Chullin 147
אין בהן אלא מצות פרוש בלבד
In such cases there is only the mere precept to keep aloof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But there is no prohibition in the Torah even against the eating of this limb; as the foregoing verse is merely an indirect support for the Rabbinic restriction. It is obvious, therefore, that at the slaughtering the limb is not accounted as detached.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
יתיב רב יוסף קמיה דרב הונא ויתיב וקאמר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב
R'Joseph was sitting before R'Huna and recited as follows: Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: He who eats this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the limb that was hanging loose at the time of the slaughtering of the animal.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אמר ליה רב הונא
I was speaking of the death [of the animal] when the limb is accounted as detached,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently whosoever eats this limb incurs a flogging provided he was warned beforehand by the appropriate prohibition, namely, against eating a limb detached from a living animal, but not against eating nebelah.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
כי אמרי אנא במיתה דעושה ניפול
And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 32. The particular use of the Heb. 'fall' in connection with , lit., 'on their death', suggests the teaching that only death causes the falling off of the limb but not the slaughtering.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
דכתיב
R'Adda B'Ahaba said to the Raba, But the verse deals with creeping things?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which slaughtering does not apply; how then can the rule about slaughtering be excluded by inference from this verse? o,unc');"><sup>7</sup></span>
מיתה עושה ניפול ואין שחיטה עושה ניפול
- The expression, 'when they are dead', occurs twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 31 and 32. One teaches the rule that only creeping things that are moist can convey uncleanness, and the other the exclusion of slaughtering.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
לחין מטמאים יבשים אין מטמאים
But has it not been taught: The slaughtering of a live eight months' birth could prove [otherwise], for even though slaughtering applies to its kind, the slaughtering does not render it clean? - R'Kahana answered, [It means that] through its dam slaughtering applies to its kind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by the slaughtering of the dam the foetus within the womb is rendered permitted to be eaten as if it were itself slaughtered, so that one could say that slaughtering applies to its kind.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מחלוקת באבר דעובר חי אבל באבר דעובר מת דברי הכל שחיטה עושה ניפול
For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, (others say: It was so taught in a Baraitha) , It is written: And if there dieth of the beasts, that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean,]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39. A literal rendering of the verse.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
בן שמנה חי [וכו']:
R'Hoshaia raised this question, What is the law if a person put his hand into an animal's womb and slaughtered therein a living nine months' foetus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was subsequently delivered by the dam.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
בן שמנה חי יוכיח שאף על פי שיש במינו שחיטה אין שחיטתו מטהרתו
According to R'Meir the question is this, perhaps when R'Meir contended that an animal which was extracted [alive from the womb] must itself be slaughtered he referred only to an animal which came forth [alive] into the world, but whilst within the womb of its dam the slaughtering of it would not render it permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is all the more so according to the Sages, since they maintain that slaughtering does not apply to a foetus.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אמר רב כהנא
And on the other hand, perhaps [it is permitted] even according to the view of Rabbis, for the Divine Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the slaughtering either of its own two organs of the throat or of the two organs of the throat of its dam will render the foetus permitted. And it is all the more so according to R. Meir, since he is generally of the opinion that slaughtering applies to a foetus.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ותנא דידן מינא דאמיה לא פריך
[We have learnt:] WHENCE WOULD WE KNOW THIS OF AN ANIMAL THAT WAS BORN TREFAH FROM THE WOMB?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was never fit for slaughtering, since from birth is was a trefah.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ולהאי תנא דפריך טרפה דשחיטתה מטהרתה מנא ליה
Now if it can be said [that the slaughtering of the foetu in its dam's womb renders it valid], then this also had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering], for a man might put his hand into the womb and slaughter it there [before it was rendered trefah]! - Raba said to him, Render: 'an animal that was formed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the very beginning of the development of the embryo it was trefah, e.g. it was formed with five legs which renders it trefah, cf. supra 58b.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
נפקא ליה מדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה א"ר ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא
trefah from the womb', and this would be the case when, e.g. , it has five legs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The additional leg being a hind leg in which case the animal is trefah. Such a defect existed in the animal from the time that it was formed in the womb.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה מקצת בהמה מטמאה ומקצת בהמה אינה מטמאה ואיזו זו זו טרפה ששחטה
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL AND FOUND IN IT AN EIGHT MONTHS FOETUS, EITHER LIVING OR DEAD, OR A DEAD NINE MONTHS FOETUS, HE NEED ONLY TEAR IT OPEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not require to be slaughtered ritually for it has already been rendered permitted by the slaughtering of its dam.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
הושיט את ידו למעי בהמה ושחט בן ט' חי מהו
IF HE FOUND IN IT A LIVING NINE MONTHS' FOETUS IT MUST BE SLAUGHTERED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir who is the author of this view contends that with the completion of nine months of pregnancy the foetus, if it is living, is deemed a separate being and is not rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam. The Sages, however, who dispute with him maintain that the nine months' living foetus is deemed a separate animal only on birth, but as long as it is within the womb it is part of the dam and is rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam.');"><sup>22</sup></span>