## Chullin Daf 38a

###### Chullin 38a:1
[Chullin 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:1)

גּוֹעָה וְהֵטִילָה רֶיעִי וְכִשְׁכְּשָׁה בְּאׇזְנָהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה פִּירְכּוּס. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּא לְאֹזוֹזֵי אוּנֵּי, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ [עוֹשָׂה] דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַמֵּתָה עוֹשָׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the animal **lows, or excreted excrement, or wiggled its ear** during the slaughter, **that is a convulsion,** and the slaughter renders eating the flesh of the animal permitted. Shmuel **said to them: Is it necessary** according **to Abba,** i.e., Rav, for the animal **to move its ears** during the slaughter, which requires a considerable life force? **As I say: Any** movements of the animal **that are not matters that the death** of the animal **engenders** are convulsions sufficient to render the slaughter valid.


###### Chullin 38a:2
[Chullin 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:2)

מַאי נִינְהוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַמֵּתָה עוֹשָׂה? אָמַר רַב עָנָן: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל – הָיְתָה יָדָהּ כְּפוּפָה וּפְשָׁטַתָּה – דָּבָר שֶׁהַמֵּתָה עוֹשֶׂה, פְּשׁוּטָה וּכְפָפַתָּה – דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין הַמֵּתָה עוֹשָׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are matters that the death** of the animal **engenders? Rav Anan said:** This **was explained to me from Master Shmuel** himself: If the animal’s **foreleg was bent, and** the animal **straightened it,** that is **a matter that the death** of the animal **engenders.** But if its foreleg was **straight and** the animal **bent** it, that is among the **matters that the death** of the animal **does not engender** and is a convulsion sufficient to render the slaughter valid.


###### Chullin 38a:3
[Chullin 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:3)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחְזִירָה – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ; הָא הֶחְזִירָה – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** Shmuel **teaching us** with that statement? **We** already **learn** in the mishna: The slaughter of **a small animal that** during its slaughter **extended its foreleg** that was bent **and did not restore** it to the bent position **is not valid, as** extending the foreleg **is nothing other than** part of the natural course of **removal** of the animal’s **soul** from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. **But** one may infer that if the animal does **restore** its foreleg to the bent position, that indicates life and the slaughter is **valid.**


###### Chullin 38a:4
[Chullin 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:4)

אִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דַּוְקָא דְּכַיְיפָה וּפָשְׁטָה וַהֲדַר כָּיְיפָה לַהּ, אֲבָל פְּשׁוּטָה וּכְפָפַתָּה – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** the *halakha* is learned **from the mishna** alone, **I would say** that it is **specifically** in a case **where** the animal’s foreleg had been **bent, and** the animal now **straightens** it **and then bends it,** that the slaughter is valid. **But** if the foreleg had been **straight and** the animal **bent it,** the slaughter is **not** valid. Therefore, Shmuel **teaches us** that if its foreleg was straight and the animal bent it; that is a convulsion sufficient to render the slaughter valid.


###### Chullin 38a:5
[Chullin 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:5)

מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: גּוֹעָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה – אֵין זֶה פִּירְכּוּס. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: אֲפִילּוּ הֵטִילָה רֶיעִי וְכִשְׁכְּשָׁה בִּזְנָבָהּ – אֵין זֶה פִּירְכּוּס. קַשְׁיָא גּוֹעָה אַגּוֹעָה, קַשְׁיָא רֶיעִי אַרֶיעִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* to Rav’s statement cited earlier. **Rabbi Yosei says** that **Rabbi Meir would say:** If an animal **lows during its slaughter, that is not** a **convulsion** sufficient to render the slaughter valid. **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in** the **name** of Rabbi Yosei: **Even** if the animal **excreted excrement or wagged its tail, that is not** a **convulsion** sufficient to render the slaughter valid. The Gemara now clarifies: Rabbi Yosei’s statement in the *baraita* that if an animal **lows** it is not a convulsion sufficient to render the slaughter valid is **difficult,** as it contradicts the statement of Rav that if an animal **lows** it is a convulsion. And Rabbi Elazar’s statement in the *baraita* that if an animal excreted **excrement** it is not a convulsion sufficient to render the slaughter valid **is difficult,** as it contradicts the statement of Rav that if an animal excreted **excrement** it is a convulsion.


###### Chullin 38a:6
[Chullin 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:6)

גּוֹעָה אַגּוֹעָה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּעָבֵי קָלַהּ, הָא דְּעָמֵי קָלַהּ. רֶיעִי אַרֶיעִי נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּשׁוֹתֶתֶת, כָּאן בְּמַתְרֶזֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the opinion that when an animal **lows** it is a convulsion and the opinion that when an animal **lows** it is not a convulsion is **not difficult. This** opinion, that it is a convulsion, is referring to a case **where** the animal’s **voice** is **rich** and powerful, a clear indication of life; **that** opinion, that it is not a convulsion, is referring to a case **where** the animal’s **voice** is **muted,** which is not an indication of life. The apparent contradiction between the opinion that when an animal excreted **excrement** it is a convulsion and the opinion that when an animal excreted **excrement** it is not a convulsion is also **not difficult. Here,** the opinion that it is not a convulsion is referring to a case where the animal **expels** the excrement **in a trickle.** That is not an indication of life. **There,** the opinion that it is a convulsion is referring to a case where the animal **expels** the excrement **with force.** That is an indication of life.


###### Chullin 38a:7
[Chullin 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:7)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: פִּירְכּוּס שֶׁאָמְרוּ – בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה. מַאי בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה? בְּאֶמְצַע שְׁחִיטָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי תְּחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its definition of convulsion that indicates life. **Rav Ḥisda said:** I was taught that **the convulsion that** the Sages **said** is an indication of life is a convulsion **at the conclusion of** the act of **slaughter.** Rav Ḥisda elaborates: **What** is the meaning of: **At the conclusion of** the act of **slaughter?** It means even **in the midst of the slaughter.** The Sages said that it must be at the conclusion of the slaughter only **to exclude** convulsions at **the beginning of** the act of **slaughter, which** are **not** an indication of life.


###### Chullin 38a:8
[Chullin 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:8)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחְזִירָה – פְּסוּלָה. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה, כֹּל הָכִי תֵּיחֵי וְתֵיזִיל? אֶלָּא לָאו בְּאֶמְצַע שְׁחִיטָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: From where do I say** that a convulsion in the midst of the act of slaughter is an indication of life? It is from the mishna, **as we learned:** 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. Rav Ḥisda elaborates: **When** did the animal extend its foreleg but not restore it? **If we say** that it occurred **at the conclusion of** the **slaughter, must** the animal **continue living** for **so extended** a period that it restores its leg to its bent position after the slaughter is complete? Is the slaughter truly not valid otherwise? **Rather, is it not** that the mishna is referring to a case where the animal extends its foreleg **in the middle of** the **slaughter?** If so, then when it restores its leg as well, it is considered a convulsion that indicates life.


###### Chullin 38a:9
[Chullin 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשֶׂה כֵּן בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנִּשְׁמָתָהּ נְטוּלָה הֵימֶנָּה קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Ḥisda: That is no proof. **Actually,** one could explain that the mishna is referring to a case where the animal extends its foreleg but did not restore it to the bent position at **the conclusion of** the **slaughter, as I say** with regard to **any** animal **that does not do so at the conclusion of** the **slaughter, it is known that its soul was taken from it before that** moment, and it was not alive.


###### Chullin 38a:10
[Chullin 38a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:10)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: פִּירְכּוּס שֶׁאָמְרוּ – בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The convulsion that** the Sages **said** is an indication of life is a convulsion even **at the beginning of** the act of **slaughter.**


###### Chullin 38a:11
[Chullin 38a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:11)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה, וּלְמָחָר מָצָא כְּתָלִים מְלֵאִים דָּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁזִּינְּקָה, וּכְמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כּוֹתְלֵי בֵּית שְׁחִיטָה שָׁנִינוּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה זִינְּקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak** explained further and **said: From where do I say** that this is so? It is from the mishna, **as we learned** that **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 Shmuel said** with regard to the walls mentioned in the statement of Rabbi Shimon: It is **the walls of the place of the slaughter,** i.e., the walls of the neck, not the walls of the house, that **we learned. Granted, if you say** that a convulsion even **at the beginning of** the act of **slaughter** is an indication of life, this works out **well. But if you say** that a convulsion is an indication of life only **at the conclusion of** the act of **slaughter, let us be concerned** that **perhaps** the blood **spurted** onto the walls of the neck **at the beginning of** the act of **slaughter,** and there was no indication of life.


###### Chullin 38a:12
[Chullin 38a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:12)

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי זִינּוּק, דַּעֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof. **But perhaps spurting is different, as** it is **superior** as an indication of life to extending or bending a foreleg, and therefore, although extending or bending a foreleg is a sufficient indicator of life only at the conclusion of the act of slaughter, spurting is a sufficient indicator even at the beginning of the act of slaughter.


###### Chullin 38a:13
[Chullin 38a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:13)

וּמִי עֲדִיף? וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּיהּ אִם זִינְּקָה, קַל מִדְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וַעֲדִיף מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is** spurting **superior? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **Rabbi Eliezer says it is sufficient if** blood **spurted** from the neck, indicating that spurting of blood is a less substantive indication of life than those indications mentioned in the statement of Rabban Gamliel, who requires that the animal convulse with its foreleg and with its hind leg? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer’s requirement of spurting is **less** substantive **than** the requirements **of Rabban Gamliel** as an indication of life, **but superior to** the requirement of **the Rabbis** as an indication of life, where the Rabbis require that the animal convulse either with its foreleg or with its hind leg.


###### Chullin 38a:14
[Chullin 38a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:14)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אָמַר לִי סַמָּא בַּר חִילְקַאי, אַקְשִׁי בַּהּ אֲבוּהּ דְּבַר אַבּוּבְרָם, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אֲחוּהּ דְּבַר אַבּוּבְרָם: וּמִדְּרַבָּנַן מִי עֲדִיף? וְהָא תְּנַן: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁתְּפַרְכֵּס אוֹ בַיָּד אוֹ בָרֶגֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Samma bar Ḥilkai said to me** that **the father of bar Abuveram, and some say** that it was **the brother of bar Abuveram, raises a difficulty: And is** blood spurting **superior to** the requirement of **the Rabbis** as an indication of life? **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **And the Rabbis say:** It is permitted **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 38a:15
[Chullin 38a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:15)

רַבָּנַן אַהֵי קָיְימִי? אִילֵּימָא אַדְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – ״כֵּיוָן שֶׁפִּירְכְּסָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina elaborates: **To which** statement of the *tanna’im* in the mishna **do the Rabbis stand** and respond? **If we say** that they are responding to the statement **of Rabban Gamliel,** who requires that the animal convulse with its foreleg and with its hind leg, the Rabbis **should** have said: **Once** the animal **convulsed** with its foreleg or with its hind leg or it wagged its tail, indicating that this is sufficient.


###### Chullin 38a:16
[Chullin 38a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:16)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא אַדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְאִי עֲדִיף, מַאי ״עַד״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious** that the Rabbis are responding to the statement **of Rabbi Eliezer. And if** Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is **superior** to that of the Rabbis as an indication of life, **what** is the meaning of: It is permitted **only** in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg or it wags its tail? In that case too, the Rabbis should have said: Once the animal convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg or it wags its tail. Apparently, blood spurting is a less substantive indication of life, and the proof of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak remains valid: If spurting at the beginning of the act of slaughter is a sufficient indication of life to render the slaughter valid, then all the more so, extending and bending a limb are also sufficient indications of life.


###### Chullin 38a:17
[Chullin 38a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/38a:17)

רָבָא אָמַר: פִּירְכּוּס שֶׁאָמְרוּ – בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The convulsion that** the Rabbis **said** is an indication of life is a convulsion **at the conclusion of** the act of **slaughter. Rava said: From where do I say** that this is the case? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27). The phrase **“a bull**