## Chullin Daf 37a

###### Chullin 37a:1
[Chullin 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:1)

מַאי? כִּי מַהְנְיָא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לִפְסוּלָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְמִימְנֵא בֵּיהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 37a:2
[Chullin 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמְסוּכֶּנֶת, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתְּפַרְכֵּס בַּיָּד וּבָרֶגֶל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ אִם זִינְּקָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה, וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא כְּתָלִים מְלֵאִים דָּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁזִּינְּקָה, וּכְמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתְּפַרְכֵּס אוֹ בַיָּד אוֹ בָרֶגֶל, אוֹ עַד שֶׁתְּכַשְׁכֵּשׁ בִּזְנָבָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 37a:3
[Chullin 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:3)

אֶחָד בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה וְאֶחָד בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה, בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחְזִירָה – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבָד. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּחֶזְקַת מְסוּכֶּנֶת, אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה בְּחֶזְקַת בְּרִיאָה, אֲפִילּוּ אֵין בָּהּ אֶחָד מִכׇּל הַסִּימָנִים הַלָּלוּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s **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.**


###### Chullin 37a:4
[Chullin 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מְסוּכֶּנֶת מִמַּאי דְּשַׁרְיָא? וּמִמַּאי תִּיסַּק אַדַּעְתִּין דַּאֲסִירָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״, חַיָּה אֱכוֹל, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה לֹא תֹּאכַל. וְהָא מְסוּכֶּנֶת אֵינָהּ חַיָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “These are the living beings [*haḥayya*] that you may eat** among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). One might have thought that the verse is saying: **Eat** an animal that is fit to **live [*ḥayya*], 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.**


###### Chullin 37a:5
[Chullin 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:5)

מִדְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נְבֵלָה לֹא תֹּאכֵל, מִכְּלָל דִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת שַׁרְיָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מְסוּכֶּנֶת אֲסִירָא – הַשְׁתָּא מֵחַיִּים אֲסִירָא, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבְּעֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass” (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?**


###### Chullin 37a:6
[Chullin 37a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:6)

וְדִלְמָא הַיְינוּ נְבֵלָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִיא לָכֶם לְאׇכְלָה הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ״, לְאַחַר מִיתָה הוּא דְּקַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא נְבֵלָה, מֵחַיִּים לָא אִקְּרַי נְבֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass,” includes both. The Gemara answers: **It would not enter your mind** to say so, **as it is written: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass** shall be impure until the evening” (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.**


###### Chullin 37a:7
[Chullin 37a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:7)

וְדִלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: הַיְינוּ נְבֵלָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, מֵחַיִּים – בַּעֲשֵׂה, לְאַחַר מִיתָה – בְּלָאו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “These are the living beings that you may eat” (Leviticus 11:2), whereas **after** its **death,** he would be **in** violation of **a prohibition:** “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass” (Deuteronomy 14:21).


###### Chullin 37a:8
[Chullin 37a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:8)

אֶלָּא, מִדְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹּאכַל – מִכְּלָל דִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת שַׁרְיָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מְסוּכֶּנֶת אֲסִירָא, הַשְׁתָּא מְסוּכֶּנֶת דְּלָא מְחַסְּרָא אֲסִירָא, טְרֵפָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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: “And you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [*tereifa*]” (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?


###### Chullin 37a:9
[Chullin 37a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:9)

וְדִלְמָא הַיְינוּ טְרֵפָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה! אִם כֵּן, נְבֵלָה דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? וּמָה מֵחַיִּים קָאֵי עֲלַהּ בְּלָאו וַעֲשֵׂה, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “These are the living beings that you may eat,” **and a prohibition:** “And you shall not eat any animal that was mauled in the field [*tereifa*].” 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?**


###### Chullin 37a:10
[Chullin 37a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:10)

וְדִלְמָא הַיְינוּ נְבֵלָה, הַיְינוּ טְרֵפָה, הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין וַעֲשֵׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 “carcass,” 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.


###### Chullin 37a:11
[Chullin 37a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/37a:11)

אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא, ״וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכׇל מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלֻהוּ״, וְאָמַר מָר: לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה? יָבֹא אִיסּוּר נְבֵלָה וְיָחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב, יָבֹא אִיסּוּר טְרֵפָה וְיָחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the fact that the meat of an animal in danger of imminent death is permitted is derived **from here: “And the fat of a carcass and the fat of a *tereifa* may be used for any purpose; but you shall not eat it”** (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 “*tereifa*” 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.