חולין 68:2 — Soncino English Talmud

the flesh is [unclean] like that which had touched nebelah: so R. Meir. But the Sages say: It is unclean like that which had touched a slaughtered trefah animal. Now it says in the first clause, ‘If the foetus put forth its fore-limb and withdrew it within, and then the dam was slaughtered, it may be eaten. Presumably [‘it may be eaten’] refers to the actual limb! — No, it refers to the foetus. But if it refers to the foetus, [how can we explain] the next clause which reads: ‘If the dam was slaughtered and then it withdrew it within, it may not be eaten’? If it refers to the foetus, why is it forbidden? — As R. Nahman b. Isaac had said [elsewhere]: It would not have been necessary to mention it except in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off; we may say the same here: It was only stated in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off. But surely this is not so. For when Abimi came from Be Huzai he brought with him the following teaching: ‘If [the foetus] withdrew the hoof within, you may eat, and if it withdrew two hoofs within, you may eat’. Presumably this means, if it withdrew the hoof within, you may eat the hoof! — No, it means, if it withdrew the hoof within, you may eat the foetus. But if it refers to the foetus, why does it state ‘if it withdrew [the hoof]’? Even if it did not withdraw it [the foetus would be permitted]! — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It would not have been necessary to mention [the withdrawal of the hoof within] except in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off. But since two texts are adduced here, presumably one teaches that the actual limb [is permitted] and the other the rule with regard to the place where [the limb is] cut off. — No. One teaches the rule with regard to the place where it is cut off and the other teaches that a foetus with uncloven hoofs that is in the womb of the cow [is permitted] even according to the view of R. Simeon. For the ruling of R. Simeon, that an animal with uncloven hoofs that was brought forth by a cow is forbidden, applies only to the case where it came forth into the world, but where it was still within the womb of the dam it is permitted. Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: The actual limb is permitted. Whereupon Rab Judah said to Ulla: ‘But both Rab and Samuel have said that the actual limb is forbidden’! He replied: ‘Would that I had of the dust of Rab and Samuel! I would fill my eyes with it!’ Nevertheless thus said R. Johanan: Everything was included in the general rule of the verse: Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field torn of beasts [trefah]. But since Scripture expressly mentioned the case of the sin-offering namely that if it was taken out of its bounds and also brought in again it is forbidden, it is clear that only in the case of a sin-offering is this so, but in all other cases if they got back within their bounds they would be permitted. An objection was raised. It is written: Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field torn of beasts [trefah]. Why does the verse add [trefah]? [for this reason.] Since we find that Second Tithe or Firstfruits, if they were taken out of their bounds, and were brought in again they are permitted; now we might have thought that in this case, too, that is also the law, the verse therefore adds, trefah. How is this derived from the verse? Rabbah said: It is like trefah; just as a trefah animal, once it has been rendered trefah, can never be permitted, so also flesh which had got out of its bounds can never be permitted again! This is indeed a refutation of Ulla's view. The Master said: ‘Since we find that Second Tithe or Firstfruits, if they were taken out of their bounds, etc.’ Where do we find this? From the following verse: Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, etc., that is to say, only within thy gates thou mayest not eat them, but if they were taken out [of Jerusalem] and brought in again, they are permitted. Those in the West report it in this version: Rab says: The emergence of a limb is regarded as the birth of that limb; R. Johanan says: The emergence of a limb is not regarded as the birth of that limb. What is the actual difference between them? — Whether to render forbidden the lesser portion of the limb that was within or not. The question was raised: According to him who says that the emergence of a limb is not regarded as the birth of that limb, what would be the law if the foetus first put forth one fore-limb and withdrew it within, and then the other fore-limb and withdrew it within, [and then other parts of its body and withdrew them within,] and so on until, all in all, the greater portion of the foetus had emerged? Are we to say that here it is obvious that the greater portion of the foetus has emerged [and it is deemed fully born], or since each part had been withdrawn within it remains withdrawn? And if you were to accept the view that since each part had been withdrawn within it remains withdrawn, it will further be asked, what would be the position if the foetus put forth a fore-limb and it was cut off, then another fore-limb and it was cut off [and so with the other limbs] until the greater portion of the foetus had been cut off? Are we to say that it is obvious that the greater portion has emerged [and it is deemed fully born], or perhaps we should say [it is deemed born] only when the greater portion of the foetus emerged at one time? — Come and hear. [We have learnt:]^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Of the foetus and of the dam.
^ᵇnote:As the limb that protruded was not affected by the slaughtering of the dam, it is unclean like nebelah, and renders unclean by contact the rest of the foetus as well as the flesh of the dam.
^ᶜnote:The Sages hold that the limb that protruded is to this extent affected by the slaughtering that it has thereby been rendered clean and is not a source of uncleanness like nebelah. This is on all fours with the case of a trefah animal which, if slaughtered, is thereby rendered clean and is not regarded as nebelah. Nevertheless according to Rabbinic decree, the flesh of a slaughtered trefah animal would render consecrated things unclean by contact, v. infra 73a.
^ᵈnote:So that the ruling in the second clause ‘It may not be eaten’ only means that a little more than the part which protruded may not be eaten but the rest of the foetus may.
^ᵉnote:The modern Khuzistan.
^ᶠnote:These words are in Deut. XIV, 6: And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two hoofs . . . in the beast, ye may eat, from which is derived the general law that the foetus within the dam is rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam. The interpretation is: And every beast . . . in the beast, ye may eat; the hoof . . . in the beast, ye may eat; and two hoofs . . . in the beast ye may eat. That is, if the foetus put forth two hoofs (i.e., two legs) and then withdrew one within, the latter would be permitted by the slaughtering of the dam but not the other which remained protruding. If, however, both hoofs were withdrawn within, both would be permitted.
^ᵍnote:And the Baraitha reported by Abimi informs us that if the foetus withdrew the hoof within, one may even eat the part where the hoof was subsequently cut off, though, of course, not the hoof itself. Likewise, if the foetus withdrew its two hoofs within, one may even eat the part where each hoof was cut off.
^ʰnote:The expressions ‘the hoof’ and ‘two hoofs’; v. p. 368, n. 9.
^ⁱnote:I.e., if the limb was withdrawn within, even the limb itself would be permitted; and if the limb was not withdrawn within, then the part where it was subsequently cut off would be permitted. As far as the part where the limb is cut off is concerned there should be no difference in law whether it put forth one or two hoofs, so that there would be no need of two texts to permit it in both cases.
^ʲnote:I.e., only if the limb was withdrawn within would the part where it was subsequently cut off be permitted.
^ᵏnote:V. Bek. 6b.
^ˡnote:Such was his veneration for these two scholars.
^ᵐnote:Ex. XXII, 30. The general proposition is that anything that gets out of its prescribed bounds (i.e., into the field) is forbidden. V. supra p. 365 n. 6.
^ⁿnote:The verse in Lev. X, 18 clearly demonstrates that the flesh of a sin-offering if taken out beyond the Temple precincts is rendered unfit and must be burnt, whether or not it was once again brought into the Temple precincts. Now it must be remembered that the case of the sin-offering is just one of the instances implied in Ex. XXII, 30, so that it need not have been expressly mentioned (v. supra p. 365, n. 6). The fact that it is stated suggests that in a particular respect it is different from other cases of ‘out of bounds’, and that is, that in this case even if it were brought back within its bounds it would be of no avail and the flesh would still have to be burnt. On the other hand, in all other eases of this class, the fact that it has been brought in again within bounds would be an effective remedy.
^ᵒnote:The case of the limb of a foetus which protruded from the womb.
^ᵖnote:Even though it had been brought back within bounds.
^ᵠnote:Deut. XII, 17.
^ʳnote:The dispute between Rab and R. Johanan as to whether or not the actual limb which had emerged but which is now withdrawn is rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘there is birth to limbs’. And the slaughtering of the dam would not render this limb permitted even through it was drawn in within the womb at the time of the slaughtering.
^ᵗnote:So that if the limb was within the womb at the time of the slaughtering it would be rendered permitted.
^ᵘnote:Between the first version of the dispute and the second version (Rashi). According to the Alfasi the question is: What is the practical issue between Rab and R. Johanan? For according to the version in the West, even R. Johanan agrees that the part of the limb which had emerged is forbidden. V. Asheri a.l.
^ᵛnote:l.e., the greater portion of a limb emerged but a little of it remained inside. There will in this case be a difference of view as to the opinion expressed by Rab according to the first or second version. According to the second version Rab maintains that the emergence of a limb is regarded as the birth of that limb, similarly be would hold that the emergence of the greater portion of a limb is reckoned as the birth of that entire limb, hence even the lesser portion of the limb which had never emerged would not be rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam. According to the first version this lesser portion would be rendered permitted, for it is only the actual part of the limb which had emerged that is forbidden. According to Alfasi, the law as to the lesser portion of the limb that remained within is the issue between Rab and R. Johanan.
^ʷnote:And this even according to him who maintains that the emergence of a limb is deemed to be the birth of that limb.