Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A DANGEROUSLY SICK ANIMAL

(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If one slaughters a dangerously sick animal - it is permitted only if it moves its foreleg and hind leg afterwards (otherwise, we are concerned that it died before completion of the slaughter);
(b) R. Eliezer says, it suffices if it coughs blood;
(c) R. Shimon says, one who slaughters a dangerously sick animal at night, and finds the area of slaughter covered with blood the next morning, it is permitted - this is like R. Eliezer;
(d) Chachamim say, it must move a leg or wag its tail.

1. This shows that it is Kosher, for a large or small animal.
2. If a small animal stuck out a foreleg at the time of slaughter and did not return it, this is not a sign that it is Kosher, it is just something it does at the time of death.

(e) All this applies to a sick animal, but a healthy animal is permitted even if it did none of these.
(f) (Gemara) Question: From where do we know that a dangerously sick animal is permitted?

1. Question: Why should we think that it is not?
2. Answer: "This is the Chayah that you may eat" - Chayah (living) you may eat, what is not living you may not eat.

i. A dangerously sick animal is not considered living.

(g) Answer #1: Since the Torah said "Do not eat a Neveilah" (an animal that died without slaughter), we infer that a dangerously sick animal is permitted.

1. If a dangerously sick animal was forbidden, there would be no need to forbid it after it died!
2. Suggestion: Perhaps a dangerously sick animal is also called a Neveilah!
3. Rejection: "When an animal will die...its Neveilah (carcass)..." - it is only a Neveilah when it is dead.

(h) Rejection: Perhaps a dangerously sick animal is also called a Neveilah; when it is alive, it is forbidden by an Ase (we may only eat Chayah (healthy)); after death, it is also forbidden by a Lav.
(i) Answer #2: It says "Do not eat a Treifah" (an animal that cannot live, because a vital organ is missing or damaged), we infer that a dangerously sick animal is permitted.

1. If a dangerously sick animal was forbidden, even though it is not missing anything - there would be no need to forbid a Treifah!
2. Suggestion: Perhaps a dangerously sick animal is also called a Treifah, it is forbidden by an Ase and a Lav!
3. Rejection: If so, the Torah would not need to forbid a Neveilah!

i. When alive it is forbidden by an Ase and a Lav, all the more so, after death!

(j) Rejection: Perhaps a dangerously sick animal is also called Treifah and Neveilah, it is forbidden by an Ase and two Lavim.
(k) Answer #3: "Chelev of a Treifah and Chelev of a Neveilah may be used for any use, but you may not eat it";

1. This comes to teach that the Lavim of Neveilah and Treifah take effect in addition to the Lav of Chelev.

2. If a dangerously sick animal was also called a Treifah - the Torah should have said 'Chelev of a Neveilah may be used for any use, you may not eat Chelev of a Treifah'.

i. We would deduce - if the Lav of Treifah takes effect in addition to the Lav of Chelev while the animal is alive, all the more so, the Lav of Neveilah takes effect in addition to the Lav of Chelev after it is dead!
ii. It must be, the verse also forbids eating Chelev of a Neveilah, because a dangerously sick animal is not called a Treifah.

3. Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): Perhaps a dangerously sick animal really is called Treifah;

i. "Chelev of a Neveilah" is needed for a Neveilah which was never dangerously sick!
ii. Question: How can that be?
iii. Answer: The animal was cut into two pieces.

4. Rejection: Even in that case, it became dangerously sick a moment before the majority was cut. (This shows that the question was unfounded.)

(l) Answer #4: If a dangerously sick animal is forbidden, the Torah should have said 'Chelev of a Neveilah or Treifah';

1. Rather, it said "Chelev of a Treifah and Chelev of a Neveilah", to teach that in Neveilah and Treifah, the meat and the Chelev have the same law (both are forbidden), but in another case, a dangerously sick animal, their laws are different (the meat is permitted, the Chelev is forbidden).

(m) Answer #5: Yechezkel said about himself - "I did not make my soul Tamei, I never ate Neveilah or Treifah, Pigul (abominable) meat did not enter my mouth."

1. "I did not make my soul Tamei" - I did not emit semen at night on account of thoughts about women during the day;
2. "I never ate Neveilah or Treifah" - I did not eat from an animal which was hurriedly slaughtered before it died;
3. "Pigul meat did not enter my mouth" - I did not eat from an animal that a Chacham needed to rule about (that it is indeed Kosher);

i. R. Noson says, I did not eat from an animal before the gifts to the Kohen (the foreleg, jaws and stomach) were separated.

4. (Summation of answer): If a dangerously sick animal is permitted, we understand, Yechezkel said that he was more stringent than the law requires;

i. But if it is forbidden, Yechezkel would not need to say that he never transgressed!

(a) Question: What is considered a dangerously sick animal?
(b) Version #1 - Chachamim of Sura - (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): This is an animal that cannot stand up, even when helped.

1. (R. Chinena bar Shalmiya citing Rav): This is even if it can eat pieces of wood;
2. (Rami bar Yechezkel): This is even if it can eat beams.

(c) Version #2 - Chachamim of Pumbadisa - (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): This is an animal that cannot stand up, even when helped, even if it can eat logs;

1. (Rami bar Yechezkel): This is even if it can eat beams.