Parallel
חולין 75
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It was a dry slaughtering, and this ruling is not in accordance with R. Simeon's view. 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’? — R. Johanan said: It is R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Jose the Galilean: It contracts food uncleanness, and needs to be rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness]. The Sages say, It does not contract food uncleanness, for it is a living being, and whatsoever lives cannot contract food uncleanness. 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. R. Jose the Galilean expressed it [in the Baraitha we quoted] above. Beth Shammai expressed it [in the following Mishnah]: For we learnt: When do fish contract uncleanness? Beth Shammai say: As soon as they have been caught. Beth Hillel say: Only when they are dead. R. Akiba says: From the moment that they cannot live. What is the difference between them? R. Johanan replied: A fish that is struggling. R. Hisda raised the question: What is the law if such defects as [render an animal] trefah occurred in fish? This question can be asked both according to him who holds that a trefah animal can continue to live [for twelve months or more] and also according to him who holds that a trefah cannot continue to live. According to him who holds that a trefah can continue to live this question can be asked, for perhaps this is so only in the case of animals whose vital force is considerable but not in the case of fishes whose vital force is slender. And according to him who holds that a trefah cannot continue to live this question can also be asked, for perhaps this is so only in the case of animals, since to its kind slaughtering applies, but not to the case of fishes, since slaughtering does not apply to its kind! — It remains undecided. If an animal cast forth an abortion, the fat thereof, says R. Johanan, is as the fat of an animal. R. Simeon b. Lakish says: It is as the fat of a wild beast. R. Johanan said: The fat thereof is as the fat of an animal, because [the coming into] the world renders it [an animal]. R. Simeon b. Lakish said, [The fat thereof is] as the fat of a wild beast, because [the fulfilment of] the months [of pregnancy] is [also] essential in order to render it [an animal]. 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. They differ only in the case where a person put his hand into the womb of an animal, tore away some fat from the living nine months’ foetus within, and ate it. R. Johanan says: This fat is as the fat of [an animal], because the [fulfilment of the] months [of pregnancy] alone renders it [an animal]. R. Simeon b. Lakish says: It is as the fat of a wild beast, because the [fulfilment of the] months [of pregnancy] coupled with the [coming into the] world renders it [an animal]. R. Johanan raised this objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish. [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, so wherever [‘fat’ is stated] it precludes that of a foetus. Now according to my view, [says R. Johanan], it is right that the verse finds it necessary to preclude it; but according to you, why is it necessary to preclude it? — He replied: I derive my view from this very passage. Others report it as follows: R. Simeon b. Lakish raised this objection against R. Johanan. [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, so wherever [‘fat’ is stated] it precludes that of a foetus. Now according to my view, [says R. Simeon b. Lakish,] it is right that the Divine Law precluded it; 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. 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 without slaughtering] it is permitted, and according to him who permits [the other without slaughtering] it is forbidden. 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. R. Hisda said: If a person slaughtered a trefah animal and found in it a nine months’ living foetus,
—
it needs to be slaughtered and is subject to the [priests’ dues of the] shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. If it died [without being slaughtered], it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying. Thereupon Rabbah said to him: The ruling ‘it needs to be slaughtered’ obviously follows R. Meir's view, whereas the ruling ‘it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying’ obviously follows the Rabbis’ view! — But according to your argument, you could raise this same objection against R. Hiyya; for R. Hiyya taught: If a person slaughtered a trefah [animal] and found in it a nine months’ living foetus, it needs to be slaughtered and is subject to the [priests’ dues of the] shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. If it died, it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying. The ruling ‘it needs to be slaughtered’, follows R. Meir's view, whereas the ruling ‘it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying’ follows the Rabbis’ view! — This is no difficulty at all, for R. Hiyya deals with the case where it was found dead [in the dam's womb]. This is, however, a difficulty for you. — He replied: It is no difficulty for me either, for the Divine Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs. When R. Zera went up [to Palestine] he found R. Assi sitting and reciting the above statement [of R. Hisda]. ‘Well spoken!’ said R. Zera; ‘R. Johanan also said so’. Are we to infer that R. Simeon b. Lakish disagrees with [R. Johanan]? — Some say: He was waiting and was silent; and others say: He was drinking and was silent. R. SIMEON SHEZURI SAYS, EVEN IF IT IS FIVE YEARS OLD . . . Is not his view identical with that of the first Tanna? — R. Kahana replied: The difference between them is where it stood upon the ground. R. Mesharsheya said: According to him who maintains that we must take into account the seed of the male, if an animal which had been extracted alive [out of the womb of its dam] covered a normal cow, there is no remedy for the offspring. Abaye, said: All agree that if the animal which was extracted alive [out of the womb of its dam] had uncloven hoofs it is permitted. Why? Because everything extraordinary people remember very well. Others report it thus: Abaye said: All agree that if this animal with uncloven hoofs was extracted [alive out of the womb of its dam] which also was with uncloven hoofs and had been extracted [out of the womb of its dam], it is permitted. Why? Because a case with two extraordinary conditions people remember very well. Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina: The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon Shezuri. Indeed R. Simeon Shezuri permitted [without slaughtering] its young and the offspring of its young and so on unto the end of all time. R. Johanan said: It alone is permitted [without slaughtering] but its young is forbidden. Adda b. Habu had an animal that had been extracted [alive out of the slaughtered dam's womb]. It was attacked by a wolf, so he came to R Ashi who advised him to slaughter it [immediately]. But, argued Adda, did not Ze'iri say in the name of R. Hanina that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon Shezuri? And indeed R. Simeon Shezuri permitted [without slaughtering] its young and the offspring of its young and so on unto the end of all time. Moreover, even R. Johanan disagreed only regarding its young but not regarding itself! — He replied, R. Johanan merely stated [what he thought to be] the view of R. Simeon Shezuri. But did not Rabin, son of R. Hanina, say in the name of Ulla on the authority of R. Hanina that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon of Shezuri? Moreover, is it not an established rule that wherever R. Simeon Shezuri stated his view the halachah is in accordance with him? — He replied: I accept the following view. For R. Jonathan said: The halachah accords with R. Simeon Shezuri only in the case of ‘The dangerously ill person’ and in the case of ‘The terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce’. The case about the dangerously ill person is as we have learnt: At first it was held: If a man whilst being led out in chains [to execution] said: ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’,it was to be written and also to be delivered to her. Later they laid down that the same rule applied also to one who was leaving on a sea journey or setting out with a caravan. R. Simeon Shezuri says: It also applies to a man who was dangerously ill. And the case about the terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce is as we have learnt: If the terumah that had been separated from the tithe of demai produce fell back into its place, R. Simeon Shezuri says, even on a weekday one need only ask him [sc. the seller] about it and eat it by his word. [
—