1) WHAT QUIVERING IS REQUIRED?

(a) Shmuel: What did Rav teach about a dangerously sick animal?
(b) Talmidim of Rav: If it cries out, excretes, or wiggles its ear, this is considered quivering (which permits the animal).
(c) Shmuel: Does he really require such a sign of strength like wiggling an ear?! I say, anything a dead animal does not do suffices!
1. Question: What do dead animals do?
2. Answer (Rav Amram, citing Shmuel): A dead animal can stick out a foreleg that was bent, but if it was stuck out, it cannot bend it back.
i. Question: This is obvious! The Mishnah says, sticking out the leg is not a sufficient Siman – it follows, bending it back is!
ii. Answer: One might have thought, bending it back is not a sufficient sign – rather, it must be able to stick it out and bend it back – we hear, this is not so.
(d) Question (Beraisa): R. Yosi says, crying out at the time of slaughter is not considered quivering;
1. R. Eliezer b’Rebbi Yosi says, even if it excretes or wagging its tail, this is not considered quivering.
(e) Answer – part 1: Regarding crying out, a strong voice is sufficient, a weak voice is not;
(f) Answer – part 2: Regarding excreting, casting the excrement far away is sufficient; dropping it in its place is not.
2) WHEN MUST THE QUIVERING BE?
(a) Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): I heard that the quivering must be at the end of slaughter – I explain, this really means in the middle – It just comes to exclude the beginning.
1. Rav Chisda: I learned to explain thusly from our Mishnah: If a small (sick) animal stuck out its foreleg and did not bend it back, the animal is forbidden;
i. This cannot mean at the end of slaughter – how much can we expect an animal (even if it did not die during the slaughter) to do?!
(b) Rejection (Rava): We can say, this is at the end of slaughter – any animal that cannot return the leg surely died during the slaughter!
(c) Opinion #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The quivering can be at the beginning of slaughter.
1. I learn this from our Mishnah: R. Shimon says, one who slaughters a dangerously sick animal at night, and finds walls covered with blood the next morning, it is permitted – this is like R. Eliezer;
2. (Shmuel): ‘The walls’ means the place of slaughter (the sides of the cleaved neck).
3. The next morning, we do not know when the blood spurted there – it must be, quivering permits the animal even if it was at the beginning of slaughter!
(d) Rejection: Perhaps this only applies to spurting of blood, which is a greater sign of life than the other types of quivering.
(e) Question: You cannot say that spurting is greater than the other signs of quivering!

1. (Mishnah – R. Eliezer): It suffices if it spurted.
(f) Answer: Spurting is not as great as the quivering R. Gamliel requires, but it is greater than the quivering Chachamim require.
(g) Question (Ravina): Spurting is not greater than the quivering Chachamim require!
1. (Mishnah): Chachamim say, it is not enough unless it quivers with the fore or hind leg.
2. Question: In response to whom do Chachamim speak?
i. Suggestion: If they respond to R. Gamliel – they should say, ‘it is enough once it quivers…’!
3. Answer: Rather, they respond to R. Eliezer opinion; since they say ‘unless’, we see that they require a greater quivering than spurting.
(h) Opinion #3 (Rava): Quivering must come at the end of slaughter.
1. Rava: The following Beraisa teaches this.
38b—————————————38b

2. (Beraisa): “A cow *or* sheep” – this excludes a crossbreed (it is invalid as a Korban); “*or* goat” – this excludes a Nidmeh (an animal that looks like a different species than its parents);
3. “That will be born” – this excludes an animal born by Caesarian section; “Seven days” – that excludes an animal that is too young (before its eighth day); “*Tachas* (under, or in place of) its mother” – this excludes an orphaned animal.
4. Question: What is the case of an orphaned animal?
i. Suggestion: If the mother gave birth and later died (and this is unacceptable) – this is unreasonable (that an animal cannot be brought after its mother dies)!
5. Answer #1: Rather, the mother died, then the child came out.
6. Rejection: We already excluded this from “That will be born”!
7. Answer #2: Rather, the animal was born just as the mother died.
i. If the mother must live until after the birth, we cannot exclude this case from “That will be born”, another verse is needed to exclude an orphan.
ii. But if the child is acceptable as long as the mother lives until the end of birth, and we only exclude when the mother dies during birth – we already know this from “That will be born”!
8. (Conclusion of Rava’s reasoning: The mother must live through birth, she must live through the end of birth – likewise, an animal must show that it is alive during slaughter (by quivering), it must do so during the end of slaughter.)
(i) (Rava): The Halachah is like the following Beraisa.
1. (Beraisa): If a small (dangerously sick) animal stuck out its foreleg and did not withdraw it, it is forbidden;
2. If it extends or withdraws the hind leg, the animal is permitted;
3. If a large animal extends or withdraws any leg, it is permitted;
4. If a bird even ruffles its wing or wags its tail, it is permitted.
(j) Question: Why must Rava teach this – it can be derived from our Mishnah!
1. The Mishnah forbids a small animal that stuck out its foreleg – we deduce, had it stuck out the hind leg, or had it been a large animal, it would be permitted!
(k) Answer: We need the Beraisa for the law of birds, this is not learned from the Mishnah.
3) SLAUGHTER FOR THE SAKE OF IDOLATRY
(a) (Mishnah): One who slaughters for an idolater – the slaughter is valid;
1. R. Eliezer says, it is invalid, even if he only intended to give the idolater from the Chelev on the liver.
2. This is because we assume that the idolater intended that the slaughter is for idolatry.
(b) R. Yosi says, a Kal va’Chomer teaches that the slaughter is valid.
1. In Kodshim, (improper) intention is Posel a Korban, we are only concerned about the intention of the Oved (the one offering the Korban) – in Chulin, where intention does not disqualify slaughter, all the more so we should only be concerned for the intention of the slaughterer!
(c) (Gemara): The first two Tana’im hold like R. Eliezer b’Rebbi Yosi.
1. (Beraisa – R. Eliezer b’Rebbi Yosi): An animal becomes Pigul (disqualified) through improper intention of its owner.
2. Version #1: The first Tana holds that we do not assume that an idolater intends that the slaughter is for idolatry – unless we hear that he did, the slaughter is permitted;
3. R. Eliezer holds that we assume that the idolater intended for idolatry.
4. R. Yosi holds, even if we know that he intended for idolatry, it is permitted, we only care about the intention of the slaughterer.
5. Version #2: The first Tana and R. Eliezer argue when we know that he intended for idolatry.
i. The first Tana permits it – we only care about the intention of the slaughterer in Kodshim, not in Chulin – we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim;
ii. R. Eliezer holds that we learn Chulin from Kodshim;
iii. R. Yosi holds, even in Kodshim, we only care about the intention of the slaughterer.