Chullin 153

נמנין עליהן בפסח

people may be counted in to partake thereof in the Passover-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One fulfils one's obligation by eating these sinews of the Passover offering, for being now tender they are regarded as flesh; v. Pes. 84a.');">¹</span>

ועוד

Secondly, 'the Torah doth spare the money of Israel'.

התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל

Whereupon R'Papa said to Raba: But on the other hand there is the view of R'Simeon B'Lakish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these sinews are not regarded as flesh since in a short time they will become hard and uneatable.');">²</span>

א"ל רב פפא לרבה

and moreover it is here a question involving a prohibition of the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the animal is trefah or not.');">³</span>

ר"ש בן לקיש ואיסורא דאורייתא ואת אמרת מאי ליחוש להו

and you say: What have we to fear? - He [Raba] remained silent.

אישתיק

But why did he remain silent?

ואמאי אישתיק

Has not Raba himself declared that the law agrees with R'Simeon B'Lakish only in those three cases?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Except in three cases mentioned in Yeb. 36a, where the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish prevails, the law always accords with the opinion of R. Johanan against that of R. Simeon b. Lakish. In this dispute therefore Raba was right in ignoring the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish.');">⁴</span>

והאמר רבא

- In this case it is different, for R'Johanan retracted his view in favour of that of R'Simeon B'Lakish, for he said: 'Do not worry me [with any more of your arguments] for I regard that Mishnah as the opinion of an individual'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 84a. R. Johanan originally held that whatsoever was edible now was considered flesh, and based his view on the Mishnah infra 122a, 'The skin of the head of a tender calf is considered flesh', although when the calf grows up this skin will harden and become inedible. Subsequently R. Johanan changed his view and ruled that the skin of the head of a tender calf does not contract uncleanness since it hardens later on. When confronted by R. Simeon b. Lakish with the above quoted Mishnah he replied that he did not adopt the ruling of that Mishnah since it was merely the opinion of an individual Rabbi. V. supra 55b, and infra 122a.');">⁵</span>

הלכתא כוותיה דר"ש בן לקיש בהני תלת

There once came to Abaye the case where the bone was broken and had protruded outside, and a fragment thereof had broken off.

שאני הכא דהדר ביה ר' יוחנן לגביה דר"ש בן לקיש דא"ל

He held the case over three Festivals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To discuss the law with those Rabbis who assembled for the purpose of listening to festival discourses. V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 862, n. 12.');">⁶</span>

אל תקניטני בלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה

Thereupon R'Adda B'Mattena said [to the owner of the animal:] Go and put the case to Raba the son of R'Joseph B'Hama, whose knife is sharp.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is capable of acute logical reasoning.');">⁷</span>

ההוא נשבר העצם ויצא לחוץ דאישתקיל קורטיתא מיניה אתא לקמיה דאביי שהייה תלתא ריגלי

He took it to him and Raba said: Let us see, [the Baraitha] taught, 'If the bone was broken and protruded outside'.

א"ל רב אדא בר מתנא

What does it matter to me whether a portion had fallen away or it was all there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the greater part of the fracture is covered up by flesh and skin it is permitted.');">⁸</span>

זיל קמיה דרבא בריה דרב יוסף בר חמא דחריפא סכיניה

Rabina enquired of Raba: What is the law if the [required amount of] flesh was scattered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does such flesh afford a sufficient protection over the fracture or not?');">⁹</span>

אתא לקמיה אמר

[around the fracture], or was in shreds, or had decomposed? - R'Huna the son of R'Joshua replied: Any flesh [that has decomposed so] that the surgeon must scrape it away [is to be regarded as gone entirely].

מכדי נשבר העצם ויצא לחוץ תנן מה לי נפל מה לי איתיה

The question was raised: What is the law if the flesh [that covered the fracture] was perforated, or had peeled off [the bone], or was slit, or the inner layer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the lower third'.');">¹⁰</span>

א"ל רבינא לרבא

[of flesh close to the bone] was gone? - Come and hear.'

מתלקט מה

ulla said in the name of R'Johanan: The skin is as good as the flesh!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the skin itself can serve as a sufficient covering how much more so the skin with two thirds of the thickness of the flesh!');">¹¹</span>

מתרוסס מהו

- Perhaps there the skin holds its own place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the skin adheres firmly to the bone so that it is a firm covering, whereas in the last question the flesh was not attached to the bone vhrhr vhshs');">¹²</span>

מתמסמס מהו

R'Ashi said: When we were at the school of R'Papi he enquired of us: What is the law if some of the flesh around the fracture was cut away in a circle like a ring?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Can such a deficiency heal up or not?');">¹³</span>

היכי דמי מתמסמס

And I suggested an answer from the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab, 'I enquired about this of scholars and doctors and they said: One should make incisions around the edges of the flesh with a bone and it will then heal up, but [not with] an iron instrument [for it] would case inflammation'.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

R'Papa said: Provided the bone was firmly attached to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the flesh. In that case it will eventually heal up. vphv apb');">¹⁴</span>

כל שהרופא קודרו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL AND FOUND IN IT AN AFTERBIRTH, HE WHO IS NOT FASTIDIOUS MAY EAT IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it has been rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the animal. Heb. , lit., 'a good soul; i.e., one who is not squeamish.');">¹⁵</span>

איבעיא להו

IT DOES NOT CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it came into contact with unclean matter, for it is not regarded as a foodstuff.');">¹⁶</span>

ניקב מהו

EITHER FOOD UNCLEANNESS OR THE UNCLEANNESS OF NEBELAH.

נקלף מהו

IF HE INTENDED TO EAT IT, IT CAN CONTRACT FOOD UNCLEANNESS BUT NOT THE UNCLEANNESS OF NEBELAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the animal died the afterbirth is not deemed part of the carcass and will not convey uncleanness as nebelah.');">¹⁷</span>

נסדק מהו

IF PART OF THE AFTERBIRTH EMERGED [BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE DAM], IT MAY NOT BE EATEN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it may have contained the head of the foetus which would then be regarded as born, and the afterbirth which belongs to it would not be rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the animal.');">¹⁸</span>

ניטל שליש התחתון מהו

FOR IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the emergence of the afterbirth.');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ש דאמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן

IS A SIGN OF BIRTH IN A WOMAN AND ALSO A SIGN OF BIRTH IN AN ANIMAL.

עור הרי הוא כבשר

IF AN ANIMAL WHICH WAS WITH YOUNG FOR THE FIRST TIME CAST FORTH AN AFTERBIRTH, IT MAY BE THROWN TO DOGS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is in no wise regarded sacred as a firstling for, in the first place, it might have contained a female young which is not sacred; and even if we assume that it did contain a male young, there is the further possibility that it was a male young of a species of animals different from its dam vnsb');">²⁰</span>

דלמא דקנה משכא דידיה

BUT IN THE CASE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL IT MUST BE BURIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the young, whether male or female, of a consecrated animal is sacred; and being dead, must be buried and not put to ally use.');">²¹</span>

אמר רב אשי

IT MAY NOT BE BURIED AT CROSS-ROADS OR HUNG ON A TREE, FOR THESE ARE AMORITE PRACTICES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were superstitious practices whereby, it was believed, the animal would be prevented from any further miscarriages. Such heathen superstitions are forbidden in Ex. XXIII, 24: Ye shall not do as they do.');">²²</span>

כי הוינן בי רב פפי איבעיא לן נקדר כמין טבעת מהו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the afterbirth found in an animal is permitted.');">²³</span>

ופשטנא מהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב

- [From the following.] Our Rabbis taught: The verse: Whatsoever.

דבר זה שאלתי לחכמים ולרופאים ואמרו

in the beast, that shall ye eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 3.');">²⁴</span>

מסרטו בעצם ומעלה ארוכה אבל פרזלא מזרף זריף

includes the afterbirth.

אמר רב פפא

I might say that even if part of it came forth [out the womb it is also permitted], the verse therefore states 'that', 'that' [shall ye eat] but not the afterbirth.

והוא דקנה גרמא דידיה:

let us consider, [it is accepted that] there can be no afterbirth without young, why then is any verse necessary [to exclude an afterbirth that had come forth]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the part of the afterbirth which emerged may have contained the greater part of the foetus, in which case it is deemed fully born, it is obvious that the slaughtering will not render it permitted.');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את הבהמה ומצא בה שליא נפש היפה תאכלנה ואינה מטמאה לא טומאת אוכלין ולא טומאת נבלות

- Indeed the verse is merely a support.

חישב עליה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין אבל לא טומאת נבלות

IT DOES NOT CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS.

שליא שיצתה מקצתה אסורה באכילה

R'Isaac B'Nappaha raised this question: What is the position with regard to an ass's skin which was seethed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., boiled for a long time. Is it regarded as a foodstuff or not?');">²⁶</span>

סימן ולד באשה וסימן ולד בבהמה

In what respect [does the question arise]?

המבכרת שהפילה שליא ישליכנה לכלבים ובמוקדשין תקבר

If in respect of food uncleanness, we have learnt it;

ואין קוברין אותה בפרשת דרכים ואין תולין אותה באילן מפני דרכי האמורי:

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי

דת"ר

(דברים יד, ו) כל בהמה תאכלו לרבות את השליא

יכול אפילו יצתה מקצתה

ת"ל

אותה אותה ולא שליתה

מכדי אין שליא בלא ולד למה לי קרא

קרא אסמכתא בעלמא:

ואינה מטמאה:

בעי ר' יצחק בר נפחא

עור חמור ששלקו מהו

למאי אי לטומאת אוכלין תנינא