Chullin 138

בעינא פרסות וליכא

- That [which is found within the animal] must have cloven hoofs [in order to be permitted], but this is not the case here.

אלא מעתה קלוט במעי פרה ליתסר

But then according to this, an animal with uncloven hoofs found in the womb of a cow should be forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this is permitted according to all opinions, even according to R. Simeon, v. supra 68b.');">¹</span>

הא תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כרבי שמעון בן יוחי

- Surely the following teaching of the school of R'Ishmael was taught in the school of R'Simeon B'Yohai,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is probably the correct meaning of the line which involves a slight alteration of the text, but the emendation is supported by MS.M. V. Yoma 59a, Zeb. 53b, 119b. Cur. edd.: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught like R. Simeon b. Yohai.');">²</span>

(דברים יד, ו) פרסה בבהמה תאכלו

viz.

רב שימי בר אשי אמר

The verse states: The hoof.

לעולם כדקאמרת מעיקרא

in the beast, ye may eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this verse Deut. Xlv, 6, the terms 'hoof and 'hoofs' are both employed, and the interpretation suggested is that an animal with one hoof, i.e., which has uncloven hoofs, or an animal with hoofs, i.e., which has cloven hoofs, if found in the beast, may be eaten.');">³</span>

ודקא קשיא לך

R'Shimi B'Ashi said: In truth it is as was suggested originally,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the term 'beast' includes the foetus also.');">⁴</span>

אין ממירין

and as for your difficulty from [the Mishnah], 'One cannot make a limb a substitute etc.' , [the answer is that] that is the opinion of R'Simeon who compares the law of Substitution to the law of Cattle Tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 32. According to those Rabbis, however, who do not agree with R. Simeon, the law is clear that a foetus can be rendered a substitute for a consecrated animal.');">⁵</span>

הא מני רבי שמעון היא דמקיש תמורה למעשר

so that just as the law of cattle tithe doe not apply to limbs or a foetus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the verse: Lev. ibid. 'whatsoever passeth under the rod' cannot apply to these.');">⁶</span>

מה מעשר אינו נוהג באברים ועוברים אף תמורה אינה נוהגת באברים ועוברים

so also the law of substitution does not apply to limbs or a foetus.

ומנא תימרא

Whence do you know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the opinion expressed in the Mishnah quoted from Tem. 10a, 'One cannot render a limb a substitute etc.' is that of R. Simeon.');">⁷</span>

דתנן אמר רבי יוסי

- Because we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 10a.');">⁸</span>

והלא במוקדשים האומר

R'Jose said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose is of the opinion that a limb can be made a substitute for a consecrated animal and supports his view by the argument he sets forth in the text.');">⁹</span>

רגלה של זו עולה כולה עולה אף כשיאמר

Is it not the case that, in connection with animal offerings, if one said: 'Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering', the whole is a burnt-offering?

רגל של זו תחת זו תהא כולה תמורה תחתיה

Similarly, if one said: 'Let the foot of this animal be a substitute for that [consecrated animal]', the whole animal should become consecrated as a substitute.

למאן קא מהדר ליה

Now with whom does R'Jose argue thus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The opinion preceding R. Jose's with which R. Jose differs is expressed anonymously.');">¹⁰</span>

אילימא לרבי מאיר ורבי יהודה מי אית להו האי סברא

Do you say with R'Meir and R'Judah?

והתניא יכול האומר

But they do not hold this view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the view stated in the premise of R. Jose's argument. It is evident from the form of his argument that his disputant would concede the law assumed in the premise.');">¹¹</span>

רגלה של זו עולה תהא כולה עולה

Surely it was taught: I might have thought that if one said: 'Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering', the whole would become a burnt-offering, it is therefore written: All that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 9.');">¹²</span>

תלמוד לומר

that is, of such' shall be holy, but not the whole of it.

(ויקרא כז, ט) כל אשר יתן ממנו לה' יהיה קדש ממנו קדש ולא כולו קדש

But I might have thought that the whole animal is unconsecrated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Save that the owner must redeem the limb by paying into the Temple treasury a sum of money equal to the value of the limb. vhvh');">¹³</span>

יכול תצא לחולין

it therefore says: 'shall be', that is, it shall remain in its former status.

תלמוד לומר

What is to be done?

יהיה בהוייתה תהא

The animal must be sold for the purpose of burnt-offerings and the money realised is ordinary unconsecrated money except for the value of this limb.

הא כיצד

So R'Meir and R'Judah.

תמכר לצרכי עולות ודמיה חולין חוץ מדמי אבר שבה דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה

R'Jose and R'Simeon, however, say: Whence do we know that if one said: 'Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering', the whole is a burnt-offering?

רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים

Because it is written, s be, which suggests that the whole of it is holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , 'shall be', a term redundant in the verse. The exposition is that even where part only of the animal was consecrated, the whole 'shall be holy'.');">¹⁴</span>

מנין לאומר

With whom then does R'Jose argue [in the first case]?

רגלה של זו עולה תהא כולה עולה

Is it with R'Meir and R'Judah?

תלמוד לומר

But they do not hold this view.

יהיה לרבות את כולה

It therefore can only be with R'Simeon, - It need not be so, for R'Jose argues on the basis of his own independent view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is not to be assumed that his premise was conceded by others. R. Jose merely bases his argument upon his own interpretation of verses.');">¹⁵</span>

למאן

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR WITH ITS FIRST YOUNG, ONE MAY CUT OFF EACH LIMB [As IT COMES OUT] AND THROW IT TO THE DOGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not holy as a firstling until it has been born, i.e., when at least the greater portion of it had emerged.');">¹⁶</span>

אי לרבי מאיר ורבי יהודה מי אית להו האי סברא

IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the same time, v. GEMARA:');">¹⁷</span>

אלא לאו לרבי שמעון

IT MUST BE BURIED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And may not be put to any use.');">¹⁸</span>

לא רבי יוסי טעמא דנפשיה קאמר:

AND THE DAM IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the young which she bears hereafter will not be considered a firstling. This rule, according to Rashi, refers to both clauses of the Mishnah, but according to Maim. only to the second.');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המבכרת המקשה לילד מחתך אבר אבר ומשליך לכלבים

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was stated: If a third [of the firstling] came forth and was [immediately] sold to a gentile, and then another third came forth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that now the greater portion of the firstling has been born.');">²⁰</span>

יצא רובו הרי זה יקבר ונפטרת מן הבכורה:

R'Huna says: It is holy.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אתמר

Rabbah says: It is not holy.

יצא שליש ומכרו לעובד כוכבים וחזר ויצא שליש אחר רב הונא אמר

R'Huna says it is holy because he maintains that the holiness is retrospective, so that as soon as the greater portion has come forth it becomes evident that it was holy from the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the beginning of the delivery it was holy, so that the gentile purchaser could acquire no rights therein.');">²¹</span>

קדוש רבה אמר

and he who purchased has purchased nothing at all.

אינו קדוש

Rabbah, however, says it is not holy, because he maintains that the holiness is prospective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the beginning of the delivery no holiness attached to it, and the gentile purchaser of the first third has made a valid purchase. Consequently this firstling even when it is fully born is not holy because of the share which the gentile has in it. Cf. Num. III, 13, and Bek. I, 2.');">²²</span>

רב הונא אמר קדוש קסבר

so that he who purchased has made a valid purchase.

למפרע קדוש וכיון דנפק ליה רוביה איגלאי מילתא למפרע דמעיקרא הוה קדוש ומאי דזבין לא כלום זבין

They are indeed consistent in their views, for it was also stated: If a third [of the firstling] was extracted from the side and two thirds came forth normally through the womb, R'Huna says.

רבה אמר אינו קדוש קסבר

It is not holy, Rabbah says: It is holy.

מכאן ולהבא קדוש ומאי דזבין שפיר זבין

R'Huna says it is not holy, for he maintains his principle that the holiness is retrospective, and here when the greater part first came forth, it had not entirely passed through the womb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Huna it is simultaneous with the birth of the greater part of the young that the holiness attaches. If therefore at this moment there is some cause which prevents the holiness from attaching, the young will never be deemed holy. In this case the holiness does not attach because the first part of the young was extracted from the side and did not pass normally through the womb. Cf. Ex. XIII, 2 'Whatsoever openeth the womb'.');">²³</span>

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאתמר

Rabbah, however, says it is holy, because he maintains his principle too, that the holiness is prospective, and here the greater part had come forth through the womb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though this occurred only at the end of delivery, the firstling is holy.');">²⁴</span>

יצא שליש דרך דופן ושני שלישי דרך רחם רב הונא אמר

Now both disputes had to be [reported].

אינו קדוש רבה אמר

For if we had learnt only this dispute, we might have said that only here does R'Huna hold [that the holiness is retrospective], for [if he were to hold otherwise]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the holiness is prospective.');">²⁵</span>

קדוש

he would be tending to leniency;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the young would not be deemed holy as a firstling.');">²⁶</span>

רב הונא אמר

whereas in the other dispute since [he would by such a view' be] tending to stringency, I might say that he would agree with Rabbah.

אינו קדוש רב הונא לטעמיה דאמר

למפרע קדוש ורובא קמא ליתיה ברחם

רבה אמר

קדוש רבה לטעמיה דאמר

מכאן ולהבא קדוש ורובא דרך רחם נפיק

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר רב הונא משום דלקולא אבל בהך דלחומרא אימא מודי ליה לרבה