חולין 75:2 — Soncino English Talmud

it needs to be slaughtered and is subject to the [priests’ dues of the] shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. If it died [without being slaughtered], it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying. Thereupon Rabbah said to him: The ruling ‘it needs to be slaughtered’ obviously follows R. Meir's view, whereas the ruling ‘it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying’ obviously follows the Rabbis’ view! — But according to your argument, you could raise this same objection against R. Hiyya; for R. Hiyya taught: If a person slaughtered a trefah [animal] and found in it a nine months’ living foetus, it needs to be slaughtered and is subject to the [priests’ dues of the] shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. If it died, it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying. The ruling ‘it needs to be slaughtered’, follows R. Meir's view, whereas the ruling ‘it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying’ follows the Rabbis’ view! — This is no difficulty at all, for R. Hiyya deals with the case where it was found dead [in the dam's womb]. This is, however, a difficulty for you. — He replied: It is no difficulty for me either, for the Divine Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs. When R. Zera went up [to Palestine] he found R. Assi sitting and reciting the above statement [of R. Hisda]. ‘Well spoken!’ said R. Zera; ‘R. Johanan also said so’. Are we to infer that R. Simeon b. Lakish disagrees with [R. Johanan]? — Some say: He was waiting and was silent; and others say: He was drinking and was silent. R. SIMEON SHEZURI SAYS, EVEN IF IT IS FIVE YEARS OLD . . . Is not his view identical with that of the first Tanna? — R. Kahana replied: The difference between them is where it stood upon the ground. R. Mesharsheya said: According to him who maintains that we must take into account the seed of the male, if an animal which had been extracted alive [out of the womb of its dam] covered a normal cow, there is no remedy for the offspring. Abaye, said: All agree that if the animal which was extracted alive [out of the womb of its dam] had uncloven hoofs it is permitted. Why? Because everything extraordinary people remember very well. Others report it thus: Abaye said: All agree that if this animal with uncloven hoofs was extracted [alive out of the womb of its dam] which also was with uncloven hoofs and had been extracted [out of the womb of its dam], it is permitted. Why? Because a case with two extraordinary conditions people remember very well. Ze'iri said in the name of R. Hanina: The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon Shezuri. Indeed R. Simeon Shezuri permitted [without slaughtering] its young and the offspring of its young and so on unto the end of all time. R. Johanan said: It alone is permitted [without slaughtering] but its young is forbidden. Adda b. Habu had an animal that had been extracted [alive out of the slaughtered dam's womb]. It was attacked by a wolf, so he came to R Ashi who advised him to slaughter it [immediately]. But, argued Adda, did not Ze'iri say in the name of R. Hanina that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon Shezuri? And indeed R. Simeon Shezuri permitted [without slaughtering] its young and the offspring of its young and so on unto the end of all time. Moreover, even R. Johanan disagreed only regarding its young but not regarding itself! — He replied, R. Johanan merely stated [what he thought to be] the view of R. Simeon Shezuri. But did not Rabin, son of R. Hanina, say in the name of Ulla on the authority of R. Hanina that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon of Shezuri? Moreover, is it not an established rule that wherever R. Simeon Shezuri stated his view the halachah is in accordance with him? — He replied: I accept the following view. For R. Jonathan said: The halachah accords with R. Simeon Shezuri only in the case of ‘The dangerously ill person’ and in the case of ‘The terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce’. The case about the dangerously ill person is as we have learnt: At first it was held: If a man whilst being led out in chains [to execution] said: ‘Write out a bill of divorce for my wife’,it was to be written and also to be delivered to her. Later they laid down that the same rule applied also to one who was leaving on a sea journey or setting out with a caravan. R. Simeon Shezuri says: It also applies to a man who was dangerously ill. And the case about the terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce is as we have learnt: If the terumah that had been separated from the tithe of demai produce fell back into its place, R. Simeon Shezuri says, even on a weekday one need only ask him [sc. the seller] about it and eat it by his word. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:V. Deut. XVIII, 3.
^ᵇnote:Since it has been rendered clean by the slaughtering of its dam. ‘Carrying’ even without contact is one of the methods by which a carcass can convey uncleanness. It must be observed that the other method of conveying uncleanness, namely, by contact, is not excluded here.
^ᶜnote:And in this case it is admitted by R. Meir that the slaughtering of the dam renders the foetus that is within it clean. Accordingly the teaching of R. Hiyya is entirely in agreement with R. Meir.
^ᵈnote:For R. Hisda did not explain that he was dealing with a foetus that had died in the womb.
^ᵉnote:The ruling therefore entirely follows the Rabbis’ view since they hold that the foetus is permitted either by its own slaughtering or that of its dam.
^ᶠnote:It is not known whether Resh Lakish disagreed or not, for R. Assi had left the room whilst R. Johanan was lecturing and Resh Lakish had not as yet commenced to argue with R. Johanan either because, as some say: Resh Lakish was in the habit of allowing him to finish his remarks without interruption, or because, as others say: Resh Lakish was drinking water at the time and therefore remained silent.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘it made an impression of its parted feet on the ground’. According to the first Tanna, i.e, ‘The Sages’ in our Mishnah, since this animal goes about the fields like normal animals, it has been decreed by the Rabbis that it must be ritually slaughtered, for not everyone would know of the peculiarity of this animal to distinguish it from normal animals.
^ʰnote:V. supra 69a. As the offspring from the maternal side requires to be slaughtered but not from the paternal side, it is regarded as half slaughtered, and to continue the slaughtering now is of no avail because of the long pause between the beginning of the slaughtering, i.e., at birth, and now. This state in the animal could not arise if we accept the rule that the law permits the foetus either by its own slaughtering or by the slaughtering of its dam. V. however, Tosaf. ad loc.
^ⁱnote:By the slaughtering of its dam even though it walks about in the field, and even according to the view of the Sages in our Mishnah.
^ʲnote:All people would take notice of this beast on account of its abnormality, and would remember all the peculiarities in connection with it.
^ᵏnote:And it was dying (Rashi). There was no question at all whether or not it was to be considered trefah, but only whether it was necessary to have it slaughtered or not; v. Tosaf. ad loc.
^ˡnote:Why then was it necessary to have the beast slaughtered?
^ᵐnote:Though he himself was not in agreement with it.
^ⁿnote:Cur. edd. add ‘in the Mishnah’, but it is incorrect in view of the passage in Men. 31b. q.v.; v. Marginal Gloss.
^ᵒnote:Even though he gave no instructions that it was to be delivered to his wife. It is assumed that he intended it to be delivered to her but omitted to say so owing to his perturbed state of mind.
^ᵖnote:Git. 65b.
^ᵠnote:I.e., was mixed up with the ordinary ‘common’ produce. The mixture now is permitted to be eaten by priests only, so that the loss to the owner is considerable.
^ʳnote:In these special circumstances because of the loss involved, and since we are dealing with demai produce, i.e., produce that had been bought from an ‘am ha-arez or one who was not trusted with regard to the separation of the tithes, the Rabbis permitted the owner to enquire of the seller about it, and if the seller assured him that he separated the various dues he may rely upon his word. If this occurred on the Sabbath it would certainly be permitted to rely upon the seller's word for the honour of the Sabbath, but according to R. Simeon Shezuri this is permitted even on a weekday. V. Dem. IV, 1.