וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ טְרֵפָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה, וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכְלוּהוּ״, וַאֲנָא אָמִינָא: וּמַה מֵּחַיִּים אָתֵי אִיסּוּר טְרֵפָה חָיֵיל אַאִיסּוּר חֵלֶב, לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִיבָּעֲיָא?

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?

אֶלָּא מִדִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא נְבֵלָה – מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לָאו הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת.

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.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ מָר בַּר רַב אַשִׁי, וְדִלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: הַיְינוּ טְרֵפָה הַיְינוּ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וּדְקָאֲמַרְתְּ: נְבֵלָה דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לָמָּה לִּי – לְהַךְ נְבֵלָה דְּלָא אָתְיָא מִכֹּחַ מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא! הָתָם נַמִי, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא הָוֵי מְסוּכֶּנֶת פּוּרְתָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיפְסַק לְרוּבָּא.

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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא: ״חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה״, ״חֵלֶב״ ״חֵלֶב״ לָמָּה לִּי? זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאֵין חֶלְבָּהּ חָלוּק מִבְּשָׂרָהּ, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁחֶלְבָּהּ חָלוּק מִבְּשָׂרָהּ, וְאֵיזוֹ? זוֹ מְסוּכֶּנֶת.

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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״וָאֹמַר אֲהָהּ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נַפְשִׁי לֹא מְטֻמָּאָה וּנְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא אָכַלְתִּי מִנְּעוּרַי וְעַד עַתָּה וְלֹא בָא בְּפִי בְּשַׂר פִּגּוּל״.

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).

״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.

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 “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, were not already separated.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שָׁרְיָא – הַיְינוּ רְבוּתֵיהּ דִּיחֶזְקֵאל, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲסִירָא, מַאי רְבוּתֵיהּ דִּיחֶזְקֵאל?

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.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מְסוּכֶּנֶת? אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר רַב: כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת. רַב חֲנִינָא בַּר שְׁלַמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת בְּקָעִיּוֹת. רָמִי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת קוֹרוֹת.

§ 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 Ḥanina 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 Yeḥezkel said: That is the case even if that animal eats beams.

בְּסוּרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: הֵיכִי דָּמְיָא מְסוּכֶּנֶת? אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר רַב: כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת, וַאֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת בְּקָעִיּוֹת. רָמִי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אוֹכֶלֶת קוֹרוֹת.

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 Yeḥezkel 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.

אַשְׁכַּחִינְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְתַלְמִידֵי דְּרַב, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי אָמַר רַב בִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, הָכִי אֲמַר רַב:

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: