Chullin

It was a dry slaughtering,1 and this ruling is not in accordance with R. Simeon's view. Who is the Tanna that taught: ‘If it waded through a river it has thereby become susceptible to uncleanness and if it next passed through a cemetery it has thereby become unclean’?2 — R. Johanan said: It is R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Jose the Galilean: It contracts food uncleanness,3 and needs to be rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness]. The Sages say,4 It does not contract food uncleanness, for it is a living being, and whatsoever lives cannot contract food uncleanness. R. Johanan is indeed consistent in his view, for R. Johanan had also said that R. Jose the Galilean and Beth Shammai held the same view.5 R. Jose the Galilean expressed it [in the Baraitha we quoted] above. Beth Shammai expressed it [in the following Mishnah]:6 For we learnt: When do fish contract uncleanness? Beth Shammai say: As soon as they have been caught.7 Beth Hillel say: Only when they are dead. R. Akiba says: From the moment that they cannot live. What is the difference between them?8 R. Johanan replied: A fish that is struggling.9 R. Hisda raised the question: What is the law if such defects as [render an animal] trefah occurred in fish?10 This question can be asked both according to him who holds that a trefah animal can continue to live [for twelve months or more] and also according to him who holds that a trefah cannot continue to live. According to him who holds that a trefah can continue to live this question can be asked, for perhaps this is so11 only in the case of animals whose vital force is considerable but not in the case of fishes whose vital force is slender.12 And according to him who holds that a trefah cannot continue to live this question can also be asked, for perhaps this is so13 only in the case of animals, since to its kind slaughtering applies,14 but not to the case of fishes, since slaughtering does not apply to its kind!15 — It remains undecided. If an animal cast forth an abortion, the fat thereof, says R. Johanan, is as the fat of an animal.16 R. Simeon b. Lakish says: It is as the fat of a wild beast.17 R. Johanan said: The fat thereof is as the fat of an animal, because [the coming into] the world18 renders it [an animal].19 R. Simeon b. Lakish said, [The fat thereof is] as the fat of a wild beast, because [the fulfilment of] the months [of pregnancy] is [also] essential in order to render it [an animal]. Others report it thus: Where the months of pregnancy had not been fulfilled [there is no doubt at all that] it is of no consequence.20 They differ only in the case where a person put his hand into the womb of an animal, tore away some fat from the living nine months’ foetus within, and ate it. R. Johanan says: This fat is as the fat of [an animal], because the [fulfilment of the] months [of pregnancy] alone renders it [an animal]. R. Simeon b. Lakish says: It is as the fat of a wild beast, because the [fulfilment of the] months [of pregnancy] coupled with the [coming into the] world renders it [an animal]. R. Johanan raised this objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish. [It was taught:] Just as ‘the fat and the two kidneys’ referred to in the case of the guilt-offering precludes that of a foetus,21 so wherever [‘fat’ is stated] it precludes that of a foetus. Now according to my view, [says R. Johanan], it is right that the verse finds it necessary to preclude it;22 but according to you, why is it necessary to preclude it?23 — He replied: I derive my view from this very passage.24 Others report it as follows: R. Simeon b. Lakish raised this objection against R. Johanan. [It was taught]: Just as ‘the fat and the two kidneys’ referred to in the case of the guilt-offering precludes that of a foetus, so wherever [‘fat’ is stated] it precludes that of a foetus. Now according to my view, [says R. Simeon b. Lakish,] it is right that the Divine Law precluded it;25 but according to you, why should it not be offered [upon the altar]? — He replied: It is like an animal which has not reached the prescribed age.26 R. Ammi said: If a person slaughtered a trefah animal and found in it a nine months’ living foetus, according to him who forbids [the other27 without slaughtering] it is permitted,28 and according to him who permits [the other without slaughtering] it is forbidden.29 Raba said: Even according to him who permits [the other without slaughtering] it is permitted, for the Divine Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs.30 R. Hisda said: If a person slaughtered a trefah animal and found in it a nine months’ living foetus, uncleanness. The act of slaughtering alone, according to this Tanna, does not render the animal susceptible to uncleanness, contra R. Simeon. foodstuff, if it came into contact with uncleanness. contract uncleanness; according to R. Akiba, it can. (R. Gershom). V. however Tosaf. s.v. htn. animal would render it trefah or not? This question obviously arises only according to R. Akiba's view supra. regarded as dead and is susceptible to contract uncleanness. is not so in the case of fishes. the rules of trefah do not apply to its kind’. Shittah Mekubbezeth. which only involves a flogging but not Kareth. The prohibition of fat does not apply to that of a beast of chase. the altar (cf. Lev. VII, 3, 4) cannot include that of a foetus found in the womb of the animal offered. concludes that such fat is in no wise deemed fat. XXII, 29). Likewise with the fat of the foetus, although it is regarded as fat in every respect, it is nevertheless forbidden for sacrificial purposes. dam was a trefah. slaughtering or by the slaughtering of its dam.