Chullin 154

אי לטומאת נבלות תנינא

and if in respect of the uncleanness of nebelah, we have also learnt it.

טומאת אוכלין דתניא

As to food uncleanness it was taught: A skin or an afterbirth cannot contract food uncleanness; if the skin was seethed or the afterbirth intended to be eaten, it can contract food uncleanness.

העור והשליא אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

As to the uncleanness of nebelah it was taught: It is written, [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39.');">¹</span>

עור ששלקו והשליא שחישב עליה מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

but not its skin or its bones or its sinews or its horns or its hoofs.

טומאת נבילות נמי תנינא

And Rabbah son of R'Hana had said that [the verse] was only necessary [to exclude these] when they were stewed in a pot!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise they certainly would not be regarded as foodstuffs.');">²</span>

(ויקרא יא, לט) בנבלתה ולא בעור ולא בעצמות ולא בגידין ולא בקרנים ולא בטלפים

- Indeed [the question was raised] in respect of food uncleanness, but the law might be different in the case of an ass's skin since it is loathsome.

ואמר רבה בר רב חנא

IF PART OF THE AFTERBIRTH EMERGED.

לא נצרכה אלא שעשאן ציקי קדרה

R'Eleazar said: The rule [in the Mishnah] applies only to the case where there was no foetus within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in that part of the afterbirth which still remained inside the womb there was not found a foetus or any signs of one; this being so, and because of the principle that there can be no afterbirth without a foetus, the foetus must have been in that part of the afterbirth which had emerged so that it was thereby born; hence the afterbirth is forbidden.');">³</span>

לעולם טומאת אוכלין ושאני עור חמור דמאיס:

but where there was a foetus within we have no apprehension that it contained another foetus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is no reasonable ground to assume that in that part of the afterbirth which had come out there was another foetus, and that this afterbirth belonged to it, so that this afterbirth belonging to a born foetus would be forbidden. We assume rather that this afterbirth belongs to the foetus that is found within it, and which has not yet come out of the womb, so that the afterbirth is permitted.');">⁴</span>

שליא שיצתה:

R'Johanan said: Whether there was a foetus within or not, we apprehend another foetus.

א"ר אלעזר

But this surely is not so, for R'Jeremiah has declared that R'Eleazar adopts a stricter view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas according to the terms of the above dispute R. Eleazar adopts the more lenient view.');">⁵</span>

לא שנו אלא שאין עמה ולד אבל יש עמה ולד אין חוששין לולד אחר

[than R'Johanan]! - Indeed if it was reported it must have been reported as follows: R'Eleazar said: The rule [in the Mishnah] applies only to the case where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the afterbirth.');">⁶</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר

was not attached to the foetus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, even though there is a foetus in that part of the afterbirth which is still within the womb, the afterbirth is forbidden, for since this foetus is not attached to the afterbirth, there is the possibility of there having been another foetus in that part of the afterbirth which had come out and had dissolved, and this afterbirth belongs to it.');">⁷</span>

בין אין עמה ולד בין יש עמה ולד חוששין לולד אחר

but where it was attached to the foetus we do not apprehend another foetus.

איני

R'Johanan said: We are guided by the rule that there can be no afterbirth without a foetus; but where it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the afterbirth.');">⁶</span>

והא א"ר ירמיה

contained a foetus, whether it was attached to the foetus or not, we do not apprehend another foetus.

לחומרא אמרה ר' אלעזר

This now accords with the dictum of R'Jeremiah that R'Eleazar adopted a stricter view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For where that part of the afterbirth that was still inside the womb contained a foetus but was not attached to it, according to R. Eleazar we must take into consideration the possibility of there having been another foetus within it, whereas according to R. Johanan we do not; hence R. Eleazar adopts the stricter view.');">⁸</span>

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר א"ר אלעזר

There is [a Baraitha] taught in support of R'Eleazar's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is a distinction between an afterbirth that is attached to the foetus and one that is not so attached.');">⁹</span>

לא שנו אלא שאינה קשורה בולד אבל קשורה בולד אין חוששין לולד אחר

viz. , If a woman brought forth an abortion which resembled a beast or a wild animal or a bird, and there was an afterbirth too, if the afterbirth was attached to it we do not apprehend another foetus;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This woman therefore would be clean if no blood issued from her womb, for the bringing forth of these animal-like abortions is not accounted a birth, in accordance with the view of the Rabbis that whatsoever has not the form of man is not accounted a birth (v. Nid. ');">¹⁰</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר

but if it was not attached to it, I must impose upon this woman the restrictions of two births, for I may suppose that the foetus of this afterbirth as well as the afterbirth of this foetus had dissolved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of the possibility of the presence of another foetus, perhaps a female one which had dissolved, in this afterbirth, this woman would have to observe the period of uncleanness as for the birth of a female, i.e., fourteen days; but, on the other hand, there may not have been another foetus at all, and the afterbirth in fact belongs to this animal-like abortion, and inasmuch as an animal-like abortion is not accounted a birth, she therefore would not have the advantage of any period of purity at all. V. Lev. c. XII. vnsb');">¹¹</span>

אנו אין לנו אלא שליא בלא ולד

IF AN ANIMAL WHICH WAS WITH YOUNG FOR THE FIRST TIME CAST FORTH AN AFTERBIRTH [IT MAY BE THROWN TO DOGS].

אבל יש עמה ולד בין קשורה בולד בין אין קשורה בולד אין חוששין לולד אחר

Why? - R'Ika the son of R'Ammi said: Because the majority of animals give birth to something which is holy as a firstling whereas a minority of animals give birth to something which is not holy as a firstling, to wit, a nidmeh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. 'like, similar to'; e.g. a ewe which gave birth to what looked like a kid, or a goat which gave birth to what looked like a lamb. This is not holy as a firstling, v. Bik. II, 5.');">¹²</span>

והיינו דאמר ר' ירמיה

Now all animals that bear young bear half males and half females;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a female is not holy as a firstling.');">¹³</span>

לחומרא אמרה ר' אלעזר

add therefore the minority of nidmeh to the half females, with the result that the males constitute a minority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since we do not take the minority into consideration the foetus is not holy and may be thrown to the dogs.');">¹⁴</span>

תניא כוותיה דר' אלעזר

BUT IN THE CASE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL IT MUST BE BURIED.

המפלת מין בהמה חיה ועוף ושליא עמהן

Why? - Because the majority [of young born by a consecrated animal] is holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the young of a consecrated animal, whether male or female, is holy, save for the case of a nidmeh.');">¹⁵</span>

בזמן שקשורה בהן אין חוששין לולד אחר אינה קשורה בהן הריני מטיל עליה חומר שני ולדות שאני אומר

IT MAY NOT BE BURIED AT CROSS-ROADS.

שמא נימוח שפיר של שליא שמא נימוחה שליתו של שפיר:

Abaye and Raba both stated: Whatever is done for medicinal purposes is not prohibited as Amorite practices, and whatever is not done for medicinal purposes is prohibited as Amorite practices.

המבכרת שהפילה [וכו]:

But has it not been taught that a tree which casts its fruit may be painted with red paint or laden with stones?

מאי טעמא

Now it may be laden with stones so that

אמר רב איקא בריה דרב אמי

רוב בהמות יולדות דבר הקדוש בבכורה ומיעוט בהמות דבר שאינו קדוש בבכורה ומאי ניהו נדמה

וכל היולדות יולדות מחצה זכרים ומחצה נקבות

סמוך מיעוטא דנדמה למחצה דנקבות והוו להו זכרים מיעוטא:

ובמוקדשין תקבר:

מ"ט

רובא בר מיקדש הוא:

ואין קוברים אותה:

אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו

כל דבר שיש בו רפואה אין בו משום דרכי האמורי אין בו רפואה יש בו משום דרכי האמורי

והתניא

אילן שמשיר פירותיו סוקרו בסיקרא וטוענו באבנים

בשלמא טוענו באבנים כי היכי