in a case where it wags its tail.

讗讞讚 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 砖驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讛讞讝讬专讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讛讜爪讗转 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛讬转讛 讘讞讝拽转 诪住讜讻谞转 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘专讬讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讻砖专讛

This is the halakha with regard to both a small animal, e.g., a sheep, and a large animal, e.g., a cow, that is in danger of imminent death. The slaughter of a small animal that when being slaughtered extended its foreleg that was bent and did not restore it to the bent position is not valid, as extending the foreleg is only part of the natural course of removal of the animal鈥檚 soul from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the presumptive status of the animal was that it was in danger of imminent death. But if its presumptive status was that it was healthy, then even if there were none of these indicators, the slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 诪住讜讻谞转 诪诪讗讬 讚砖专讬讗 讜诪诪讗讬 转讬住拽 讗讚注转讬谉 讚讗住讬专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 讞讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讜讛讗 诪住讜讻谞转 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is it known that the flesh of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted by means of slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question: And from where would it enter your mind that it is prohibited? The Gemara explains that one may have thought it is prohibited, as it is written: 鈥淭hese are the living beings [ha岣yya] that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:2). One might have thought that the verse is saying: Eat an animal that is fit to live [岣yya], but do not eat an animal that is not fit to live. And this animal in danger of imminent death is not fit to live.

诪讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞讘诇讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚诪住讜讻谞转 砖专讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪住讜讻谞转 讗住讬专讗 讛砖转讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讬专讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬

The fact that its meat is permitted is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states that you shall not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21); one learns by inference that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted. As, if it enters your mind that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is prohibited, now if an animal is prohibited while alive, is it necessary to state that it is prohibited after death?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 讛谞讙注 讘谞讘诇转讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讚拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讘诇讛 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 讗拽专讬 谞讘诇讛

The Gemara rejects that proof. And that is not a legitimate inference, as perhaps the halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, and the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass,鈥 includes both. The Gemara answers: It would not enter your mind to say so, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that it is after death that the Merciful One calls the animal a carcass; while alive, the animal is not called a carcass.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 诪讞讬讬诐 讘注砖讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讘诇讗讜

The Gemara questions that understanding. And perhaps, actually I will say to you: The halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, but if one slaughters the animal in danger of imminent death while alive, he would be in violation of a positive mitzva: 鈥淭hese are the living beings that you may eat鈥 (Leviticus 11:2), whereas after its death, he would be in violation of a prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21).

讗诇讗 诪讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚诪住讜讻谞转 砖专讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪住讜讻谞转 讗住讬专讗 讛砖转讗 诪住讜讻谞转 讚诇讗 诪讞住专讗 讗住讬专讗 讟专驻讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rather, the fact that its meat is permitted is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states you shall not eat that an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [tereifa]鈥 (Exodus 22:30). From here, one learns by inference that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted. As, if it enters your mind that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is prohibited, now that an animal in danger of imminent death that is not lacking any limb is prohibited, is it necessary to state that a tereifa, an animal that was mauled and lacking body parts, is prohibited?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讘诇讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜诪讛 诪讞讬讬诐 拽讗讬 注诇讛 讘诇讗讜 讜注砖讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara rejects that proof. And that is not a legitimate inference, as perhaps the halakhic status of a tereifa that is lacking body parts is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death that is not lacking body parts, and both are included in the category of tereifa. This would render one who slaughters either to be in violation of both a positive mitzva: 鈥淭hese are the living beings that you may eat,鈥 and a prohibition: 鈥淎nd you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [tereifa].鈥 The Gemara questions that understanding: If so, why do I need the prohibition that the Merciful One writes with regard to an unslaughtered carcass? If while an animal is alive one stands in violation of a prohibition and a positive mitzva, is it necessary to state that it is prohibited after death?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜注砖讛

The Gemara objects: And that is not a legitimate question, as perhaps the halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass is the same as a tereifa that is lacking body parts, and is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death that is not lacking body parts. Therefore, when the Torah writes the word 鈥渃arcass,鈥 it is the same as though it had written tereifa and the same as though it had written an animal in danger of imminent death. The Torah prohibits each, and the result will be that he will violate two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛 讬注砖讛 诇讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讛讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专讛 讛转讜专讛 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 谞讘诇讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘

Rather, the fact that the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted is derived from here: 鈥淎nd the fat of a carcass and the fat of a tereifa may be used for any purpose; but you shall not eat it鈥 (Leviticus 7:24). And the Master says: In order to derive what halakha is this verse written? Would one imagine that because it is an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa its fat would be permitted for consumption? The Torah states: Let the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which already exists. One who eats the forbidden fat of an unslaughtered carcass is liable for violation of both prohibitions. Likewise, the word 鈥tereifa鈥 in the verse teaches: Let the prohibition against eating a tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which already exists, so that one who eats the forbidden fat of a tereifa is liable for transgressing both prohibitions.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讬注砖讛 诇讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

And if it enters your mind to say that the halakhic status of a tereifa lacking body parts is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, let the Merciful One write: And the fat of a carcass may be used for any purpose, and the fat of a tereifa you shall not eat. The prohibition against eating the forbidden fat should have been written exclusively with regard to a tereifa, and I would say: If while an animal is alive and in danger of imminent death the prohibition against eating a tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, is it necessary to state that after its death the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered carcass takes effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat?

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞讘诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转

The Gemara concludes: Rather, from the fact that the Merciful One writes that the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered carcass takes effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, one learns by inference that the tereifa in the verse is not the same as an animal in danger of imminent death. Rather, the tereifa in the verse is an animal that was mauled and is lacking body parts, and it is only that animal that is prohibited after slaughter. Eating an animal in danger of imminent death after slaughter is permitted.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讚拽讗诪专转 谞讘诇讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讛讱 谞讘诇讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讻讞 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖注砖讗讛 讙讬住讟专讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪住讜讻谞转 驻讜专转讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬驻住拽 诇专讜讘讗

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: And perhaps, actually I will say to you that the halakhic status of a tereifa is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, and with regard to that which you said: Why do I need the prohibition with regard to an unslaughtered carcass that the Merciful One writes, one can explain that it is necessary for that unslaughtered carcass that does not come as a result of danger of imminent death. And what are the circumstances of that unslaughtered carcass? It is in a case where one rendered the animal like a shard, by cutting it into two widthwise. The Gemara rejects that distinction: There too, in the case where one rendered the animal like a shard, it is impossible that the animal was not at least somewhat in danger of imminent death before he cut the majority of the animal.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 讞诇讘 讞诇讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗讬谉 讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诪住讜讻谞转

And if you wish, say instead that there is a different source for the fact that the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted. If it is so that an animal in danger of imminent death is included in the category of tereifa, let the verse say: The fat of an unslaughtered carcass and a tereifa. Why do I need it to be written: 鈥淔at of a carcass and the fat of a tereifa鈥? The term 鈥渇at鈥 is repeated to teach that it is this case where the status of its fat is not distinct from the status of its meat, and both are prohibited; but you have another case where the status of its fat, which is forbidden, is distinct from the status of its meat, which is permitted. And which case is that? That is the case of an animal in danger of imminent death.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讗诪专 讗讛讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪谞注讜专讬 讜注讚 注转讛 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇

And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: 鈥淭hen I said: Ah, Lord God, my soul has not become impure; and from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa, and no piggul flesh came into my mouth鈥 (Ezekiel 4:14).

讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛专讛专转讬 讘讬讜诐 诇讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪谞注讜专讬 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘砖专 讻讜住 讻讜住 诪注讜诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖讛讜专讛 讘讛 讞讻诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 诪转谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara explains: 鈥淢y soul has not become impure鈥 means that I did not consider any sinful thoughts during the day that would cause me to come to impurity due to a seminal emission at night. 鈥淎nd from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa means that I never ate the flesh of an animal that was in danger of imminent death, leading one to say: Slaughter it, slaughter it quickly, before it dies. 鈥淎nd no piggul flesh came into my mouth鈥 means that I never ate from an animal with regard to which there was uncertainty whether it is forbidden and a Sage issued a ruling to permit it. They said in the name of Rabbi Natan that the last portion of the verse means: That I never ate from an animal whose gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, were not already separated.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖专讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讜转讬讛 讚讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗住讬专讗 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讬讛 讚讬讞讝拽讗诇

The proof is: Granted, if you say that it is permitted to slaughter and eat an animal in imminent danger of death, then that is the greatness of Ezekiel, as, although eating it is permitted, he refrained from doing so. But if you say that it is forbidden to slaughter and eat that animal, what in that action attests to the greatness of Ezekiel? Apparently, it is permitted to slaughter and eat an animal in danger of imminent death.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪住讜讻谞转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 讘拽注讬讜转 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 拽讜专讜转

搂 The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an animal in danger of imminent death? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is any animal with regard to which one stands it on its feet but it does not stand unaided. Rav 岣nina bar Shelamya in the name of Rav said: That indicator is so clear that even if that animal maintains sufficient strength in its jaw and eats pieces of wood, if it is unable to stand, its status is that of an animal in danger of imminent death. Rami bar Ye岣zkel said: That is the case even if that animal eats beams.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 诪住讜讻谞转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 讘拽注讬讜转 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 拽讜专讜转

In Sura, they would teach the exchange in that manner. In Pumbedita, they would teach the exchange in this manner: What are the circumstances of an animal in danger of imminent death? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is any animal with regard to which one stands it on its feet but it does not stand unaided, even if that animal maintains sufficient strength in its jaw and eats pieces of wood. Rami bar Ye岣zkel said: That indicator is so clear that even if that animal maintains sufficient strength in its jaw and eats beams, if it is unable to stand its status is that of an animal in danger of imminent death.

讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪住讜讻谞转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘

Shmuel found students of Rav after Rav鈥檚 death. He said to them: What did Rav say with regard to an animal in danger of imminent death? They said to him: This is what Rav said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 37

诪讗讬 讻讬 诪讛谞讬讗 讞讘转 讛拽讚砖 诇驻住讜诇讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪谞讗 讘讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara asks: What is the resolution of the dilemma raised by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: When regard for sanctity is effective in rendering an item susceptible to impurity, is it only to disqualify that item itself, but to count the descending levels of first-degree impurity and second-degree impurity, it is not effective; or perhaps once it is rendered susceptible to impurity there is no difference whether it is rendered susceptible by means of regard for sanctity or by means of contact with liquids? The Gemara answers: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛诪住讜讻谞转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转驻专讻住 讘讬讚 讜讘专讙诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讗诐 讝讬谞拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讻转诇讬诐 诪诇讗讬诐 讚诐 讻砖专讛 砖讝讬谞拽讛 讜讻诪讚转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖转驻专讻住 讗讜 讘讬讚 讗讜 讘专讙诇 讗讜 注讚 砖转讻砖讻砖 讘讝谞讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal that is in danger of imminent death, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slaughter is valid only in a case where after the slaughter it convulses with its foreleg and with its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient if blood spurted from the neck. Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who slaughters at night and the next day he awoke and found walls full of blood, the slaughter is valid, as it is clear that the blood spurted, and this is in accordance with the rule of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is valid only in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or in a case where it wags its tail.

讗讞讚 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 砖驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讛讞讝讬专讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讛讜爪讗转 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛讬转讛 讘讞讝拽转 诪住讜讻谞转 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘专讬讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛住讬诪谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讻砖专讛

This is the halakha with regard to both a small animal, e.g., a sheep, and a large animal, e.g., a cow, that is in danger of imminent death. The slaughter of a small animal that when being slaughtered extended its foreleg that was bent and did not restore it to the bent position is not valid, as extending the foreleg is only part of the natural course of removal of the animal鈥檚 soul from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the presumptive status of the animal was that it was in danger of imminent death. But if its presumptive status was that it was healthy, then even if there were none of these indicators, the slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 诪住讜讻谞转 诪诪讗讬 讚砖专讬讗 讜诪诪讗讬 转讬住拽 讗讚注转讬谉 讚讗住讬专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 讞讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讜砖讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讜讛讗 诪住讜讻谞转 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is it known that the flesh of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted by means of slaughter? The Gemara responds with a question: And from where would it enter your mind that it is prohibited? The Gemara explains that one may have thought it is prohibited, as it is written: 鈥淭hese are the living beings [ha岣yya] that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:2). One might have thought that the verse is saying: Eat an animal that is fit to live [岣yya], but do not eat an animal that is not fit to live. And this animal in danger of imminent death is not fit to live.

诪讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞讘诇讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚诪住讜讻谞转 砖专讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪住讜讻谞转 讗住讬专讗 讛砖转讗 诪讞讬讬诐 讗住讬专讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬

The fact that its meat is permitted is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states that you shall not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21); one learns by inference that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted. As, if it enters your mind that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is prohibited, now if an animal is prohibited while alive, is it necessary to state that it is prohibited after death?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 讛谞讙注 讘谞讘诇转讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讚拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讘诇讛 诪讞讬讬诐 诇讗 讗拽专讬 谞讘诇讛

The Gemara rejects that proof. And that is not a legitimate inference, as perhaps the halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, and the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass,鈥 includes both. The Gemara answers: It would not enter your mind to say so, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that it is after death that the Merciful One calls the animal a carcass; while alive, the animal is not called a carcass.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 诪讞讬讬诐 讘注砖讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讘诇讗讜

The Gemara questions that understanding. And perhaps, actually I will say to you: The halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, but if one slaughters the animal in danger of imminent death while alive, he would be in violation of a positive mitzva: 鈥淭hese are the living beings that you may eat鈥 (Leviticus 11:2), whereas after its death, he would be in violation of a prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21).

讗诇讗 诪讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚诪住讜讻谞转 砖专讬讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪住讜讻谞转 讗住讬专讗 讛砖转讗 诪住讜讻谞转 讚诇讗 诪讞住专讗 讗住讬专讗 讟专驻讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rather, the fact that its meat is permitted is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states you shall not eat that an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [tereifa]鈥 (Exodus 22:30). From here, one learns by inference that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted. As, if it enters your mind that eating the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is prohibited, now that an animal in danger of imminent death that is not lacking any limb is prohibited, is it necessary to state that a tereifa, an animal that was mauled and lacking body parts, is prohibited?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讘诇讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜诪讛 诪讞讬讬诐 拽讗讬 注诇讛 讘诇讗讜 讜注砖讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara rejects that proof. And that is not a legitimate inference, as perhaps the halakhic status of a tereifa that is lacking body parts is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death that is not lacking body parts, and both are included in the category of tereifa. This would render one who slaughters either to be in violation of both a positive mitzva: 鈥淭hese are the living beings that you may eat,鈥 and a prohibition: 鈥淎nd you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [tereifa].鈥 The Gemara questions that understanding: If so, why do I need the prohibition that the Merciful One writes with regard to an unslaughtered carcass? If while an animal is alive one stands in violation of a prohibition and a positive mitzva, is it necessary to state that it is prohibited after death?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 讜诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜注砖讛

The Gemara objects: And that is not a legitimate question, as perhaps the halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass is the same as a tereifa that is lacking body parts, and is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death that is not lacking body parts. Therefore, when the Torah writes the word 鈥渃arcass,鈥 it is the same as though it had written tereifa and the same as though it had written an animal in danger of imminent death. The Torah prohibits each, and the result will be that he will violate two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛 讬注砖讛 诇讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讛讜 讜讗诪专 诪专 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专讛 讛转讜专讛 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 谞讘诇讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讜讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘

Rather, the fact that the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted is derived from here: 鈥淎nd the fat of a carcass and the fat of a tereifa may be used for any purpose; but you shall not eat it鈥 (Leviticus 7:24). And the Master says: In order to derive what halakha is this verse written? Would one imagine that because it is an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa its fat would be permitted for consumption? The Torah states: Let the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered carcass come and take effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which already exists. One who eats the forbidden fat of an unslaughtered carcass is liable for violation of both prohibitions. Likewise, the word 鈥tereifa鈥 in the verse teaches: Let the prohibition against eating a tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which already exists, so that one who eats the forbidden fat of a tereifa is liable for transgressing both prohibitions.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讬注砖讛 诇讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜讞诇讘 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜讛讜 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讜诪讛 诪讞讬讬诐 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讬诇 讗讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

And if it enters your mind to say that the halakhic status of a tereifa lacking body parts is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, let the Merciful One write: And the fat of a carcass may be used for any purpose, and the fat of a tereifa you shall not eat. The prohibition against eating the forbidden fat should have been written exclusively with regard to a tereifa, and I would say: If while an animal is alive and in danger of imminent death the prohibition against eating a tereifa takes effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, is it necessary to state that after its death the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered carcass takes effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat?

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞讘诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转

The Gemara concludes: Rather, from the fact that the Merciful One writes that the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered carcass takes effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, one learns by inference that the tereifa in the verse is not the same as an animal in danger of imminent death. Rather, the tereifa in the verse is an animal that was mauled and is lacking body parts, and it is only that animal that is prohibited after slaughter. Eating an animal in danger of imminent death after slaughter is permitted.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛讬讬谞讜 讟专驻讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讚拽讗诪专转 谞讘诇讛 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讛讱 谞讘诇讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讻讞 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖注砖讗讛 讙讬住讟专讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪住讜讻谞转 驻讜专转讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬驻住拽 诇专讜讘讗

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: And perhaps, actually I will say to you that the halakhic status of a tereifa is the same as that of an animal in danger of imminent death, and with regard to that which you said: Why do I need the prohibition with regard to an unslaughtered carcass that the Merciful One writes, one can explain that it is necessary for that unslaughtered carcass that does not come as a result of danger of imminent death. And what are the circumstances of that unslaughtered carcass? It is in a case where one rendered the animal like a shard, by cutting it into two widthwise. The Gemara rejects that distinction: There too, in the case where one rendered the animal like a shard, it is impossible that the animal was not at least somewhat in danger of imminent death before he cut the majority of the animal.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 讞诇讘 讞诇讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗讬谉 讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讜讬砖 诇讱 讗讞专转 砖讞诇讘讛 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讝讜 诪住讜讻谞转

And if you wish, say instead that there is a different source for the fact that the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted. If it is so that an animal in danger of imminent death is included in the category of tereifa, let the verse say: The fat of an unslaughtered carcass and a tereifa. Why do I need it to be written: 鈥淔at of a carcass and the fat of a tereifa鈥? The term 鈥渇at鈥 is repeated to teach that it is this case where the status of its fat is not distinct from the status of its meat, and both are prohibited; but you have another case where the status of its fat, which is forbidden, is distinct from the status of its meat, which is permitted. And which case is that? That is the case of an animal in danger of imminent death.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讗诪专 讗讛讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪谞注讜专讬 讜注讚 注转讛 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇

And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: 鈥淭hen I said: Ah, Lord God, my soul has not become impure; and from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa, and no piggul flesh came into my mouth鈥 (Ezekiel 4:14).

讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛专讛专转讬 讘讬讜诐 诇讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪谞注讜专讬 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘砖专 讻讜住 讻讜住 诪注讜诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖讛讜专讛 讘讛 讞讻诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 诪转谞讜转讬讛

The Gemara explains: 鈥淢y soul has not become impure鈥 means that I did not consider any sinful thoughts during the day that would cause me to come to impurity due to a seminal emission at night. 鈥淎nd from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa means that I never ate the flesh of an animal that was in danger of imminent death, leading one to say: Slaughter it, slaughter it quickly, before it dies. 鈥淎nd no piggul flesh came into my mouth鈥 means that I never ate from an animal with regard to which there was uncertainty whether it is forbidden and a Sage issued a ruling to permit it. They said in the name of Rabbi Natan that the last portion of the verse means: That I never ate from an animal whose gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, were not already separated.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖专讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讜转讬讛 讚讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗住讬专讗 诪讗讬 专讘讜转讬讛 讚讬讞讝拽讗诇

The proof is: Granted, if you say that it is permitted to slaughter and eat an animal in imminent danger of death, then that is the greatness of Ezekiel, as, although eating it is permitted, he refrained from doing so. But if you say that it is forbidden to slaughter and eat that animal, what in that action attests to the greatness of Ezekiel? Apparently, it is permitted to slaughter and eat an animal in danger of imminent death.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪住讜讻谞转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 讘拽注讬讜转 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 拽讜专讜转

搂 The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of an animal in danger of imminent death? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is any animal with regard to which one stands it on its feet but it does not stand unaided. Rav 岣nina bar Shelamya in the name of Rav said: That indicator is so clear that even if that animal maintains sufficient strength in its jaw and eats pieces of wood, if it is unable to stand, its status is that of an animal in danger of imminent death. Rami bar Ye岣zkel said: That is the case even if that animal eats beams.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 诪住讜讻谞转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诪讚转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 讘拽注讬讜转 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇转 拽讜专讜转

In Sura, they would teach the exchange in that manner. In Pumbedita, they would teach the exchange in this manner: What are the circumstances of an animal in danger of imminent death? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is any animal with regard to which one stands it on its feet but it does not stand unaided, even if that animal maintains sufficient strength in its jaw and eats pieces of wood. Rami bar Ye岣zkel said: That indicator is so clear that even if that animal maintains sufficient strength in its jaw and eats beams, if it is unable to stand its status is that of an animal in danger of imminent death.

讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪住讜讻谞转 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘

Shmuel found students of Rav after Rav鈥檚 death. He said to them: What did Rav say with regard to an animal in danger of imminent death? They said to him: This is what Rav said:

Scroll To Top