חולין 77 — Soncino English Talmud

¹people may be counted in to partake thereof in the Passover-offering. Secondly, ‘the Torah doth spare the money of Israel’. Whereupon R. Papa said to Raba: But on the other hand there is the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish, and moreover it is here a question involving a prohibition of the Torah, and you say: What have we to fear? — He [Raba] remained silent. But why did he remain silent? Has not Raba himself declared that the law agrees with R. Simeon b. Lakish only in those three cases? — In this case it is different, for R. Johanan retracted his view in favour of that of R. Simeon b. Lakish, for he said: ‘Do not worry me [with any more of your arguments] for I regard that Mishnah as the opinion of an individual’. There once came to Abaye the case where the bone was broken and had protruded outside, and a fragment thereof had broken off. He held the case over three Festivals. Thereupon R. Adda b. Mattena said [to the owner of the animal:] Go and put the case to Raba the son of R. Joseph b. Hama, whose knife is sharp. He took it to him and Raba said: Let us see, [the Baraitha] taught, ‘If the bone was broken and protruded outside’. What does it matter to me whether a portion had fallen away or it was all there? Rabina enquired of Raba: What is the law if the [required amount of] flesh was scattered [around the fracture], or was in shreds, or had decomposed? — R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: Any flesh [that has decomposed so] that the surgeon must scrape it away [is to be regarded as gone entirely]. The question was raised: What is the law if the flesh [that covered the fracture] was perforated, or had peeled off [the bone], or was slit, or the inner layer [of flesh close to the bone] was gone? — Come and hear. ‘ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: The skin is as good as the flesh! — Perhaps there the skin holds its own place. R. Ashi said: When we were at the school of R. Papi he enquired of us: What is the law if some of the flesh around the fracture was cut away in a circle like a ring? And I suggested an answer from the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab, ‘I enquired about this of scholars and doctors and they said: One should make incisions around the edges of the flesh with a bone and it will then heal up, but [not with] an iron instrument [for it] would case inflammation’. R. Papa said: Provided the bone was firmly attached to it. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL AND FOUND IN IT AN AFTERBIRTH, HE WHO IS NOT FASTIDIOUS MAY EAT IT. IT DOES NOT CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS, EITHER FOOD UNCLEANNESS OR THE UNCLEANNESS OF NEBELAH. IF HE INTENDED TO EAT IT, IT CAN CONTRACT FOOD UNCLEANNESS BUT NOT THE UNCLEANNESS OF NEBELAH. IF PART OF THE AFTERBIRTH EMERGED [BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE DAM], IT MAY NOT BE EATEN; FOR IT IS A SIGN OF BIRTH IN A WOMAN AND ALSO A SIGN OF BIRTH IN AN ANIMAL. IF AN ANIMAL WHICH WAS WITH YOUNG FOR THE FIRST TIME CAST FORTH AN AFTERBIRTH, IT MAY BE THROWN TO DOGS; BUT IN THE CASE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL IT MUST BE BURIED. IT MAY NOT BE BURIED AT CROSS-ROADS OR HUNG ON A TREE, FOR THESE ARE AMORITE PRACTICES. GEMARA. Whence do we know it? — [From the following.] Our Rabbis taught: The verse: Whatsoever . . . in the beast, that shall ye eat, includes the afterbirth. I might say that even if part of it came forth [out of the womb it is also permitted], the verse therefore states ‘that’, ‘that’ [shall ye eat] but not the afterbirth. But let us consider, [it is accepted that] there can be no afterbirth without young, why then is any verse necessary [to exclude an afterbirth that had come forth]? — Indeed the verse is merely a support. IT DOES NOT CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS. R. Isaac b. Nappaha raised this question: What is the position with regard to an ass's skin which was seethed? In what respect [does the question arise]? If in respect of food uncleanness, we have learnt it;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:One fulfils one's obligation by eating these sinews of the Passover offering, for being now tender they are regarded as flesh; v. Pes. 84a.
^ᵇnote:That these sinews are not regarded as flesh since in a short time they will become hard and uneatable.
^ᶜnote:Whether the animal is trefah or not.
^ᵈnote:Except in three cases mentioned in Yeb. 36a, where the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish prevails, the law always accords with the opinion of R. Johanan against that of R. Simeon b. Lakish. In this dispute therefore Raba was right in ignoring the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish.
^ᵉnote:V. Pes. 84a. R. Johanan originally held that whatsoever was edible now was considered flesh, and based his view on the Mishnah infra 122a, ‘The skin of the head of a tender calf is considered flesh’, although when the calf grows up this skin will harden and become inedible. Subsequently R. Johanan changed his view and ruled that the skin of the head of a tender calf does not contract uncleanness since it hardens later on. When confronted by R. Simeon b. Lakish with the above quoted Mishnah he replied that he did not adopt the ruling of that Mishnah since it was merely the opinion of an individual Rabbi. V. supra 55b, and infra 122a.
^ᶠnote:To discuss the law with those Rabbis who assembled for the purpose of listening to festival discourses. V. Yeb., Sonc. ed., p. 862, n. 12.
^ᵍnote:I.e., he is capable of acute logical reasoning.
^ʰnote:Since the greater part of the fracture is covered up by flesh and skin it is permitted.
^ⁱnote:Does such flesh afford a sufficient protection over the fracture or not?
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘the lower third’.
^ᵏnote:If the skin itself can serve as a sufficient covering how much more so the skin with two thirds of the thickness of the flesh!
^ˡnote:I.e., the skin adheres firmly to the bone so that it is a firm covering, whereas in the last question the flesh was not attached to the bone (Rashi and R. Gershom). According to R. Hananel and R. Tam the text is vhrhr ‘fibers’, and not vhshs, and the meaning is that the skin was attached to the bones by fibrous tissue.
^ᵐnote:Can such a deficiency heal up or not?
^ⁿnote:Sc. the flesh. In that case it will eventually heal up.
^ᵒnote:For it has been rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the animal. Heb. vphv apb, lit., ‘a good soul; i.e., one who is not squeamish.
^ᵖnote:If it came into contact with unclean matter, for it is not regarded as a foodstuff.
^ᵠnote:I.e., if the animal died the afterbirth is not deemed part of the carcass and will not convey uncleanness as nebelah.
^ʳnote:For it may have contained the head of the foetus which would then be regarded as born, and the afterbirth which belongs to it would not be rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the animal.
^ˢnote:Sc. the emergence of the afterbirth.
^ᵗnote:It is in no wise regarded sacred as a firstling for, in the first place, it might have contained a female young which is not sacred; and even if we assume that it did contain a male young, there is the further possibility that it was a male young of a species of animals different from its dam (vnsb, v. Gemara infra) which also is not sacred. Hence the greater probability is that it was not a sacred young.
^ᵘnote:For the young, whether male or female, of a consecrated animal is sacred; and being dead, must be buried and not put to ally use.
^ᵛnote:These were superstitious practices whereby, it was believed, the animal would be prevented from any further miscarriages. Such heathen superstitions are forbidden in Ex. XXIII, 24: Ye shall not do as they do.
^ʷnote:That the afterbirth found in an animal is permitted.
^ˣnote:Lev. XI, 3.
^ʸnote:Since the part of the afterbirth which emerged may have contained the greater part of the foetus, in which case it is deemed fully born, it is obvious that the slaughtering will not render it permitted.
^ᶻnote:I.e., boiled for a long time. Is it regarded as a foodstuff or not?

²and if in respect of the uncleanness of nebelah, we have also learnt it. As to food uncleanness it was taught: A skin or an afterbirth cannot contract food uncleanness; if the skin was seethed or the afterbirth intended to be eaten, it can contract food uncleanness. As to the uncleanness of nebelah it was taught: It is written, [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof, but not its skin or its bones or its sinews or its horns or its hoofs. And Rabbah son of R. Hana had said that [the verse] was only necessary [to exclude these] when they were stewed in a pot! — Indeed [the question was raised] in respect of food uncleanness, but the law might be different in the case of an ass's skin since it is loathsome. IF PART OF THE AFTERBIRTH EMERGED. R. Eleazar said: The rule [in the Mishnah] applies only to the case where there was no foetus within, but where there was a foetus within we have no apprehension that it contained another foetus. R. Johanan said: Whether there was a foetus within or not, we apprehend another foetus. But this surely is not so, for R. Jeremiah has declared that R. Eleazar adopts a stricter view [than R. Johanan]! — Indeed if it was reported it must have been reported as follows: R. Eleazar said: The rule [in the Mishnah] applies only to the case where it was not attached to the foetus, but where it was attached to the foetus we do not apprehend another foetus. R. Johanan said: We are guided by the rule that there can be no afterbirth without a foetus; but where it contained a foetus, whether it was attached to the foetus or not, we do not apprehend another foetus. This now accords with the dictum of R. Jeremiah that R. Eleazar adopted a stricter view. There is [a Baraitha] taught in support of R. Eleazar's view, viz., If a woman brought forth an abortion which resembled a beast or a wild animal or a bird, and there was an afterbirth too, if the afterbirth was attached to it we do not apprehend another foetus; but if it was not attached to it, I must impose upon this woman the restrictions of two births, for I may suppose that the foetus of this afterbirth as well as the afterbirth of this foetus had dissolved. IF AN ANIMAL WHICH WAS WITH YOUNG FOR THE FIRST TIME CAST FORTH AN AFTERBIRTH [IT MAY BE THROWN TO DOGS]. Why? — R. Ika the son of R. Ammi said: Because the majority of animals give birth to something which is holy as a firstling whereas a minority of animals give birth to something which is not holy as a firstling, to wit, a nidmeh. Now all animals that bear young bear half males and half females; add therefore the minority of nidmeh to the half females, with the result that the males constitute a minority. BUT IN THE CASE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL IT MUST BE BURIED. Why? — Because the majority [of young born by a consecrated animal] is holy. IT MAY NOT BE BURIED AT CROSS-ROADS. Abaye and Raba both stated: Whatever is done for medicinal purposes is not prohibited as Amorite practices, and whatever is not done for medicinal purposes is prohibited as Amorite practices. But has it not been taught that a tree which casts its fruit may be painted with red paint or laden with stones? Now it may be laden with stones so that^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. XI, 39.
^ᵃᵇnote:For otherwise they certainly would not be regarded as foodstuffs.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., in that part of the afterbirth which still remained inside the womb there was not found a foetus or any signs of one; this being so, and because of the principle that there can be no afterbirth without a foetus, the foetus must have been in that part of the afterbirth which had emerged so that it was thereby born; hence the afterbirth is forbidden.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., there is no reasonable ground to assume that in that part of the afterbirth which had come out there was another foetus, and that this afterbirth belonged to it, so that this afterbirth belonging to a born foetus would be forbidden. We assume rather that this afterbirth belongs to the foetus that is found within it, and which has not yet come out of the womb, so that the afterbirth is permitted.
^ᵃᵉnote:Whereas according to the terms of the above dispute R. Eleazar adopts the more lenient view.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. the afterbirth.
^ᵃᵍnote:In this case, even though there is a foetus in that part of the afterbirth which is still within the womb, the afterbirth is forbidden, for since this foetus is not attached to the afterbirth, there is the possibility of there having been another foetus in that part of the afterbirth which had come out and had dissolved, and this afterbirth belongs to it.
^ᵃʰnote:For where that part of the afterbirth that was still inside the womb contained a foetus but was not attached to it, according to R. Eleazar we must take into consideration the possibility of there having been another foetus within it, whereas according to R. Johanan we do not; hence R. Eleazar adopts the stricter view.
^ᵃⁱnote:That there is a distinction between an afterbirth that is attached to the foetus and one that is not so attached.
^ᵃʲnote:This woman therefore would be clean if no blood issued from her womb, for the bringing forth of these animal-like abortions is not accounted a birth, in accordance with the view of the Rabbis that whatsoever has not the form of man is not accounted a birth (v. Nid. 21a and Tosaf. a.l.). If these animal-like abortions were accounted a birth she would be unclean even though no blood issued from the womb, v. Rashi on Lev. XII, 2.
^ᵃᵏnote:Because of the possibility of the presence of another foetus, perhaps a female one which had dissolved, in this afterbirth, this woman would have to observe the period of uncleanness as for the birth of a female, i.e., fourteen days; but, on the other hand, there may not have been another foetus at all, and the afterbirth in fact belongs to this animal-like abortion, and inasmuch as an animal-like abortion is not accounted a birth, she therefore would not have the advantage of any period of purity at all. V. Lev. c. XII.
^ᵃˡnote:Heb. vnsb ‘like, similar to’; e.g. a ewe which gave birth to what looked like a kid, or a goat which gave birth to what looked like a lamb. This is not holy as a firstling, v. Bik. II, 5.
^ᵃᵐnote:And a female is not holy as a firstling.
^ᵃⁿnote:And since we do not take the minority into consideration the foetus is not holy and may be thrown to the dogs.
^ᵃᵒnote:For the young of a consecrated animal, whether male or female, is holy, save for the case of a nidmeh.