1)

(a)Our Mishnah - permits Shechting a Mesukenes (an animal that is dangerously ill [see Tosfos DH 'ha'Shochet']).

(b)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (or Rabban Gamliel, as it appears from the Sugya) rules that if, after Shechting a Mesukenes, it fails to make Pirchus (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)... concurring with the opinion of - Rebbi Eliezer.

2)

(a)According to the Chachamim, it is sufficient if the animal moves either a foreleg or a hindleg - 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, in which case stretching it out is considered Pirchus.

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

3)

(a)We ask for the source that permits a Mesukenes. 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 Tochal').

(b)But from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Neveilah ... Lo Sochel", we learn that a Mesukenes is permitted - because if it 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 in Shemini "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 a Neveilah, and the Pasuk "Lo Sochal ... " teaches us a La'av, and "Zos ha'Chayah ... ", an Asei.

4)

(a)We refute the proof from Neveilah however, on the grounds that even if a Mesukenes would not be called a 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) " ... T'reifah Lo Sochel" - because if a Mesukenes, which is physically whole, would be forbidden,, then why would it need to repeat the Isur by a T'reifah, which is not?

(c)And we refute the proof from T'reifah as well, 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 T'reifah.

(d)And we refute the refutation - from the fact that the Torah prescribes a La'av by Neveilah, since we would already know from a Kal va'Chomer from Mesukenes and T'reifah combined that a Neveilah is subject to a La'av and an Asei.

5)

(a)We finally refute the proofs from both Neveilah and T'reifah with the argument that Neveilah, T'reifah and Mesukenes are one, by which we mean that - the Torah requires all three Pesukim to teach us that if someone eats a T'reifah that became a Mesukenes and died, he has transgressed two La'avin and an Asei.

(b)So we turn to a Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah, Ve'achol Lo Sochluhu", which is problematic - inasmuch as appears superfluous, since, why would we think that Cheilev, which is Asur anyway, will become permitted because it is from a Neveilah or a T'reifah.

(c)And we solve the problem by establishing the Pasuk in connection with the principle 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' [a new Isur cannot take effect on an existing one]), to teach us (in spite of the principle) - the Isurim of Neveilah and T'reifah do take effect on that of Cheilev.

(d)And we learn from "Ye'aseh le'Chol Melachah" that - Cheilev is not subject to Tum'as Neveilah.

6)

(a)We now prove from the above Pasuk ("ve'Cheilev Neveilah ve'Cheilev T'reifah ... ") that a Mesukenes cannot be forbidden like a T'reifah - because if it was, the Torah would not have needed to forbid a 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 T'reifah Lo Socheilu".

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 T'reifah), the flesh is Asur as well as the Cheilev, but that there is a third case (Mesukenes) where the flesh is permitted; namely.

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

8)

(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 died).

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 is permitted to do so).

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

(d)We now prove from Yechezkel that - Mesukenes must be permitted. Otherwise, the previous question ('What was Yechezkel's Chidush') will apply there as well.

9)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav defines a Mesukenes as - one that cannot remain standing even when it is raised on to its feet.

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

(c)This is the version as it was learnt in Sura. In Pumbedisa, they cited Rav Yehudah Amar Rav like they did in Sura, adding 'even if it then proceeds to munch blocks of wood'. Rami bar Yechezkel said 'even (if it munches) beams of wood'.