Commentary for Chullin 135:30

אי אמרת בשלמא החזירו דרישא דוקא תנא סיפא אטו רישא

But if you say that neither the first nor the second clause is to be particularly stressed [fo any special teaching], then why are they stated at all? - It is not so, for, in point of fact, [IT MAY BE EATEN] refers to the actual foetus [and not to the limb], but as R'Nahman B'Isaac had said [elsewhere]: It would not have been necessary to mention [the withdrawal of the limb within] except in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off, likewise we may say here.

Explore commentary for Chullin 135:30. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.