Chullin

In such cases there is only the mere precept to keep aloof.1 R. Joseph was sitting before R. Huna and recited as follows: Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: He who eats this2 incurs a flogging. Thereupon a certain Rabbi said to him [R. Huna], pay no attention to him [R. Joseph], for thus said R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha in the name of Rab: He who eats it does not incur a flogging. R. Huna then said, upon whom should we rely? Thereupon R. Joseph turned his face away [in anger] and remarked: What is the difficulty? I was speaking of the death [of the animal] when the limb is accounted as detached,3 but he was speaking of the slaughtering when the limb is not accounted as detached.4 Raba said: Whence is derived the rule of the Rabbis that at death a loose limb is accounted as detached and at the slaughtering it is not accounted as detached? From the verse. And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean.5 Now what does this verse exclude? Should you say it excludes [creeping things] whilst they are alive, but these are expressly excluded by the words ‘of their carcass’!6 It clearly teaches that at death the limb is accounted as detached but not at the slaughtering. R. Adda b. Ahaba said to the Raba, But the verse deals with creeping things?7 — He replied: Since it8 serves no purpose in the case of creeping things to which slaughtering does not apply, you may refer it to cattle. But it is indeed necessary [with regard to creeping things to teach] that they must be ‘as at death’, that is, they convey uncleanness only when moist but not when dry. — The expression, ‘when they are dead’, occurs twice.9 R. Hisda said: They differ only with regard to the limb of a live10 foetus, but with regard to the limb of a dead foetus all agree that at the slaughtering the limb is accounted as detached. Rabbah however said: As they differ in the one case so they differ in the other also. THE SLAUGHTERING OF A LIVE EIGHT MONTHS’ BIRTH . . . [FOR TO ITS KIND SLAUGHTERING DOES NOT APPLY]. But has it not been taught: The slaughtering of a live eight months’ birth could prove [otherwise], for even though slaughtering applies to its kind, the slaughtering does not render it clean? — R. Kahana answered, [It means that] through its dam slaughtering applies to its kind.11 And our Tanna? — He does not consider as a refutation [the fact that slaughtering applies to it] through its dam. But that Tanna who does consider this a refutation, whence does he derive the rule that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean? — He derives it from the exposition of Rab Judah in the name of Rab. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, (others say: It was so taught in a Baraitha), It is written: And if there dieth of the beasts, [he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean,]12 that is to say, some of the beasts convey uncleanness and some do not, and which are they?13 They are trefah [animals] which have been slaughtered. R. Hoshaia raised this question, What is the law if a person put his hand into an animal's womb and slaughtered therein a living nine months’ foetus?14 This can be asked according to R. Meir's view and also according to the Sages’ view. According to R. Meir the question is this, perhaps when R. Meir contended that an animal which was extracted [alive from the womb] must itself be slaughtered he referred only to an animal which came forth [alive] into the world, but whilst within the womb of its dam the slaughtering of it would not render it permitted.15 And on the other hand, perhaps [it is permitted] even according to the view of Rabbis, for the Divine Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs!16 — R. Hananiah said: Come and hear. [We have learnt:] WHENCE WOULD WE KNOW THIS OF AN ANIMAL THAT WAS BORN TREFAH FROM THE WOMB?17 Now if it can be said [that the slaughtering of the foetus in its dam's womb renders it valid], then this also had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering], for a man might put his hand into the womb and slaughter it there [before it was rendered trefah]! — Raba said to him, Render: ‘an animal that was formed18 trefah from the womb’, and this would be the case when, e.g., it has five legs.19 MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL AND FOUND IN IT AN EIGHT MONTHS FOETUS, EITHER LIVING OR DEAD, OR A DEAD NINE MONTHS FOETUS, HE NEED ONLY TEAR IT OPEN20 AND LET THE BLOOD FLOW OUT.21 IF HE FOUND IN IT A LIVING NINE MONTHS’ FOETUS IT MUST BE SLAUGHTERED,22 AND HE WOULD THEREBY INCUR THE PENALTY FOR [INFRINGING THE LAW OF] ‘IT AND ITS YOUNG’:23 SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE SLAUGHTERING OF ITS DAM RENDERS IT PERMITTED.24 indirect support for the Rabbinic restriction. It is obvious, therefore, that at the slaughtering the limb is not accounted as detached. prohibition, namely, against eating a limb detached from a living animal, but not against eating nebelah. the teaching that only death causes the falling off of the limb but not the slaughtering. verse? the exclusion of slaughtering. slaughtered, so that one could say that slaughtering applies to its kind. render the foetus permitted. And it is all the more so according to R. Meir, since he is generally of the opinion that slaughtering applies to a foetus. renders it trefah, cf. supra 58b. time that it was formed in the womb. dam. it is living, is deemed a separate being and is not rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam. The Sages, however, who dispute with him maintain that the nine months’ living foetus is deemed a separate animal only on birth, but as long as it is within the womb it is part of the dam and is rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the dam.