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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 12, 2019 | 讝壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 77

Details regarding broken bones – in which cases does it create a treifa? Is the placenta of an animal permitted through laws of pen pekua? Under what circumstances? There is a discussion regarding superstitions and when they are forbidden/permitted.


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

谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 讜注讜讚 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

one may be registered as part of a group that will eat the Paschal offering on their account, i.e., even if those sinews are the only part of the lamb he will eat. Evidently, such sinews are regarded as flesh. And furthermore, the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, and one must tend toward leniency.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诪讗讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讛讜 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav Pappa said to Rabba: But Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan and holds that one may not be registered for those sinews, as they will eventually harden and are therefore not considered flesh. And therefore, the broken bone in this case is not covered by flesh and the animal is prohibited by Torah law as a tereifa, and yet you say: What concern is there with the sinews in this case? Rabba was silent.

讜讗诪讗讬 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘讛谞讬 转诇转

The Gemara asks: And why was Rabba silent? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in his disputes with Rabbi Yo岣nan only with regard to these three matters, i.e., three matters that are mentioned in Yevamot 36a, and not in other cases? If so, Rabba could simply have replied that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to this issue.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to sinews that will ultimately harden, it is different, as Rabbi Yo岣nan retracted his ruling in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as when Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a difficulty against Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Do not provoke me by asking questions to refute my opinion that the fact that the sinews will ultimately harden is disregarded, as I teach it in explanation of a lone opinion (see Pesa岣m 84a). Even Rabbi Yo岣nan conceded that the opinion he expressed was only according to one Sage, but is not the halakha.

讛讛讜讗 谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讜讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 讚讗讬砖转拽讬诇 拽讜专讟讬转讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 砖讛讬讬讛 转诇转讗 专讬讙诇讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain case in which a bone in an animal鈥檚 leg broke and protruded outward. This bone was mostly covered with flesh and skin, but a small piece [kurtita] of the bone had been removed from it. The case came before Abaye, who delayed his response until three pilgrimage Festivals had passed, when the Sages gathered together and he could ask them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讝讬诇 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讚讞专讬驻讗 住讻讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讜讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 转谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 谞驻诇 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬转讬讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to the owner of the animal: Go before Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, whose knife is sharp, i.e., he has insight into halakhic matters and decides matters quickly, and ask him to decide your case. The owner came before Rava to seek his opinion. Rava said to him: Since we learned in the baraita (76b): If the bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted, what difference is there to me if the bone fell out, and what difference is there to me if it is in its place? In either case, the animal is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪转诇拽讟 诪讛讜 诪转专讜住住 诪讛讜 诪转诪住诪住 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪转诪住诪住 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛专讜驻讗 拽讜讚专讜

With regard to a case where flesh covers the majority of a broken bone, Ravina said to Rava: If the flesh was torn in pieces and spread over the area, and if gathered it would constitute a majority, what is the halakha? Similarly, if the flesh was pulverized and thin, what is the halakha? If it was decomposed, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case in which the flesh is decomposed? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is referring to any kind of flesh that the doctor cuts away [kodro] and removes to enable the surrounding area to heal.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讬拽讘 诪讛讜 谞拽诇祝 诪讛讜 谞住讚拽 诪讛讜 谞讬讟诇 砖诇讬砖 讛转讞转讜谉 诪讛讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the flesh that covers the bone was perforated, what is the halakha? Likewise, if the flesh was peeled off the bone, what is the halakha? If it was cracked, what is the halakha? If the bottom third of the width of the flesh, i.e., the part that is adjacent to the bone, was removed, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘砖专 讚诇诪讗 讚拽谞讛 诪砖讻讗 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Skin is like flesh. This would appear to indicate that any covering is sufficient. The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan was referring to a specific case where there was never flesh on the bone, but only skin, e.g., adjacent to the knee, where the skin holds its own place close to the bone. This ruling may not apply in an area where there was flesh. Perhaps in such a place the bone must be covered by flesh that is still healthy.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 谞拽讚专 讻诪讬谉 讟讘注转 诪讛讜 讜驻砖讟谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇转讬 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诪住专讟讜 讘注爪诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗专讜讻讛 讗讘诇 驻专讝诇讗 诪讝专祝 讝专讬祝 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讜讗 讚拽谞讛 讙专诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛

Rav Ashi said: While we were studying in Rav Pappi鈥檚 study hall, we raised a dilemma: If the flesh and skin were cut in the shape of a ring around the break, and yet most of the circumference of the bone is surrounded by flesh, what is the halakha? And we resolved this dilemma from this statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: I asked about this matter to the Sages and to the doctors, what to do when a bone breaks and the surrounding flesh has been cut away, and they said: One makes an incision in it with a sharp piece of bone to help the blood flow and then congeal, and in this manner the wound will heal. The Gemara notes: But one should not make the incision with an iron implement, as it will cause inflammation. Rav Pappa said: And this advice should be implemented only in a case where one can see that the bone is holding firmly onto its flesh, as only in such a case will the flesh heal.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 砖诇讬讗 谞驻砖 讛讬驻讛 转讗讻诇谞讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in its womb, one with a hearty soul [nefesh hayafa], i.e., who is not repulsed by it, may eat it, as its consumption was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. Nevertheless, since generally speaking, people do not consume such placentas, it is not regarded as food and so it cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food even were it to come into contact with a source of impurity. And furthermore, it does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses as it was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. But if one intended to eat it, one thereby elevated it to the status of food, and the placenta becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. But even so, it still does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses.

砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讗砖讛 讜住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛

With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited even after the mother animal is slaughtered because the emergence of the placenta is an indication of a fetus in a woman and an indication of a fetus in an animal. Accordingly, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born, a status that precludes it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Since the offspring is prohibited, its placenta is likewise prohibited.

讛诪讘讻专转 砖讛驻讬诇讛 砖诇讬讗 讬砖诇讬讻谞讛 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转拽讘专 讜讗讬谉 拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讗讬诇谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬

If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs, and one does not need to be concerned that the placenta came from a male fetus that has the consecrated status of a firstborn. But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, superstitious rites intended to prevent the animal from miscarrying again, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite, which prohibits Jews from practicing the superstitious rites observed by gentiles.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讛 讗讜转讛 讜诇讗 砖诇讬转讛

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling that a placenta is permitted by virtue of the mother鈥檚 slaughter, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? As the Sages taught: 鈥淎nd every animal that parts the hoof, and has the hooves wholly cloven in two, and chews the cud, of the animals, it you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:6). The verse is the source of the halakha that a fetus is permitted by virtue of the mother鈥檚 slaughter (see 69a). The word 鈥渆very鈥 at the beginning of the verse serves to include the placenta as well as the fetus. One might have thought that a placenta is permitted even if part of it emerged from the womb before slaughter. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t you may eat,鈥 i.e., you may eat it, the slaughtered animal, but not its placenta, if it partially emerged.

诪讻讚讬 讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara objects: Now the assumption is that there is no placenta without a fetus. Therefore, if part of the placenta emerged, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born. Such a status would preclude it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Why do I need a verse to teach this? The Gemara explains: The verse is a mere support for the halakha, but not the source for it.

讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞驻讞讗 注讜专 讞诪讜专 砖砖诇拽讜 诪讛讜 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 转谞讬谞讗

搂 The mishna states: And a placenta found inside a slaughtered animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food and does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses. In a related discussion, Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Nappa岣 raises a dilemma: A donkey hide that one cooked and it became softened, what is its halakhic status? The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to the ritual impurity of food, we already learn this halakha in a baraita,

讗讬 诇讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 转谞讬谞讗

and if you say it was with regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses, we already learn that halakha as well in another baraita.

讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜专 讜讛砖诇讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注讜专 砖砖诇拽讜 讜讛砖诇讬讗 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the ritual impurity of food, it is as it is taught in a baraita: The hide and the placenta of an animal, which people do not typically eat, cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of foods. But a hide that one cooked until it became edible and a placenta that one intended to eat can become impure with the impurity of foods.

讟讜诪讗转 谞讘讬诇讜转 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 讜诇讗 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讘拽专谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讟诇驻讬诐

With regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses also, we already learn in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The verse indicates that one is rendered impure if he touches its carcass, but not if he touches its hide, and not its bones, and not its sinews, and not its horns, and not its hooves.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 砖注砖讗谉 爪讬拽讬 拽讚专讛

And Rabba bar Rav 岣na said with regard to this baraita: This derivation is necessary only for a case in which one prepared these parts of the animal as a meat pudding [tzikei kedera], in which they are cooked for an extended period and spices are added. One might have thought they would be considered edible flesh and therefore impart the impurity of a carcass. The baraita therefore teaches that this is not so.

诇注讜诇诐 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜砖讗谞讬 注讜专 讞诪讜专 讚诪讗讬住

Given these two baraitot, why did Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 inquire about the status of the cooked hide of a donkey? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 was inquiring about the impurity of foods, and although the halakha was already taught in the first baraita, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 thought it is possible that the hide of a donkey is different, as it is repulsive and perhaps even when cooked it is not regarded as food.

砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讬砖 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讬砖 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专

搂 The mishna states: With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited, as there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta. Commenting on this mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where there was no fetus found in the mother鈥檚 womb. But if there was a fetus with its head and the majority of its body in the womb, one need not be concerned for the existence of another fetus that might have been in the placenta. Therefore, the consumption of the placenta is permitted. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Whether there was no fetus found in the womb, or whether there was a fetus, one needs to be concerned for the existence of another fetus in the placenta, and therefore its consumption is prohibited.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

According to the way the Gemara records the dispute, Rabbi Yo岣nan rules stringently and Rabbi Elazar rules leniently. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yirmeya say concerning this dispute: Rabbi Elazar said an explanation of the mishna that presents a stringency?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讗讘诇 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Elazar says: The ruling of the mishna is that the placenta is prohibited even if a fetus is found inside the womb. But the Sages taught this only in a case where the placenta is not attached to the fetus found inside. Consequently, one must be concerned with the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus that already left the womb, and it is therefore prohibited. But if it is attached to the fetus found inside, there is no concern for the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus, and therefore it is permitted.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讬砖 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讘讬谉 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In my understanding of the mishna, we have the ruling that the placenta is prohibited only in a case where there is a placenta without any fetus being found. But if a fetus was found with it, then whether it is attached to the fetus or whether it is not attached to the fetus, there is no concern for the existence of another fetus. The Gemara confirms: And this understanding of the two opinions is in line with that which Rabbi Yirmeya says: Rabbi Elazar said an explanation of the mishna that presents a stringency.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜砖诇讬讗 注诪讛谉 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专讛 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 讘讛谉 讛专讬谞讬 诪讟讬诇 注诇讬讛 讞讜诪专 砖谞讬 讜诇讚讜转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: The periods of purity and impurity observed by a woman after giving birth apply only after delivering a fetus with a human form. With regard to a woman who expels a fetus that has the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and there is a placenta with them, the halakha is as follows: When the placenta is attached to them, there is no concern for the existence of another fetus that may have had a human form. But if the placenta is not attached to them, it is possible there was another fetus that had a human form and so I must impose upon the woman the severity of two types of births, i.e., both the longer period of impurity observed after delivering a female, and the shorter period of purity observed after delivering a male.

砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪讗 谞讬诪讜讞 砖驻讬专 砖诇 砖诇讬讗 砖诪讗 谞讬诪讜讞讛 砖诇讬转讜 砖诇 砖驻讬专

The reason is that I can say: Perhaps the placenta that was found did not come from the fetus that was found, but from a fetus with a human form. To say this one must be concerned with the possibility that perhaps the fetus of the placenta that was found had a human form, and that fetus dissolved, and perhaps the placenta of the fetus that was found dissolved.

讛诪讘讻专转 砖讛驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 讚讘专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜诪讬注讜讟 讘讛诪讜转 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞讚诪讛

搂 The mishna states: If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: The majority of domesticated animals give birth to something that can be consecrated with firstborn status, i.e., an animal with the same form as its mother, but a minority of animals give birth to something that cannot be consecrated with firstborn status, and what is this? It is an animal that resembles a species other than that of its mother.

讜讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讞爪讛 讝讻专讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 谞拽讘讜转 住诪讜讱 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚谞讚诪讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讚谞拽讘讜转 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讝讻专讬诐 诪讬注讜讟讗

And furthermore, with regard to all gestating animals, when they give birth, half of their offspring are male and half are female. Therefore, one can combine the minority of animals that resemble another species with the half that are females, and arrive at the conclusion that male offspring that resemble their species, which are the only offspring that can be consecrated with firstborn status, are the minority. Accordingly, one does not need to be concerned that the placenta found was from an animal consecrated with the status of a firstborn.

讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转拽讘专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讜讘讗 讘专 诪讬拽讚砖 讛讜讗

搂 The continuation of the mishna states: But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to assume this? The Gemara answers: It is because the majority of the offspring of sacrificial animals are fit to be sacred, as, in contrast to firstborn status, both female and male offspring of sacrificial animals can be sacred. Therefore, one must be concerned that the offspring, and its placenta, were sacred.

讜讗讬谉 拽讜讘专讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专驻讜讗讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 专驻讜讗讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬

搂 The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. The Gemara cites Abaye and Rava, who both said: Anything that has an apparently effective medicinal purpose or any other logical reason behind it is not subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. But if it does not have an apparently effective medicinal purpose it is subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬诇谉 砖诪砖讬专 驻讬专讜转讬讜 住讜拽专讜 讘住讬拽专讗 讜讟讜注谞讜 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讟讜注谞讜 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If there is a tree that sheds its fruit prematurely, one may paint it with red paint and load it with stones, even though this is the practice of the Amorites? The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, it is permitted to load it with stones, as one does so for a logical reason, in order

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 77

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 77

谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 讜注讜讚 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

one may be registered as part of a group that will eat the Paschal offering on their account, i.e., even if those sinews are the only part of the lamb he will eat. Evidently, such sinews are regarded as flesh. And furthermore, the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, and one must tend toward leniency.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诪讗讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讛讜 讗讬砖转讬拽

Rav Pappa said to Rabba: But Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan and holds that one may not be registered for those sinews, as they will eventually harden and are therefore not considered flesh. And therefore, the broken bone in this case is not covered by flesh and the animal is prohibited by Torah law as a tereifa, and yet you say: What concern is there with the sinews in this case? Rabba was silent.

讜讗诪讗讬 讗讬砖转讬拽 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘讛谞讬 转诇转

The Gemara asks: And why was Rabba silent? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in his disputes with Rabbi Yo岣nan only with regard to these three matters, i.e., three matters that are mentioned in Yevamot 36a, and not in other cases? If so, Rabba could simply have replied that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to this issue.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to sinews that will ultimately harden, it is different, as Rabbi Yo岣nan retracted his ruling in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as when Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a difficulty against Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Do not provoke me by asking questions to refute my opinion that the fact that the sinews will ultimately harden is disregarded, as I teach it in explanation of a lone opinion (see Pesa岣m 84a). Even Rabbi Yo岣nan conceded that the opinion he expressed was only according to one Sage, but is not the halakha.

讛讛讜讗 谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讜讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 讚讗讬砖转拽讬诇 拽讜专讟讬转讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 砖讛讬讬讛 转诇转讗 专讬讙诇讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain case in which a bone in an animal鈥檚 leg broke and protruded outward. This bone was mostly covered with flesh and skin, but a small piece [kurtita] of the bone had been removed from it. The case came before Abaye, who delayed his response until three pilgrimage Festivals had passed, when the Sages gathered together and he could ask them.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讗 讝讬诇 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讚讞专讬驻讗 住讻讬谞讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讜讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 转谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 谞驻诇 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬转讬讛

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to the owner of the animal: Go before Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, whose knife is sharp, i.e., he has insight into halakhic matters and decides matters quickly, and ask him to decide your case. The owner came before Rava to seek his opinion. Rava said to him: Since we learned in the baraita (76b): If the bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted, what difference is there to me if the bone fell out, and what difference is there to me if it is in its place? In either case, the animal is permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪转诇拽讟 诪讛讜 诪转专讜住住 诪讛讜 诪转诪住诪住 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪转诪住诪住 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛专讜驻讗 拽讜讚专讜

With regard to a case where flesh covers the majority of a broken bone, Ravina said to Rava: If the flesh was torn in pieces and spread over the area, and if gathered it would constitute a majority, what is the halakha? Similarly, if the flesh was pulverized and thin, what is the halakha? If it was decomposed, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case in which the flesh is decomposed? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is referring to any kind of flesh that the doctor cuts away [kodro] and removes to enable the surrounding area to heal.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讬拽讘 诪讛讜 谞拽诇祝 诪讛讜 谞住讚拽 诪讛讜 谞讬讟诇 砖诇讬砖 讛转讞转讜谉 诪讛讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the flesh that covers the bone was perforated, what is the halakha? Likewise, if the flesh was peeled off the bone, what is the halakha? If it was cracked, what is the halakha? If the bottom third of the width of the flesh, i.e., the part that is adjacent to the bone, was removed, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘砖专 讚诇诪讗 讚拽谞讛 诪砖讻讗 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Skin is like flesh. This would appear to indicate that any covering is sufficient. The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan was referring to a specific case where there was never flesh on the bone, but only skin, e.g., adjacent to the knee, where the skin holds its own place close to the bone. This ruling may not apply in an area where there was flesh. Perhaps in such a place the bone must be covered by flesh that is still healthy.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 驻驻讬 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 谞拽讚专 讻诪讬谉 讟讘注转 诪讛讜 讜驻砖讟谞讗 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇转讬 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇专讜驻讗讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诪住专讟讜 讘注爪诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗专讜讻讛 讗讘诇 驻专讝诇讗 诪讝专祝 讝专讬祝 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讜讗 讚拽谞讛 讙专诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛

Rav Ashi said: While we were studying in Rav Pappi鈥檚 study hall, we raised a dilemma: If the flesh and skin were cut in the shape of a ring around the break, and yet most of the circumference of the bone is surrounded by flesh, what is the halakha? And we resolved this dilemma from this statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: I asked about this matter to the Sages and to the doctors, what to do when a bone breaks and the surrounding flesh has been cut away, and they said: One makes an incision in it with a sharp piece of bone to help the blood flow and then congeal, and in this manner the wound will heal. The Gemara notes: But one should not make the incision with an iron implement, as it will cause inflammation. Rav Pappa said: And this advice should be implemented only in a case where one can see that the bone is holding firmly onto its flesh, as only in such a case will the flesh heal.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜诪爪讗 讘讛 砖诇讬讗 谞驻砖 讛讬驻讛 转讗讻诇谞讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in its womb, one with a hearty soul [nefesh hayafa], i.e., who is not repulsed by it, may eat it, as its consumption was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. Nevertheless, since generally speaking, people do not consume such placentas, it is not regarded as food and so it cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food even were it to come into contact with a source of impurity. And furthermore, it does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses as it was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. But if one intended to eat it, one thereby elevated it to the status of food, and the placenta becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. But even so, it still does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses.

砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讗砖讛 讜住讬诪谉 讜诇讚 讘讘讛诪讛

With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited even after the mother animal is slaughtered because the emergence of the placenta is an indication of a fetus in a woman and an indication of a fetus in an animal. Accordingly, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born, a status that precludes it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Since the offspring is prohibited, its placenta is likewise prohibited.

讛诪讘讻专转 砖讛驻讬诇讛 砖诇讬讗 讬砖诇讬讻谞讛 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转拽讘专 讜讗讬谉 拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讗讬诇谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬

If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs, and one does not need to be concerned that the placenta came from a male fetus that has the consecrated status of a firstborn. But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, superstitious rites intended to prevent the animal from miscarrying again, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite, which prohibits Jews from practicing the superstitious rites observed by gentiles.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讬爪转讛 诪拽爪转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讛 讗讜转讛 讜诇讗 砖诇讬转讛

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling that a placenta is permitted by virtue of the mother鈥檚 slaughter, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? As the Sages taught: 鈥淎nd every animal that parts the hoof, and has the hooves wholly cloven in two, and chews the cud, of the animals, it you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:6). The verse is the source of the halakha that a fetus is permitted by virtue of the mother鈥檚 slaughter (see 69a). The word 鈥渆very鈥 at the beginning of the verse serves to include the placenta as well as the fetus. One might have thought that a placenta is permitted even if part of it emerged from the womb before slaughter. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t you may eat,鈥 i.e., you may eat it, the slaughtered animal, but not its placenta, if it partially emerged.

诪讻讚讬 讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara objects: Now the assumption is that there is no placenta without a fetus. Therefore, if part of the placenta emerged, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born. Such a status would preclude it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Why do I need a verse to teach this? The Gemara explains: The verse is a mere support for the halakha, but not the source for it.

讜讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞驻讞讗 注讜专 讞诪讜专 砖砖诇拽讜 诪讛讜 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 转谞讬谞讗

搂 The mishna states: And a placenta found inside a slaughtered animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food and does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses. In a related discussion, Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Nappa岣 raises a dilemma: A donkey hide that one cooked and it became softened, what is its halakhic status? The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to the ritual impurity of food, we already learn this halakha in a baraita,

讗讬 诇讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 转谞讬谞讗

and if you say it was with regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses, we already learn that halakha as well in another baraita.

讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛注讜专 讜讛砖诇讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注讜专 砖砖诇拽讜 讜讛砖诇讬讗 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the ritual impurity of food, it is as it is taught in a baraita: The hide and the placenta of an animal, which people do not typically eat, cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of foods. But a hide that one cooked until it became edible and a placenta that one intended to eat can become impure with the impurity of foods.

讟讜诪讗转 谞讘讬诇讜转 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 讜诇讗 讘注爪诪讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讘拽专谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讟诇驻讬诐

With regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses also, we already learn in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The verse indicates that one is rendered impure if he touches its carcass, but not if he touches its hide, and not its bones, and not its sinews, and not its horns, and not its hooves.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 砖注砖讗谉 爪讬拽讬 拽讚专讛

And Rabba bar Rav 岣na said with regard to this baraita: This derivation is necessary only for a case in which one prepared these parts of the animal as a meat pudding [tzikei kedera], in which they are cooked for an extended period and spices are added. One might have thought they would be considered edible flesh and therefore impart the impurity of a carcass. The baraita therefore teaches that this is not so.

诇注讜诇诐 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜砖讗谞讬 注讜专 讞诪讜专 讚诪讗讬住

Given these two baraitot, why did Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 inquire about the status of the cooked hide of a donkey? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 was inquiring about the impurity of foods, and although the halakha was already taught in the first baraita, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 thought it is possible that the hide of a donkey is different, as it is repulsive and perhaps even when cooked it is not regarded as food.

砖诇讬讗 砖讬爪转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讬砖 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讬砖 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专

搂 The mishna states: With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited, as there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta. Commenting on this mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where there was no fetus found in the mother鈥檚 womb. But if there was a fetus with its head and the majority of its body in the womb, one need not be concerned for the existence of another fetus that might have been in the placenta. Therefore, the consumption of the placenta is permitted. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Whether there was no fetus found in the womb, or whether there was a fetus, one needs to be concerned for the existence of another fetus in the placenta, and therefore its consumption is prohibited.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

According to the way the Gemara records the dispute, Rabbi Yo岣nan rules stringently and Rabbi Elazar rules leniently. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yirmeya say concerning this dispute: Rabbi Elazar said an explanation of the mishna that presents a stringency?

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讗讘诇 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Elazar says: The ruling of the mishna is that the placenta is prohibited even if a fetus is found inside the womb. But the Sages taught this only in a case where the placenta is not attached to the fetus found inside. Consequently, one must be concerned with the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus that already left the womb, and it is therefore prohibited. But if it is attached to the fetus found inside, there is no concern for the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus, and therefore it is permitted.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚 讗讘诇 讬砖 注诪讛 讜诇讚 讘讬谉 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讘讬谉 讗讬谉 拽砖讜专讛 讘讜诇讚 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In my understanding of the mishna, we have the ruling that the placenta is prohibited only in a case where there is a placenta without any fetus being found. But if a fetus was found with it, then whether it is attached to the fetus or whether it is not attached to the fetus, there is no concern for the existence of another fetus. The Gemara confirms: And this understanding of the two opinions is in line with that which Rabbi Yirmeya says: Rabbi Elazar said an explanation of the mishna that presents a stringency.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜砖诇讬讗 注诪讛谉 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专讛 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讗讬谞讛 拽砖讜专讛 讘讛谉 讛专讬谞讬 诪讟讬诇 注诇讬讛 讞讜诪专 砖谞讬 讜诇讚讜转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: The periods of purity and impurity observed by a woman after giving birth apply only after delivering a fetus with a human form. With regard to a woman who expels a fetus that has the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and there is a placenta with them, the halakha is as follows: When the placenta is attached to them, there is no concern for the existence of another fetus that may have had a human form. But if the placenta is not attached to them, it is possible there was another fetus that had a human form and so I must impose upon the woman the severity of two types of births, i.e., both the longer period of impurity observed after delivering a female, and the shorter period of purity observed after delivering a male.

砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪讗 谞讬诪讜讞 砖驻讬专 砖诇 砖诇讬讗 砖诪讗 谞讬诪讜讞讛 砖诇讬转讜 砖诇 砖驻讬专

The reason is that I can say: Perhaps the placenta that was found did not come from the fetus that was found, but from a fetus with a human form. To say this one must be concerned with the possibility that perhaps the fetus of the placenta that was found had a human form, and that fetus dissolved, and perhaps the placenta of the fetus that was found dissolved.

讛诪讘讻专转 砖讛驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 专讜讘 讘讛诪讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 讚讘专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜诪讬注讜讟 讘讛诪讜转 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 谞讚诪讛

搂 The mishna states: If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: The majority of domesticated animals give birth to something that can be consecrated with firstborn status, i.e., an animal with the same form as its mother, but a minority of animals give birth to something that cannot be consecrated with firstborn status, and what is this? It is an animal that resembles a species other than that of its mother.

讜讻诇 讛讬讜诇讚讜转 讬讜诇讚讜转 诪讞爪讛 讝讻专讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 谞拽讘讜转 住诪讜讱 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚谞讚诪讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讚谞拽讘讜转 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讝讻专讬诐 诪讬注讜讟讗

And furthermore, with regard to all gestating animals, when they give birth, half of their offspring are male and half are female. Therefore, one can combine the minority of animals that resemble another species with the half that are females, and arrive at the conclusion that male offspring that resemble their species, which are the only offspring that can be consecrated with firstborn status, are the minority. Accordingly, one does not need to be concerned that the placenta found was from an animal consecrated with the status of a firstborn.

讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 转拽讘专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讜讘讗 讘专 诪讬拽讚砖 讛讜讗

搂 The continuation of the mishna states: But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to assume this? The Gemara answers: It is because the majority of the offspring of sacrificial animals are fit to be sacred, as, in contrast to firstborn status, both female and male offspring of sacrificial animals can be sacred. Therefore, one must be concerned that the offspring, and its placenta, were sacred.

讜讗讬谉 拽讜讘专讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专驻讜讗讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 专驻讜讗讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬

搂 The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. The Gemara cites Abaye and Rava, who both said: Anything that has an apparently effective medicinal purpose or any other logical reason behind it is not subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. But if it does not have an apparently effective medicinal purpose it is subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬诇谉 砖诪砖讬专 驻讬专讜转讬讜 住讜拽专讜 讘住讬拽专讗 讜讟讜注谞讜 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 讟讜注谞讜 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If there is a tree that sheds its fruit prematurely, one may paint it with red paint and load it with stones, even though this is the practice of the Amorites? The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, it is permitted to load it with stones, as one does so for a logical reason, in order

Scroll To Top