Chullin 74b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if

the fetus that emerged from its slaughtered mother grew, and it is

five years old and plows in the field—

the slaughter of its mother renders it pure,

and it still retains this permission.

And likewise,

if she tore

the animal without slaughter,

and found in it

a fetus

of nine

months while it was

alive,

it

requires slaughter

for itself,

because its mother was not slaughtered.

And if so, there is nothing through which to permit it.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna the law that a fetus found in the womb of its slaughtered mother is permitted even without slaughter, since it is treated as part of its mother.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said:

This fetus

was not treated,

they did not find grounds to be lenient regarding its fitness,

except with regard to matters of slaughter alone,

for only with regard to slaughter is it permitted without slaughter, by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. However, with regard to the other laws, it is like any animal.

And the Gemara asks:

To exclude what?

That is, what other matters could one have been lenient with regard to it, besides slaughter?

The Gemara explains:

To exclude its fat and its sciatic nerve.

Since it completed its months of gestation and emerged into the air of the world, its fat and its sciatic nerve are forbidden, like those of every animal.

And the Gemara asks:

The fat of what?

Whose fat is forbidden?

If you say,

if it is said that

its fat is the fat of a fetus

and is forbidden, then regarding this matter

they completely disagree,

they disagreed in the beraita below—

For it was taught:

The prohibition of

the sciatic nerve applies to a fetus,

a fetus,

and

also

its fat is forbidden; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The sciatic nerve

does not apply to a fetus, and

also

its fat is permitted.

And Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The disagreement

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda concerning a fetus and fat applies only

to a live nine-month-old. And

in this law

Rabbi Meir followed his position,

that a fetus which completed nine months of gestation is an animal, and for this reason its sciatic nerve and its fat are forbidden.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who permits the nerve and the fat, likewise follows

his position,

which is the position of the Sages in our Mishna: that the fetus is not considered an animal in its own right, but is permitted through the slaughter of its mother. And so too is the law concerning its sciatic nerve and its fat: they are not forbidden, since the fetus itself is considered one of the limbs of its mother. Therefore, the nerve and the fat are not treated as the limbs of an animal in its own right.

And if so, it cannot be said that Rabbi Oshaya excludes the sciatic nerve and the fat, since Rabbi and the Sages [and Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with the Sages] also disagree about this, whereas Rabbi Oshaya’s words were stated according to everyone. And again one must ask: what is the matter concerning which everyone agrees that the fetus is considered an animal in every respect?

Rather, its fat of the sciatic nerve.

The fat embedded in the nerve, which according to everyone is forbidden; and with regard to this matter the fetus is like an animal.

But the Gemara rejects this: even concerning this

they completely disagree,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda [the Sages].

For it was taught: The sciatic nerve,

when he removes it from the thigh [in the nerve of an ordinary animal, and not specifically in a fetus],

he searches

for it

everywhere that it is,

so that no remnant of it remains,

and he cuts

the

fat

of it

from its root,

from all its roots embedded and absorbed in the thigh around the place of the nerve—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He cuts it off

cuts it

flush with the smooth surface.

He cuts it in a straight line with the thigh-bone, and only the fat protruding over the bone must be cut because of appearances. But the roots of the fat, rooted deeply within the flesh of the thigh, are permitted, and it is not necessary to search for them.

And if, concerning the fat of the sciatic nerve of an ordinary animal, Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not forbidden, certainly this is the law concerning a fetus. And if so, again we must explain: what is the matter concerning which everyone agrees that the fetus is treated as an ordinary animal?

Rather,

certainly,

if it was stated,

if Rabbi Oshaya intended this in his words,

this is what was stated,

this is what he intended. And these are his words:

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The Sages did not treat it

with the permission of this fetus without slaughter

except with regard to matters of eating,

and the eating of its flesh, its fat, and its sciatic nerve was permitted.

And this permission came

to exclude

that it is forbidden for a person to

mate with it, and

to

plow with it

this ben pekua in a forbidden mixture with an ox and a donkey together. For with regard to these prohibitions, everyone agrees that the fetus is like an animal in every respect.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: According to the one who permits

the eating of

its fat,

of the fetus,

he permits

also

the

eating of

its blood.

According to the one who forbids

the eating of its fat,

he forbids

also

the

eating of

its blood.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even according to the one who permits its fat, he forbids its blood.

He challenged him,

he objected

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

from what we learned in our Mishna:

He tears it

the fetus,

and removes its blood.

And these words of the Mishna were stated concerning a live or dead eight-month-old, concerning which everyone agrees that its fat is permitted [and they disagree only concerning the fat of a nine-month-old]. It is proven from our Mishna that even those who hold that the fetus’s fat is permitted nevertheless hold that its blood is forbidden, contrary to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s words.

Rabbi Zeira said:

What Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, that one who permits its fat permits its blood, does not mean that he permits the blood for eating ab initio. Rather

to say that

one who eats the blood of one whose fat he permitted

is not liable for karet.

This is not so according to Rabbi Yohanan. It follows that the disagreement concerns only the question of whether there is liability for karet for eating the blood of the fetus, or merely a prohibition against eating blood.

And the Gemara asks:

For whom are they stated?

According to whose view were the words of Reish Lakish said, that whoever permits the fat permits the blood?

If the matter was said

in

accordance with

Rabbi Judah

and the Rabbis, who apparently permit eating the fat, it would be very difficult to say that Rabbi Judah holds that one who eats from the blood of this fetus is exempt from karet, since even if we say that the reference is not specifically to the blood of the soul [that is, the first blood that spurts and streams immediately with the slaughter, which is certainly forbidden],

it will not be

the blood of the fetus

but the blood of drainage,

the blood that drains from the body of the animal after the blood that spurts and streams, and emerges outside slowly, which is also forbidden.

For it was taught in a beraita: The blood of drainage

is

under a warning

for lashes. For five prohibitions were stated concerning it, but it is not subject to the punishment of karet, because concerning blood for which one is liable to karet it is said [Leviticus 17:10–11]: “I shall set My face against the soul that eats the blood, and I shall cut it off from among its people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you [the blood] upon the altar to atone.” And the blood sprinkled upon the altar for atonement is only the blood of the soul. Therefore there is a punishment of karet only for eating the blood of the soul.

Rabbi Judah says:

They are liable for it

to karet!

And it is explicit that Rabbi Judah makes one liable to karet for eating every blood. And it is not possible to say that Rabbi Judah is the tanna who holds that where the fat is permitted, one is not liable to karet even for the blood. If so, who is the tanna who holds this?

He explained,

he clarified and established

Rav Yosef son of Rav Sala the Pious before Rav Pappa,

that Rabbi Judah makes one liable even for eating the blood of drainage because

Rabbi Judah holds

the exposition of

“blood” and “every blood.”

That is, in the verse prohibiting the eating of blood [Leviticus 7:27] it is said: “And you shall eat no blood in any of your settlements, whether of bird or of animal.”

And it would have sufficed to write only, “You shall not eat blood.” Why, then, did Scripture say, “every blood,” which is an expression of inclusion? Therefore Rabbi Judah learned that it comes to include and say:

Wherever one is liable,

wherever one is liable to karet

for

[for]

the blood of the soul, one is liable

also

for

[for]

the blood of drainage. [This is because “every blood” was compared with the blood of the soul mentioned in the verse, and their laws are equal.]

This is because “any blood” is compared with the blood of the life-force mentioned in the verse, so their laws are the same.

And wherever one is not liable

to karet

for

[for]

the blood of the soul,

such as in the case of a fetus, in which there is no blood of the soul, since it is judged as slaughtered by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, and is not considered to be something that has a “soul,”

one is not liable for

[for]

the blood of drainage.

And now the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish—that whoever permits its fat permits its blood [that there is no punishment of karet]—are properly settled, and it is Rabbi Judah. And although Rabbi Judah holds that one is liable to karet for the blood of drainage, nevertheless, in the case of a fetus, in which there is no karet for the “blood of the soul,” since it has no soul, there is no karet for its blood, which is the blood of drainage.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law,

is it possible

to redeem

a firstborn donkey

with

a lamb that is

a ben peku'a

[slaughtered, that is, whose abdomen was opened] that has completed nine months of gestation?

And the Gemara explains:

According to Rabbi Meir, you need not raise the question

there is no doubt about the matter.

For since he said

Rabbi Meir that a fetus of nine months

requires slaughter,

and this lamb is one of nine months of gestation, therefore

it is a fully valid lamb.

And certainly one redeems with it.

For when you do raise the question,

the doubt is

according to the Rabbis, who say

that a fetus of nine months does not require slaughter for itself, but

the slaughter of its mother purifies it

and permits it for eating.

What [is the law]?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Since the Rabbis say

the Rabbis

that the slaughter of its mother purifies it,

and it is considered slaughtered and does not require slaughter for itself, its flesh

is like meat in a basket,

like slaughtered meat lying in a basket,

it

and it is impossible to redeem with it.

Or perhaps, since it runs and goes, and runs and comes,

it runs, and goes and comes—

“lamb” we call it,

and one redeems with it as with every lamb.

Mar Zutra said: One does not redeem

with a ben peku'a lamb.

And Rav Ashi said: One does redeem

with it.

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: What is your reasoning?

What is your reasoning for saying that one does not redeem with a nine-month-old fetal lamb? Your reasoning is because

you derived,

you learned this matter by a gezerah shavah,

“lamb

—lamb” from the Passover offerings.

And with regard to the Passover offering, a ben peku'a fetus is unfit.

And if so, this too should be learned from there:

If just as there,

in the Passover offering, the offering must be

a lamb

male,

unblemished and in its first year, so here,

in the redemption of a firstborn donkey, it must be

a male, unblemished, and in its first year?

And Mar Zutra answered: It is said [Exodus 13:13], “And every firstborn donkey

you shall redeem

with a lamb.” And it is likewise said [Exodus 34:20], “And the firstborn donkey

you shall redeem

with a lamb.” And by repeating this matter,

Scripture included

every lamb, even one that is not a male, unblemished, and in its first year.

However, it is still difficult:

If

we expound

“you shall redeem, you shall redeem”

as including,

that it comes to include all this, it should include

even every object as well,

and even a ben peku'a that would be fit for redeeming a firstborn donkey?

And the answer: If we expound and include every lamb, even a ben peku'a,

if so,

the exposition that we derived from the scriptural decree

“lamb

—lamb”

from the Passover offering,

what benefit does it have for you?

For what purpose is it required?

Rather, it is to tell you that a ben peku'a is not fit to redeem with. And we find that from the inclusion “you shall redeem, you shall redeem,” every object is to be included, even one that is not a male, unblemished, and in its first year, whereas from “lamb—lamb” this is to be restricted only to one that was born, and a ben peku'a is excluded.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If a slaughtered animal became impure with food impurity while a nine-month-old fetus was inside it, before it was taken outside,

what is the law concerning counting first and second levels with regard to it?

Do we consider the fetus an independent body, and since the mother is a first degree of impurity [because the mother herself touched the source of impurity, an olive-bulk of an animal carcass and the like, she is a first degree of impurity and is impure with food impurity], and the fetus inside it became impure through contact with its mother, therefore we count for it “a second degree of impurity”?

Or, do we consider the fetus a part of its body, and therefore the fetus too will be a first degree of impurity, since it is part of the mother and is judged like her?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The fetus is like an independent body, and

one counts with regard to it first and second levels.

That is, only its mother is a first degree of impurity, whereas it is a second degree of impurity.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One does not count with regard to it first and second levels,

because

it becomes

the fetus in its mother’s womb

like a nut rattling in its shell.

For the nut and the shell that surrounds and protects it are one, and the impurity of the nut and the shell is one impurity. And likewise is the law with a mother and her fetus: since it is inside her, it is like a part of her, and is impure with her impurity.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from what we learned in the Mishna above [73a]: If one slaughtered its mother and afterward cut it [the protruding limb of the fetus],

the flesh

[of the fetus] is impure

with the contact impurity of an animal carcass, the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say:

It does not have the contact impurity of an animal carcass; rather, its status is that of

the contact impurity of a slaughtered tereifa,

which imparts impurity only to sacred objects.

The impurity mentioned [both with regard to the animal and with regard to the fetus inside it] is food impurity.

Food impurity applies only if the food was “prepared” to receive impurity, through one of the seven liquids coming upon it, and blood is one of the seven liquids.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asks:

Granted, according to me, when I say

that I [Reish Lakish] hold that the mother and the fetus

are one body, this is why it was prepared

the fetus was prepared to receive impurity

by the blood of its mother,

by the blood of the slaughter of its mother that washed over it. And since the fetus is included in its mother, it was prepared to receive impurity through the preparation of the mother.

But according to you,

according to your view, Rabbi Yohanan, that the fetus is judged as an independent body and is not prepared through its mother’s preparation, if so,

by what was it prepared,

by what was the fetus prepared to receive food impurity, by virtue of which it became impure through its contact with the protruding limb?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan: The fetus was not prepared to receive impurity through its being washed by liquids, but rather

by slaughter,

through the act of slaughter it was prepared.

And

our Mishna

is in accordance with the

view of

Rabbi Shimon,

who said [above, 33a] that slaughter is what prepares one to receive impurity, and not the blood of the slaughter. That is, since the animal becomes permitted through slaughter, it is also thereby prepared to receive impurity. And since the fetus is judged as slaughtered by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, it was prepared to receive impurity through her slaughter.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

from what we learned: A nine-month-old ben peku'a fetus found alive in the womb of its mother that was slaughtered, which grew, and

passed through a river,

and was washed in its waters,

was prepared

to receive impurity.

He went

afterward

to the cemetery—

and became impure

with food impurity from the impurity of the cemetery.

And from now Rabbi Yohanan raises an objection:

Granted, according to me, who say,

that I hold that the fetus and its mother

are two bodies,

they are two different bodies,

for that reason it was rendered susceptible—yes,

only if it was first rendered susceptible to receive impurity by the river water does it become impure from the impurity of the cemetery.

But if

it was not rendered susceptible

by the river water, it

does not

receive impurity.

Rather, according to you,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

who say

that you hold that the mother and the fetus

are one body, behold,

it had already

been rendered susceptible,

the fetus had been rendered susceptible to receive impurity

by the blood of its mother,

through its mother’s blood that emerged during slaughter and washed over the slaughtering site. Through this, the fetus too was rendered susceptible to receive impurity, since it is regarded as one body with its mother. And if so, this preparation is sufficient for it; why is the washing by the river water needed?