Chullin 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

Shmuel said: A cucumber in which a worm developed

while attached to its stalk,

while it was still attached to the ground—

is forbidden,

the worm is forbidden to eat,

due to “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 the worm developed after the cucumber was detached from the ground, it is permitted until the worm emerges into the air.

Shall we say that this supports

Shmuel:

For it was taught in one

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

the ground”—

to exclude the worms

in lentils,

and the worms in beans

among legumes,

and the worm in dates and in dried figs,

in dried figs, which are permitted!

And it was taught in another baraita: “Every creeping creature that creeps upon the ground,”

and we derive from the word “every”

to include the worm in the roots of olives and in the roots of vines,

which is forbidden!

And the Gemara explains:

What, is it not the case that both this and that,

the two baraitot, speak

of the fruit,

that the worms developed in the fruits themselves,

and this

baraita that forbids speaks of a worm that developed

while the fruit was attached to its stalk,

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

whereas this

baraita that permits speaks of a worm that developed

not while it was attached to its stalk,

but while it was detached? If so, this is proof of Shmuel’s statement, that he distinguished between a worm that developed while the fruit was attached, which is forbidden, and one that developed while it was detached, which is permitted.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

This is not proof from the baraitot, because

both this and that

the two baraitot may have spoken of a worm that developed

while the fruit was attached to its stalk,

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 creeping creature of the ground.

And it is not difficult: This

baraita that permits speaks

of the fruit

in which the worms developed, and since they have not emerged into the open air, they are permitted.

Whereas this

baraita that forbids speaks

of the tree itself!

It concerns worms found in the tree itself, and not in the fruits, and they are forbidden even before they emerge from the tree.

This too is indicated

by the baraita, through this distinction:

For it teaches

in the baraita that forbids:

“The worm in the roots of olives and in the roots of vines!”

This indicates that it speaks of worms found in the tree itself.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma:

With regard to a worm that developed after detachment, [as we said above, it is permitted,] and

it emerged

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

it died—

what is the law?

Do we say that since the worm did not move upon the ground, it is not called “the creeping creature that creeps upon the ground”? Or perhaps movement and creeping upon the ground are not required; rather, once it has reached the ground, it is forbidden on account of the creeping creature that creeps upon the ground?

And Rav Yosef likewise raised a dilemma: If it emerged

partially,

only part of the worm emerged and reached the ground—

what is the law?

Is this considered as though the entire worm emerged, or must the entire worm emerge for it to be considered a worm that emerged upon the ground?

If it emerged

into the open air,

and before it reached the ground someone 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 the worm must reach the ground, and without that there is no movement that causes it to be forbidden?

And the matter remained at

teiku.

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:

If 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, as this is its place of growth? Or perhaps the matter is considered as though the worm moved upon another object?

If you say that if it emerged onto the roof of a date it is considered as though 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, its place of growth, and therefore it is permitted? Or perhaps it is considered as though it emerged onto another place?

If it emerged

from one date to another date

different from it—

what is the law?

The worm emerged from one date, did not move upon it, but immediately entered the second date attached to it. What is the law? Do we say that since it is another date, the verse calls this “creeping upon the ground”? Or perhaps it must creep in the open air for it to become forbidden, whereas here it entered the second date immediately and did not creep in the air?

And the matter remained at

teiku.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The kokyanei

which are worms found in the liver and lungs of an animal—

are forbidden.

What is the reason? They come from outside,

as the animal swallowed them along with the other food that it ate. Before it swallowed them, they had crept upon the ground, and they became forbidden as a creeping creature of the ground.

Rav Ashi challenged him: If they come from outside

and entered through the animal’s throat,

they should be found by way of the intestines!

They should have been in the intestines, where the food exits!

Some say: Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The kokyanei are permitted!

They are permitted.

What is the reason? They grow from it,

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

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

having entered the animal through its throat,

they should be found by way of the intestines!

They should have been found in the intestines, where the food exits.

And the halakha is: The kokyanei—

are forbidden! What is the reason?

Because the animal

sleeps,

it sleeps during its sleep,

and worms enter it through its nose.

The worms enter through its nostrils, and from there they reach the windpipe and the liver. Therefore they are not found in the intestines, 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 skin and its flesh when the animal is skinned—

are forbidden,

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

Worms

in 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 within the fish, so that I will not see them and 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; you shall not eat of their flesh,

and you shall make their carcasses an abomination”—

to include the worms

found between the skin and the flesh

of an animal!

If so, for what reason did you permit eating the worms in fish? And how are worms in fish different from worms in an animal?

He said to him,

Ravina said to him:

Can these be compared?!

What comparison is there between them?

An animal—

it becomes permitted only through ritual slaughter,

its permission comes through ritual slaughter,

whereas these

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

Since ritual slaughter does not benefit them,

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

they remain in their prohibition;

they remain forbidden.

But fish—

become permitted merely through gathering!

They do not require ritual slaughter to permit them for consumption.

And

therefore,

these

worms found in a fish,

when they grow—

they grow in a permitted substance!

They were formed and grew in something permitted, and therefore they are permitted, for there is nothing that renders them forbidden, since they grew from the fish itself.

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

The Sages taught: “That walks

upon its

belly,”

which is stated in the verse—

this is a snake! “

Every

thing that walks upon 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

thing 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 “one hundred feet.” “

Up to every

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

to include that which resembles

the centipede,

and that which resembles what resembles it.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The Leviathan—

is a pure fish,

like other pure fish, and 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 his shields,

the channels of shields,

a closed seal, narrow.”

And it is further stated there: “

Under him are sharp shards,

he spreads a threshing-sledge upon the mud.”

And we interpret: “

The channels of shields”—

the strength of his shields,

these are his scales,

which are closed and tightly attached to him, and they are his shields.

“Under him are sharp shards”—

these

are the

fins,

which are sharp and cut like shards,

with which he flies,

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

We have completed the study of you, chapter “These Are the Terefot.”

In the chapter before us, which follows the chapter “These Are the Terefot,” additional laws concerning the prohibitions of terefa are taught. In particular, it explains the law of the

ben pekua, a living fetus found in its mother’s womb after she has been slaughtered. On the one hand, it is permitted for consumption by virtue of its mother’s slaughter, even without its own slaughter; but on the other hand, special laws of terefa apply to it—that of “flesh that emerged beyond its boundary”—which apply to no other creature.

which is a live fetus found in its mother’s womb after she has been slaughtered. On the one hand, it is permitted for consumption because of its mother’s slaughter, even without slaughtering it separately; but on the other hand, special laws of treifa apply to it, namely, the law of “flesh that left its boundary,” a law found nowhere else.

The name

ben pekua means the offspring of an animal that was “ruptured,” that is, whose mother was slaughtered.

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

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

animal

that has a split hoof, which is completely cleft into two hooves, and brings up its cud,

among the animals,

these you may eat.” The Sages expounded the verse as follows:

Every

animal [mentioned at the beginning of the verse] that is found

“within an animal” [mentioned at the end of the verse],

that you may eat! The verse teaches that a fetus of an animal found alive inside the animal at the time of its slaughter is permitted for consumption through the slaughter of its mother.

[mentioned at the end of the verse]—that you may eat! The verse teaches that a live animal fetus found inside its mother when she is slaughtered is permitted for consumption through the slaughter of its mother.

However, if a fetus extended one of its limbs beyond the walls of its mother’s womb before the mother was slaughtered, that limb is permanently prohibited by the prohibition “and flesh torn in the field, you shall not eat,” and it is not subsequently permitted through its mother’s slaughter—even if the fetus returns the limb inside and it is found that its mother was slaughtered after the fetus was entirely within her womb.

This chapter will explain the permission applying to this fetus; its laws when it extended only part or most of one of its limbs; the law of its carcass; and various additional matters.

In his introduction to our chapter, the Meiri divides it into five subjects, following the order of the chapter:

a. “Terefa” affecting certain limbs of an animal, without the status of terefa applying to the entire animal. Also, the circumstances in which internal limbs of an animal become prohibited when severed from it during its lifetime, as the limb of a living creature, and the circumstances in which severed limbs are not prohibited.

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

c. The laws of impurity and purity concerning parts that have become prohibited in an animal [such as the limbs discussed in the first section], and also concerning limbs that have become detached [whose vitality has almost entirely ceased, although they remain suspended from and slightly connected to the animal]: whether they convey impurity as a carcass, or whether their status is that of “a slaughtered terefa,” which conveys impurity only with regard to consecrated objects [if the animal was indeed slaughtered]. Also, when an animal’s fetus dies inside its womb, what is the status of the fetus with regard to impurity. The Gemara likewise discusses a woman whose fetus dies inside her womb: does it convey 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 remains permanently prohibited. [Also, what is the status, for consumption and impurity, of a placenta found in a slaughtered animal.]

e. Terefot of the “junction of the sinews,” and places on an animal’s leg where a fracture renders it a terefa. Also, the law of a limb in which a bone was broken, in a place where the animal does not become a terefa: does the animal’s slaughter purify that limb and permit it for consumption, or not?