Chullin 137

Chapter 137

א זה הכלל

1 THIS IS THE RULE: WHAT IS FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS FORBIDDEN, BUT WHAT IS NOT FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS PERMITTED.

ב דבר שגופה אסור ושאינה גופה מותר

2 Now what does the term NOT FROM THE BODY include?1

ג שאין גופה לאתויי מאי לאו לאתויי כה"ג

3 Surely it includes such a case as the above!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where a small portion only of the foetus remained within the womb, although the greater part of the foetus had been cut off limb by limb as each emerged, it is still permitted.');">2

ד לא לאתויי קלוט במעי פרה ואליבא דרבי שמעון

4 - No.

ה דאע"ג דאמר רבי שמעון

5 It includes a foetus with uncloven hoofs which is in the womb of the cow.

ו קלוט בן פרה אסור הני מילי היכא דיצא לאויר העולם אבל במעי אמו שרי

6 And [it is permitted even] according to R'Simeon, For although R'Simeon ruled that an animal with uncloven hoofs which was brought forth by a cow is forbidden, that is so only where it came forth into the world, but where it was still in the womb of the dam it is permitted.

ז בעי רב חנניא

7 R'Hanania propounded the question: What if the foetus [in the womb of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering] put forth its fore-limb into the Temple court?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., while the sacrifice was being slaughtered within the precincts of the Temple court the foetus put forth a limb out of the womb into the space of the Temple court.');">3

ח הוציא עובר את ידו בעזרה מהו

8 For [it might be argued,] since the Temple court is the bounds for consecrated animals it would also be the bounds for this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore even the limb that protruded would be rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam for it had not gone out beyond the bounds of the Temple court.');">4

ט מגו דהוי מחיצה לגבי קדשים הוי נמי לגבי דהאי

9 [sc. the foetus]; or it is n the bounds for this [foetus], for the bounds of the foetus are the womb of its dam! Whereupon Abaye said to him: But you might have raised this question with regard to consecrated animals which are holy in a minor degree in Jerusalem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., where the foetus in the womb of an animal consecrated for a peace-offering put forth a limb out of the womb in Jerusalem, and withdrew it within, and subsequently the dam was slaughtered in the Temple court. Now according to him who maintains that even though the limb was withdrawn within at the time of the slaughtering the limb is nevertheless forbidden, the question here is, would the slaughtering of the dam render permitted even the limb that had emerged previously, since the limb had not got beyond the bounds prescribed for the eating of the flesh of a peace-offering, or not?');">5

י או דלמא

10 Nevertheless you did not raise the question with regard to consecrated animals which are holy in a minor degree, because it is clear that the bounds of the foetus are the womb of its dam; then in the previous question too we must say that the bounds of the foetus are the womb of the dam.6

יא לגבי דהאי לאו מחיצה היא דמחיצת עובר אמו היא

11 Ilfa raised this question: What is the law if a foetus put forth its fore-limb [out of the womb of its dam] after the first [throat] organ but before the second organ [was cut]?

יב אמר ליה אביי

12 Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render it [the fore-limb] clean so that it be not nebelah or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when cutting the first organ, at which time the limb had not yet protruded, the effect of that cutting was twofold, (a) to render the limb of the foetus clean, and (b) to render it permitted to be eaten; but at the cutting of the second organ, at which time the limb had already protruded, the only possible effect of that cutting was to render _the limb clean (v. infra 72a) . Since the effects produced by the cutting of each organ are not equal, the question arises whether the first organ can be reckoned together with the second in order to produce the effect common to both, viz., that the limb be rendered clean. V. supra p. 176, n. 1.');">7

יג ותבעי לך קדשים קלים בירושלים

13 - Raba answered: Certainly it must be so reckoned; for if the [cutting of the] first organ followed by the [cutting of the] second organ has the effect of rendering [the animal] permitted to be eaten, then surely it has the effect of rendering [the limb] clean so that it be not nebelah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer is this: if only the question of rendering the limb clean is considered it is immaterial whether the foetus put forth its limb before or after or in the course of the slaughtering. Therefore the effect of cutting both organs must be to render the limb clean. The fact that at the time of the cutting of the first organ it was possible that the entire foetus, including this limb, might have been rendered permitted to be eaten, and that this became impossible because of the putting forth of the limb, can be ignored. The argument is an a fortiori argument because it is well established that less is required to render an animal clean than is required to render it permitted to be eaten.');">8

יד קדשים קלים בירושלים מאי טעמא לא קא מיבעיא לך דמחיצת עובר אמו הוא הכא נמי מחיצת עובר אמו הוא

14 R'Jeremiah raised the question: Are we concerned at all about its offspring?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This foetus, which had put forth a limb during the slaughtering of its dam, was taken out of the womb alive. Consequently the whole of it is permitted to be eaten, and strictly without first being slaughtered as it has already been rendered permitted by the slaughtering of its dam, except for that limb which would remain forbidden always. In the course of time it was mated with a cow and begot a calf. The question therefore is, whether the limb of the calf corresponding to the forbidden limb of its sire is also forbidden or not.');">9

טו בעי אילפא

15 What are the circumstances of the case?

טז הוציא עובר את ידו בין סימן לסימן מהו

16 If we say that it covered a normal cow, then why is this question raised only with regard to this animal which has a limb forbidden on account of its protrusion [prior to the slaughtering of the dam]?

יז מי מצטרף סימן ראשון לסימן שני לטהריה מידי נבלה או לא

17 Indeed it might be raised with regard to the more general case of an animal that was taken out [alive from the womb of the slaughtered dam].

יח אמר רבא

18 For R'Mesharsheya said: According to him who maintains that we must take into account the seed of the male10

יט ק"ו אם הועיל לו סימן ראשון לסימן שני להתירו באכילה לא יועיל לו לטהריה מידי נבלה

19 if an animal that had been taken out [alive from the womb of the slaughtered dam] covered a normal cow there is no remedy for the offspring?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because from the maternal side it requires to be slaughtered, but from the paternal side it does not; hence the offspring is considered, notionally, as half slaughtered, and nothing now can be done to it to remedy this state.');">11

כ בעי ר' ירמיה

20 - The question can be considered only in the case where it covered a cow which, like itself,12

כא מהו לחוש לזרעו

21 had been taken out [alive from the womb of the slaughtered dam].

כב היכי דמי אילימא דאזל אבהמה מעלייתא מאי איריא האי דאית ביה איסור יוצא

22 What [then is the position of the offspring]?

כג אפילו בן פקועה דעלמא נמי

23 Do we say that each limb [of the progenitors] produces the identical limb [in the offspring], so that here it13

כד דאמר רב משרשיא

24 must be cut off but the rest is permitted; or do we hold that the seed is mixed up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the seed represents all the organs of the male as one whole, and cannot be distributed into separate parts, each part to represent a distinct organ; consequently the offspring being the product of a sire which has a forbidden limb is entirely forbidden.');">14

כה לדברי האומר חוששין לזרע האב בן פקועה הבא על בהמה מעלייתא הולד אין לו תקנה

25 Subsequently he [R'Jeremiah] said: It is obvious that the seed is mixed up, for otherwise the blind should produce a blind offspring, and the crippled a crippled offspring.

כו לא צריכא דאזל אבן פקועה דכוותיה מאי

26 We therefore must say that the seed is mixed up, but the question that was raised was really this: an ordinary animal is the product of the forbidden fat and of the blood [of the sire],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is held that every part of the body is a contributory factor in the act of procreation, including also the two forbidden substances in the animal body, viz., the blood and the fat.');">15

כז אבר מוליד אבר וחתיך ליה ושרי או דלמא

27 nevertheless it is permitted, then here also it should be permitted;16

כח מבלבל זרעיה

28 or perhaps we only permit the product of two prohibited substances but not of three?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Namely, that in a foetus taken out alive from the womb of its slaughtered dam after it had protruded a limb, there are inherent three prohibitions, viz., that of the blood, of the forbidden fat, and of the protruded limb.');">17

כט הדר אמר

29 But according to whom is it?18

ל פשיטא דמבלבל זרעיה דא"כ סומא יולד סומא וקיטע

30 According to R'Meir there are the prohibitions of the forbidden fat and of the blood but not of the protruded limb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to R. Meir, v. infra 74a, even the foetus that was within the womb at, the time of the slaughtering of its dam is not rendered permitted thereby, consequently there is no particular prohibition attached to it on account of the limb that protruded.');">19

לא יולד קיטע אלא פשיטא דמבלבל זרעיה

31 and according to R'Judah there is indeed the prohibition of the protruded limb but not of the forbidden fat.

לב והכי קמיבעיא לן

32 For it was taught: The law of the sciatic nerve20

לג בהמה בעלמא לאו מכח חלב ודם קאתיא ושריא

33 applies also to a foetus, and the fat [of the foetus] is forbidden.

לד הכא נמי לא שנא

34 So R'Meir.

לה או דלמא

35 R'Judah says: I does not apply to a foetus, and the fat [of the foetus] is permitted!21

לו תרי איסורי אמרינן תלתא לא אמרינן

36 - We must therefore say that the outcome [of prohibited causes] is to be disregarded, and it is certainly permitted; and the question put, was really this: May one drink the milk [of this particular animal]?22

לז ולמאן

37 After all the milk of all animals is very much like a limb taken away from the living animal, nevertheless it is permitted, likewise in this case [it should be permitted]; or perhaps [we ought to distinguish this case, for] in all other cases the prohibition can be remedied by slaughtering, but in this case it cannot.23

לח אי לרבי מאיר איסור חלב ודם איכא איסור יוצא ליכא

38 This must remain undecided.

לט אי לרבי יהודה איסור יוצא איכא איסור חלב (ודם) ליכא

39 WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF, etc. Whence do we know this? - For it is written: And every beast that parteth the hoof.

מ דתנן

40 in the beast, [it ye may eat];24

מא גיד הנשה נוהג בשליל וחלבו אסור דברי רבי מאיר

41 this includes the foetus.

מב רבי יהודה אומר

42 If so,25

מג אין נוהג בשליל וחלבו מותר

43 one ought to be able to make it a substitute for a consecrated animal.

מד אלא כל מכח לא אמרינן דשרי והכי קמיבעיא לן

44 How is it then that we have learnt: 'One cannot make a limb a substitute for a consecrated foetus, or a foetus for a consecrated limb, or a limb or a foetus for a whole [consecrated animal], or a whole animal for either of these'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 10a. Cf. Lev. XXVII, 10, where the term 'beast' is also used and on this account the law is established that a foetus or a limb is precluded from the law of substitution.');">26

מה מהו לגמוע את חלבו

45 Rather it is derived from the expression: And every.

מו חלב דעלמא לא כאבר מן החי דמי ושרי

46 in the beast,27

מז האי נמי ל"ש או דלמא

47 which includes the foetus.

מח התם אית ליה תקנתא לאיסוריה בשחיטה הכא לית ליה תקנתא לאיסוריה בשחיטה

48 If so, even if part of the spleen or of the kidneys of the animal was cut away [and left inside] it should also be permitted, wherefore have we learnt, 'WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE FOETUS IN THE WOMB [AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY BE EATEN, BUT WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE SPLEEN OR THE KIDNEYS [OF THE ANIMAL AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY NOT BE EATEN'? - The verse adds: It [ye may eat], that is, when 'it'28

מט תיקו:

49 is whole [ye may eat everything found therein] but not when part is wanting.

נ חותך מעובר וכו':

50 But then according to this, if one slaughtered an animal and found therein a sort of dove the latter should be permitted, wherefore has R'Johanan stated: 'If one slaughtered an animal and found therein a sort of dove it is forbidden to be eaten'?

נא מנלן

נב דכתיב

נג (דברים יד, ו) וכל בהמה מפרסת פרסה וגו' בהמה בבהמה לרבות את הולד אלא מעתה ימירו בו

נד אלמה תנן

נה אין ממירין לא אברין בעוברין ולא עוברין באברין ולא אברין ועוברין בשלמין ולא שלמין בהן

נו אלא אמר קרא

נז (דברים יד, ו) וכל בהמה לרבות את הולד

נח אי הכי אפילו חותך מן הטחול ומן הכליות נמי

נט אלמה תנן

ס חותך מן העובר שבמעיה מותר באכילה מן הטחול ומן הכליות אסור באכילה

סא אמר קרא

סב אותה שלמה ולא חסרה

סג אלא מעתה השוחט את הבהמה ומצא בה דמות יונה תשתרי

סד אלמה אמר רבי יוחנן

סה השוחט את הבהמה ומצא בה דמות יונה אסור באכילה

Previous Chapter Next Chapter