Chullin

THIS IS THE RULE: WHAT IS FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS FORBIDDEN, BUT WHAT IS NOT FROM THE BODY OF THE ANIMAL IS PERMITTED. Now what does the term NOT FROM THE BODY include?1 Surely it includes such a case as the above!2 — No. It includes a foetus with uncloven hoofs which is in the womb of the cow. And [it is permitted even] according to R. Simeon. For although R. Simeon ruled that an animal with uncloven hoofs which was brought forth by a cow is forbidden, that is so only where it came forth into the world, but where it was still in the womb of the dam it is permitted. R. Hanania propounded the question: What if the foetus [in the womb of an animal consecrated as a peace-offering] put forth its fore-limb into the Temple court?3 For [it might be argued,] since the Temple court is the bounds for consecrated animals it would also be the bounds for this4 [sc. the foetus]; or it is not the bounds for this [foetus], for the bounds of the foetus are the womb of its dam! Whereupon Abaye said to him: But you might have raised this question with regard to consecrated animals which are holy in a minor degree in Jerusalem.5 Nevertheless you did not raise the question with regard to consecrated animals which are holy in a minor degree, because it is clear that the bounds of the foetus are the womb of its dam; then in the previous question too we must say that the bounds of the foetus are the womb of the dam.6 Ilfa raised this question: What is the law if a foetus put forth its fore-limb [out of the womb of its dam] after the first [throat] organ but before the second organ [was cut]? Is the first organ to be reckoned together with the second in order to render it [the fore-limb] clean so that it be not nebelah or not?7 — Raba answered: Certainly it must be so reckoned; for if the [cutting of the] first organ followed by the [cutting of the] second organ has the effect of rendering [the animal] permitted to be eaten, then surely it has the effect of rendering [the limb] clean so that it be not nebelah! 8 R. Jeremiah raised the question: Are we concerned at all about its offspring?9 What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that it covered a normal cow, then why is this question raised only with regard to this animal which has a limb forbidden on account of its protrusion [prior to the slaughtering of the dam]? Indeed it might be raised with regard to the more general case of an animal that was taken out [alive from the womb of the slaughtered dam]. For R. Mesharsheya said: According to him who maintains that we must take into account the seed of the male10 if an animal that had been taken out [alive from the womb of the slaughtered dam] covered a normal cow there is no remedy for the offspring?11 — The question can be considered only in the case where it covered a cow which, like itself,12 had been taken out [alive from the womb of the slaughtered dam]. What [then is the position of the offspring]? Do we say that each limb [of the progenitors] produces the identical limb [in the offspring], so that here it13 must be cut off but the rest is permitted; or do we hold that the seed is mixed up?14 Subsequently he [R. Jeremiah] said: It is obvious that the seed is mixed up, for otherwise the blind should produce a blind offspring, and the crippled a crippled offspring. We therefore must say that the seed is mixed up, but the question that was raised was really this: an ordinary animal is the product of the forbidden fat and of the blood [of the sire],15 nevertheless it is permitted, then here also it should be permitted;16 or perhaps we only permit the product of two prohibited substances but not of three?17 But according to whom is it?18 According to R. Meir there are the prohibitions of the forbidden fat and of the blood but not of the protruded limb,19 and according to R. Judah there is indeed the prohibition of the protruded limb but not of the forbidden fat. For it was taught: The law of the sciatic nerve20 applies also to a foetus, and the fat [of the foetus] is forbidden. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus, and the fat [of the foetus] is permitted!21 — We must therefore say that the outcome [of prohibited causes] is to be disregarded, and it is certainly permitted; and the question put, was really this: May one drink the milk [of this particular animal]?22 After all the milk of all animals is very much like a limb taken away from the living animal, nevertheless it is permitted, likewise in this case [it should be permitted]; or perhaps [we ought to distinguish this case, for] in all other cases the prohibition can be remedied by slaughtering, but in this case it cannot. 23 This must remain undecided. WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF, etc. Whence do we know this? — For it is written: And every beast that parteth the hoof . . . in the beast, [it ye may eat];24 this includes the foetus. If so,25 one ought to be able to make it a substitute for a consecrated animal. How is it then that we have learnt: ‘One cannot make a limb a substitute for a consecrated foetus, or a foetus for a consecrated limb, or a limb or a foetus for a whole [consecrated animal], or a whole animal for either of these’?26 Rather it is derived from the expression: And every . . . in the beast,27 which includes the foetus. If so, even if part of the spleen or of the kidneys of the animal was cut away [and left inside] it should also be permitted, wherefore have we learnt, ‘WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE FOETUS IN THE WOMB [AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY BE EATEN, BUT WHATSOEVER IS CUT OFF FROM THE SPLEEN OR THE KIDNEYS [OF THE ANIMAL AND LEFT INSIDE] MAY NOT BE EATEN’? — The verse adds: It [ye may eat], that is, when ‘it’28 is whole [ye may eat everything found therein] but not when part is wanting. But then according to this, if one slaughtered an animal and found therein a sort of dove the latter should be permitted, wherefore has R. Johanan stated: ‘If one slaughtered an animal and found therein a sort of dove it is forbidden to be eaten’? the Mishnah. been cut off limb by limb as each emerged, it is still permitted. of the womb into the space of the Temple court. gone out beyond the bounds of the Temple court. Jerusalem, and withdrew it within, and subsequently the dam was slaughtered in the Temple court. Now according to him who maintains that even though the limb was withdrawn within at the time of the slaughtering the limb is nevertheless forbidden, the question here is, would the slaughtering of the dam render permitted even the limb that had emerged previously, since the limb had not got beyond the bounds prescribed for the eating of the flesh of a peace-offering, or not? (a) to render the limb of the foetus clean, and (b) to render it permitted to be eaten; but at the cutting of the second organ, at which time the limb had already protruded, the only possible effect of that cutting was to render _the limb clean (v. infra 72a). Since the effects produced by the cutting of each organ are not equal, the question arises whether the first organ can be reckoned together with the second in order to produce the effect common to both, viz., that the limb be rendered clean. V. supra p. 176, n. 1. put forth its limb before or after or in the course of the slaughtering. Therefore the effect of cutting both organs must be to render the limb clean. The fact that at the time of the cutting of the first organ it was possible that the entire foetus, including this limb, might have been rendered permitted to be eaten, and that this became impossible because of the putting forth of the limb, can be ignored. The argument is an a fortiori argument because it is well established that less is required to render an animal clean than is required to render it permitted to be eaten. Consequently the whole of it is permitted to be eaten, and strictly without first being slaughtered as it has already been rendered permitted by the slaughtering of its dam, except for that limb which would remain forbidden always. In the course of time it was mated with a cow and begot a calf. The question therefore is, whether the limb of the calf corresponding to the forbidden limb of its sire is also forbidden or not. half to the male sire. offspring is considered, notionally, as half slaughtered, and nothing now can be done to it to remedy this state. (Tosaf.). Maharam. part to represent a distinct organ; consequently the offspring being the product of a sire which has a forbidden limb is entirely forbidden. forbidden substances in the animal body, viz., the blood and the fat. sire. are inherent three prohibitions, viz., that of the blood, of the forbidden fat, and of the protruded limb. its dam is not rendered permitted thereby, consequently there is no particular prohibition attached to it on account of the limb that protruded. extracted from the womb. slaughtering of the dam. foetus or a limb is precluded from the law of substitution.