M. [37a] What then? Does the veneration due sancta [enable the offering] itself to become invalid, but [we should] not reckon for it [the ability to transmit uncleanness] in the first or second degree? Or does it make no difference? [Cf. III.3, 36a.]
N. The question remains unresolved.
I.1 identifies the operative consideration in the Mishnah-text and discusses it at length. II.1-6 have no bearing on the elucidation of the Mishnah but develop their own questions out of the foregoing materials. III returns to Mishnah's issues and analyzes its rule. No. 2 moves to a secondary issue, derivative of the preceding. No. 3 deals with a concern at a third remove from the text of our Mishnah No. 4 reverts finally to Mishnah's text. No. 5 pursues the issue at length, but leaves it unresolved.
2:6
A. He who slaughters an animal which was at the point of death—
B. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel [variant reading: Rabban Gamaliel] says, “[It is invalid] unless it jerks a foreleg or hind leg.”
C. R. Eliezer says, “It is sufficient [for it to be valid] if [the blood] spurts forth.”
D. Said R. Simeon, “Also: He who slaughters by night and at dawn arises and finds the walls full of blood — it is valid,
E. “for [the blood] has spurted.”
F. And [his opinion is consistent with] the reasoning of R. Eliezer.
G. And sages say, “[It is invalid] unless it jerks a foreleg or a hind leg,
H. “or unless it moves its tail.”
I. All the same are a small beast [sheep, goats] and a large beast [oxen].
J. A small beast which put forth its foreleg and did not withdraw it is invalid,
K. for [this is] only [a token of] its expiring.
L. Under what circumstances?
M. When it was in the presumption of being at the point of death.
N. But if it was in the assumption of being sound,
O. even if none or all of these tokens pertains to it,
P. it is valid.
I.1
A. At the point of death. Why should you be permitted [to eat such an animal at all]?
B. And why would you even think that it is forbidden? As it is written, “Say to the people of Israel, These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (Lev. 11:2). What is living, you may eat. What is not living, you may not eat. And lo, an animal at the point of death is not [considered] living.
C. Because the Torah said, “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself [nblh, i.e., carrion]; [you may give it to the alien who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk]” (Deut. 14:21). We may derive the principle that an animal at the point of death is permitted. For if you reasoned that an animal at the point of death is forbidden, now that we know it is forbidden while still alive, do we need [to be told by the Torah] that after death [it is forbidden]?
D. But perhaps this [category of] carrion, this [includes in it] an animal at the point of death. No. you cannot have concluded that. For it is written, “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass [nblth, its carrion] [shall be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:39). After its death that is when the Torah calls it carrion. While it is alive it is not called carrion.
E. But perhaps in general it makes sense to say this [category of] carrion, this [includes in it] an animal at the point of death. While it is alive [if he eats it he does not fulfill] a positive commandment [“These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (Lev. 11:2)]. After its death [if he eats it he also violates] a negative commandment. [“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself” (Deut. 14:21)].
F. But because the Torah stated, “[You shall be men consecrated to me]; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field; [you shall cast it to the dogs]” (Exod. 22:31), we may derive the principle that an animal at the point of death is permitted. For if you reasoned that an animal at the point of death is forbidden, now that we know it is forbidden even though it has no defect, do we need [to be told by the Torah] that a terefah animal [is forbidden]?
G. But perhaps [it makes sense to say] this [category of] terefah, this [includes in it] an animal at the point of death. And [if he eats it he does not fulfill] a positive commandment [“These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (Lev. 11:2)] and violates a negative commandment (Exod. 22:31).
H. If this is the case, what do I need that which the Torah wrote concerning carrion. For what is the case? While it is alive [if you eat an animal at the point of death] you violate a negative commandment [terefah] and do not fulfill a positive commandment. After its death do I need [to specify an additional prohibition]?
I. But perhaps [it makes sense to say] this [category of] carrion, this [includes in it] terefah, this [includes in it] an animal at the point of death. And [if he eats carrion of an animal that had been rendered terefah] he violates two negative prohibitions [terefah and carrion] and [he does not fulfill] a positive commandment [“These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (Lev. 11:2)].
J. Rather from here: “The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it” (Lev. 7:24). And the master said,“What [new] law does this come to tell us?” [Rashi: the prohibition for fat and blood was already spelled out in Lev. 3:17, “that you eat neither fat nor blood.”]
K. The Torah said, “Let the prohibition of carrion apply to forbidden fat. Let the prohibition of terefah apply to forbidden fat.” [Even though the substance is already prohibited, another prohibition may apply to it.]
L. [37b] And if you wanted to conclude that [the category of] terefah, [includes in it] an animal at the point of death, then the Torah should have written, “The fat of an animal that dies of itself, may be put to any other use, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, on no account shall you eat it.”
M. And I would have said it makes sense [to reason as follows]: What is the case regarding an animal that is alive? The prohibition of terefah comes and applies to the forbidden fat. After the animal has died do I need [to spell in this verse that it is prohibited also as carrion]? But because the Torah wrote, “[The fat of an animal] that dies of itself, [and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it] (Lev. 7:24) we may deduce the principle that [the category of] terefah does not [include in it] an animal that is at the point of death.
N. Mar bar R. Ashi objected: Perhaps in general it makes sense to say that [the category of] terefah does [include in it] an animal that is at the point of death. And where you said, “What do I need that which the Torah wrote concerning carrion?” [H above.] [You need it to teach us the rule for] that case of carrion that is not the immediate consequence of the animal being at the point of death. And what is such a situation? Where [it was healthy and] he cleaved the body in two.
O. But there too it must have been momentarily at the point of death just before he cut through the major part [of the body].
P. Another possible explanation: If this is the case [that if you slaughter an animal at the point of death it is forbidden], let the Torah say, “The fat of an animal that dies of itself, or that is torn by beasts” (Lev. 7:24). Why do we need [to repeat the words] `the fat'? [It teaches us that] this is where the fat is not distinct from the flesh [in its status, i.e., subject to two prohibitions]. But there is another case where the fat is distinct [in its status] from the flesh. And what is that case? An animal at the point of death. [The fat is forbidden, but the flesh is not.]
Q. And another possible explanation may be offered based on this verse: “Then I said, `Ah Lord God! behold, I have never defiled myself; from my youth up till now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has foul flesh come into my mouth'” (Ezek. 4:14). “Behold, I have never defiled myself,” [means that I was so pious that] I never reflected during the day about becoming unclean at night. “From my youth up till now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts,” [means, I was so pious that] I never in my life ate meat [from an animal at the point of death that was slaughtered in haste as they cried out], “Slaughter it, slaughter it.” [Rashi: if this is a clear case of carrion then why mention it as an unusual precaution of piety?] “Nor has foul flesh come into my mouth,” [means] that I never ate from an animal [about whose validity there was some question and] a sage pronounced it [was valid].
R. In the name of R. Nathan they said [the last phrase means], “I never ate from an animal whose priestly gifts had not been given.” [This was an act of piety because as a priest he could have eaten it anyway.]
S. If you say [an animal slaughtered at the point of death] is permitted, it is consistent to say that this is the exceptional statement of Ezekiel [that he was so pious he did not eat it anyway]. But if you say that it is forbidden, then what is exceptional about Ezekiel's statement? [So we have indirect proof that an animal slaughtered at the point of death is permitted.]
II.1
A. What is the definition of “an animal at the point of death?” Said R. Judah, said Rab, “Any animal that cannot stand up on its own.”
B. R. Hanina bar Shalmaya in the name of Rab said, “Even if it [has the power] to chew up branches” [if it cannot stand on its own it is considered to be at the point of death].
C. Rami bar Ezekiel said, “Even if it [has the power] to chew up beams of wood” [if it cannot stand, it is at the point of death].
D. In Sura they taught this way [as above]. In Pumbedita they taught this way [as follows].
E. What is the definition of “an animal at the point of death?” Said R. Judah, said Rab, “Any animal that cannot stand up on its own. And even if it [has the power] to chew up branches” [if it cannot stand on its own it is considered to be at the point of death].
F. Rami bar Ezekiel said, “Even if it [has the power] to chew up beams of wood” [if it cannot stand, it is at the point of death].
II.2
A. Samuel found the students of Rab. He said to them, “What did Rab say regarding an animal at the point of death?” They said to him, “Here is what Rab said.”
No comments:
Post a Comment