Chullin

and 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,1 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!2 — 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,3 but where there was a foetus within we have no apprehension that it contained another foetus.4 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 view5 [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 it6 was not attached to the foetus,7 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 it6 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.8 There is [a Baraitha] taught in support of R. Eleazar's view,9 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;10 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. 11 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.12 Now all animals that bear young bear half males and half females;13 add therefore the minority of nidmeh to the half females, with the result that the males constitute a minority.14 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.15 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. what looked like a lamb. This is not holy as a firstling, v. Bik. II, 5.