Chullin Daf 37 (חולין דף ל״ז)
Daf: 37 | Amudim: 37a – 37b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (37a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
Closing daf 36’s sugya — Reish Lakish’s dilemma about חיבת הקודש is left unresolved as תיקו.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי? כִּי מַהְנְיָא חִבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לִפְסוּלָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְמִימְנֵא בֵּיהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by closing the long sugya from 36. Although the Gemara established that חיבת הקודש is Torah-level, Reish Lakish’s specific dilemma — whether it generates the full impurity chain (ראשון, שני) or only disqualifies the item itself — is left unresolved as תיקו. The Gemara now pivots from purity-of-foods (תורת הכשר) back to the laws of slaughter, introducing the new mishna of המסוכנת.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיקוּ = An unresolved dilemma — traditionally interpreted as an acronym for תשבי יתרץ קושיות ובעיות (“Tishbi [Elijah] will resolve questions and dilemmas”)
- לִפְסוּלָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ = “To disqualify the item itself” — i.e., the lighter effect, without further propagation
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
New mishna: how to validate the slaughter of a dying animal (מסוכנת) — multiple Tannaitic standards.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna introduces a major topic — שחיטת מסוכנת, slaughter of an animal at the brink of death. The concern is that the animal may have died of its own before the slaughter was effective. The Tannaim differ on what post-slaughter sign demonstrates it was still alive: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires convulsing of both foreleg and hind leg; Rabbi Eliezer is satisfied with blood spurting (זינוק); Rabbi Shimon endorses Rabbi Eliezer through the famous case of blood on walls discovered the next morning; the Rabbis require foreleg, hind leg, or tail wagging.
Key Terms:
- מְסוּכֶּנֶת = An animal in imminent danger of death — too weak to clearly demonstrate vitality
- תְּפַרְכֵּס = Convulses — the post-slaughter sign of having been alive at the moment of shechita
- זִינְּקָה = “Spurted” — blood emerging under arterial pressure, indicating the animal was alive
- תְּכַשְׁכֵּשׁ בִּזְנָבָהּ = “Wags its tail” — the minimal sign the Rabbis accept
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
The mishna continues: small vs. large animals, the extended-foreleg distinction, and the role of presumed status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues with three crucial clarifications. (1) The rules apply equally to small and large livestock. (2) A small animal that extends its foreleg without retracting it is invalid — that motion is הוצאת נפש (the soul’s exit) rather than evidence of life. (3) These signs are required only when the animal had the presumptive status (חזקה) of being מסוכנת; a presumed-healthy animal needs no such signs at all. The חזקה of bri’ut (“healthy”) is the operative default.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה / גַּסָּה = Small / large livestock (sheep/goat vs. cow/ox)
- הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ = “Removal of the soul” — agonal motions reflecting death, not vitality
- בְּחֶזְקַת מְסוּכֶּנֶת / בְּרִיאָה = “In the presumed status of dying / healthy” — the prior status determines whether vitality-signs are required
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara opens by asking the foundational question — what is the textual basis for permitting מסוכנת at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסוּכֶּנֶת מִמַּאי דְּשַׁרְיָא? וּמִמַּאי תִּיסַּק אַדַּעְתִּין דַּאֲסִירָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״, חַיָּה אֱכוֹל, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה לֹא תֹּאכַל. וְהָא מְסוּכֶּנֶת אֵינָהּ חַיָּה?
English Translation:
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 [hachayya] 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 [chayya], 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens an extensive derivation hunt for the basic premise of the mishna — that שחיטת מסוכנת is even valid. Why might one think it isn’t? The verse “זאת החיה אשר תאכלו” (Vayikra 11:2) literally reads “these are the LIVING that you may eat” — perhaps it is excluding animals not viable to live. A מסוכנת is by definition not “living” in that robust sense, so its meat might be forbidden.
Key Terms:
- מִמַּאי דְּשַׁרְיָא = “From where is it [derived to be] permitted?” — request for textual grounding
- ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ = “These are the living that you may eat” (Vayikra 11:2) — the proposed restrictive reading
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
First attempted source: the prohibition of nevelah implies מסוכנת is permitted (otherwise why prohibit it after death?).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נְבֵלָה לֹא תֹּאכֵל, מִכְּלָל דִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת שַׁרְיָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מְסוּכֶּנֶת אֲסִירָא – הַשְׁתָּא מֵחַיִּים אֲסִירָא, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבְּעֵי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s first proposed proof: the Torah’s prohibition of נבלה (Devarim 14:21) is itself evidence that שחיטה of a מסוכנת works. If a מסוכנת were inherently forbidden — already prohibited while alive — there would be no need to add a separate prohibition for its post-mortem state as a carcass. The very existence of the נבלה prohibition implies מסוכנת becomes נבלה only after death, which means while alive it remains slaughterable.
Key Terms:
- ״נְבֵלָה לֹא תֹּאכֵל״ = “You shall not eat a carcass” (Devarim 14:21) — the prohibition on un-slaughtered animals
- הַשְׁתָּא… מִיבְּעֵי? = “Now [if a]… would it need [stating]?” — the קל וחומר-style of reasoning
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Counter and reply: maybe מסוכנת IS נבלה? No — נבלה is a category defined only post-mortem.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A challenge to the proof: maybe נבלה and מסוכנת share the same status, and the נבלה verse encompasses both. The Gemara replies from Vayikra 11:39: “וכי ימות מן הבהמה…” — the word ימות (dies) shows the Torah names an animal נבלה only after death. While alive, even a dying animal is not “נבלה” — so the prohibition cannot logically include it.
Key Terms:
- הַיְינוּ נְבֵלָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת = “נבלה and מסוכנת are the same” — the counter-proposal the Gemara must rule out
- ״וְכִי יָמוּת…״ = “And if any animal dies” (Vayikra 11:39) — the verse showing נבלה is a post-mortem category
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
A counter-counter: maybe מסוכנת is in fact נבלה but yields a positive mitzva while alive and a לאו after death.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: הַיְינוּ נְבֵלָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, מֵחַיִּים – בַּעֲשֵׂה, לְאַחַר מִיתָה – בְּלָאו.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara is not done. Perhaps מסוכנת and נבלה really are equivalent — but the legal mechanism differs: while alive, slaughtering it would violate the positive mitzvah “זאת החיה אשר תאכלו” (only living animals); after death it would violate the negative prohibition of נבלה. Both states are forbidden; they’re just regulated by different verses. This undermines the previous derivation, so a stronger proof is needed.
Key Terms:
- עֲשֵׂה / לָאו = Positive mitzvah / prohibition — two distinct halachic mechanisms
- לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ = “I can still maintain…” — the Talmudic formula for persisting in a rejected position with a refinement
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Second attempted source: the prohibition of טריפה implies מסוכנת is permitted by קל וחומר.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מִדְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹּאכַל – מִכְּלָל דִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת שַׁרְיָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מְסוּכֶּנֶת אֲסִירָא, הַשְׁתָּא מְסוּכֶּנֶת דְּלָא מְחַסְּרָא אֲסִירָא, טְרֵפָה מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
A new approach: derive the permissibility from the prohibition of טריפה (Shemot 22:30, “ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו”). If a מסוכנת — which is not even lacking any organ — were already forbidden, why would the Torah need to explicitly forbid a טריפה, which IS lacking parts? The mention of טריפה only makes sense if מסוכנת is permitted, and טריפה adds the case of an animal lacking body parts.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה = An animal with a mortal wound or defect — forbidden even if slaughtered properly
- דְּלָא מְחַסְּרָא = “Not lacking [body parts]” — the מסוכנת is intact; the טריפה is damaged
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Two-step volley: maybe טריפה includes מסוכנת — but then why need נבלה? — though that too can be answered.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: maybe טריפה really does include מסוכנת, so that one who eats a slaughtered מסוכנת violates both עשה and לאו. But this reading creates its own problem — why then would the Torah need a separate נבלה prohibition? If while alive the prohibition is already a לאו + עשה, surely after death no additional verse is needed. So this counter-proposal seems to falter — but the Gemara’s next move shows it can be sustained.
Key Terms:
- לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה = “To violate both a positive and negative” — the doubled penalty structure the counter-proposal invokes
- קָאֵי עֲלַהּ בְּלָאו וַעֲשֵׂה = “[Already] stands on it with לאו and עשה” — the apparent redundancy of needing נבלה
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The Gemara extends: maybe all three (נבלה, טריפה, מסוכנת) are one category yielding two לאוין plus an עשה.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא הַיְינוּ נְבֵלָה, הַיְינוּ טְרֵפָה, הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְלַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין וַעֲשֵׂה!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses further: all three — נבלה, טריפה, מסוכנת — might really be one prohibited category. The Torah’s mention of each separately would simply add a layer of liability, so one who eats a מסוכנת would violate both לאוין (טריפה + נבלה) and the עשה. With this configuration, every verse has independent purpose and the derivation that מסוכנת is permitted collapses again.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין וַעֲשֵׂה = “Two prohibitions and a positive [mitzvah]” — three-layer liability structure
- הַיְינוּ… הַיְינוּ… הַיְינוּ = “Same… same… same” — the categorical merger move
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
The decisive proof: the חלב נבלה / חלב טריפה verse, with its two separate mentions, implies they are distinct.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to its decisive proof — the verse “וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה” (Vayikra 7:24). Why does the Torah specify both fats separately? To teach the principle of אסור-חל-על-אסור (an additional prohibition layered onto an existing one): the prohibition of נבלה layers onto חלב, and separately, the prohibition of טריפה layers onto חלב. The setup of this proof — that נבלה and טריפה are independent categories — will be used on 37b to derive that מסוכנת is its own status, permitted by שחיטה.
Key Terms:
- חֵלֶב = Forbidden fats — already prohibited independently of the animal’s status
- יָבֹא אִיסּוּר… וְיָחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר = “A prohibition comes and takes effect upon a prohibition” — the principle of layered prohibitions
Amud Bet (37b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The continuation: if טריפה = מסוכנת, the נבלה side of the verse would be redundant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ טְרֵפָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכׇל מְלָאכָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכְלוּהוּ״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: וּמָה מֵחַיִּים אָתֵי אִיסּוּר טְרֵפָה חָיֵיל אַאִיסּוּר חֵלֶב, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבַּעְיָא?!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara on 37b opens by sharpening the proof. If טריפה really included מסוכנת, then a single mention of טריפה’s fat would suffice — through a קל וחומר, if even an alive-but-dying animal’s fat carries a second prohibition, surely a fully dead carcass’s fat does. Yet the Torah explicitly states both. This redundancy is the key.
Key Terms:
- חָיֵיל אַאִיסּוּר חֵלֶב = “Takes effect upon the prohibition of חלב” — the layering principle
- לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא = “Let the Merciful One [have] written” — the Talmudic counter-factual challenging redundant verses
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
The conclusion: the very fact that the Torah writes נבלה separately implies טריפה ≠ מסוכנת — and מסוכנת is permitted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מִדִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נְבֵלָה״, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לָאו הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The conclusion finally emerges. Since the Torah does explicitly write נבלה (and thus its mention isn’t redundant), it follows that טריפה in that verse is NOT the same as מסוכנת. Rather, טריפה refers specifically to a mauled, parts-missing animal — and only that is forbidden after slaughter. By implication, מסוכנת (intact but dying) is permitted through שחיטה. This is the foundation for the mishna’s elaborate vitality-sign system.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לָאו הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת = “It implies that טריפה is not [the same as] מסוכנת” — the decisive conclusion
- מִדִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא = “From the fact that the Merciful One wrote” — formal derivation from explicit Torah language
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Mar bar Rav Ashi: maybe נבלה covers the “shard” case (גיסטרא) — but that case too involves passing through מסוכנת.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ הַיְינוּ טְרֵפָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: ״נְבֵלָה״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְהָךְ נְבֵלָה דְּלָא אָתְיָא מִכֹּחַ מְסוּכֶּנֶת. וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא. הָתָם נָמֵי, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא הֲוַי מְסוּכֶּנֶת פּוּרְתָּא מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפְסֹק לְרוּבָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi pushes back. The נבלה verse might still cover a case where the animal didn’t pass through a מסוכנת stage — for example, an animal split crosswise into two (גיסטרא, “shard”), where death is instantaneous and there was no progressive dying. The Gemara dismisses this: even in the שעשאה גיסטרא case, the animal must inevitably have been at least briefly מסוכנת just before the majority was severed. So the distinction fails and the previous derivation holds.
Key Terms:
- גִּיסְטְרָא = “Shard” — an animal cut crosswise into two pieces, an instantaneous death
- מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי = A late Babylonian Amora, son of Rav Ashi, known for sharp dialectical objections
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
A second derivation: the doubled “חלב חלב” implies a third category — מסוכנת — where fat is forbidden but meat permitted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, אִם כֵּן לֵימָא ״חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה״, ״חֵלֶב״ ״חֵלֶב״ לְמָה לִי? זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאֵין חֶלְבָּהּ חָלוּק מִבְּשָׂרָהּ, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁחֶלְבָּהּ חָלוּק מִבְּשָׂרָהּ, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? מְסוּכֶּנֶת.
English Translation:
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: “Fat of a carcass and the fat of a tereifa”? The term “fat” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers an alternative derivation. The verse could have written “חלב נבלה וטרפה” (one חלב). Instead, “חלב” is repeated: “חלב נבלה וחלב טרפה”. This redundancy teaches: with נבלה and טרפה, the status of fat is identical to that of meat — both forbidden. But there is a third case where fat is forbidden while meat is permitted — and that case is מסוכנת. The doubled wording carves out a category and proves מסוכנת is its own thing.
Key Terms:
- חֶלְבָּהּ חָלוּק מִבְּשָׂרָהּ = “Its fat is distinct from its meat” — the unique profile of מסוכנת
- וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא = “And if you wish, say” — the Talmudic phrase introducing an alternative derivation
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
A third derivation, from Yechezkel — the prophet’s piety only “counts” if eating מסוכנת was actually permitted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא, ״וָאֹמַר אֲהָהּ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נַפְשִׁי לֹא מְטֻמָּאָה וּנְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא אָכַלְתִּי מִנְּעוּרַי וְעַד עַתָּה וְלֹא בָא בְּפִי בְּשַׂר פִּגּוּל״.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “Then 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” (Ezekiel 4:14).
קלאוד על הדף:
A third, more poetic derivation: Yechezkel’s exclamation when God instructs him to bake bread on dung (Yechezkel 4:14). The prophet protests that his “soul has never become impure” — never eaten a נבלה, a טרפה, or פגול. The next segment will explain what these terms mean in the prophet’s mouth, and how they imply that מסוכנת is in fact permitted.
Key Terms:
- יְחֶזְקֵאל = The prophet Ezekiel — exiled to Babylon, his prophecies span chapters of vivid imagery
- פִּגּוּל = Sacrificial meat rendered unfit due to improper intent during the offering
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Each phrase of Yechezkel’s protest is decoded — “נבלה וטרפה” means “כוס כוס”, the rushed slaughter of a dying animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הִנֵּה נַפְשִׁי לֹא מְטֻמָּאָה״ – שֶׁלֹּא הִרְהַרְתִּי בַּיּוֹם לָבֹא לִידֵי טוּמְאָה בַּלַּיְלָה, ״וּנְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא אָכַלְתִּי מִנְּעוּרַי״ – שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי בְּשַׂר כּוֹס כּוֹס מֵעוֹלָם, ״וְלֹא בָא בְּפִי בְּשַׂר פִּגּוּל״ – שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהוֹרָה בָּהּ חָכָם. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ: שֶׁלֹּא אָכַלְתִּי מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: “My soul has not become impure” 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. “And 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. “And no piggul flesh came into my mouth” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara decodes each phrase of Yechezkel’s protest. “נפשי לא מטמאה” — he refrained from impure thoughts that could lead to nocturnal emissions. “ונבלה וטרפה לא אכלתי” — he never ate בשר כוס כוס (literally “hurry-hurry meat”), i.e., the meat of an animal rushed to slaughter just before death — a mesukenet. “ולא בא בפי בשר פגול” — either: meat permitted by a sage who ruled on a doubtful case, or (Rabbi Nathan’s version) meat from which the priestly gifts hadn’t been separated.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹס כּוֹס = “Hurry, hurry” — the urgent call to slaughter an animal before it dies of itself
- מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָה = Priestly gifts — the foreleg, jaw, and maw owed to a kohen from every non-sacred slaughter
- רַבִּי נָתָן = A fourth-generation Tanna known for legal aggadot and minority opinions
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
The textual logic: only if eating a מסוכנת is permitted does Yechezkel’s abstention demonstrate spiritual greatness.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שַׁרְיָא – הַיְינוּ רְבוּתֵיהּ דִּיחֶזְקֵאל, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲסִירָא – מַאי רְבוּתֵיהּ דִּיחֶזְקֵאל?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s logic crystallizes: Yechezkel’s protest only makes sense as a boast of righteousness if the meat was permitted but he chose to refrain anyway. Abstaining from forbidden food is no boast — everyone is bound to abstain. Therefore, מסוכנת must be halachically permitted, and Yechezkel’s piety lay in his extra stringency. This is the third independent proof that מסוכנת is permitted by שחיטה.
Key Terms:
- רְבוּתֵיהּ דִּיחֶזְקֵאל = “The greatness of Ezekiel” — the meaningful religious achievement his statement claims
- אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא = “If you say [it is so], it works” — the formula for proving a position by its explanatory power
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The clinical test for מסוכנת — inability to stand, even when its jaw is still strong enough to chew wood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מְסוּכֶּנֶת? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כֹּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת. רַב חֲנִינָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת בְּקָעִיּוֹת. רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת קוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
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 Chanina 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 Yechezkel said: That is the case even if that animal eats beams.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that מסוכנת is its own halachic category, the Gemara now asks how to identify one in practice. Rav (via Rav Yehuda) provides the operational test: if one props up the animal and it cannot remain standing on its own, it is מסוכנת. Rav Chanina bar Shelamya and Rami bar Yechezkel add that this test is decisive — even if the animal’s jaw retains enough strength to chew tough wood or even beams, inability to stand still marks it as מסוכנת.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת = “Any [animal] one stands up but does not stand” — the practical diagnostic
- בְּקָעִיּוֹת / קוֹרוֹת = Wood-chips / beams — hard materials whose chewability does not negate the diagnosis
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Sura and Pumbedita transmit the discussion differently — Pumbedita integrates Rav Chanina’s clause into Rav’s own statement.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּסוּרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: הֵיכִי דָּמְיָא מְסוּכֶּנֶת? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת, וַאֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת בְּקָעִיּוֹת. רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת קוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
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 Yechezkel 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A rare glimpse into divergent transmissions between the two great Babylonian academies. In Sura, the tradition was that Rav (through Rav Yehuda) gave only the basic test, while Rav Chanina bar Shelamya independently added the “even if it eats wood-chips” clause. In Pumbedita, the same wood-chips clause was attributed directly to Rav’s original statement via Rav Yehuda, eliminating Rav Chanina from the chain. Only Rami bar Yechezkel’s “beams” addition is consistent in both versions.
Key Terms:
- סוּרָא / פּוּמְבְּדִיתָא = The two major Babylonian yeshivot, often preserving distinct versions of teachings
- מַתְנֵי = “They teach/transmit” — a technical term for the local recension of an Amoraic exchange
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The amud ends mid-narrative: Shmuel encounters Rav’s students and asks what their master taught about מסוכנת.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְתַלְמִידִי דְּרַב, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי אָמַר רַב בִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב:
English Translation:
Shmuel found students of Rav after Rav’s 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:
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf concludes mid-sentence with a charged scene: Shmuel, the great Babylonian Amora and contemporary of Rav, encounters Rav’s students after their master’s passing and asks what Rav taught about מסוכנת. The reply — “This is what Rav said:” — is left dangling, with Rav’s words to be delivered on daf 38. The poignancy of the framing (the surviving contemporary checking on the deceased colleague’s tradition) gives the cliffhanger added weight.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוּאֵל = The leading Babylonian Amora of the first generation, master of Nehardea, peer of Rav
- אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ = “He encountered them” — implying a chance meeting after Rav’s death