Parallel
חולין 70
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And if we had Garnet only the other dispute, we might have said that only there does Rabbah hold [that the holiness is prospective], whereas in this dispute I might say that he would agree with R. Huna. Therefore both [disputes] had to be [reported]. [An objection was raised]. We have learnt: IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR WITH ITS FIRST YOUNG, ONE MAY CUT OFF EACH LIMB [AS IT COMES OUT] AND THROW IT TO THE DOGS. Presumably this means, each limb is cut off and left where it is. Now if you hold that the holiness is retrospective then it [sc. each limb] ought to be buried! — No, the meaning is that each limb is cut off and thrown [to dogs]. But where each limb was cut off and left there, you would hold, would you not, that it must be buried? If so, why does the Tanna state in the second clause, IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH IT MUST BE BURIED? He should have made a distinction in the first case, thus: This holds good only where each limb was cut off and thrown [to the dogs], but where each limb was cut off and left there, it must be buried! — This is actually what is meant: This holds good only where each limb was cut off and thrown [to the dogs], but where each limb was cut off and left there, it is considered as if the greater portion came forth [at the same time], and must be buried. Raba raised the question: Do we apply the principle of ‘the greater part’ to limbs or not? What are the circumstances of the case? Should you suggest the following case, namely, that the greater part [of the young] came out [of the womb] and this included the lesser part of a limb, the question therefore being: Are we to reckon this lesser part of the limb, which is outside, together with the greater part of its limb, or with the greater part of the young? — But it is obvious that we do not ignore the greater part of the young and take into consideration the greater part of the limb! Rather the case must be as follows: half of the young came out and this included the greater part of a limb; the question therefore is: Are we to reckon the lesser part of the limb which is inside together with the greater part of the limb, or not? — Come and hear. [We have learnt:] IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH IT MUST BE BURIED. Now what is meant by ‘the greater portion’? Does it mean actually the greater portion [of the young]? But surely we have learnt before now the principle that the greater part is like the whole! It would mean therefore that only half came out but it included the greater part of a limb! — No, the fact was, that the greater part [of the young] came out and it included the lesser part of a limb, and [the Mishnah] teaches us that we must not ignore the greater part of the young and consider the greater part of the limb. Raba raised these questions: What is the law if one wrapped it up in bast, or in a garment, or in its afterbirth? [You ask] ‘In its afterbirth’? But that is the normal condition! — Render, ln the afterbirth of another animal. What if She wrapped it up and got hold of it and brought it out? But what are the circumstances? If [you say] it came out with the head first, then it has thereby ‘opened the womb’. Rather it must be that it came out with the legs first. What if a weasel [inserted its head into the womb and] took the foetus into its mouth and thus extracted it? [You ask] ‘And thus extracted it’? Then it has brought it forth! — Render thus: What if the weasel took the foetus into its mouth, extracted it thus, inserted its head again into the womb and spewed it out therein, and then the foetus came forth of its own? What is the law if one joined two wombs [of two animals] to each other and the foetus issued from the one womb and entered the other? Shall we say that it exempts only its own [dam from the law of the firstling] but it does not exempt another [animal] or perhaps it exempts also another animal? — These questions remain undecided. R. Aha raised this question: What is the law if the walls of the womb opened wide [and the foetus fell out if it]? Is it the air space of the womb that renders the firstling holy, — a condition which exists in our case, or is it the contact with the womb that renders the firstling holy — a condition which is absent in our case? Mar son of R. Ashi raised this question: What if the walls of the womb were torn away? [You ask] Torn away? Then there is no womb here at all! It means: What if the walls of the womb were torn away and it now rested on the neck of the young? Can [the womb only] render holy when it is in its natural place and not when it is out of its place, or even when out of its place it can also render holy? R. Jeremiah put this question to R. Zera: What if the walls of the womb were peeled? He replied: You are touching upon a question which we have already discussed. For R. Zera had raised this question (others say: R. Zera had put this question to R. Assi): What is the law if what was left [of the womb] was more than what was gone, but the young passed through the part that was gone; or if what was gone was more than what was left but the young passed through that part that was left of it? Now I was in doubt only in such a case as where what was gone [of the womb] was more than what was left, for there at least something was left of it. But in the case where the walls of the wombs were entirely peeled I have no doubt at all. 23
—
MISHNAH. IF A FOETUS HAD DIED WITHIN THE WOMB OF ITS DAM AND THE SHEPHERD PUT IN HIS HAND AND TOUCHED IT, HE IS CLEAN, WHETHER IT WAS A CLEAN OR UNCLEAN ANIMAL. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS, IF IT WAS AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL HE WOULD BE UNCLEAN, AND IF IT WAS A CLEAN ANIMAL HE WOULD BE CLEAN. GEMARA. What is the reason of the first Tanna's view? — R. Hisda said: It is an a fortiori argument; for if the dam [when slaughtered] has the effect of rendering [the foetus] permitted to be eaten then surely [whilst alive] it will at least have the effect of rendering it clean so that it be not nebelah. We find that this is so of clean animals; whence do we know it of unclean animals? — From the verse: And if any beast die, that is, an unclean animal, of which ye may eat, that is, a clean animal. The unclean animal is equated with the clean: as the foetus within a clean animal is clean so the foetus within an unclean animal is also clean. And what is the reason for the view of R. Jose the Galilean? — R. Isaac said: It is written: And whatsoever goeth upon its paws among all beasts that go on all fours, [. . . whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean], that is, whatsoever goeth upon unparted hoofs within the living beast I have declared to be unclean unto you. This being so, even an animal with unparted hoofs [found dead] in the womb of a [living] cow should also be unclean, for it is of those that go upon unparted hoofs within the beast! — [The verse refers to those] that go upon unparted hoofs within the beasts that go on four [hoofs], but this is a case of one that goes upon unparted hoofs within a beast that goes on eight [hoofs]. Then a cow found in the womb of a camel should not be unclean, for it is a case of one that goes upon eight [hoofs] within a beast that goes on four! — ‘Goeth’ [might have been written, but there is actually written], whatsoever goeth, thus including the case of a cow found in the womb of a camel. Then an animal with unparted hoofs found in the womb of an animal also with unparted hoofs should be unclean, for it is a case of one that goes upon four [hoofs] within a beast that goes on four! — For this purpose R. Hisda's a fortiori argument might be applied. To this R. Ahadboi b. Ammi demurred: Then the pig within the womb of a sow should not be unclean, for it is a case of one that goes upon eight hoofs within a beast that also goes upon eight! — R. Nahman b. Isaac therefore said, [R. Jose's view is derived] from the following verse: If anyone touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things. [Now it will be asked:] Does the carcass of unclean cattle alone render unclean but not that of clean cattle? What is it then? It is the young [within the womb]; in unclean animals it is unclean, and in clean animals clean. But since this has been derived from the verse adduced by R. Nahman b. Isaac, to what purpose do I put the verse stated by R. Isaac? — Were it not for the verse stated by R. Isaac, I might have said that the entire verse [adduced by R. Nahman b. Isaac] is employed for the purpose of Rabbi's teaching; he therefore teaches us otherwise. It was taught: R. Jonathan said: I said to Ben ‘Azzai: We have learnt that the carcass of clean cattle conveys uncleanness, that the carcass of unclean cattle conveys uncleanness, and that the carcass of unclean wild animals conveys uncleanness; but we have not learnt it about the carcass of clean wild animals. Whence do we know it? Said he to me: It is written: Whatsoever goeth upon its paws among all beasts that go on all fours. Said I to him: The verse does not say: ‘all beasts’, it says ‘among all beasts’, and this clearly deals with the rule concerning animals that go upon unparted hoofs found within the beasts. Said he to me: And what does Ishmael say in this matter? Said I to him: It is written: And if any cattle die, that is unclean cattle, ‘of which ye may eat’, that is clean cattle. And we have learnt that wild animals are included under the term ‘cattle’, and cattle are included under the term ‘wild animals’. Hence clean wild animals would come under ‘clean cattle’, unclean wild animals under ‘unclean cattle’,
—