Chullin 135

מתני׳ <big><strong>בהמה</strong></big> המקשה לילד והוציא העובר את ידו והחזירו מותר באכילה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR AND THE FOETUS PUT FORTH ITS FORE-LIMB AND WITHDREW IT WITHIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the slaughtering of the animal. The animal, however, was slaughtered before the foetus was born.');">¹</span>

הוציא את ראשו אע"פ שהחזירו הרי זה כילוד

IT MAY BE EATEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GEMARA: The general principle is that with the slaughtering of an animal everything that is within it, e.g., a foetus, is rendered permitted. The Gemara, however, argues as to the effect of the slaughtering upon the limb which was put out of the womb prior to the slaughtering.');">²</span>

חותך מעובר שבמעיה מותר באכילה מן הטחול ומן הכליות אסור באכילה

IF IT PUT FORTH ITS HEAD, THOUGH IT WITHDREW IT WITHIN, IT IS CONSIDERED AS BORN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the animal.');">³</span>

זה הכלל

WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE FOETUS WITHIN THE WOMB [AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY BE EATEN, BUT WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE SPLEEN OR KIDNEYS [OF THE ANIMAL AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY NOT BE EATEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 55a. The spleen and the kidneys are specifically mentioned since a lesion of these organs does not render the animal trefah.');">⁴</span>

דבר שגופה אסור ושאינה גופה מותר:

THIS IS THE RULE: THAT WHICH IS FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS FORBIDDEN, BUT THAT WHICH IS NOT FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS PERMITTED.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The actual limb [that was put forth] is forbidden.

ואבר עצמו אסור

Why?

מאי טעמא

Because the verse says.

דאמר קרא

Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field torn of beasts [trefah],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30.');">⁵</span>

(שמות כב, ל) ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו כיון שיצא בשר חוץ למחיצתו נאסר

which implies that any flesh that had got beyond its bound is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The implication is in the phrase in the field, i.e., any flesh that had gone out of its precincts or bounds, e.g., consecrated meat of a sin-offering outside the sanctuary, or meat of a peace-offering outside the walls of Jerusalem, or, as here, an embryo outside the womb, is forbidden like trefah.');">⁶</span>

תנן

[An objection was raised.] We have learnt: IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR AND THE FOETUS PUT FORTH ITS FORE-LIMB AND WITHDREW IT WITHIN, IT MAY BE EATEN.

בהמה המקשה לילד והוציא העובר את ידו והחזירו מותר באכילה

Presumably [IT MAY BE EATEN] refers to the actual limb! - No, it refers to the foetus [that is within].

מאי לאו אאבר

If it refers to the foetus, why does [the Tanna] say AND WITHDREW IT?

לא אעובר

Even if it did not withdraw it [the foetus would be permitted]! - Indeed the law is the same even though it did not withdraw it within, but because he stated in the second clause.

אי אעובר מאי איריא החזירו

IF IT PUT FORTH ITS HEAD, THOUGH IT WITHDREW IT WITHIN, IT IS CONSIDERED AS BORN, he says also in the first clause AND WITHDREW IT.

אפילו לא החזירו נמי

But what does the second clause teach us?

הוא הדין אף על גב דלא החזירו

That as soon as the head emerged it is considered as born?

ואיידי דקא בעי מיתנא סיפא

But we have learnt it elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 46a, where this principle is established. It is therefore inappropriate to say that the first clause is stated on account of a second clause which is itself unnecessary.');">⁷</span>

הוציא את ראשו אף על פי שהחזירו הרי זה כילוד תנא נמי רישא

'Who is considered a firstborn for the right of inheritance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be entitled to a portion in the inheritance twice as much as any one of his brothers. Deut. XXI, 17.');">⁸</span>

החזירו

and not for the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the father is not obliged to redeem this child from the priest by payment of five shekels, the prescribed money of redemption; cf. Num. XVIII, 16.');">⁹</span>

וסיפא מאי קמשמע לן דכיון דיצא ראשו הויא לה לידה

He that was born after a premature child the head of which had even emerged alive, or after a nine-months child the head of which had emerged dead'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The distinction is this: with regard to the law of inheritance the Torah contemplates a viable firstborn child, a child on whose death the ubut ,hatr parent would have to go into mourning (derived by the Rabbis by interpreting , Deut. XXI, 17, 'the beginning of his strength', as 'the beginning of his mourning') . With regard to the law of the redemption of the firstborn, however, it was intended to apply to 'whatsoever openeth the womb', Ex. XIII, 2, whether the child born was living or not.');">¹⁰</span>

תנינא

Now this is so because the head [of the nine-months child] had emerged dead, but had it emerged alive then the child that was born after this would not be considered a firstborn, even for the right of inheritance!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus establishing the principle that with the emergence of the head the child is deemed born.');">¹¹</span>

איזהו בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהנים הבא אחר נפלים אף על פי שיצא ראשו חי או בן ט' שיצא ראשו מת

Should you, however, say that [there] it was taught with regard to man, and [here] it is taught with regard to beasts, because we could not apply the principle as established in the case of beasts to man, inasmuch as there is no ante-chamber in beasts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the forepart of the female genitals. So that as soon as the head emerges from the womb of the beast and sees the light of day it is forthwith regarded as born.');">¹²</span>

טעמא דראשו מת הא ראשו חי הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה נמי לא הוי

neither could we apply the principle as established in the case of man to beasts, inasmuch as the face of a human being is a principal feature;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore with the emergence of the head the human being is deemed born.');">¹³</span>

וכי תימא

surely we have expressly learnt it [even with regard to beasts], viz. , If part of the afterbirth emerged [before slaughtering the dam] it may not be eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 77a. For it may be that the head of the foetus was contained in that part of the afterbirth which emerged, in which case the foetus would be regarded as born and would not be rendered permitted by the subsequent slaughtering of the dam, and the afterbirth which belongs to it would likewise be forbidden.');">¹⁴</span>

אשמעינן באדם וקא משמע לן בבהמה

for it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emergence of the afterbirth.');">¹⁵</span>

דאדם מבהמה לא יליף דאין פרוזדור לבהמה ובהמה מאדם לא ילפא דחשיב פרצוף פנים דידיה

is a token of birth in the case of woman and also a token of birth in the case of beasts.

הא נמי תנינא

Now if you were to say that the withdrawal of the limb within, which is stated in the first clause [of our Mishnah], is to be particularly stressed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To teach that in such circumstances even the limb which had emerged is rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam.');">¹⁶</span>

שליא שיצתה מקצתה אסורה באכילה כסימן ולד באשה כך סימן ולד בבהמה

it is well; for then we could say that the second clause was stated on account of the first clause.

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.

אלא אי אמרת לא דרישא דוקא ולא דסיפא דוקא למה ליה למתנייה כלל

It was only stated in so far as it affects the part where it is c off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: if the limb had been withdrawn into the womb, then only that part which had actually emerged would have to be cut off as forbidden meat; but if it had not been withdrawn, then the limb which had emerged plus a little more of that which is within would have to be cut away as forbidden meat.');">¹⁷</span>

לא לעולם אעובר וכדאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

Come and hear: If an animal was in difficult labour and the foetus put forth its fore-limb and withdrew it within, and then the dam was slaughtered, it may be eaten.

לא נצרכה אלא למקום חתך הכא נמי לא נצרכה אלא למקום חתך

If the dam was slaughtered, and then it withdrew it within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the dam was slaughtered whilst the limb of the foetus protruded from its womb, but immediately after the slaughtering the limb was withdrawn into the womb.');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ש

it may not be eaten.

בהמה המקשה לילד הוציא עובר את ידו והחזירה ואחר כך שחט את אמו מותר באכילה

If it put forth its fore-limb and it was immediately cut off, and th the dam was slaughtered, that which is outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the limb that had been cut off.');">¹⁹</span>

שחט את אמו ואחר כך החזירה אסור באכילה

is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a limb cut off from the living animal is a source of uncleanness like nebelah; v. infra 128b.');">²⁰</span>

הוציא את ידו וחתכו ואח"כ שחט את אמו

and also forbidden [to be eaten], but that which is inside is clean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rest of the foetus is rendered permitted by the slaughtering of its dam and likewise free from uncleanness, and it does not suffer any uncleanness by reason of its contact with this limb, because it is a living animal, and a living animal cannot contract uncleanness.');">²¹</span>

שבחוץ טמא ואסור ושבפנים טהור ומותר

and permitted.

שחט את אמו ואחר כך חתכו

If the dam was slaughtered and then [the limb] was cut off,