ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 37
CHULIN 37-40 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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".
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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).
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.
(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.