Chullin 73

Chapter 73

א מאי כי מהניא חבת הקדש לפסולא דגופיה אבל למימנא ביה ראשון ושני לא או דלמא לא שנא
1 Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having established that the conception of sacred esteem is Biblical to the extent of burning the consecrated foodstuffs that have been rendered unclean on its account.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב תיקו:
2 the question [to R'Simeon B'Lakish] is this: Is the conception of sacred esteem effectual to the extent only of rendering the matter invalid but not of enabling it to transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees, or is there no such distinction?
ג <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את המסוכנת רשב"ג אומר
3 The question remains undecided.
ד עד שתפרכס ביד וברגל ר"א אומר
4 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED A DYING ANIMAL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an animal which is dangerously sick. It is feared that the animal might have died before the slaughtering was completed, hence it is necessary to ascertain, by means of the tests of vitality suggested, that the animal was still alive up to the end of the slaughtering.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה דיה אם זינקה
5 R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS.
ו אמר ר"ש
6 [THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID] UNLESS IT JERKED ITS FORELEG AND ITS HIND LEG.
ז השוחט בלילה ולמחר השכים ומצא כתלים מלאים דם כשרה שזינקה וכמדת ר"א
7 R'ELIEZER SAYS, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF IT SPURTED [THE BLOOD].
ח וחכ"א
8 R'SIMEON SAID.
ט עד שתפרכס או ביד או ברגל או עד שתכשכש בזנבה
9 IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED [A DYING ANIMAL] BY NIGHT AND EARLY THE FOLLOWING MORNING FOUND THE SIDES [OF THE THROAT] FULL OF BLOOD, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.
י אחד בהמה דקה ואחד בהמה גסה
10 FOR THIS PROVES THAT IT SPURTED [THE BLOOD], WHICH IS SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TO R'ELIEZER'S VIEW.
יא בהמה דקה שפשטה ידה ולא החזירה פסולה שאינה אלא הוצאת נפש בלבד
11 THE SAGES SAY, [THE SLAUGHTERING IS INVALID] UNLESS IT JERKED EITHER ITS FORELEG OR ITS HIND LEG, OR IT MOVED ITS TAIL TO AND FRO; AND THIS IS THE TEST BOTH WITH REGARD TO LARGE AND SMALL ANIMALS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By 'large animals' is meant oxen, by 'small animals' sheep and goats.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
יב במה דברים אמורים שהיתה בחזקת מסוכנת אבל אם היתה בחזקת בריאה אפי' אין בה אחד מכל הסימנים הללו כשרה:
12 IF A SMALL ANIMAL STRETCHED OUT ITS FORELEG [AT THE END OF THE SLAUGHTERING].
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מסוכנת ממאי דשריא
13 BUT DID NOT WITHDRAW IT, [THE SLAUGHTERING] IS INVALID.
יד וממאי תיסק אדעתין דאסירא
14 FOR THIS WAS BUT AN INDICATION OF THE EXPIRATION OF ITS LIFE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not a sign of vitality. In the case of large animals such a movement would be regarded as a sign of vitality; v. GEMARA:');"><sup>4</sup></span>
טו דכתיב
15 THESE RULES APPLY ONLY TO THE CASE OF AN ANIMAL WHICH WAS BELIEVED TO BE DYING.
טז (ויקרא יא, ב) זאת החיה אשר תאכלו חיה אכול ושאינה חיה לא תאכל והא מסוכנת אינה חיה
16 BUT IF IT WAS BELIEVED TO BE SOUND, EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT SHOW ANY OF THESE SIGNS, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.
יז מדאמר רחמנא (דברים יד, כא) נבלה לא תאכל מכלל דמסוכנת שריא
17 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>How do you know that a dying animal [which was slaughtered]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it jerked its limbs after the slaughtering.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יח דאי ס"ד מסוכנת אסירא השתא מחיים אסירא לאחר מיתה מיבעי
18 is permitted to be eaten? (
יט ודלמא היינו נבלה היינו מסוכנת
19 But why should you assume that it is forbidden?
כ לא ס"ד דכתיב
20 Because it is written: These are the living things which ye may eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 2.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כא (ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה אשר היא לכם לאכלה הנוגע בנבלתה לאחר מיתה הוא דקרייה רחמנא נבלה מחיים לא אקרי נבלה
21 that is to say, that which can live you may eat, but that which cannot live you may not eat, and a dying animal cannot live).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So there is good reason for holding that a dying animal, even if slaughtered, may not be eaten. The first question therefore remains.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
כב ודלמא לעולם אימא לך
22 [We know it from here.] Since the Divine Law ordains that nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The prohibition is stated in Deut. XIV, 21.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
כג היינו נבלה היינו מסוכנת מחיים בעשה לאחר מיתה בלאו
23 is forbidden to be eaten, it follows that a dying animal is permitted; for if you were to say that a dying animal is forbidden, [then it will be asked:] if it is already forbidden whilst still alive, is there any doubt after death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since generally a nebelah is in a lingering dying condition previous to its death. So that the 'law prohibiting nebelah would be superfluous.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
כד אלא מדאמר רחמנא (שמות כב, ל) טרפה לא תאכל מכלל דמסוכנת שריא
24 But perhaps the term nebelah includes a dying animal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he who partakes of a dying animal (even if ritually slaughtered) transgresses the implied prohibition of Lev. XI, 2, and also the express prohibition of Deut. XIV, 21.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
כה דאי ס"ד מסוכנת אסירא השתא מסוכנת דלא מחסרא אסירא טרפה מיבעיא
25 This cannot be, for it is written: And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die, he that touches the carcass [nebelah] thereof shall be unclean until the even,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כו ודלמא היינו טרפה היינו מסוכנת ולעבור עליו בעשה ולא תעשה
26 that is to say, when it is dead the Divine Law terms it nebelah, but whilst still alive it is not termed nebelah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The position now is that it is proved that a dying animal is permitted, for if forbidden then the prohibition of nebelah is superfluous.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כז א"כ נבלה דכתב רחמנא ל"ל
27 But perhaps [the term] of nebelah, I still maintain, includes the dying animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a dying animal is forbidden, and yet the prohibition of nebelah is not superfluous.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כח ומה מחיים קאי עלה בלאו ועשה לאחר מיתה מיבעיא
28 but whereas the animal is still alive [one who partakes of it transgresses] a positive law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the contravention of a prohibition implied by a positive law is regarded as an infringement of a positive commandment.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כט ודלמא היינו נבלה היינו טרפה היינו מסוכנת ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין ועשה
29 after death [one who partakes of it transgresses] a prohibition [as well]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one transgresses the express prohibition of Deut. XIV, 21, and also the positive law (i.e., the implied prohibition) of Lev. XI, 2.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ל אלא מהכא
30 Rather we must derive it from here.
לא (ויקרא ז, כד) וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה יעשה לכל מלאכה ואכל לא תאכלוהו ואמר מר
31 Since the Divine Law ordains that trefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The prohibition is stated in Ex. XXII, 30.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לב למאי הלכתא
32 is forbidden to be eaten, it follows that a dying animal is permitted; for if you were to Say that a dying animal is forbidden, [then it will be asked:] if a dying animal which is not physically deficient is forbidden, is ther any doubt about a trefah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the verse prohibiting trefah would be superfluous.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לג אמרה התורה
33 But perhaps the term trefah includes a dying animal, [yet trefah was expressly prohibited] to teach that one [who partakes thereof] transgresses a positive law as well as a prohibition!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The positive law of Lev. XI, 2, and the prohibition of Ex. XXII, 30.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
לד יבא איסור נבלה ויחול על איסור חלב יבא איסור טרפה ויחול על איסור חלב
34 If so, wherefore does the Divine law expressly prohibit nebelah? For if while the animal is yet alive one [who partakes of it] transgresses a positive law as well as a prohibition, is there any doubt after death? But perhaps the term nebelah includes a trefah and also a dying animal, and the law now provides that one [who partakes of a dying trefah animal after its death] transgresses two prohibitions and one positive law!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The positive law (i.e., the implied prohibition) with regard to a dying animal derived from Lev. XI, 2, and the prohibition of trefah from Ex. XXII, 30, and of nebelah from Deut. XIV, 21.');"><sup>19</sup></span> - Rather derive it from here. It is written: And the fat of that which dieth of itself [nebelah], and the fat of that which is torn of beasts [trefah], may be used for any other service, but you shall in no wise eat of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 24.');"><sup>20</sup></span> And a Master said: For what purpose is this stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the latter part of the verse: But you shall in no wise eat of it. There is a general prohibition of all fat in Lev. III, 17.');"><sup>21</sup></span> The Torah says: Let the prohibition of nebelah come and be superimposed upon the prohibition of fat, and likewise let the prohibition of trefah come and be superimposed upon the prohibition of fat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that one who eats the fat of a trefah transgresses two prohibitions (sc. the prohibition of fat and the prohibition of trefah) , and likewise one who eats the fat of a nebelah.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter