Chullin 67b — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said: A cucumber in which a worm developed ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

while it was attached to its plant,

while it was still attached to the ground—

is forbidden

to eat the worm

because of “the creeping creature that creeps upon the ground.”

Since the worm moved within the cucumber while it was still attached to the ground, the matter is considered as though it were moving upon the ground. But if it developed after they detached it from the ground, it is permitted until the worm emerges into the air.

Let us say that this supports

Shmuel:

for it was taught in one

beraita: It is written in the verse, “the creeping creature that creeps upon

the ground”—

to exclude winged insects,

mosquitoes

that are in lentils, and the mosquitoes that are in beans

among legumes,

and the worm that is in dates and in dried figs,

in dried figs, which are permitted!

And it was taught in another [beraita], “Every creeping creature that creeps upon the ground,”

and we derive from the word “every”

to include a worm that is in the roots of olives and in the roots of grapevines,

which is forbidden!

And the Gemara explains:

Is it not the case that both this and that,

the two beraitot, dealt

with the fruit,

that the fruits themselves had developed worms,

whereas this

beraita, which forbade, dealt with a worm that developed

while it was attached to its plant,

and therefore it is forbidden on account of the creeping creature that creeps upon the ground,

whereas this

beraita, which permitted, dealt with a worm that developed

not while it was attached to its plant,

but while it was detached. And if so, there is proof for Shmuel’s statement, that he distinguished between a worm that developed while attached to its plant, which is forbidden, and one that developed in something detached, which is permitted.

And we reject this:

No!

This is not proof from the beraita, because

both this and that

the two beraitot may have dealt with a worm that developed

while attached to its plant,

when the fruits were attached to the ground; nevertheless, the worms are permitted, because as long as they have not emerged into the air they are not called a creature of the ground.

And it is not difficult: This

the beraita that permitted dealt

with the fruit

in which the fruits themselves developed worms, and since they had not emerged into the air of the world, they are permitted.

This

the beraita that forbade dealt

with the tree itself!

With worms that are found in the tree itself, and not in the fruits, and they are forbidden even if they have not emerged from the tree.

It is also precise

from the beraita that this is the distinction:

for it teaches

in the beraita that forbids—

“a worm that is in the roots of olives and in the roots of grapevines!”

And it implies that it deals with worms found in the tree itself.

And we conclude:

Learn from it!

Rav Yosef raised a question:

A worm that developed after detachment, [as we said above, that it is permitted,] and

it emerged

from the fruit and reached the ground, and immediately upon its falling to the ground

it died—

what is [the law]?

Do we say: Since the worm did not move upon the ground, it is not called “the creeping creature that creeps upon the ground”; or perhaps, we do not require creeping and moving upon the ground, but once it reached the ground it is forbidden on account of the creeping creature that creeps upon the ground?

And Rav Yosef likewise raised a question: It emerged

partially

only part of the worm emerged and reached the ground—

what is [the law]?

Is it considered as though it emerged entirely, or do we require the entire worm to emerge for it to be considered a worm that emerged upon the ground?

It emerged

into the air of the world,

and before it reached the ground he caught it in his mouth in order to eat it—

what is [the law]?

Do we say that specifically when it emerged and died can one say that it is permitted, since it is not fit to move about; but a living worm that was caught in the air, which is fit to move about, is forbidden? Or perhaps we require the worm to reach the ground, and otherwise this is not movement that causes prohibition?

And it remained at

teyku!

Rav Ashi raised a question:

It emerged

onto the roof of a date—

what is [the law]?

The worm emerged from the date and climbed onto the roof of the date: what is [the law]? Do we say that this is its natural habitat, for this is the place where it grows; or perhaps the matter is considered like the worm moving upon another object?

If you say that when it emerged onto the roof of a date it is considered like it emerged onto another place, [then if] it emerged

onto the roof of its pit—

what is [the law]?

Since all worms grow from the pits of the fruit, is this its natural habitat, and this is the place where it grows, and they are permitted; or perhaps it is considered like it emerged onto another place?

It emerged

from one date into another date

other than it—

what is [the law]?

The worm emerged from one date, but did not move upon it; rather, it immediately entered the second date adjacent to it. What is [the law]? Do we say that since it is another date, “that creeps upon the ground” applies to it; or perhaps we require it to move in the air of the world for it to become forbidden, and here it immediately entered the second date and did not move in the air?

And it remained at

teyku.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Kokiyani

which are worms found in the liver and lung of an animal,

are forbidden.

What is the reason? They came from outside,

for the animal swallowed them with the other food that it ate, and before it swallowed them they had moved upon the ground, and they became forbidden as a creature of the ground.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to him: If they came from outside

and entered by way of the throat,

they should be found by way of the excremental passage?!

They ought to have been in the place of excrement, where the food exits!?

Some say: Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Kokiyani are permitted,

they are permitted

! What is the reason? They grew from it,

they grew from the animal itself, and they are not included in the category of a creature of the ground, since they never moved upon the ground at all.

Rav Ashi said: It is obvious that they grew from it! For if they came from outside,

that they entered the animal by way of the throat—

they should be found by way of the excremental passage?!

They ought to have been found in the place of excrement, where the food exits.

And the halakha is: Kokiyani—

are forbidden! What is the reason?

For the animal

sleeps,

it sleeps its sleep,

and worms enter it through its nose.

The worms enter its nostrils, and from there they reach the windpipe and the liver; therefore they are not found in the place of excrement, since they did not enter through the esophagus but through the windpipe, and therefore they do not reach the stomach.

Worms in meat,

worms found between the animal’s hide and its flesh when the animal is skinned—

are forbidden,

they are forbidden. [And below it explains the reason].

Worms

of fish,

worms found between the fish’s skin and its flesh—

are permitted,

they are permitted!

Ravina said to his mother

to his mother:

Conceal them for me,

conceal these fish-worms for me inside the fish, so that I will not see them and will be disgusted by them,

and I will eat

them, and I will eat them.

Rav Mesharsheya, son of Rav Aḥa, said to Ravina: How is this different from that which was taught:

It is written in the verse, “And they shall be an abomination to you; from their flesh you shall not eat,

and their carcasses you shall make abominable”—

to include worms,

the worms found between the hide and the flesh

of an animal!

And if so, for what reason did you permit eating the worms in fish? And what is different about worms in fish from worms in an animal?

He said to him

Ravina:

Is it now comparable?!

What is the similarity between them?

An animal—

it is permitted through slaughter,

its permission comes through slaughter,

but these

worms that grew inside it before it was slaughtered came and grew from something forbidden because of the prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

Since slaughter does not benefit them,

since the slaughter of the animal does not permit them, because they possess independent life, therefore

they remain in their prohibition,

they remain in their prohibited status.

But fish—

are permitted through mere collection!

For they do not require slaughter in order to permit them for eating.

And

therefore,

these

worms found in a fish,

when they grow—

they grow in a permitted substance!

They were created and grew in a permitted substance, and therefore they are permitted, for there is nothing that prohibits them, since they grew from within the fish.

It is written in the verse: “Everything that walks on its belly, and everything that walks on four, up to everything that has many feet, among all the creeping creatures, and so on—you shall not eat them.”

The Sages taught:

“That walks

on its belly”

which is stated in the verse—

this is a snake! “

Every

that walks on its belly”—the word “every” comes

to include the earthworm,

which is a long worm like a snake found in refuse,

and that which resembles the earthworm. “

On four”—

this is a scorpion. “

Every

that walks on four”—

to include the beetle and that which resembles the beetle. “

That has many feet”—

this is the centipede,

which is called “a hundred feet.” “

Up to every

that has many feet”—“up to every” is superfluous, and it comes

to include that which resembles

the centipede

and that which resembles its resemblance.

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: Leviathan—

it is a pure fish,

like the other pure fish, and it is not a different species, for it has fins and scales.

As it is stated

in the Book of Job concerning the Leviathan [chapter 41]:

“The pride of shields,

a closed seal, narrow.”

And it is further stated there:

“Under it are sharp shards,

he spreads a threshing-sledge upon the mud.”

And we explain: “

The pride of shields”—

the strength of its shields;

these are the scales upon it,

which are closed and attached to it tightly, and they are its shields.

“Under it are sharp shards”—

these

are the

fins,

which are sharp and cut like shards,

with which it flies,

and with them it cleaves the water when it swims in the water. And since it has fins and scales, it is pure.

We shall return to you, chapter “These Are Terefot.”

In the chapter before us, which follows the chapter “These Are the Tereifot,” additional laws of the prohibitions of tereifa are taught, and primarily the law of the

ben pekua is clarified,

which is a live fetus found in its mother’s womb after she has been slaughtered. On the one hand, it is permitted for eating by virtue of its mother’s slaughter, even without its own independent slaughter; but on the other hand, special laws of tereifa apply to it, namely, “flesh that went outside its boundary,” the like of which applies only to it.

The name

“ben pekua”,

means the offspring of an animal that has been “opened,” that is, whose mother has been slaughtered.

The permission to eat the ben pekua by virtue of its mother’s slaughter, without slaughtering it itself, is learned from the verse [Deuteronomy 14:6], “And every

animal

that brings up the cud, that has a completely cloven hoof, and is split into two hoofs,

among the animals,

that you may eat.” And the Sages expounded the verse as follows:

Every

“animal”

mentioned at the beginning of the verse, that is found

“among the animals”

mentioned at the end of the verse—you may eat it! The verse teaches that an animal fetus found inside the animal at the time of her slaughter, while it is alive, is rendered permitted for eating by the slaughter of the mother.

However, a fetus that extended one of its limbs outside the walls of its mother’s womb before the mother was slaughtered has that limb permanently forbidden by the prohibition, “and flesh in the field that is tereifa you shall not eat,” and it will not again be rendered permitted by its mother’s slaughter, even if the fetus returns the limb and it is found that the mother was slaughtered after it was completely inside her womb.

This chapter will explain the permission of this fetus, its laws when it extended only part of its limbs or most of it, as well as the law of its carcass and additional matters.

The Meiri, in his introduction to our chapter, divides it into five subjects, according to the order of the chapter:

A. “Tereifa” in particular limbs of an animal, without the law of tereifa applying to the entire animal. And likewise, cases in which internal limbs of an animal become forbidden when they are cut from it during its lifetime, under the law of “a limb from a living creature,” and cases in which the limbs that are cut are not forbidden.

B. The laws of a firstborn that is about to be born from an animal having difficulty giving birth, when only part of the firstborn emerged: when it becomes sacred with firstborn sanctity and how this sanctity is treated.

C. The laws of impurity and purity concerning parts forbidden in an animal [such as the limbs brought in the first section], and likewise concerning limbs that have become detached [whose vitality has almost entirely ceased, except that they remain hanging and slightly attached to the animal]: do they impart impurity as a carcass, or is their law that of a “slaughtered tereifa,” which imparts impurity only in consecrated things [if the animal was in fact slaughtered]? And likewise, an animal whose fetus died inside its womb, what is the law of the fetus concerning impurity? And in this manner they further discuss the matter of a woman whose fetus died inside her womb: does it impart impurity, and how?

D. When a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter, when it requires slaughter, and when slaughter is ineffective in permitting it, so that it is permanently forbidden. [And likewise, a placenta found in a slaughtered animal: what is its law concerning eating and impurity.]

E. The tereifot of the “junction of the sinews,” and places in the leg of an animal where, if a fracture occurs, it becomes a tereifa. And likewise, the law of a limb in which a bone was broken, in a place where the animal does not become a tereifa: does the animal’s slaughter purify that limb and render it permitted for eating, or not?