Chullin 51b — the Talmud in English

And if it should enter your mind that

there is a concern

when it emerges from its mother’s womb

because of crushing of limbs,

why does the infant become impure with ziva? For if so, it is ill, and

“a zav from his flesh”—

and not

a zav

because of circumstances beyond his control?!

And we reject this:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where it emerged through the side of the womb,

for there is no concern for crushing when it emerges.

Come and hear

from what we learned in tractate Beitza [6b]: A calf that was born

on a Festival—

one slaughters it

immediately

on the Festival, for there is no prohibition of muktze, since it was prepared for slaughter along with its mother. And it is proven that we are not concerned for crushing of limbs.

And we reject this:

Here too,

it is a case where it emerged through the side of the womb.

Come and hear: And they agree,

all the tannaim who disputed concerning a firstborn animal in which a blemish occurred on a Festival [which was not fit to be eaten at the onset of the day because of its sanctity], whether we say with regard to it, “since it was set aside at twilight, it was set aside for the entire day”—they agree

that if it was born

the firstborn

with its blemish together with it,

there is no prohibition of muktze, for while it was in its mother’s womb it was not sacred, and when it was born it had a blemish,

this—

is from what was prepared

and there is no prohibition of muktze with it; therefore it is permitted to eat it immediately upon its birth on the Festival. And it is proven that there is no concern for crushing of limbs.

And if you would say, here too

the matter is speaking of

one that emerged through the side of the womb.

It is impossible to say so here. For a firstborn that emerges

through the side of the womb—

does it become sacred?!

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Shimon, who holds

that one who emerges through the side of the womb in the case of a human being is considered as one born, and renders his mother impure as an ordinary woman who has given birth,

with regard to sacrificial animals—

agrees that it does not become sacred.

And since it does not become sacred, what relevance does the permissibility of the blemish have? For it is non-sacred livestock!?

And we reject this: In truth, we are concerned for crushing of limbs when it emerges from the womb. And as for the fact that it is permitted to eat the firstborn that was born with its blemish on a Festival, and it is not necessary to wait for it a full twenty-four hours,

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where it spread its feet upon the ground.

Its standing on its own upon its hooves is what proves that it is not tereifa, and there is no need to wait a full twenty-four hours.

And Rav Nahman said:

When they drop the animal for the sake of slaughter, even from a high place, in the

slaughterhouse,

there is no violation because of crushing of limbs.

There was a certain bull that fell

in the slaughterhouse,

and the sound of its goring was heard,

its cries when it fell.

Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta took the choicest of the choicest,

from the choicest of its flesh, and ate it.

The Sages said to him: From where do you have this,

that you were not concerned for crushing of limbs!?

He said to them: Thus said Rav,

when the bull is swimming and inclining to fall,

its claws

it

drives into

the ground

until it reaches the earth,

so that it does not suffer an impact like one who falls from a height.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: An animal that fell from the roof and afterward

An animal that fell from a roof and afterward

stood,

again

does not need

a waiting period

of a full twenty-four hours.

But

an inspection

of the spinal cord, and likewise an inspection whether most of its ribs were not broken, and whether a vertebra was not dislocated—

it certainly requires!

And if

it walked, it does not need

even

an inspection!

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said: Both this one and that one require an inspection!

Rav Yirmeya bar Aha said in the name of Rav: If it stretched out its foreleg to stand,

behold,

even though it did not stand,

it again does not need a waiting period of a full twenty-four hours.

If it uprooted its leg to walk—

even though it did not walk,

it does not need even an inspection.

And Rav Hisda said:

Even if it did not stretch out its foreleg in order to stand, but merely

shook itself,

strengthened itself and wished

to stand, even though it did not stand,

it does not need a waiting period.

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Dimi from Nehardea: An animal that has fallen,

concerning which the Sages said that one must be concerned,

requires an inspection corresponding to the intestines,

lest most of the outer rumen was torn, or lest the intestines were perforated.

Mar Zutra said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rav Pappa: It requires an inspection corresponding to the entire hollow of the body,

because of the breaking of most of the ribs or the dislocation of the vertebrae.

Huna Mar bar baraya of Rav Nahmanya said to Rav Ashi: What of the windpipe and the esophagus?

Does one also need to inspect them, lest they were dislocated from their places?

He said to him: The windpipe and the esophagus—

are firm with regard to a fall.

They withstand it and are not dislocated in a fall.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A bird that was struck

in its fall against its will

upon the surface of the water,

since

it swam its full height, that is sufficient!

And we said this only

when it swam

from below,

from the lower part of the river

upward

the river, for then its swimming demonstrates its health.

But

if it swims

from above downward—

it is the water that lowered it,

and this is not its own swimming.

And if

there were

standing waters,

we have no concern!

And if one threw wood

that had been cast into the Kisa River—wood chips—

and it preceded them,

and it preceded the wood floating in the water—

behold, it itself preceded the wood,

and then, even from above downward, it is proof of its health.

A bird that fell upon

a stretched cloak,

upon cloth placed over stakes, and that cloth was stretched—

we are concerned

for crushing of its limbs. But if it fell upon cloth

that was not stretched—

we are not concerned.

A bird that flies and is flying,

that is, if the cloak was doubled, so that the bird is not struck—

we are not concerned!

A bird that fell within a net spread in the air, called

an izla, and the knots are close together,

the knots of the net are close to one another—

we are concerned

lest the knots crushed its limbs. And if

the knots are not close together—

we are not concerned!

A bird that fell upon

flax,

flax

made into bundles,

wrapped in bundles—

we are concerned

for crushing of limbs, because the bundles are hard. And if it fell upon the sides of the bundle,

on this side and on that side—

we are not concerned.

If it fell upon bundles of reeds, called

bundles—we are concerned.

If it fell upon

flax,

flax

that was beaten,

that the flax had been beaten,

and combed,

combed, having been made soft—

we are not concerned.

But if the flax was

beaten but not combed—

we are concerned.

If it was made with stems,

if there are stems in it,

since it contains knots,

knots—

we are concerned,

even though it was beaten and combed.

Flax shives,

the chaff of broken stems that is shaken from flax when it is combed—

we are concerned.

But when it is

finely sifted,

finer than fine—

we are not concerned.

Palm fiber,

the fiber that grows around palm trees—

we are concerned.

But

timhata,

after it has been divided into strips it becomes soft—

we are not concerned.

Sifted ashes,

ashes sifted through a sieve, which are compressed and become hard—

we are concerned,

since they were sifted through a sieve, they are compressed and become hard. But if they are

not sifted—

we are not concerned,

because they are not compressed and do not become hard.