Chullin 139

Chapter 139

א ואי אתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבה אבל בהא אימא מודי ליה לרב הונא צריכא

1 And if we had Garnet only the other dispute, we might have said that only there does Rabbah hold [that the holiness is prospective], whereas in this dispute I might say that he would agree with R'Huna.

ב תנן

2 Therefore both [disputes] had to be [reported].

ג המבכרת המקשה לילד מחתך אבר אבר ומשליך לכלבים

3 [An objection was raised].

ד מאי לאו מחתך ומניח

4 We have learnt: 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.

ה ואי אמרת למפרע הוא קדוש יקבר מיבעי ליה

5 Presumably this means, each limb is cut off and left where it is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even though there may be before us a number of limbs which together would make up the greater part of the young, each may nevertheless be thrown to the dogs, apparently because the holiness is not retrospective, contra R. Huna.');">1

ו לא הכא במאי עסקינן במחתך ומשליך

6 Now if you hold that the holiness is retrospective then it [sc. each limb] ought to be buried!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as soon as the greater part is collected together it appears retrospectively that this firstling was holy from the beginning, and, being dead, it must therefore be buried.');">2

ז אבל מחתך ומניח מאי יקבר

7 - No, the meaning is that each limb is cut off and thrown [to dogs].

ח אדתנא סיפא

8 But where each limb was cut off and left there, you would hold, would you not, that it must be buried?

ט יצא רובו יקבר ונפטרה מן הבכורה ליפלוג וליתני בדידיה

9 If so, why does the Tanna state in the second clause, IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH3

י במה דברים אמורים

10 IT MUST BE BURIED?

יא במחתך ומשליך אבר אבר אבל מחתך ומניח יקבר

11 He should have made a distinction in the first case, thus: This holds good only where each limb was cut off and thrown [to the dogs], but where each limb was cut off and left there, it must be buried!4

יב הכי נמי קאמר

12 - This is actually what is meant: This holds good only where each limb was cut off and thrown [to the dogs], but where each limb was cut off and left there, it is considered as if the greater portion came forth [at the same time], and must be buried.

יג בד"א

13 Raba raised the question: Do we apply the principle of 'the greater part' to limbs or not?5

יד במחתך ומשליך אבל מחתך ומניח נעשה כמי שיצא רובו ויקבר

14 What are the circumstances of the case?

טו בעי רבא

15 Should you suggest the following case, namely, that the greater part [of the young] came out [of the womb] and this included the lesser part of a limb, the question therefore being: Are we to reckon this lesser part of the limb, which is outside, together with the greater part of its limb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case, when we subtract this lesser part of a limb from that which has come out and reckon it together with the rest of that limb which is within the womb, the result is that the greater portion of the young has in law not emerged and is not deemed fully born; consequently it may be cut up for dogs, for there is no holiness upon it.');">6

טז הלכו באיברין אחר הרוב או לא הלכו באיברין אחר הרוב

16 or with the greater part of the young?7

יז היכי דמי

17 - But it is obvious that we do not ignore the greater part of the young and take into consideration the greater part of the limb! Rather the case must be as follows: half of the young came out and this included the greater part of a limb; the question therefore is: Are we to reckon the lesser part of the limb which is inside together with the greater part of the limb,8

יח אילימא כגון שיצא רוב במיעוט אבר וקא מיבעיא ליה

18 or not? - Come and hear.

יט האי מיעוט דבראי בתר רוב דאבר שדינן ליה או בתר רובא דעובר שדינן ליה

19 [We have learnt:] IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH IT MUST BE BURIED.

כ פשיטא דלא שבקינן רובא דעובר ואזלינן בתר רוב אבר

20 Now what is meant by 'the greater portion'?

כא אלא כגון שיצא חציו ברוב אבר וקא מיבעיא ליה

21 Does it mean actually the greater portion [of the young]?

כב ההוא מיעוט דבגואי מהו למישדייה בתר רוב אבר

22 But surely we have learnt before now the principle that the greater part is like the whole! It would mean therefore that only half came out but it included the greater part of a limb!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah teaches us that in such a case the lesser part of the limb, which is inside, is to be counted with the rest of the limb, and thus render the young fully born.');">9

כג ת"ש

23 - No, the fact was, that the greater part [of the young] came out and it included the lesser part of a limb, and [the Mishnah] teaches us that we must not ignore the greater part of the young and consider the greater part of the limb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the greater portion of the limb is still within the womb, the lesser portion, however, having emerged, is reckoned with the rest of the young that has emerged, so that the young is now deemed fully born.');">10

כד יצא רובו הרי זה יקבר

24 Raba raised these questions: What is the law if one wrapped it up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The foetus was wrapped up in one of these articles and was thus extracted from the womb of its dam but no part of the foetus came into direct contact with the womb. Now it is the womb that renders the firstling holy, for throughout the Torah the firstling is described as that which 'openeth the womb' (e.g., Ex. XIII, 2) . The question raised by Raba is this: must there be actual contact between the foetus and the womb when the foetus is being delivered, and otherwise it would not be regarded holy as a firstling, or is it sufficient that it passes through the womb although it makes no direct contact?');">11

כה מאי רובו

25 in bast, or in a garment, or in its afterbirth [You ask] 'In its afterbirth'?

כו אילימא רובו ממש עד השתא לא אשמעינן דרובו ככולו

26 But that is the normal condition! - Render, ln the afterbirth of another animal.

כז אלא לאו כגון שיצא חציו ברוב אבר

27 What if She<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The subject of the verb used is feminine whereas in the first question of Raba it is masculine. According to Rashi it refers to the woman who assists the delivery. She wrapped her hands around the foetus and thus extracted it so that there was no contact between the foetus and the u,zjt u,ujt womb of its dam. Tosaf. report a textual variant on the authority of R. Hananel; instead of 'she got hold of it' the reading is 'his sister'. The interpretation, accordingly, is this: there were twins within the womb, one male and the other female, and at the time of delivery it so happened that the female wrapped around and covered the male, so that there was no actual contact between the male twin and the womb.');">12

כח לא כגון שיצא רובו במיעוט אבר וקמ"ל דלא שבקינן רובו דעובר דבהמה ואזלינן בתר אבר

28 wrapped it up and got hold of it and brought it out?

כט בעי רבא

29 But what are the circumstances?13

ל כרכו בסיב מהו

30 If [you say] it came out with the head first, then it has thereby 'opened the womb'.

לא בטליתו מהו

31 Rather it must be that it came out with the legs first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question 'What are the circumstances?' refers, according to Rashi, to all the cases raised by Raba, and the exposition is as follows: It certainly cannot be thought of that the garment etc. was wrapped around the foetus whilst it was still in the womb of its dam, as it is hardly possible to do so; some part therefore of the foetus must have emerged. Now it cannot be the head, for then the question could not arise, since by the emergence of the head it is deemed fully born, and so holy as a firstling. It can only be, therefore, that the legs of the foetus had emerged and then the whole of it was wrapped up. According to the variant text adopted by Tosaf. (v. n. 2) and the interpretation suggested, this question of the Gemara refers only to the last question of Raba, and the exposition is as follows: If the head of the female twin came out first, then the male cannot in any circumstance be deemed holy as a firstling, for it had not 'opened the womb' but was born second. It must be, therefore, that the legs of the female twin came out first, and these were wrapped around the head of the male, so that, were it not for the question of direct contact with the womb, the male twin, being born first, by virtue of the emergence of its head, would he deemed a firstling.');">14

לב בשליתו מהו

32 What if a weasel [inserted its head into the womb and] took the foetus into its mouth and thus extracted it?

לג בשליתו

33 [You ask] 'And thus extracted it'?

לד אורחיה הוא

34 Then it has brought it forth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was not brought forth naturally but was extracted by the weasel it would not he holy as a firstling (R. Gershom) . According to Rashi the position is identical with the first case stated by Raba.');">15

לה אלא

35 - Render thus: What if the weasel took the foetus into its mouth, extracted it thus, inserted its head again into the womb and spewed it out therein, and then the foetus came forth of its own?16

לו בשליא אחרת מהו

36 What is the law if one joined two wombs [of two animals] to each other and the foetus issued from the one womb and entered the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the foetus leaves the womb of the second animal, would the latter thereby be exempt from the law of the firstling, so that what it next bears would not be deemed holy as a firstling, or not?');">17

לז כרכתו ואחזתו והוציאתו מהו

37 Shall we say that it18

לח היכי דמי

38 exempts only its own [dam from the law of the firstling] but it does not exempt another [animal] or perhaps it exempts also another animal? - These questions remain undecided.

לט אי דנפק דרך רישיה פטרתיה

39 R'Aha raised this question: What is the law if the walls of the womb opened wide [and the foetus fell out if it]?

מ אלא דנפק דרך מרגלותיו

40 Is it the air space of the womb that renders the firstling holy, - a condition which exists in our case, is it the contact with the womb that renders the firstling holy - a condition which is absent in our case?

מא בלעתהו חולדה והוציאתו מהו

41 Mar son of R'Ashi raised this question: What if the walls of the womb were torn away?

מב הוציאתו

42 [You ask] Torn away?

מג הא אפיקתיה

43 Then there is no womb here at all!19

מד אלא

44 It means: What if the walls of the womb were torn away and it now rested on the neck of the young?20

מה בלעתו והוציאתו והכניסתו והקיאתו ויצא מאליו מהו

45 Can [the womb only] render holy when it is in its natural place and not when it is out of its place, or even when out of its place it can also render holy?

מו הדביק שני רחמים ויצא מזה ונכנס לזה מהו

46 R'Jeremiah put this questio to R'Zera: What if the walls of the womb were peeled?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of this is very doubtful. Rashi suggests two interpretations: (i) the inner membrane of the womb had peeled away. i.e., the whole of the womb was intact except that it had been reduced in thickness by the removal of a layer of its substance; (ii) the whole of the womb within had been destroyed but the external edges remained intact. The Aruch suggests, (iii) the whole of the womb was intact but the external edges were cut away.');">21

מז דידיה פטר דלאו דידיה לא פטר

47 He replied: You are touching upon a question which we have already discussed.

מח או דלמא דלאו דידיה נמי פטר

48 For R'Zera had raised this question (others say: R'Zera had put this question to R'Assi) : What is the law if what was left [of the womb] was more than what was gone, but the young passed through the part that was gone;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In each case the young was located in the forepart of the womb which constitutes but the smaller part of the womb; in the first case, however, only the forepart was gone but the rest remained intact, whereas in the second case only the forepart remained intact but the rest was gone.');">22

מט תיקו

49 or if what was gone was more than what was left but the young passed through that part that was left of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In each case the young was located in the forepart of the womb which constitutes but the smaller part of the womb; in the first case, however, only the forepart was gone but the rest remained intact, whereas in the second case only the forepart remained intact but the rest was gone.');">22

נ בעי רב אחא

50 Now I was in doubt only in such a case as where what was gone [of the womb] was more than what was left, for there at least something was left of it.

נא נפתחו כותלי בית הרחם מהו

51 But in the case where the walls of the wombs were entirely peeled I have no doubt at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the firstling which passed through this mutilated womb is not holy. It must be pointed out that with regard to these questions the Rabbis of old already recognised that they were purely of academic interest and in no wise did they consider the actual occurrence of such cases sg hnu as probable or even possible. V. Tosaf. Ketub. ');">23

נב אויר רחם מקדיש והאיכא או דלמא נגיעת רחם מקדשה והא ליכא

נג בעי מר בר רב אשי

נד נעקרו כותלי בית הרחם מהו

נה נעקרו

נו ליתנהו

נז אלא

נח נעקרו ותלו ליה בצואריה מאי

נט במקומן מקדשי שלא במקומן לא מקדשי או דלמא שלא במקומן נמי מקדשי

ס בעי מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא

סא נגממו כותלי בית הרחם מהו

סב א"ל

סג קא נגעת בבעיא דאיבעיא לן

סד דבעי ר' זירא ואמרי לה בעא מיניה ר' זירא מרבי אסי

סה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ ויצא דרך פרוץ

סו פרוץ מרובה על העומד ויצא דרך עומד מאי

סז עד כאן לא איבעיא ליה אלא פרוץ מרובה על העומד דאיכא עומד בעולם אבל נגממו לא קא מיבעיא ליה:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter