Chullin 149
בשחיטה יבישתא ודלא כרבי שמעון
It was a dry slaughtering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No blood flowed out at the time of the slaughtering so that not even the dam was rendered susceptible to contract uncleanness. The act of slaughtering alone, according to this Tanna, does not render the animal susceptible to uncleanness, contra R. Simeon.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
עבר בנהר הוכשר הלך לבית הקברות נטמא
Who is the Tanna that taught: 'If it waded through a river it has thereby become susceptible to uncleanness and if it next passed through a cemetery it has thereby become unclean'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other words, that a living animal can contract uncleanness.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
רבי יוסי הגלילי היא
For it was taught: R'Simeon B'Eleazar says in the name of R'Jose the Galilean: It contracts food uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This living animal, extracted out of the slaughtered dam's womb, would be rendered unclean, like an ordinary foodstuff, if it came into contact with uncleanness.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין מפני שהוא חי וכל שהוא חי אינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין
R'Johanan is indeed consistent in his view, for R'Johanan had also said that R'Jose the Galilean and Beth Shammai held the same view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That living animals can contract uncleanness.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
משעה שאין יכולין לחיות
R'Johanan replied: A fish that is struggling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the throes of death and could not live even if put back into the water. According to Beth Hillel it cannot contract uncleanness; htn according to R. Akiba, it can. (R. Gershom) . V. however Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מאי בינייהו
R'Hisda raised the question: What is the law if such defects as [render an animal] trefah occurred in fish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Are fish rendered susceptible to contract uncleanness as soon as they have sustained a physical injury which in an animal would render it trefah or not? This question obviously arises only according to R. Akiba's view supra.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
בעי רב חסדא
only in the case of animals whose vital force is considerable but not in the case of fishes whose vital force is slender.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It might therefore be said that a fish, considering its low state of vitality the moment it sustains a physical injury is regarded as dead and is susceptible to contract uncleanness.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
נולדו בדגים סימני טרפה מהו
And according to him who holds that a trefah cannot continue to live this question can also be asked, for perhaps this is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that a trefah cannot continue to live and so might be regarded as dead.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
תיבעי למ"ד טרפה חיה ותיבעי למ"ד טרפה אינה חיה
only in the case of animals, since to its kind slaughtering applies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since slaughtering applies to animals and a trefah cannot be slaughtered it might well be regarded as dead, but this is not so in the case of fishes.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
תיבעי למ"ד טרפה חיה
but not to the case of fishes, since slaughtering does not apply to its kind!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In MS.M. and according to the text before Rashi the reading is: since to its kind the rules of trefah apply . . since the rules of trefah do not apply to its kind'. Shittah Mekubbezeth.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
או דילמא אפי' למ"ד טרפה אינה חיה הני מילי בהמה דיש במינה שחיטה אבל דגים דאין במינן שחיטה (אימא) לא
If an animal cast forth an abortion, the fat thereof, says R'Johanan, is as the fat of an animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of Kareth, v. Lev. VII, 25.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
תיקו
R'Simeon B'Lakish says: It is as the fat of a wild beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fat is as the flesh, and he who eats it is liable for infringing the prohibition of nebelah, (Deut. XIV, 21) which only involves a flogging but not Kareth. The prohibition of fat does not apply to that of a beast of chase.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
רבי יוחנן אמר
Others report it thus: Where the months of pregnancy had not been fulfilled [there is no doubt at all that] it is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fat of such foetus is certainly not forbidden as fat.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
כי פליגי היכא דהושיט ידו למעי בהמה ותלש חלב של בן ט' חי ואכל
[It was taught:] Just as 'the fat and the two kidneys' referred to in the case of the guilt-offering precludes that of a foetus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The guilt-offering had to be a male animal, hence the fat mentioned with regard to it which was to be offered upon the altar (cf. Lev. VII, 3, 4) cannot include that of a foetus found in the womb of the animal offered.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
חלבו כחלב בהמה חדשים גרמי רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר
Now according to my view, [says R'Johanan], it is right that the verse finds it necessary to preclude it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since for all purposes the fat of a nine months' living foetus is like that of an ordinary animal.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
איתיביה ר' יוחנן לרבי שמעון בן לקיש
- He replied: I derive my view from this very passage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that the law expressly excludes the fat of the foetus from sacrificial rites R. Simeon b. Lakish concludes that such fat is in no wise deemed fat.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
טעמא דידי נמי מהכא
but according to you, why should it not be offered [upon the altar]? - He replied: It is like an animal which has not reached the prescribed age.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in the first seven days of its life, though in every respect an animal, may not be offered as a sacrifice (cf. Ex. XXII, 29) . Likewise with the fat of the foetus, although it is regarded as fat in every respect, it is nevertheless forbidden for sacrificial purposes.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
ואיכא דאמרי איתיביה רבי שמעון בן לקיש לרבי יוחנן
R'Ammi said: If a person slaughtered a trefah animal and found in it a nine months' living foetus, according to him who forbids [the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The nine months' living foetus found in the womb of a slaughtered animal; v. supra, the Mishnah 740.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
בשלמא לדידי משום הכי מיעטיה רחמנא אלא לדידך ליקרב
and according to him who permits [the other without slaughtering] it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it was itself slaughtered; for slaughtering does not apply to it. And it is not permitted by its dam since the dam was a trefah.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
א"ל
Raba said: Even according to him who permits [the other without slaughtering] it is permitted, for the Divine Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., either the two organs of its dam or its own two organs, for the foetus is rendered permitted either by its own slaughtering or by the slaughtering of its dam.');"><sup>30</sup></span>