Chullin

people may be counted in to partake thereof in the Passover-offering.1 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,2 and moreover it is here a question involving a prohibition of the Torah,3 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?4 — 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’.5 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.6 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.7 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?8 Rabina enquired of Raba: What is the law if the [required amount of] flesh was scattered9 [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 layer10 [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!11 — Perhaps there the skin holds its own place.12 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?13 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.14 MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL AND FOUND IN IT AN AFTERBIRTH, HE WHO IS NOT FASTIDIOUS MAY EAT IT.15 IT DOES NOT CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS,16 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.17 IF PART OF THE AFTERBIRTH EMERGED [BEFORE THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE DAM], IT MAY NOT BE EATEN;18 FOR IT19 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;20 BUT IN THE CASE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL IT MUST BE BURIED.21 IT MAY NOT BE BURIED AT CROSS-ROADS OR HUNG ON A TREE, FOR THESE ARE AMORITE PRACTICES.22 GEMARA. Whence do we know it?23 — [From the following.] Our Rabbis taught: The verse: Whatsoever . . . in the beast, that shall ye eat,24 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]?25 — 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?26 In what respect [does the question arise]? If in respect of food uncleanness, we have learnt it; flesh; v. Pes. 84a. 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. 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. Sonc. ed., p. 862, n. 12. flesh! 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. one who is not squeamish. belongs to it would not be rendered permitted by the slaughtering of the animal. 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. put to ally use. miscarriages. Such heathen superstitions are forbidden in Ex. XXIII, 24: Ye shall not do as they do. deemed fully born, it is obvious that the slaughtering will not render it permitted.