Chullin

MISHNAH. IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR AND THE FOETUS PUT FORTH ITS FORE-LIMB AND WITHDREW IT WITHIN,1 IT MAY BE EATEN.2 IF IT PUT FORTH ITS HEAD, THOUGH IT WITHDREW IT WITHIN, IT IS CONSIDERED AS BORN.3 WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE FOETUS WITHIN THE WOMB [AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY BE EATEN, BUT WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE SPLEEN OR KIDNEYS [OF THE ANIMAL AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY NOT BE EATEN.4 THIS IS THE RULE: THAT WHICH IS FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS FORBIDDEN, BUT THAT WHICH IS NOT FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS PERMITTED. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The actual limb [that was put forth] is forbidden. Why? Because the verse says. Ye shall not eat any flesh in the field torn of beasts [trefah],5 which implies that any flesh that had got beyond its bound is forbidden.6 [An objection was raised.] We have learnt: IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR AND THE FOETUS PUT FORTH ITS FORE-LIMB AND WITHDREW IT WITHIN, IT MAY BE EATEN. Presumably [IT MAY BE EATEN] refers to the actual limb! — No, it refers to the foetus [that is within]. If it refers to the foetus, why does [the Tanna] say AND WITHDREW IT? Even if it did not withdraw it [the foetus would be permitted]! — Indeed the law is the same even though it did not withdraw it within, but because he stated in the second clause. IF IT PUT FORTH ITS HEAD, THOUGH IT WITHDREW IT WITHIN, IT IS CONSIDERED AS BORN, he says also in the first clause AND WITHDREW IT. But what does the second clause teach us? That as soon as the head emerged it is considered as born? But we have learnt it elsewhere:7 ‘Who is considered a firstborn for the right of inheritance8 and not for the priest?9 He that was born after a premature child the head of which had even emerged alive, or after a nine-months child the head of which had emerged dead’.10 Now this is so because the head [of the nine-months child] had emerged dead, but had it emerged alive then the child that was born after this would not be considered a firstborn, even for the right of inheritance!11 Should you, however, say that [there] it was taught with regard to man, and [here] it is taught with regard to beasts, because we could not apply the principle as established in the case of beasts to man, inasmuch as there is no ante-chamber in beasts,12 neither could we apply the principle as established in the case of man to beasts, inasmuch as the face of a human being is a principal feature;13 surely we have expressly learnt it [even with regard to beasts], viz., If part of the afterbirth emerged [before slaughtering the dam] it may not be eaten,14 for it15 is a token of birth in the case of woman and also a token of birth in the case of beasts. Now if you were to say that the withdrawal of the limb within, which is stated in the first clause [of our Mishnah], is to be particularly stressed,16 it is well; for then we could say that the second clause was stated on account of the first clause. But if you say that neither the first nor the second clause is to be particularly stressed [for any special teaching], then why are they stated at all? — It is not so, for, in point of fact, [IT MAY BE EATEN] refers to the actual foetus [and not to the limb], but as R. Nahman b. Isaac had said [elsewhere]: It would not have been necessary to mention [the withdrawal of the limb within] except in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off, likewise we may say here. It was only stated in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off.17 Come and hear: If an animal was in difficult labour and the foetus put forth its fore-limb and withdrew it within, and then the dam was slaughtered, it may be eaten. If the dam was slaughtered, and then it withdrew it within,18 it may not be eaten. If it put forth its fore-limb and it was immediately cut off, and then the dam was slaughtered, that which is outside19 is unclean,20 and also forbidden [to be eaten], but that which is inside is clean,21 and permitted. If the dam was slaughtered and then [the limb] was cut off, is rendered permitted. The Gemara, however, argues as to the effect of the slaughtering upon the limb which was put out of the womb prior to the slaughtering. animal trefah. consecrated meat of a sin-offering outside the sanctuary, or meat of a peace-offering outside the walls of Jerusalem, or, as here, an embryo outside the womb, is forbidden like trefah. account of a second clause which is itself unnecessary. money of redemption; cf. Num. XVIII, 16. on whose death the parent would have to go into mourning (derived by the Rabbis by interpreting ubut ,hatr, Deut. XXI, 17, ‘the beginning of his strength’, as ‘the beginning of his mourning’). With regard to the law of the redemption of the firstborn, however, it was intended to apply to ‘whatsoever openeth the womb’, Ex. XIII, 2, whether the child born was living or not. light of day it is forthwith regarded as born. which case the foetus would be regarded as born and would not be rendered permitted by the subsequent slaughtering of the dam, and the afterbirth which belongs to it would likewise be forbidden. the dam. be cut off as forbidden meat; but if it had not been withdrawn, then the limb which had emerged plus a little more of that which is within would have to be cut away as forbidden meat. slaughtering the limb was withdrawn into the womb. does not suffer any uncleanness by reason of its contact with this limb, because it is a living animal, and a living animal cannot contract uncleanness.