Chullin

R. SIMEON SHEZURI SAYS: EVEN IF IT IS FIVE YEARS OLD AND IS PLOUGHING THE FIELD, THE SLAUGHTERING OF ITS DAM RENDERS IT PERMITTED. IF HE RIPPED OPEN THE DAM AND FOUND IN IT A LIVING NINE MONTHS FOETUS, IT MUST BE SLAUGHTERED, SINCE ITS DAM HAS NOT BEEN SLAUGHTERED. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: They argued about it [the foetus] only with regard to slaughtering. What does this exclude? — It excludes the fat1 and the [sciatic] nerve.2 What fat is meant? Is it the fat of the foetus? But is there not a dispute with regard to it? For it was taught:3 The law of the sciatic nerve 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. And R. Eleazar had said in the name of R. Oshaia that their dispute referred to a living nine months’ foetus, R. Meir ruling according to his principle4 and R. Judah according to his! And if it means the fat of the [sciatic] nerve, but is there not also a dispute about it? For it was taught:3 One must trace the sciatic nerve as far as it goes and must cut away the fat thereof at its roots: so R. Meir. R. Judah says: One need only peel off the [fat at the] top5 [of the hip-bone]!6 — If indeed it was reported, it must have been reported as follows: R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: They argued about it only with regard to the matters that affect the eating thereof,7 thus excluding the prohibitions of interbreeding8 and ploughing with it.9 R. Simeon b. Lakish said: He who permits the fat [of the foetus] permits its blood, and he who forbids its fat forbids its blood. R. Johanan says: Even he who permits its fat forbids its blood. R. Johanan raised this objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish: We have learnt: HE NEED ONLY TEAR IT OPEN AND LET THE BLOOD FLOW OUT!10 — R. Zera said: He [R. Simeon b. Lakish] only meant to say that one would not be liable to the penalty of Kareth.11 Whose view are we considering? R. Judah's,12 are we not? But let it be accounted no more than the blood that oozes out; has it not been taught: With regard to the blood that oozes [out of the animal after the slaughtering] there is only a formal prohibition;13 R. Judah says: There is the penalty of Kareth? — R. Joseph, the son of R. Salla the pious, explained it in the presence of R. Papa: R. Judah interprets the expressions, ‘blood’ and no manner of blood;14 hence, whenever one would be liable [to the penalty of Kareth] for the life blood one would also be liable for the blood that oozes out, and whenever one would not be liable for the life blood15 one would not be liable for the blood that oozes out. The question was raised: May one redeem16 [the firstling of an ass] with a lamb extracted [out of the ewe's womb]?17 According to R. Meir's view there is no question at all; for since he declares that it must be slaughtered, it is obviously an ordinary lamb. The question only arises according to the view of the Rabbis18 who maintain that the slaughtering of its dam renders it clean. Now what is the law? Since they maintain that the slaughtering of its dam renders it clean, it is to be regarded as meat in a basket,19 is it not? Or [shall we say] since it runs to and fro, we apply to it the term lamb?20 — Mar Zutra says: We may not redeem with it; R. Ashi says: We may. R. Ashi said to Mar Zutra, ‘How do you arrive at your view? You no doubt deduce it from the word ‘lamb’ used here20 and also in the verse dealing with the paschal lamb;21 then it should follow, just as there the lamb must be a male, without blemish, of the first year,21 so here too it must be a male, without blemish, of the first year’. [Mar Zutra replied,] ‘The repetition of: Thou shalt redeem,20 extends the scope of the law’.22 [Said R. Ashi] ‘If, as you say, namely, that the repetition of, ‘Thou shalt redeem’, extends the scope of the law, then everything [should be allowed]’.23 [Mar Zutra replied:] ‘If that were so, of what use to you is the inference made by the term lamb’?24 The question was raised: Do we reckon here the first and second degree of uncleanness or not?25 R. Johanan said: We do reckon here the first and second degree of uncleanness;26 R. Simeon b. Lakish said: We do not reckon here the first and second degree of uncleanness,27 for it is regarded as a nut that rattles in its shell. R. Simeon b. Lakish raised this objection against R. Johanan. We have learnt:28 The flesh is unclean like that which had touched nebelah: so R. Meir. But the Sages say: It is unclean like that which had touched a slaughtered trefah [animal]. Now according to my view that they [the foetus and the dam] are one body, it is clear, for it [the foetus] was rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness] by the blood of its dam;29 but according to you [it will be asked:] whereby was it rendered susceptible to uncleanness? — He replied: By the slaughtering, and it is in accordance with R. Simeon's view.30 R. Johanan raised this objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish. If it31 waded through a river it has thereby become susceptible to uncleanness, and if it next passed through a cemetery it has thereby become unclean. Now according to my view that they are two separate beings, it is clear that only if it had thus become susceptible to uncleanness [by passing through a river] it becomes [unclean], but if it had not thus become susceptible to uncleanness it is not [unclean]. But according to your view that they are one body [it is difficult, for surely] it had long ago become susceptible to uncleanness by the blood of its dam!32 — these (Rashi). According to R. Gershom, all agree that the fat and the nerve of the foetus are permitted. is meant, and secondly the dispute about the fat in the region close to the sciatic nerve — is entirely irrelevant to our subject. It is clear that the passage has been inserted here erroneously, and its proper place is infra 92b where it is actually found. Rashi submits the following emendation: Omit ‘what fat is meant? Is it the fat of the foetus?’ and also the entire passage beginning with ‘And if it means . . .’ This emendation is to a large measure supported by MS.M. V. Tosaf s.v. uckj. not. apply (so Rashi; according to R. Gershom: do not apply) to an animal that was extracted out of the womb. and must be allowed to flow out. even the blood that oozes out of the animal after the slaughtering. not arise, since one may always redeem it with anything that is its worth (Rashi). Bek. 120. any offering, it is likewise not fit for redeeming the firstling of an ass. redeem’ includes those that are blemished or females or older than yearlings. unclean, the question arises: Does the foetus assume the same degree of uncleanness as the dam, or one degree less? latter. to contract uncleanness; here therefore the foetus, as part of its dam, is rendered susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of the moistening of the flesh about the throat of the dam by the blood of the slaughtering. uncleanness.