חולין 70:1 — Soncino English Talmud

And if we had Garnet only the other dispute, we might have said that only there does Rabbah hold [that the holiness is prospective], whereas in this dispute I might say that he would agree with R. Huna. Therefore both [disputes] had to be [reported]. [An objection was raised]. We have learnt: 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. Presumably this means, each limb is cut off and left where it is. Now if you hold that the holiness is retrospective then it [sc. each limb] ought to be buried! — No, the meaning is that each limb is cut off and thrown [to dogs]. But where each limb was cut off and left there, you would hold, would you not, that it must be buried? If so, why does the Tanna state in the second clause, IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH IT MUST BE BURIED? He should have made a distinction in the first case, thus: This holds good only where each limb was cut off and thrown [to the dogs], but where each limb was cut off and left there, it must be buried! — This is actually what is meant: This holds good only where each limb was cut off and thrown [to the dogs], but where each limb was cut off and left there, it is considered as if the greater portion came forth [at the same time], and must be buried. Raba raised the question: Do we apply the principle of ‘the greater part’ to limbs or not? What are the circumstances of the case? Should you suggest the following case, namely, that the greater part [of the young] came out [of the womb] and this included the lesser part of a limb, the question therefore being: Are we to reckon this lesser part of the limb, which is outside, together with the greater part of its limb, or with the greater part of the young? — But it is obvious that we do not ignore the greater part of the young and take into consideration the greater part of the limb! Rather the case must be as follows: half of the young came out and this included the greater part of a limb; the question therefore is: Are we to reckon the lesser part of the limb which is inside together with the greater part of the limb, or not? — Come and hear. [We have learnt:] IF THE GREATER PORTION CAME FORTH IT MUST BE BURIED. Now what is meant by ‘the greater portion’? Does it mean actually the greater portion [of the young]? But surely we have learnt before now the principle that the greater part is like the whole! It would mean therefore that only half came out but it included the greater part of a limb! — No, the fact was, that the greater part [of the young] came out and it included the lesser part of a limb, and [the Mishnah] teaches us that we must not ignore the greater part of the young and consider the greater part of the limb. Raba raised these questions: What is the law if one wrapped it up in bast, or in a garment, or in its afterbirth? [You ask] ‘In its afterbirth’? But that is the normal condition! — Render, ln the afterbirth of another animal. What if She wrapped it up and got hold of it and brought it out? But what are the circumstances? If [you say] it came out with the head first, then it has thereby ‘opened the womb’. Rather it must be that it came out with the legs first. What if a weasel [inserted its head into the womb and] took the foetus into its mouth and thus extracted it? [You ask] ‘And thus extracted it’? Then it has brought it forth! — Render thus: What if the weasel took the foetus into its mouth, extracted it thus, inserted its head again into the womb and spewed it out therein, and then the foetus came forth of its own? What is the law if one joined two wombs [of two animals] to each other and the foetus issued from the one womb and entered the other? Shall we say that it exempts only its own [dam from the law of the firstling] but it does not exempt another [animal] or perhaps it exempts also another animal? — These questions remain undecided. R. Aha raised this question: What is the law if the walls of the womb opened wide [and the foetus fell out if it]? Is it the air space of the womb that renders the firstling holy, — a condition which exists in our case, or is it the contact with the womb that renders the firstling holy — a condition which is absent in our case? Mar son of R. Ashi raised this question: What if the walls of the womb were torn away? [You ask] Torn away? Then there is no womb here at all! It means: What if the walls of the womb were torn away and it now rested on the neck of the young? Can [the womb only] render holy when it is in its natural place and not when it is out of its place, or even when out of its place it can also render holy? R. Jeremiah put this question to R. Zera: What if the walls of the womb were peeled? He replied: You are touching upon a question which we have already discussed. For R. Zera had raised this question (others say: R. Zera had put this question to R. Assi): What is the law if what was left [of the womb] was more than what was gone, but the young passed through the part that was gone; or if what was gone was more than what was left but the young passed through that part that was left of it? Now I was in doubt only in such a case as where what was gone [of the womb] was more than what was left, for there at least something was left of it. But in the case where the walls of the wombs were entirely peeled I have no doubt at all. 23^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:And even though there may be before us a number of limbs which together would make up the greater part of the young, each may nevertheless be thrown to the dogs, apparently because the holiness is not retrospective, contra R. Huna.
^ᵇnote:For as soon as the greater part is collected together it appears retrospectively that this firstling was holy from the beginning, and, being dead, it must therefore be buried.
^ᶜnote:Which implies at the same time.
^ᵈnote:And it would not have been necessary to teach us that where the greater part of the young came forth in one mass it must be buried.
^ᵉnote:Is the lesser part of a limb always to be reckoned with the greater part thereof or not?
^ᶠnote:In which case, when we subtract this lesser part of a limb from that which has come out and reckon it together with the rest of that limb which is within the womb, the result is that the greater portion of the young has in law not emerged and is not deemed fully born; consequently it may be cut up for dogs, for there is no holiness upon it.
^ᵍnote:And the young would be regarded now as fully born, and would at once be holy as a firstling.
^ʰnote:So that it would be regarded as if the greater part of the young had emerged and would therefore be deemed fully born.
^ⁱnote:And the Mishnah teaches us that in such a case the lesser part of the limb, which is inside, is to be counted with the rest of the limb, and thus render the young fully born.
^ʲnote:Even though the greater portion of the limb is still within the womb, the lesser portion, however, having emerged, is reckoned with the rest of the young that has emerged, so that the young is now deemed fully born.
^ᵏnote:The foetus was wrapped up in one of these articles and was thus extracted from the womb of its dam but no part of the foetus came into direct contact with the womb. Now it is the womb that renders the firstling holy, for throughout the Torah the firstling is described as that which ‘openeth the womb’ (e.g., Ex. XIII, 2). The question raised by Raba is this: must there be actual contact between the foetus and the womb when the foetus is being delivered, and otherwise it would not be regarded holy as a firstling, or is it sufficient that it passes through the womb although it makes no direct contact?
^ˡnote:The subject of the verb used is feminine whereas in the first question of Raba it is masculine. According to Rashi it refers to the woman who assists the delivery. She wrapped her hands around the foetus and thus extracted it so that there was no contact between the foetus and the womb of its dam. Tosaf. report a textual variant on the authority of R. Hananel; instead of u,zjt ‘she got hold of it’ the reading is u,ujt ‘his sister’. The interpretation, accordingly, is this: there were twins within the womb, one male and the other female, and at the time of delivery it so happened that the female wrapped around and covered the male, so that there was no actual contact between the male twin and the womb.
^ᵐnote:V. next note.
^ⁿnote:The question ‘What are the circumstances?’ refers, according to Rashi, to all the cases raised by Raba, and the exposition is as follows: It certainly cannot be thought of that the garment etc. was wrapped around the foetus whilst it was still in the womb of its dam, as it is hardly possible to do so; some part therefore of the foetus must have emerged. Now it cannot be the head, for then the question could not arise, since by the emergence of the head it is deemed fully born, and so holy as a firstling. It can only be, therefore, that the legs of the foetus had emerged and then the whole of it was wrapped up. According to the variant text adopted by Tosaf. (v. n. 2) and the interpretation suggested, this question of the Gemara refers only to the last question of Raba, and the exposition is as follows: If the head of the female twin came out first, then the male cannot in any circumstance be deemed holy as a firstling, for it had not ‘opened the womb’ but was born second. It must be, therefore, that the legs of the female twin came out first, and these were wrapped around the head of the male, so that, were it not for the question of direct contact with the womb, the male twin, being born first, by virtue of the emergence of its head, would he deemed a firstling.
^ᵒnote:Since it was not brought forth naturally but was extracted by the weasel it would not he holy as a firstling (R. Gershom). According to Rashi the position is identical with the first case stated by Raba.
^ᵖnote:And the question is whether it would be holy as firstling when later it is delivered naturally from the womb of its dam.
^ᵠnote:When the foetus leaves the womb of the second animal, would the latter thereby be exempt from the law of the firstling, so that what it next bears would not be deemed holy as a firstling, or not?
^ʳnote:A firstling emerging from a womb.
^ˢnote:It being assumed that the womb was gone before the young emerged, in which case there is no doubt at all that it is not holy as a firstling.
^ᵗnote:During a difficult delivery the young had wrenched away the entire womb of its dam and had emerged with it upon its neck.
^ᵘnote:The meaning of this is very doubtful. Rashi suggests two interpretations: (i) the inner membrane of the womb had peeled away. i.e., the whole of the womb was intact except that it had been reduced in thickness by the removal of a layer of its substance; (ii) the whole of the womb within had been destroyed but the external edges remained intact. The Aruch suggests, (iii) the whole of the womb was intact but the external edges were cut away.
^ᵛnote:In each case the young was located in the forepart of the womb which constitutes but the smaller part of the womb; in the first case, however, only the forepart was gone but the rest remained intact, whereas in the second case only the forepart remained intact but the rest was gone.
^ʷnote:That the firstling which passed through this mutilated womb is not holy. It must be pointed out that with regard to these questions the Rabbis of old already recognised that they were purely of academic interest and in no wise did they consider the actual occurrence of such cases as probable or even possible. V. Tosaf. Ketub. 4b s.v. sg, and also Tosaf. Yeb. 102b s.v. hnu.