Chullin 148

ר"ש שזורי אומר

R'SIMEON SHEZURI SAYS: EVEN IF IT IS FIVE YEARS OLD AND IS PLOUGHING THE FIELD, THE SLAUGHTERING OF ITS DAM RENDERS IT PERMITTED.

אפילו בן חמש שנים וחורש בשדה שחיטת אמו מטהרתו

IF HE RIPPED OPEN THE DAM AND FOUND IN IT A LIVING NINE MONTHS FOETUS, IT MUST BE SLAUGHTERED, SINCE ITS DAM HAS NOT BEEN SLAUGHTERED.

קרעה ומצא בה בן ט' חי טעון שחיטה לפי שלא נשחטה אמו:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Eleazar said in the name of R'Oshaia: They argued about it [the foetus] only with regard to slaughtering.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא

What does this exclude? - It excludes the fat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term 'fat' used here denotes that fat (heleb) which is forbidden in an ordinary animal, v. Lev. VII, 25.');">¹</span>

לא הילכו בו אלא על עסקי שחיטה בלבד

and the [sciatic] nerve.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fat and the sciatic nerve of the foetus are forbidden as in an ordinary animal, and there is no dispute about these (Rashi) . According to R. Gershom, all agree that the fat and the nerve of the foetus are permitted.');">²</span>

למעוטי מאי למעוטי חלבו וגידו

What fat is meant?

חלבו דמאי

Is it the fat of the foetus?

אילימא

But is there not a dispute with regard to it?

חלבו דשליל מפלג פליגי

For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 92b.');">³</span>

דתניא

The law of the sciatic nerve applies also to a foetus, and the fat [of the foetus] is forbidden: so R'Meir.

גיד הנשה נוהג בשליל וחלבו אסור דברי ר"מ

R'Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus, and the fat [of the foetus] is permitted.

ר' יהודה אומר

And R'Eleazar had said in the name of R'Oshaia that their dispute referred to a living nine months' foetus, R'Meir ruling according to his principle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a living nine months' foetus is deemed an animal proper and must itself be slaughtered.');">⁴</span>

אינו נוהג בשליל וחלבו מותר

and R'Judah according to his! And if it means the fat of the [sciatic] nerve, but is there not also a dispute about it For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 92b.');">³</span>

וא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא

One must trace the sciatic nerve as far as it goes and must cut away the fat thereof at its roots: so R'Meir.

מחלוקת בבן ט' חי והלך ר"מ לשיטתו

R'Judah says: One need only peel off the [fat at the] top<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the remaining fat in the region of the nerve is permitted.');">⁵</span>

ור' יהודה לשיטתו אלא חלבו דגיד מפלג פליגי

[of the hip-bone]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text of this passage is undoubtedly corrupt, for the whole argument about the fat-first the question as to what fat is meant, and secondly the dispute about the fat in the region close to the sciatic nerve - is entirely irrelevant to our subject. It is clear that the passage has been inserted here erroneously, and its proper place is infra ');">⁶</span>

דתניא

- If indeed it was reported, it must have been reported as follows: R'Eleazar said in the name of R'Oshaia: They argued about it only with regard to the matters that affect the eating thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether one may or may not eat it without slaughtering, and whether its fat and its sciatic nerve are forbidden or not.');">⁷</span>

גיד הנשה מחטט אחריו בכל מקום שהוא וחותך שמנו מעיקרו דברי ר"מ

thus excluding the prohibitions of interbreeding<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIX, 19.');">⁸</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

and ploughing with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoked together with an animal of a different species. Cf. Deut. XXII, 10. These prohibitions, it is agreed by all, apply (so Rashi; according to R. Gershom: do not apply) to an animal that was extracted out of the womb.');">⁹</span>

גוממו עם השופי

R'Simeon B'Lakish said: He who permits the fat [of the foetus] permits its blood, and he who forbids its fat forbids its blood.

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר א"ר אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא

R'Johanan says: Even he who permits its fat forbids its blood.

לא הילכו בו אלא על עסקי אכילה בלבד למעוטי רובעו וחורש בו

R'Johanan raised this objection against R'Simeon B'Lakish: We have learnt: HE NEED ONLY TEAR IT OPEN AND LET THE BLOOD FLOW OUT!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to an eight months' foetus whose fat is permitted according to all views and yet the blood is forbidden and must be allowed to flow out.');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר שמעון בן לקיש

- R'Zera said: He [R'Simeon B'Lakish] only meant to say that one would not be liable to the penalty of Kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For eating the blood thereof. Only in this sense did Resh Lakish use the term 'permit'. For Kareth v. Glos.');">¹¹</span>

לדברי המתיר בחלבו מתיר בדמו לדברי האוסר בחלבו אוסר בדמו

Whose view are we considering?

ורבי יוחנן אמר

R'Judah's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is R. Judah who permits the fat.');">¹²</span>

אף לדברי המתיר בחלבו אוסר בדמו

are we not?

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ש בן לקיש

But let it be accounted no more than the blood that oozes out; has it not been taught: With regard to the blood that oozes [out of the animal after the slaughtering] there is only a formal prohibition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which carries with it the penalty of a flogging only.');">¹³</span>

קורעו ומוציא את דמו

R'Judah says: There is the penalty of Kareth? - R'Joseph, the son of R'Salla the pious, explained it in the presence of R'Papa: R'Judah interprets the expressions, 'blood' and no manner of blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 26. The term 'blood' alone would mean the life blood, but the expression no manner of blood' includes even the blood that oozes out of the animal after the slaughtering.');">¹⁴</span>

א"ר זירא

hence, whenever one would be liable [to the penalty of Kareth] for the life blood one would also be liable for the blood that oozes out, and whenever one would not be liable for the life blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As none of the blood of a foetus is regarded as life blood, hence none of its blood comes under the prohibition.');">¹⁵</span>

לומר שאין ענוש כרת

one would not be liable for the blood that oozes out.

למאן קאמרי לרבי יהודה

The question was raised: May one redeem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XIII, 13.');">¹⁶</span>

לא יהא אלא דם התמצית דתניא

[the firstling of an ass] with a lamb extracted [out of the ewe womb]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be assumed that this extracted lamb was of less worth than the firstling ass, for otherwise the question does not arise, since one may always redeem it with anything that is its worth (Rashi) .');">¹⁷</span>

דם התמצית באזהרה ר' יהודה אומר

According to R'Meir's view there is no question at all; for since he declares that it must be slaughtered, it is obviously an ordinary lamb.

בהכרת

The question only arises according to the view of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁸</span>

תרגמא רב יוסף בריה דרב סלא חסידא קמיה דרב פפא

who maintain that the slaughtering of its dam renders it clean.

אית ליה לר' יהודה דם וכל דם כל היכא דמיחייב אדם הנפש מיחייב אדם התמצית וכל היכא דלא מחייב אדם הנפש לא מחייב אדם התמצית

Now what is the law?

איבעיא להו

Since they maintain that the slaughtering of its dam renders it clean, it is to be regarded as meat in a basket,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we may not redeem the firstling of an ass with meat of a slaughtered animal (if less than its worth, v. n. 4) ; v. Bek. 120.');">¹⁹</span>

מהו לפדות בבן פקועה

is it not?

אליבא דר"מ לא תיבעי לך דכיון דאמר טעון שחיטה שה מעליא הוא

Or [shall we say] since it runs to and fro, we apply to it the term lamb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13.');">²⁰</span>

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן דאמרי שחיטת אמו מטהרתו מאי

- Mar Zutra says: We may not redeem with it; R'Ashi says: We may.

כיון דאמרי שחיטת אמו מטהרתו כבשרא בדיקולא הוא

R'Ashi said to Mar Zutra, 'How do you arrive at your view?

או דילמא

You no doubt deduce it from the word 'lamb' used here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13.');">²⁰</span>

כיון דרהיט ואזיל ורהיט ואתי שה קרינא ביה

and also in the verse dealing with the paschal lamb;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 5. And just as a lamb which had been extracted from the ewe's womb is unfit for the paschal offering or any offering, it is likewise not fit for redeeming the firstling of an ass.');">²¹</span>

מר זוטרא אמר

then it should follow, just as there the lamb must be a male, without blemish, of the first year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 5. And just as a lamb which had been extracted from the ewe's womb is unfit for the paschal offering or any offering, it is likewise not fit for redeeming the firstling of an ass.');">²¹</span>

אין פודין ורב אשי אמר

so here too it must be a male, without blemish, of the first year'.

פודין

[Mar Zutra replied,] 'The repetition of: Thou shalt redeem,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13.');">²⁰</span>

א"ל רב אשי למר זוטרא

extends the scope of the law'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To include those that are blemished or female or older than yearlings as fit to redeem with them.');">²²</span>

מאי דעתך דגמרת (שמות יב, ה) שה (שמות יג, יג) שה מפסחים

[Said R'Ashi] 'If, as you say, namely, that the repetition of, 'Thou shalt redeem', extends the scope of the law, then everything [should be allowed]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the lamb extracted from the ewe's womb.');">²³</span>

אי מה להלן זכר תמים ובן שנה אף כאן זכר תמים ובן שנה

[Mar Zutra replied:] 'If that were so, of what use to you is the inference made by the term lamb'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This inference therefore excludes the lamb extracted from the ewe's womb, whereas the repetition of 'Thou shalt redeem' includes those that are blemished or females or older than yearlings.');">²⁴</span>

תפדה תפדה ריבה אי תפדה תפדה ריבה אפילו כל מילי נמי

The question was raised: Do we reckon here the first and second degree of uncleanness or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the dam was slaughtered, carrying in its womb a living nine months' foetus, and the dam was rendered unclean, the question arises: Does the foetus assume the same degree of uncleanness as the dam, or one degree less?');">²⁵</span>

אם כן שה שה מאי אהני לך

R'Johanan said: We do reckon here the first and second degree of uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The foetus and dam are two separate entities; the former would therefore be unclean in one degree less than the latter.');">²⁶</span>

איבעיא להו

R'Simeon B'Lakish said: We do not reckon here the first and second degree of uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The foetus and the dam are one entity so that the foetus assumes the same degree of uncleanness as its dam.');">²⁷</span>

מהו למנות בו ראשון ושני

for it is regarded as a nut that rattles in shell.

ר' יוחנן אמר

R'Simeon B'Lakish raised this objection against R'Johanan.

מונין בו ראשון ושני רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר

We have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 720.');">²⁸</span>

אין מונין בו ראשון ושני נעשה כאגוז המתקשקש בקליפתו

The flesh is unclean like that which had touched nebelah: so R'Meir.

איתיביה ר"ש בן לקיש לרבי יוחנן

But the Sages say: It is unclean like that which had touched a slaughtered trefah [animal].

הבשר מגע נבלה דברי ר"מ וחכ"א

Now according to my view that they [the foetus and the dam] are one body, it is clear, for it [the foetus] was rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness] by the blood of its dam;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when part of a foodstuff has been moistened by one of the prescribed liquids the whole is rendered susceptible to contract uncleanness; here therefore the foetus, as part of its dam, is rendered susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of the moistening of the flesh about the throat of the dam by the blood of the slaughtering.');">²⁹</span>

מגע טרפה שחוטה

but according to you [it will be asked:] whereby was it rendered susceptible to uncleanness? - He replied: By the slaughtering, and it is in accordance with R'Simeon's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 33a. As the slaughtering is also effective for the foetus the latter is thereby rendered susceptible to uncleanness.');">³⁰</span>

בשלמא לדידי דאמינא חד גופא הוא היינו דאיתכשר בדמא דאמיה

R'Johanan raised this objection against R'Simeon B'Lakish.

אלא לדידך במאי איתכשר

If it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal extracted alive out of the slaughtered dam's womb.');">³¹</span>

א"ל

waded through a river it has thereby become susceptible to uncleanness, and if it next passed through a cemetery it has thereby become unclean.

בשחיטה וכר"ש

Now according to my view that they are two separate beings, it is clear that only if it had thus become susceptible to uncleanness [by passing through a river] it becomes [unclean], but if it had not thus become susceptible to uncleanness it is not [unclean].

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ש בן לקיש

But according to your view that they are one body [it is difficult, for surely] it had long ago become susceptible to uncleanness by the blood of its dam!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the slaughtering of its dam.');">³²</span>

עבר בנהר הוכשר הלך לבית הקברות נטמא

-

בשלמא לדידי דאמינא תרי גופי נינהו משום הכי הוכשר אין לא הוכשר לא

אלא לדידך דאמרת חד גופא הוא הא איתכשר בדמא דאמיה