Previous daf

1)

(a) One is permitted to Shecht a Mesukenes (an animal that is dangerously ill [see Tosfos DH 'ha'Shochet']).

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (or Raban Gamliel, as it appears from the Sugya) rules that if, after Shechting a Mesukenes, it failed to convulse with both its fore and hind legs - it is a Neveilah (because it died before the completion of the Shechitah).

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, it is sufficient for the animal to make Zinuk - the last gasp that an animal makes before dying, as a result of which a large quantity of blood spurts out.

(d) Rebbi Shimon says that if someone Shechts a Mesukenes at nighttime and gets up in the morning to find blood spattered on the animal's neck - it is Kasher, because this is an indication that it made Zinuk ...

(e) ... and he concurs like Rebbi Eliezer.

(a) According to the Chachamim, it is sufficient if the animal moves either a fore or a hind leg - or if it swishes its tail.

(b) The Tana requires a small animal which stretches out its foreleg after the Shechitah, to take it back in order to be considered Pirchus. In the case of a large one - this is not necessary ...

(c) ... because - whereas the former tends to stretch out its leg automatically after the Shechitah, the latter does not.

(d) And the Tana concludes that an animal that is not a Mesukenes - does not require Pirchus.

(a) We ask from where we know that a Mesukenes is permitted. Otherwise, it might be forbidden - because the Torah writes in Shemini "Zos ha'Chayah Asher Tocheilu", from which we would have Darshened that one may only eat an animal that would otherwise have lived ('Chayah Achol, ve'she'Einah Chayah Lo Sochal').

(b) But from the Pasuk "Neveilah ... Lo Sochel", we learn that it is permitted - because if a Mesukenes would be forbidden (to Shecht and eat), then it would be unnecessary to repeat the Isur by a Neveilah (which is generally a Mesukenes first).

(c) We then learn from the Pasuk ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah ... ha'Nog'e'a be'Nivlasah Yitma" - that an animal is not called a Neveilah before it is actually dead.

(d) Otherwise, we might have thought - that a Mesukenes is also called 'Neveilah', and the Pasuk "Lo Sochal ... " teaches us a La'av, and "Zos ha'Chayah ... ", an Asei.

(a) We query the proof from Neveilah however, on the grounds that even if a Mesukenes is not called Neveilah, we would still require two Pesukim - an Asei for Shechting and eating a Mesukenes and a La'av for eating a Neveilah.

(b) So we try to prove that a Mesukenes is permitted from the same Pasuk (in Mishpatim) " ... Tereifah Lo Sochel" - because if the Torah had forbidden a Mesukenes, which is physically complete, then why would it need to repeat the Isur by a Tereifah, which is not?

(c) We refute the proof from Tereifah, in the same way as we refuted the proof from Neveilah - by suggesting that the Torah prescribes an Asei for a Mesukenes, and a La'av for a Tereifah.

(d) And we refute the refutation (as it were) - from the fact that the prescribes a La'av by Neveilah, since we would already know from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mesukenes and Tereifah that a Neveilah is Chayav a La'av and an Asei.

(a) We finally refute the proofs from both Neveilah and Tereifah with the argument that Neveilah, Tereifah and Mesukenes are one, by which we mean - that the Torah requires all three Pesukim to teach us that if someone eats a Tereifah that became a Mesukenes and died, he has transgressed two La'avin and an Asei.

(b) So we turn to a Pasuk in Tzav. The problem with the Pasuk "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev Tereifah Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah, Ve'achol Lo Sochluhu" is - why we need the Pasuk at all, seeing as Cheilev is Asur anyway, and it is surely not because it is from a Neveilah or a Tereifah that the Isur will disappear.

(c) In fact, we explain, the Pasuk is coming to teach us - that (in spite of the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' [a new Isur cannot take effect on an existing one]) the Isurim of Neveilah and Tereifah do take effect on that of Cheilev.

(d) "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" comes to teach us - that Cheilev is not subject to Tum'as Neveilah.

(a) We now prove from the above Pasuk that a Mesukenes cannot be forbidden like a Tereifah - because if it was, then the Torah would not have needed to forbid Neveilah (by Cheilev), because we could have learned it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mesukenes ...

(b) ... and it ought to have written "ve'Cheilev Neveilah Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah, ve'Cheilev Tereifah Lo Sochluhu".

7)

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi suggests that Mesukenes is perhaps forbidden, and the Torah needs to write "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ... Lo Sochluhu" to teach us that even a Neveilah that was not first a Mesukenes is forbidden. This is possible in a case where he cut the animal in two with one stroke ('she'As'ah Gistera').

(b) We answer - that even there, the animal must have been a Mesukenes for the split second before he reached the half way mark.

(c) Alternatively, we might learn the Heter of Mesukenes from the second "ve'Cheilev", which is superfluous - implying that in these two cases (of Neveilah and Tereifah), the flesh is Asur as well as the Cheilev, but that there is a third case, where the flesh is permitted; namely, that of Mesukenes.

(d) Alternatively, we learn the Heter of eating a Mesukenes from Yechezkel, who complained to Hashem ("Aha Hashem Elokim ... ") - because Hashem had asked him to eat a cake made of wheat and barley, together with human excrement.

(a) When Yechezkel said ...

1. ... "Hinei Nafshi Lo Metuma'ah", he meant - that he never entertained thoughts by day that led to Tum'as Keri at night (even though most people do).
2. ... "u'Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Achalti mi'Ne'urai" - that he never ate meat from a Mesukenes (that one had to ask the Shochet to quickly Shecht before the animal dies).
3. ... ve'Lo Ba be'Fi Basar Pigul" - that he never ate from an animal on which there had been a She'eilah.

(b) Rebbi Nasan explained Yechezkel's last statement to mean - that he did not eat from an animal before the Matanos (Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah) had been separated (even though it would be permitted to do so).

(c) In the previous statement, we cannot interpret "Neveilah" and "Tereifah" literally - because what would then be Yechezkel's Chidush, seeing as nobody else eats Neveilah and Tereifah either.

(d) We now prove from Yechezkel - that Mesukenes must be permitted. Otherwise, the question remains 'What was Yechezkel's Chidush'?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav defines a Mesukenes as - one that cannot remain standing even when it is stood up.

(b) Rav Chanina bar Shalmaya adds - that even if, in its lying position, it proceeds to munch blocks of wood (and according to Rami bar Yechezkel, even if it eats beams), it is nevertheless a Mesukenes.

(c) This is the version as it was learnt in Sura. In Pumbedisa, they cited Rami bar Yechezkel just as they did in Sura - whereas Rav Yehudah Amar Rav himself, after making his initial statement, added that the animal is a Mesukenes even if it then proceeds to munch blocks of wood.