Chullin

— That [which is found within the animal] must have cloven hoofs [in order to be permitted], but this is not the case here. But then according to this, an animal with uncloven hoofs found in the womb of a cow should be forbidden.1 — Surely the following teaching of the school of R. Ishmael was taught in the school of R. Simeon b. Yohai,2 viz. The verse states: The hoof . . . in the beast, ye may eat.3 R. Shimi b. Ashi said: In truth it is as was suggested originally,4 and as for your difficulty from [the Mishnah], ‘One cannot make a limb a substitute etc.’, [the answer is that] that is the opinion of R. Simeon who compares the law of Substitution to the law of Cattle Tithe,5 so that just as the law of cattle tithe does not apply to limbs or a foetus6 so also the law of substitution does not apply to limbs or a foetus. Whence do you know this?7 — Because we have learnt:8 R. Jose said,9 Is it not the case that, in connection with animal offerings, if one said: ‘Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering’, the whole is a burnt-offering? Similarly, if one said: ‘Let the foot of this animal be a substitute for that [consecrated animal]’, the whole animal should become consecrated as a substitute. Now with whom does R. Jose argue thus?10 Do you say with R. Meir and R. Judah? But they do not hold this view.11 Surely it was taught: I might have thought that if one said: ‘Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering’, the whole would become a burnt-offering, it is therefore written: All that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy,12 that is, of such’ shall be holy, but not the whole of it. But I might have thought that the whole animal is unconsecrated,13 it therefore says: ‘shall be’, that is, it shall remain in its former status. What is to be done? The animal must be sold for the purpose of burnt-offerings and the money realised is ordinary unconsecrated money except for the value of this limb. So R. Meir and R. Judah. R. Jose and R. Simeon, however, say: Whence do we know that if one said: ‘Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering’, the whole is a burnt-offering? Because it is written, shall be, which suggests that the whole of it is holy.14 With whom then does R. Jose argue [in the first case]? Is it with R. Meir and R. Judah? But they do not hold this view. It therefore can only be with R. Simeon. — It need not be so, for R. Jose argues on the basis of his own independent view.15 MISHNAH. IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR WITH ITS FIRST YOUNG, ONE MAY CUT OFF EACH LIMB [As IT COMES OUT] AND THROW IT TO THE DOGS.16 IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH17 IT MUST BE BURIED,18 AND THE DAM IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING.19 GEMARA. It was stated: If a third [of the firstling] came forth and was [immediately] sold to a gentile, and then another third came forth,20 R. Huna says: It is holy. Rabbah says: It is not holy. R. Huna says it is holy, because he maintains that the holiness is retrospective, so that as soon as the greater portion has come forth it becomes evident that it was holy from the first,21 and he who purchased has purchased nothing at all. Rabbah, however, says it is not holy, because he maintains that the holiness is prospective,22 so that he who purchased has made a valid purchase. They are indeed consistent in their views, for it was also stated: If a third [of the firstling] was extracted from the side and two thirds came forth normally through the womb, R. Huna says. It is not holy, Rabbah says: It is holy. R. Huna says it is not holy, for he maintains his principle that the holiness is retrospective, and here when the greater part first came forth, it had not entirely passed through the womb.23 Rabbah, however, says it is holy, because he maintains his principle too, that the holiness is prospective, and here the greater part had come forth through the womb.24 Now both disputes had to be [reported]. For if we had learnt only this dispute, we might have said that only here does R. Huna hold [that the holiness is retrospective], for [if he were to hold otherwise]25 he would be tending to leniency;26 whereas in the other dispute since [he would by such a view’ be] tending to stringency, I might say that he would agree with Rabbah. supported by MS.M. V. Yoma 59a, Zeb. 53b, 119b. Cur. edd.: A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught like R. Simeon b. Yohai. animal with one hoof, i.e., which has uncloven hoofs, or an animal with hoofs, i.e., which has cloven hoofs, if found in the beast, may be eaten. foetus can be rendered a substitute for a consecrated animal. of R. Simeon. argument he sets forth in the text. disputant would concede the law assumed in the premise. the limb. consecrated, the whole ‘shall be holy’. own interpretation of verses. both clauses of the Mishnah, but according to Maim. only to the second. valid purchase. Consequently this firstling even when it is fully born is not holy because of the share which the gentile has in it. Cf. Num. III, 13, and Bek. I, 2. therefore at this moment there is some cause which prevents the holiness from attaching, the young will never be deemed holy. In this case the holiness does not attach because the first part of the young was extracted from the side and did not pass normally through the womb. Cf. Ex. XIII, 2 ‘Whatsoever openeth the womb’.