Chullin 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

And if it enters your mind that

there is concern

that he was injured

by the crushing of limbs

when emerging from his mother’s womb, why is the infant rendered impure with ziva? For if so, he is ill, and

the verse “a zav from his flesh”

and not

a zav

due to circumstances beyond his control—?!

And we reject this:

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

where there is no concern that he was crushed upon emerging.

Come and hear

from what we learned in tractate Beitza (6b): A calf that was born

on a Festival—

one may slaughter it

immediately

on the Festival,

as it is not subject to the prohibition of muktze, since it was prepared for slaughter along with its mother. And it is proven that we are not concerned about the crushing of limbs.

And we reject this:

Here too, it is a case where he 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 developed on a Festival [which was not fit to be eaten at the onset of the day because of its sanctity], as to whether we say with regard to it, “Since it was set aside at twilight, it was set aside for the entire day,” agree

that if it was born

the firstborn

with its blemish already upon it,

it is not subject to the prohibition of muktze, since it is not sacred while in its mother’s womb, and once born it has a blemish;

this—

is prepared,

as it is not subject to the prohibition of muktze, and therefore it is permitted to eat it immediately upon its birth on the Festival. And it is proven that there is no need to be concerned about the crushing of limbs.

And should you say that here too

the matter is discussing a case where it

emerged through the side of the womb:

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

through the side of the womb—

does it become sacred?!

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Shimon agreed,

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

with regard to sacrificial animals—

that it does not become sacred.

And since it does not become sacred, what relevance does the permissibility of the blemish have? It is an ordinary, non-sacred animal!

And we reject this: In fact, we are concerned about the crushing of limbs upon emerging from the womb. And as for the fact that it is permitted to eat the firstborn animal born with its blemish on a Festival, without needing to wait a full day,

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

Its standing on its hooves by itself proves that it is not a terefa, and there is no need to wait a full day.

And Rav Naḥman said:

When an animal is thrown for slaughter, even from a high place, at the

slaughterhouse,

there is no concern that its limbs were crushed.

There was a certain bull that fell

at the slaughterhouse,

and the sound of its lowing was heard,

its cries as it fell.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta took the choicest cuts

from its meat and ate them.

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

that you were not concerned about the crushing of limbs?!

He said to them: Rav said this:

When the bull is slipping and inclined to fall,

its claws

it

drives

into the ground

until it reaches the earth,

so 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 a roof and afterward

An animal that fell from a roof and afterward

stood

— again, it

does not need

a waiting period

of a full day.

However,

an examination

of the spinal cord, as well as an examination to determine whether most of its ribs were not broken and whether a vertebra was not dislocated—

is certainly required!

But if it

walked, it does not need

even

an examination!

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Both this one and that one require an examination!

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

then

even though it did not stand,

it no longer needs a waiting period of a full day.

If it uprooted its leg in order to walk—

even though it did not walk,

it does not need even an examination.

And Rav Ḥisda said:

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

shook itself,

strengthened itself and showed an intention

to stand, even though it did not stand,

it does not need a waiting period.

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Dimi of Nehardea: An animal that fell,

concerning which the Sages said that one must be concerned,

requires an examination opposite 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 examination opposite the entire thoracic cavity,

because of the possibility that most of the ribs were broken or that the vertebrae were dislocated.

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

Must one also examine them, lest they were dislodged from their places?

He said to him: The windpipe and esophagus—

are resistant to falling.

They withstand the fall and are not dislodged through it.

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

against its will when it fell

onto the surface of water,

once

it swims its full height, that is sufficient!

And we said this only

when it swims

from below,

from the downstream part of the river

upstream,

as its swimming then demonstrates its health.

But

if it swims

from upstream to downstream—

it is merely that the water carried it downward,

and this is not its own swimming.

And if

the

water is stagnant,

we have no concern!

And if one threw pieces of wood,

which had been cast into the Kista River,

and it preceded them,

and it got ahead of the wood floating in the water—

here, it itself preceded the pieces of wood,

and then, even from upstream to downstream, this is evidence of its health.

A bird that fell onto

a taut cloth,

a fabric laid over stakes, with that fabric stretched taut—

we are concerned

that its limbs were crushed. But if it fell onto a cloth

that was not taut—

we are not concerned.

A bird that is flying while falling,

that is, if the cloth was folded, so that the bird does not suffer an impact—

we are not concerned!

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

a izla, and the knots are close together,

the knots of the net being near one another—

we are concerned

that the knots may have crushed its limbs. And if

the knots are not close together—

we are not concerned!

If the bird fell onto

flax,

flax

made into bundles,

wrapped in bundles,

we are concerned

about the crushing of its limbs because the bundles are hard. But if it fell on the sides of the bundle,

on this side and on that side—

we are not concerned.

If it fell onto bundles of reeds, called

bundles—we are concerned.

If it fell onto

flax,

flax

that was beaten,

the flax having been pounded,

and combed,

fluffed and made soft—

we are not concerned.

But if the flax was

beaten but not combed—

we are concerned.

If it was made into stalk bundles,

if it contains stalks,

since it contains knots,

knots—

we are concerned,

even though it was beaten and combed.

Splinters,

the shavings of broken stalks shaken from the flax when it is combed—

we are concerned.

But when it is

finely splintered,

finer than fine—

we are not concerned.

Palm fiber,

the fiber that grows around palm trees—

we are concerned.

But

softened palm fiber,

after it has been divided into strips and thereby becomes soft—

we are not concerned.

Sifted ash,

ash sifted through a sieve, which is thereby compressed and becomes hard—

we are concerned,

since it was sifted through a sieve, it is compressed and becomes hard. But if it is

not sifted—

we are not concerned,

because it is not compressed and does not become hard.