Chullin

those of the first set are forbidden1 but the subsequent ones are permitted, for they are the product of two causes.2 R. Ashi raised this objection against Amemar. [We have learnt:] But they agree3 that the egg of a bird that was trefah is forbidden because it developed in what was forbidden.4 — In that case the bird was fertilized through friction in the dust.5 But why did he not reply that the egg was of the first set? — Because if so it should have said ‘it was finished’ and not ‘it developed’.6 But then what of [the following Baraitha]. It was taught: R. Eliezer says. The calf of a cow which was trefah may not be offered as a sacrifice upon the altar; R. Joshua says: It may. Now what are the circumstances of the case in which they differ? It must be, surely, that the animal was first rendered trefah and then impregnated,7 R. Eliezer maintaining that the product of two causes is prohibited, and R. Joshua maintaining that it is permitted. This being so, why do they differ as to its validity for sacred purposes? Why do they not rather differ as to its validity for ordinary purposes? — In order to set forth the view of R. Joshua, that it is valid even for sacred purposes. But why do they not differ as to its validity for ordinary purposes so as to set forth the view of R. Eliezer, that it is invalid even for ordinary purposes? — It is preferable to set forth the view which shows leniency. Nevertheless they agree that the egg of a bird which was trefah is forbidden, if the bird was fertilized through friction in the dust, for then the egg is the product of one cause. R. Aha accepts the view of R. Aha b. Jacob8 and accordingly reports the statement of Amemar as we have stated it above.9 Rabina, however, does not accept the view of R. Aha b. Jacob, and therefore reports the statement of Amemar in this form: Amemar said: As to the eggs of a bird about which there arose a doubt whether it was [rendered] trefah or not, those of the first set must be held over; if the bird continues to lay eggs10 then these are permitted, but if not these are forbidden. R. Ashi raised this objection against Amemar. [It was taught]: But they agree that the egg of a bird that was trefah is forbidden because it developed in what was forbidden!11 — He replied: That refers to the egg of the first set. If so, it should have said ‘it was finished’ and not ‘it developed’.12 — Read then, ‘it was finished’. But what of [the Baraitha] which was taught: R. Eliezer says. The calf of a cow which was trefah may not be offered as a sacrifice upon the altar; R. Joshua says: It may. Now what are the circumstances of the case in which they differ? It must be, surely, that the animal was first impregnated and then became trefah.13 R. Eliezer maintaining that the embryo is part of its mother,14 and R. Joshua maintaining that the embryo is not part of its mother. This being so, why do they differ as to its validity for sacred purposes? Why do they not rather differ as to its validity for ordinary purposes? — In order to set forth the view of R. Joshua. But why do they not differ as to its validity for ordinary purposes so setting forth the view of R. Eliezer? — It is preferable to set forth the view which shows leniency. Nevertheless they agree that the egg of a bird that was trefah beyond doubt, is forbidden, if it was one of the first set, because it is part of the body [of the bird].15 The law is: In a male twelve months is a criterion, and in a female, if it cannot bring forth young.16 R. Huna said: All invertebrates cannot live for twelve months. Said R. Papa: We can infer from R Huna's statement, having regard to Samuel's statement, namely, that a cucumber which became wormy in its growth was forbidden,17 of two causes, one of which is prohibited and the other permitted, is permitted. According to Tosaf (s.v. ihuau) Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in agreement here, although they differ concerning the egg of a bird that was nebelah; v. ‘Ed. V, 1. forbidden in every case, contra R. Huna. would be forbidden. the hen was rendered trefah. ‘Developed’ implies the entire forming and fashioning of the egg. of the bull which is permitted. Where the cow was already with young when it became trefah the calf, according to all views, would be forbidden, since it was rendered trefah together with its dam. trefah can continue to lay eggs. rendered trefah, and those of subsequent sets. about it, or if a female animal has brought forth young, there is no longer any doubt about it and it is permitted. forbidden to be eaten, but those that generated in fruit and vegetables and had never crawled upon the ground are permitted. In this case of Samuel, since the cucumber is in the course of growth and has not yet been plucked up from the ground, the worms found crawling in it are deemed to be crawling upon the ground and are therefore forbidden.