Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 10, 2019 | 讛壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Chullin 75

Is a nine- month fetus of an animal that is alive when its mother is slaughtered considered part of the mother or not – is it permitted by the slaughter of the mother? If it is considered part of the mother regarding shechita, is it also considered part of the mother for other issues, like impurities.聽What is the status of the forbidden fats of the fetus – are they permitted or forbidden? Is a ben pekua聽allowed without slaughtering only before it’s feet get on the ground and it starts walking or is it forever? Does it include its offspring? Rav Kahana understands that this is a matter of debate in the mishna. Who do we hold like?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘砖讞讬讟讛 讬讘讬砖转讗 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the slaughter of the mother was dry, i.e., where no blood was emitted, and therefore, even the mother was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. And the baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the flesh of a slaughtered animal is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by virtue of the fact that it is permitted for consumption, regardless of whether or not it came into contact with blood or other liquids.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 注讘专 讘谞讛专 讛讜讻砖专 讛诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 谞讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita: If a ben pekua grew up and passed through a river, it was thereby rendered susceptible to impurity, and therefore if it went from there to a cemetery, it is rendered impure? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The flesh of a ben pekua can become impure with the ritual impurity of food, but it first needs to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by coming in contact with liquid. But the Rabbis say: It cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food because it is alive, and any live animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food, even if it is permitted for consumption.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Beit Shammai said the same thing, i.e., they both hold that even a live animal can become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 讚讙讬诐 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讬爪讜讚讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讬诪讜转讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖注讛 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讬讜转

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is that which we stated in the baraita. The opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to fish, from when are they susceptible to impurity as food? Beit Shammai say: From when they are caught in a trap, as at this point they are considered food, since they do not require slaughter. And Beit Hillel say: From when they die. Rabbi Akiva says: From when they are no longer able to live.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讙 诪拽专讟注 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara analyzes that mishna: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Beit Hillel? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The difference between them is the case of a convulsing fish. Rabbi Akiva holds that such a fish can already become ritually impure, while Beit Hillel require it to have actually died.

讘注讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讜诇讚讜 讘讚讙讬诐 住讬诪谞讬 讟专驻讛 诪讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讜转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛

Rav 岣sda raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Akiva, if symptoms of a tereifa developed in a fish, e.g., a perforation in the intestines, which will certainly result in the animal鈥檚 death (see 42a), what is the halakha? Can it already be rendered ritually impure as if it were now dead? The Gemara clarifies: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that an animal that is a tereifa can live, i.e., it will not necessarily die within a year, and one can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, but will die within a year.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚谞驻讬砖讗 讞讬讜转讛 讗讘诇 讚讙讬诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讗 讞讬讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 讚讙讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara elaborates: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, as perhaps that opinion is limited to an animal, as an animal has a strong life force, and it could live despite such symptoms. But with regard to a fish, whose life force is not strong, all would agree that it will not survive. Or perhaps, even according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is possible that this matter, that a tereifa is regarded as dead, applies only to an animal, as the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it for consumption applies to this type of creature, i.e., to animals, and so to invalidate its slaughter, the Torah classifies an animal that is a tereifa as though it is dead. But with regard to fish, where the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it does not apply to this type of creature, I would say that a fish with symptoms of a tereifa is not considered as though it were dead. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讞讬讛

搂 The Rabbis state in the mishna that a nine-month-old fetus is considered to be part of its mother. Therefore, when the mother is slaughtered, the entire fetus is permitted, including all its fats. The Gemara asks: If an animal expelled a non-viable newborn, what is the status of the fetus鈥檚 fat? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, and one is liable to receive karet if he eats it. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, which is not prohibited.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讗讜讬专讗 讙专讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讞讬讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讙专诪讬

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as he maintains that the exit of a fetus through the airspace of the opening of the womb causes it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as he maintains that the completion of the months of gestation causes a fetus to be regarded as an independent animal, and this stillborn did not reach this stage.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇诪注讬 讘讛诪讛 讜转诇砖 讞诇讘 砖诇 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬 讜讗讻诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讙专诪讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讞讬讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讗讜讬专讗 讙专诪讬

Some say that there is another explanation of this dispute: In any case where its months of gestation were not completed, everyone agrees that it is nothing, i.e., it is not an independent animal and its fat is not included in the prohibition of forbidden fats. When they disagree it is with regard to a case where one inserted his hand into the womb of an animal and removed the fat of a live nine-month-old fetus and ate it. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as the months of gestation alone cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as it is the months of gestation and its exit through the airspace of the opening of the womb that together cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Since this fetus was not yet born, it is not subject to the prohibition of forbidden fats.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讛 讞诇讘 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讗砖诐 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita that discusses the sacrifice of the fat surrounding a fetus inside a pregnant animal: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice the fat and two kidneys (see Leviticus 7:3鈥4), which is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice because a guilt offering is always a male, so too, with regard to every offering, even in the case of a female offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan explains his objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of a fetus is forbidden for consumption, this is why a verse was necessary to exclude it from being sacrificed on the altar. But according to your opinion that it is not forbidden, why is a verse necessary to exclude it? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: My explanation is also derived from the verse here, which serves as the source for the fact that the fat of a fetus is not forbidden.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 讞诇讘 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讗砖诐 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇

And some say that there is another version of this objection in which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from that baraita: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice 鈥渢he fat and two kidneys鈥 that is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice, so too, with regard to every offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬注讟讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讬拽专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains the objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of the fetus is not prohibited like the other fats, it is due to that reason that the Merciful One excludes it from the requirement of being sacrificed. But according to your opinion, that the fat of the fetus is considered one of the forbidden fats, let it also be sacrificed. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The reason that this fat is not sacrificed is just as it is with regard to an offering whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., it is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed (see Leviticus 22:27) despite being of a species of animal that may be sacrificed. Similarly, with regard to the fat of the fetus, despite being included among those fats that are prohibited, it may not be sacrificed.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专驻讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 诪转讬专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 讗讜住专

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute in the mishna with regard to a nine-month-old fetus found alive inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir holds that the fetus itself must be slaughtered in order to permit it, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. Rabbi Ami said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal until it is slaughtered itself, if it is found inside a tereifa he permits the fetus once it is slaughtered itself. But according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, referred to as the Rabbis in the mishna, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, if it is found inside a tereifa he prohibits it, even if it is slaughtered itself.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 谞诪讬 诪讜转专 讗专讘注讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讻砖专 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, he also permits it if it is found inside a tereifa, once the fetus itself is slaughtered. The reason is that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and gullet of the mother and those of the fetus, with the fetus being permitted by the cutting of either pair.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专驻讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus,

讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

the fetus requires its own slaughter to permit its consumption, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest, as is required for a non-sacred animal that is slaughtered. But nevertheless, if it dies, the fact that its mother was slaughtered serves to render it pure with regard to imparting impurity to people through their carrying of it, as it does not impart the impurity of a carcass.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rava said to Rav 岣sda: Your ruling is inconsistent. When you say it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a live nine-month-old fetus is not permitted by virtue of its mother鈥檚 slaughter. But when you say that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专驻讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讻专讘谞谉

Rav 岣sda replied: And according to your reasoning, the same difficulty arises with that which Rabbi 岣yya teaches in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughtered an animal that is a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest. But nevertheless, if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying. When he says that it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But when he says that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诐 讻讘专 诪爪讗讜 诪转 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗

Rava responded: That is not difficult, as it is possible that Rabbi 岣yya was speaking about if one found that the fetus had already died inside the mother. In such a case, Rabbi Meir concedes that its mother鈥檚 slaughter renders it pure, as stated in the mishna. Accordingly, the baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But according to your opinion, that even if it was found alive and died later it is pure from the impurity of a carcass, it is difficult.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗专讘注讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讗讻砖专 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rav 岣sda said to Rava: According to my opinion also it is not difficult, as I claim that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and although the slaughter of its mother permits the fetus, its own slaughter can also permit it, as the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, two of the mother and two of the fetus, the fetus being permitted through the cutting of either pair.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Rav Asi found him sitting and saying this halakha of Rav 岣sda, i.e., that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter. Rav Asi said to him: That is correct, and so says Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Zeira asked him: Can I conclude by inference from your statement that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 colleague, disagrees with him?

诪砖讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖转讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

Rav Asi answered: I do not know, as after Rabbi Yo岣nan made his statement, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was waiting for him to see if he would retract, and he therefore remained silent about whether or not he disagreed. But it is possible that after I left, he disagreed. And some say that Rav Asi said: At that time, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was drinking, and that is why he remained silent. Therefore, I do not know whether or not he disagreed.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛驻专讬住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if a nine-month-old fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field it does not require slaughter. The Gemara asks: This opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri is identical to that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis. What difference is there between them? Rav Kahana said: The difference between them is a case where the fetus stood upon the ground. According to the opinion of the first tanna, once the fetus walks on the ground there is a rabbinic decree requiring that it be slaughtered before it is consumed, lest people mistakenly permit other animals without slaughter. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagrees and holds that it does not require slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讘讛诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讜诇讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

Rav Mesharshiyya said: According to the statement of the one who says that when defining the status of an animal one needs to be concerned with its paternity, if a ben pekua copulated with a full-fledged animal, the offspring has no rectification. Although when the mother and father are each a ben pekua the offspring is permitted without ritual slaughter, if the father is a ben pekua but the mother is not, the offspring is simultaneously defined as requiring slaughter, based on the mother, and being excluded from the requirement for slaughter, based on the father. Therefore, no act of slaughter can permit it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘拽诇讜讟 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 砖诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 诪诇转讗 讚转诪讬讛讗 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘拽诇讜讟 讘谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 砖诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转专讬 转诪讬讛讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬

Abaye says: Everyone, i.e., even the first tanna, who requires the slaughter of a ben pekua that stood upon the ground, agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves that was found inside a kosher animal, that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. What is the reason for this? It is that people remember any bizarre matter, and there is no concern that if it is permitted without slaughter, people will mistakenly permit regular animals without slaughter. Some say that Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves found inside an animal with non-cloven hooves that was itself born to a kosher animal, that the fetus is permitted without slaughter even if it stood on the ground. What is the reason? It is that people remember two bizarre matters.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讝讜专讬 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 诪转讬专 讘讘谞讜 讜讘谉 讘谞讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜讘谞讜 讗住讜专

Ze鈥檈iri says that Rabbi 岣nina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It, the ben pekua itself, is permitted, but its offspring is prohibited unless it is slaughtered.

讗讚讗 讘专 讞讘讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 讚谞驻诇 讚讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讞讟讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 诪转讬专 讘讘谞讜 讜讘谉 讘谞讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘谞讜 讗讘诇 讗讬讛讜 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Adda bar 岣vu had a ben pekua that was attacked by a bear and was about to die. He came before Rav Ashi to inquire what to do. Rav Ashi said to him: Go and slaughter it before it dies so that you can eat it, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that if a ben pekua stood upon the ground it requires slaughter. Adda bar 岣vu said to Rav Ashi: But doesn鈥檛 Ze鈥檈iri say that Rabbi 岣nina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations? And even Rabbi Yo岣nan, who disagreed, said his dissenting opinion only with regard to its offspring, but with regard to a ben pekua itself, he did not disagree that it is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 拽讗诪专

Rav Ashi said to Adda bar 岣vu: Rabbi Yo岣nan was speaking according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, i.e., he said that even Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits only a ben pekua itself, but not its offspring. But Rabbi Yo岣nan himself agrees with the first tanna that a ben pekua that stood upon the ground is prohibited without slaughter.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

Adda bar 岣vu persisted: But didn鈥檛 Ravin bar 岣nina say that Ulla says that Rabbi 岣nina says with regard to a different issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and moreover, not only is the halakha in accordance with his opinion with regard to this matter, but in any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讬 讛讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讘诪住讜讻谉 讜讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬

Rav Ashi said to Adda bar 岣vu: I hold in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill, and in the case of teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], but not in other cases, e.g., in the case of his disagreement with the first tanna concerning a ben pekua.

诪住讜讻谉 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪住讜讻谉

The Gemara now elaborates on these two cases. The case of one who is dangerously ill is as we learned in a mishna (gittin 65b): Initially, the Sages would say that in the case of one who is taken out in a neck chain [bekolar] to be executed and who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people who hear should write the document and give it to her. Although there was no explicit instruction to give it to her, this is understood to have been his intention, in order to release her from the obligation to perform levirate marriage or the ritual through which she becomes free of her levirate bonds [岣litza]. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a distant place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said only: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 砖讞讝专讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 砖讜讗诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 注诇 驻讬讜

The case of teruma of the tithe of demai is as we learned in a mishna (Demai 4:1): With regard to teruma of the tithe of demai, i.e., teruma of the tithe that was separated from the produce of an am ha鈥檃retz, who is suspected of not separating tithes properly, that fell and returned to its original place, becoming mingled with the rest of produce from which it had been separated, Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even on a weekday one may ask the am ha鈥檃retz whether or not he separated the necessary tithes and then eat based on his statement.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 75

讘砖讞讬讟讛 讬讘讬砖转讗 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish answers: The baraita is referring to a case where the slaughter of the mother was dry, i.e., where no blood was emitted, and therefore, even the mother was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. And the baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the flesh of a slaughtered animal is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by virtue of the fact that it is permitted for consumption, regardless of whether or not it came into contact with blood or other liquids.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 注讘专 讘谞讛专 讛讜讻砖专 讛诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 谞讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita: If a ben pekua grew up and passed through a river, it was thereby rendered susceptible to impurity, and therefore if it went from there to a cemetery, it is rendered impure? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: The flesh of a ben pekua can become impure with the ritual impurity of food, but it first needs to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by coming in contact with liquid. But the Rabbis say: It cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food because it is alive, and any live animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food, even if it is permitted for consumption.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Beit Shammai said the same thing, i.e., they both hold that even a live animal can become impure with the ritual impurity of food.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 讚讙讬诐 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讬爪讜讚讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讬诪讜转讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖注讛 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讬讜转

The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is that which we stated in the baraita. The opinion of Beit Shammai is as we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to fish, from when are they susceptible to impurity as food? Beit Shammai say: From when they are caught in a trap, as at this point they are considered food, since they do not require slaughter. And Beit Hillel say: From when they die. Rabbi Akiva says: From when they are no longer able to live.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讙 诪拽专讟注 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara analyzes that mishna: What is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Beit Hillel? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The difference between them is the case of a convulsing fish. Rabbi Akiva holds that such a fish can already become ritually impure, while Beit Hillel require it to have actually died.

讘注讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讜诇讚讜 讘讚讙讬诐 住讬诪谞讬 讟专驻讛 诪讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讜转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛

Rav 岣sda raises a dilemma: According to Rabbi Akiva, if symptoms of a tereifa developed in a fish, e.g., a perforation in the intestines, which will certainly result in the animal鈥檚 death (see 42a), what is the halakha? Can it already be rendered ritually impure as if it were now dead? The Gemara clarifies: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that an animal that is a tereifa can live, i.e., it will not necessarily die within a year, and one can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, but will die within a year.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讗 讚谞驻讬砖讗 讞讬讜转讛 讗讘诇 讚讙讬诐 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讗 讞讬讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讛诪讛 讚讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 讚讙讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讬拽讜

The Gemara elaborates: One can raise this dilemma according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, as perhaps that opinion is limited to an animal, as an animal has a strong life force, and it could live despite such symptoms. But with regard to a fish, whose life force is not strong, all would agree that it will not survive. Or perhaps, even according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot live, it is possible that this matter, that a tereifa is regarded as dead, applies only to an animal, as the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it for consumption applies to this type of creature, i.e., to animals, and so to invalidate its slaughter, the Torah classifies an animal that is a tereifa as though it is dead. But with regard to fish, where the requirement to slaughter it in order to permit it does not apply to this type of creature, I would say that a fish with symptoms of a tereifa is not considered as though it were dead. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛讟讬诇讛 谞驻诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讞讬讛

搂 The Rabbis state in the mishna that a nine-month-old fetus is considered to be part of its mother. Therefore, when the mother is slaughtered, the entire fetus is permitted, including all its fats. The Gemara asks: If an animal expelled a non-viable newborn, what is the status of the fetus鈥檚 fat? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, and one is liable to receive karet if he eats it. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, which is not prohibited.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讗讜讬专讗 讙专讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讞讬讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讙专诪讬

The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as he maintains that the exit of a fetus through the airspace of the opening of the womb causes it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as he maintains that the completion of the months of gestation causes a fetus to be regarded as an independent animal, and this stillborn did not reach this stage.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讻诇讜 诇讜 讞讚砖讬讜 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇诪注讬 讘讛诪讛 讜转诇砖 讞诇讘 砖诇 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬 讜讗讻诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讙专诪讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讻讞诇讘 讞讬讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讗讜讬专讗 讙专诪讬

Some say that there is another explanation of this dispute: In any case where its months of gestation were not completed, everyone agrees that it is nothing, i.e., it is not an independent animal and its fat is not included in the prohibition of forbidden fats. When they disagree it is with regard to a case where one inserted his hand into the womb of an animal and removed the fat of a live nine-month-old fetus and ate it. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Its fat is like the fat of any other domesticated animal, as the months of gestation alone cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal, as it is the months of gestation and its exit through the airspace of the opening of the womb that together cause it to be regarded as an independent animal. Since this fetus was not yet born, it is not subject to the prohibition of forbidden fats.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讛 讞诇讘 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讗砖诐 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita that discusses the sacrifice of the fat surrounding a fetus inside a pregnant animal: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice the fat and two kidneys (see Leviticus 7:3鈥4), which is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice because a guilt offering is always a male, so too, with regard to every offering, even in the case of a female offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诪讛讻讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan explains his objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of a fetus is forbidden for consumption, this is why a verse was necessary to exclude it from being sacrificed on the altar. But according to your opinion that it is not forbidden, why is a verse necessary to exclude it? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: My explanation is also derived from the verse here, which serves as the source for the fact that the fat of a fetus is not forbidden.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 讞诇讘 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讗砖诐 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜爪讗 诪讻诇诇 砖诇讬诇

And some say that there is another version of this objection in which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan from that baraita: Just as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice 鈥渢he fat and two kidneys鈥 that is stated with regard to a guilt offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice, so too, with regard to every offering, the fat of a fetus is excluded from the category of fats that one is required to sacrifice.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讬注讟讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 诇讬拽专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains the objection: Granted, according to my opinion that the fat of the fetus is not prohibited like the other fats, it is due to that reason that the Merciful One excludes it from the requirement of being sacrificed. But according to your opinion, that the fat of the fetus is considered one of the forbidden fats, let it also be sacrificed. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The reason that this fat is not sacrificed is just as it is with regard to an offering whose time has not yet arrived, i.e., it is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed (see Leviticus 22:27) despite being of a species of animal that may be sacrificed. Similarly, with regard to the fat of the fetus, despite being included among those fats that are prohibited, it may not be sacrificed.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专驻讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 诪转讬专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 讗讜住专

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute in the mishna with regard to a nine-month-old fetus found alive inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir holds that the fetus itself must be slaughtered in order to permit it, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. Rabbi Ami said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal until it is slaughtered itself, if it is found inside a tereifa he permits the fetus once it is slaughtered itself. But according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, referred to as the Rabbis in the mishna, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, if it is found inside a tereifa he prohibits it, even if it is slaughtered itself.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 谞诪讬 诪讜转专 讗专讘注讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讻砖专 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava said: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, he also permits it if it is found inside a tereifa, once the fetus itself is slaughtered. The reason is that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and gullet of the mother and those of the fetus, with the fetus being permitted by the cutting of either pair.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专驻讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to one who slaughtered a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus,

讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

the fetus requires its own slaughter to permit its consumption, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest, as is required for a non-sacred animal that is slaughtered. But nevertheless, if it dies, the fact that its mother was slaughtered serves to render it pure with regard to imparting impurity to people through their carrying of it, as it does not impart the impurity of a carcass.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rava said to Rav 岣sda: Your ruling is inconsistent. When you say it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that a live nine-month-old fetus is not permitted by virtue of its mother鈥檚 slaughter. But when you say that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讟专驻讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 讘谉 转砖注讛 讞讬 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗诐 诪转 讟讛讜专 诪诇讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讻专讘谞谉

Rav 岣sda replied: And according to your reasoning, the same difficulty arises with that which Rabbi 岣yya teaches in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughtered an animal that is a tereifa and found inside it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, and it is subject to the obligation to give the foreleg and the jaw and the maw to a priest. But nevertheless, if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying. When he says that it requires slaughter, in accordance with whose opinion is that? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But when he says that if it dies, it is pure with regard to imparting impurity through carrying, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诐 讻讘专 诪爪讗讜 诪转 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗

Rava responded: That is not difficult, as it is possible that Rabbi 岣yya was speaking about if one found that the fetus had already died inside the mother. In such a case, Rabbi Meir concedes that its mother鈥檚 slaughter renders it pure, as stated in the mishna. Accordingly, the baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But according to your opinion, that even if it was found alive and died later it is pure from the impurity of a carcass, it is difficult.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗专讘注讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讗讻砖专 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rav 岣sda said to Rava: According to my opinion also it is not difficult, as I claim that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and although the slaughter of its mother permits the fetus, its own slaughter can also permit it, as the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter, two of the mother and two of the fetus, the fetus being permitted through the cutting of either pair.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, Rav Asi found him sitting and saying this halakha of Rav 岣sda, i.e., that the Merciful One considers four simanim to be fit for slaughter. Rav Asi said to him: That is correct, and so says Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Zeira asked him: Can I conclude by inference from your statement that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 colleague, disagrees with him?

诪砖讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖转讗 讛讜讛 砖转讬 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

Rav Asi answered: I do not know, as after Rabbi Yo岣nan made his statement, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was waiting for him to see if he would retract, and he therefore remained silent about whether or not he disagreed. But it is possible that after I left, he disagreed. And some say that Rav Asi said: At that time, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was drinking, and that is why he remained silent. Therefore, I do not know whether or not he disagreed.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛驻专讬住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if a nine-month-old fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field it does not require slaughter. The Gemara asks: This opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri is identical to that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis. What difference is there between them? Rav Kahana said: The difference between them is a case where the fetus stood upon the ground. According to the opinion of the first tanna, once the fetus walks on the ground there is a rabbinic decree requiring that it be slaughtered before it is consumed, lest people mistakenly permit other animals without slaughter. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagrees and holds that it does not require slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讘讛诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讜诇讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

Rav Mesharshiyya said: According to the statement of the one who says that when defining the status of an animal one needs to be concerned with its paternity, if a ben pekua copulated with a full-fledged animal, the offspring has no rectification. Although when the mother and father are each a ben pekua the offspring is permitted without ritual slaughter, if the father is a ben pekua but the mother is not, the offspring is simultaneously defined as requiring slaughter, based on the mother, and being excluded from the requirement for slaughter, based on the father. Therefore, no act of slaughter can permit it.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘拽诇讜讟 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 砖诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 诪诇转讗 讚转诪讬讛讗 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 诇讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘拽诇讜讟 讘谉 拽诇讜讟讛 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 砖诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转专讬 转诪讬讛讬 诪讬讚讻专 讚讻讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬

Abaye says: Everyone, i.e., even the first tanna, who requires the slaughter of a ben pekua that stood upon the ground, agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves that was found inside a kosher animal, that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. What is the reason for this? It is that people remember any bizarre matter, and there is no concern that if it is permitted without slaughter, people will mistakenly permit regular animals without slaughter. Some say that Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to a ben pekua with non-cloven hooves found inside an animal with non-cloven hooves that was itself born to a kosher animal, that the fetus is permitted without slaughter even if it stood on the ground. What is the reason? It is that people remember two bizarre matters.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讝讜专讬 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 诪转讬专 讘讘谞讜 讜讘谉 讘谞讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜讘谞讜 讗住讜专

Ze鈥檈iri says that Rabbi 岣nina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It, the ben pekua itself, is permitted, but its offspring is prohibited unless it is slaughtered.

讗讚讗 讘专 讞讘讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘谉 驻拽讜注讛 讚谞驻诇 讚讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖讞讟讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 诪转讬专 讘讘谞讜 讜讘谉 讘谞讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘谞讜 讗讘诇 讗讬讛讜 诇讗

The Gemara relates: Adda bar 岣vu had a ben pekua that was attacked by a bear and was about to die. He came before Rav Ashi to inquire what to do. Rav Ashi said to him: Go and slaughter it before it dies so that you can eat it, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that if a ben pekua stood upon the ground it requires slaughter. Adda bar 岣vu said to Rav Ashi: But doesn鈥檛 Ze鈥檈iri say that Rabbi 岣nina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekua and the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations? And even Rabbi Yo岣nan, who disagreed, said his dissenting opinion only with regard to its offspring, but with regard to a ben pekua itself, he did not disagree that it is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 拽讗诪专

Rav Ashi said to Adda bar 岣vu: Rabbi Yo岣nan was speaking according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, i.e., he said that even Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits only a ben pekua itself, but not its offspring. But Rabbi Yo岣nan himself agrees with the first tanna that a ben pekua that stood upon the ground is prohibited without slaughter.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

Adda bar 岣vu persisted: But didn鈥檛 Ravin bar 岣nina say that Ulla says that Rabbi 岣nina says with regard to a different issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri; and moreover, not only is the halakha in accordance with his opinion with regard to this matter, but in any place where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri taught a halakha in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讬 讛讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讘诪住讜讻谉 讜讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬

Rav Ashi said to Adda bar 岣vu: I hold in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in the case of one who is dangerously ill, and in the case of teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], but not in other cases, e.g., in the case of his disagreement with the first tanna concerning a ben pekua.

诪住讜讻谉 讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪住讜讻谉

The Gemara now elaborates on these two cases. The case of one who is dangerously ill is as we learned in a mishna (gittin 65b): Initially, the Sages would say that in the case of one who is taken out in a neck chain [bekolar] to be executed and who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people who hear should write the document and give it to her. Although there was no explicit instruction to give it to her, this is understood to have been his intention, in order to release her from the obligation to perform levirate marriage or the ritual through which she becomes free of her levirate bonds [岣litza]. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a distant place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said only: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 砖讞讝专讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 砖讜讗诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 注诇 驻讬讜

The case of teruma of the tithe of demai is as we learned in a mishna (Demai 4:1): With regard to teruma of the tithe of demai, i.e., teruma of the tithe that was separated from the produce of an am ha鈥檃retz, who is suspected of not separating tithes properly, that fell and returned to its original place, becoming mingled with the rest of produce from which it had been separated, Rabbi Shimon ben Shezuri says: Even on a weekday one may ask the am ha鈥檃retz whether or not he separated the necessary tithes and then eat based on his statement.

Scroll To Top