Chullin 75a — the Talmud in English

And Reish Lakish answers: This statement, that it crossed the river, is speaking of a case in which the ben pekua emerged

by a dry slaughter.

By a dry slaughter, in which there was no خروج of blood. Therefore, the mother and the fetus were not rendered susceptible to receiving ritual impurity.

And not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who was cited above, who holds that slaughter renders one susceptible to receiving ritual impurity, and not the blood.

And the Gemara asks:

Who is the tanna,

who taught the beraita stating that if

the fetus crossed

the fetus

the river, it was rendered susceptible

to receiving ritual impurity,

he went to the cemetery—

he became impure,

for the fetus became impure with food impurity, even though it is alive and, seemingly, is not actually “food”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is Rabbi Yosei the Galilean!

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

A ben pekua, even if it is alive,

causes food impurity, and requires susceptibility

through a liquid in order to receive ritual impurity. And it follows that the fetus and the mother are two bodies, and the fetus is not rendered susceptible to receiving ritual impurity through the blood of its mother’s slaughter.

And the Sages say: It does not cause food impurity, because it is alive. And anything that is alive—

does not cause food impurity.

And Rabbi Yohanan teaches us by this that although according to the Sages in our Mishna a nine-month-old fetus that is alive is permitted for consumption, nevertheless, according to their words, it does not become impure through food impurity, but only according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

For the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei here, even if they hold like the Sages in our Mishna that the fetus is permitted for consumption, nevertheless it neither becomes impure nor causes impurity, because there is no impurity in living creatures during their lifetime.

And

in this matter,

Rabbi Yohanan proceeds

and follows

his own reasoning

according to his method [and below we shall explain in what way Rabbi Yohanan follows his own reasoning].

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and Beit Shammai—

][по своему мнению; ниже будет разъяснено, в чём именно рабби Йоханан следует своему методу]. Ибо рабби Йоханан сказал: рабби Йоси Галилейский и Бейт-Шаммай

said one thing:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean—the matter that we stated,

what we have just learned, that a ben pekua causes food impurity.

And

Beit Shammai

said this in the following Mishna:

For we learned

in tractate Uktzin:

Fish,

which they removed from the water,

from when

do they

receive impurity [food impurity, if they touched something impure], for while they are alive in the water they do not receive impurity?

[the impurity of food, if they came into contact with an impure object], since while they are alive in the water they do not contract impurity?

Beit Shammai

say:

When they are caught

from the water, immediately they receive impurity even though they are still alive. Since they do not require slaughter, they are like dead creatures immediately when they are caught.

And Beit Hillel say: When they die. Rabbi Akiva says: From the time that they are not

the fish

able to live

outside the water.

The Gemara asks:

What is the difference between them,

between the method of Beit Hillel and Rabbi Akiva, for, simply, the view of both is that from the time the fish cease living, they are fit to receive impurity?

Rabbi Yohanan said: A mekarṭe’a fish,

fluttering between life and death, such as when the place between its fins is completely dry like a rock, and in this manner it is no longer considered alive,

there is a difference between them,

between Beit Hillel and Rabbi Akiva. According to Beit Hillel it is considered alive, since it has not yet died completely. And according to Rabbi Akiva it is considered dead, because once it has dried, it will no longer live.

And concerning this matter the Gemara said that Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that the view of Beit Shammai is like the view of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, follows his own reasoning. As was explained above, according to Rabbi Yohanan Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds like the Sages in our Mishna. That is, according to his view, the words of the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and hold that a nine-month-old ben pekua does not cause food impurity are not because they hold that a nine-month-old ben pekua is forbidden for consumption without slaughter, like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna. For if so, they would not have disagreed concerning fish, which are certainly permitted for consumption, and Beit Shammai could also have held like them in this matter. Rather, the reason for the words of the Sages is that living creatures do not receive impurity. And therefore Beit Shammai cannot hold like them, but rather like Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rav Hisda inquired:

According to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that from the time the fish begins to die, it receives impurity, when

signs of tereifa developed in fish,

such as their intestines were perforated, or one of the other eighteen tereifot occurred in them, and they will certainly die,

what is the law?

Do they receive impurity from the time they became a tereifa?

This uncertainty

should be asked

and considered

according to the one who says, “A tereifa lives,”

that it is not certain that a tereifa will die,

and

likewise

should be asked

this uncertainty even

according to the one who says, “A tereifa does not live,”

but certainly dies once it becomes a tereifa.

And the Gemara explains the uncertainty: This uncertainty

should be asked

and considered

according to the one who says, “A tereifa lives,”

because only

an animal

can be said to continue living even though it has become a tereifa, since

its vitality is abundant,

its life is abundant, and it can remain for a long time until the perforation of the tereifa affects it and ends its life; therefore, concerning an animal it is said that a tereifa lives.

But fish, whose vitality is not abundant,

and immediately when the tereifa is formed in them they will die,

we do not

say concerning them that “a tereifa lives.” Therefore, they receive impurity from the time the tereifa is formed in them.

Or perhaps, even according to the one who says that a tereifa does not live,

this uncertainty should be considered, because

this applies only to an animal, for its species has slaughter,

and therefore it has the law of tereifot that disqualify it with respect to slaughter; and because of this we say concerning it, “A tereifa does not live,” since, as it is not fit for slaughter, it is considered dead.

According to the explanation of Rabbeinu Gershom. But fish, whose species has no slaughter, no!

For fish are eaten without slaughter, and therefore their being a tereifa has no significance with regard to permitting their consumption, since they are not considered “dead” because of this; therefore, they do not receive impurity because of their tereifa.

The Kovetz Inyanim raised the following difficulty: In any event, since it is a tereifa, and its vitality is not abundant like that of an animal, why does the fish not receive impurity? For from the time it is unable to live, according to Rabbi Akiva it receives impurity. And it follows that this does not depend at all on its connection to the matter of slaughter; why, then, if it became a tereifa and is close to death, does it not receive impurity? He explained that even according to the one who says that a tereifa does not live, this means that it does not live for twelve months. But for a short period it can live. And Rabbi Akiva’s words, that anything unable to live receives impurity, refer specifically to something that is about to die immediately. In this matter it is considered dead. However, anything for which there is time until its death does not receive impurity. And we conclude:

Teyku!

And now the Gemara brings a dispute concerning the law of the fat of a stillborn animal, whether the prohibition of forbidden fat applies to it.

An animal that

cast out

miscarried

a stillborn.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Its fat

the fat of the stillborn is

like the fat of an animal,

and one who eats it is liable to karet.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat

the fat of the stillborn is

like the fat of a wild animal,

which is permitted for consumption, because the stillborn does not have the prohibition of the fat of an animal; rather, it has only the prohibition of an animal carcass.

And the Gemara explains their methods:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Its fat is like the fat of an animal,

because according to his view,

the air,

the very fact of its emergence and birth into the air of the world [for it “fell” from the womb]

causes

it to be considered an animal with regard to all its laws. And since it was born as an animal, the law of its fat is like the law of the fat of an animal, which is forbidden for consumption.

Whereas

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of a wild animal,

because according to his view,

the months cause it.

That is, in order to be considered an animal with regard to all the laws of an animal, two things are required:

A. That its months be completed, and that it emerge from the category of a stillborn; B. that it emerge into the air of the world.

And this stillborn, although it emerged into the air, nevertheless did not yet complete its months and is not considered an “animal” with regard to all its laws.

There are those who say,

another formulation of the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Wherever his months have not been completed,

according to everyone,

it is nothing,

and its milk is permitted for consumption.

They disagree where he put his hand into the womb of an animal and tore

from within it

the milk of

a fetus

of nine months

alive,

and ate it.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Its milk

of this fetus is

like the milk of an animal,

because

the months alone are determinative.

The months of gestation that have been completed are what cause it to be considered an animal.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its milk

of this fetus is

like the milk of a wild animal,

because in his view two factors cause it to be considered an animal:

the months and the air,

these two are

determinative

for it to be considered an animal. And as long as its formation does not contain these two factors, the milk is not considered the milk of an animal. However, if he slaughtered the mother of this fetus, according to Rabbi Judah the milk is permitted by the law of “all that is in the animal you may eat.”

He challenged him

Rabbi Yohanan challenged

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

from what we learned in the Sifra: It is stated regarding the offering of a shelamim sacrifice [Leviticus 3:3]: “And he shall offer from the sacrifice of the shelamim a fire-offering to the Lord, the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innards.”

And this verse excludes that only the fat covering the innards must be offered, but not the fat of the shilil in the womb of the shelamim animal.

One might exclude from this verse a warning and punishment for eating the fat of a fetus, but the one offering would still be obligated to offer this fat together with the fat of the sacrifice.

Therefore the Torah says regarding an asham sacrifice: “The fat and the two kidneys,” which are offered upon the altar.

And these words are superfluous, for this can be learned by a kal va-chomer from shelamim, in which the fat and the kidneys are offered. For just as with shelamim, where not in all its kinds [not in all kinds of shelamim] is the tail offered—for shelamim also comes from cattle and goats, which do not have a fat tail—nevertheless the fat and two kidneys are offered from them; an asham, where in all the kinds from which it comes the fat tail is offered—for it comes only from sheep—certainly, by a kal va-chomer, the fat and two kidneys must be offered in it!

And if so, why is it stated regarding an asham, “the fat and the two kidneys”? To teach you:

Just as the fat and the two kidneys stated in

the

asham sacrifice are excluded

from the category of their being burned,

from the category of a shilil,

for the fat and kidneys of the fetus within them are not offered—for an asham does not come from females, and therefore a fetus in an asham sacrifice is impossible—

so too, every

sacrifice that comes from females,

is excluded from the category of

being burned, the fat of the

fetus

within them.

And after we learned this beraita in the Sifra, Rabbi Yohanan challenges the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Granted, according to me,

according to my view, that I hold that one is liable for excision on account of the milk of a nine-month fetus in its mother’s womb, because the status of an animal applies to it, and its milk is forbidden like the milk of an animal,

this is why it was necessary

for this reason it is necessary

for a verse to exclude

it from being burned, and to innovate that its milk is not burned even though it is fully the milk of an animal.

But according to you,

according to your view, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, that you hold that one is not liable on account of the milk of a nine-month fetus that has not yet emerged from its mother’s womb, because in your view the fetus must complete nine months and also emerge into the air of the world, and without this it is not called an animal and one is not liable for its milk as for the milk of an animal,

why was it necessary

why do we need these verses to teach that the milk of the fetus is not burned? For according to you, since it is not included in the category of the milk of an animal, surely it is not burned?!

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Indeed,

the reason for my

view—the reason for my statement that the milk of the fetus is not included in the category of the milk of an animal—

also

is also

from here.

From the exposition of these verses, which teaches that the milk of the fetus is not considered the milk of an animal. Indeed, this is the source for my statement.

And there are those who say,

there are those who formulate it in the opposite manner, that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish challenges Rabbi Yohanan as follows:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish challenged Rabbi Yohanan:

But we learned in the Sifra [the beraita brought above, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s proof is from the continuation of the words of the Sifra brought above]:

Just as the fat and the two kidneys stated

with regard to being burned

in

the

asham sacrifice are excluded from

being burned—the fat and kidneys of a

fetus

a fetus,

so

in

every

burning of the fat and kidneys of sacrifices,

is excluded from

being burned the fat and kidneys of a

fetus.

And from this Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish now challenges:

Granted, according to me,

according to my view, that the milk of the fetus found in its mother’s womb is not considered the milk of an animal,

for that reason the Merciful One excluded it.

For that reason the Torah excludes their burning from the category of burning the milk of the sacrifices.

But according to you,

according to your view, Rabbi Yohanan, that the milk of a fetus whose nine months have been completed is the milk of an animal,

should it be offered!?

Offer it, for it is no different from other milk of an animal?!

He said to him: It is analogous to one lacking time.

That is, like a young animal that was born and emerged into the air of the world: although it is certainly a fully formed animal, nevertheless the Torah disqualified it from being offered during all its first seven days, and it is called “lacking time,” for it lacks the period of one week in order to be fit for offering, since only after it becomes eight days old will it be fit for offering.

And if so, a fetus that was not born will at the very least have the same law as a young animal that was born but has not yet completed its time of seven days, namely, that it is not fit for being burned.

Rabbi Ami said: One who slaughters a tereifa and finds in it

a fetus

of nine months alive

has the following law:

According to the words of

Rabbi Meir,

who forbids

a ben paku'a [a nine-month fetus] of a kosher animal, for he maintains that it has permission only through its own slaughter, since it is no longer considered part of its mother, when this fetus is found in the womb of a tereifa,

it permits

the fetus itself through its own slaughter. It is not judged as part of its tereifa mother.

But

according to the words of

Rabbi Judah,

who permits

a nine-month fetus through the slaughter of its mother,

he forbids

a nine-month fetus of a tereifa. Since the permission of a ben paku'a found in the womb of a kosher animal is because it is considered part of its body, therefore, when its mother is a tereifa, it is considered part of her, and it has no permission to be eaten through slaughter. Nor does it have slaughter of its own, since it is a ben paku'a, and its identifying signs are considered slaughtered, and slaughter does not avail for them.

Rava said: According to the one who permits

a living nine-month fetus of a kosher animal, he maintains that

also,

even here, in the case of a tereifa,

it is permitted,

the nine-month fetus, because

“the Merciful One rendered four identifying signs fit in it”

[the Torah rendered them fit in it].

That is, this law—that a fetus is permitted along with the slaughter of its mother—does not come to prevent the possibility of slaughtering it itself when it needs this. Rather, the Torah merely permitted it through the slaughter of its mother. But when the slaughter of its mother does not assist in permitting it for consumption because she is a tereifa, it may be slaughtered by itself. This is because it has four identifying signs of slaughter, as stated: two identifying signs [which are either the windpipe and the gullet] of its mother, through which it could be permitted by her slaughter, and also its own two identifying signs. Through the slaughter of those signs as well it is permitted when it has no permission through its mother’s signs. And here, in the case of a ben paku'a of a tereifa, since the slaughter of its mother does not permit it, it is slaughtered through its own identifying signs.

Rav Hisda said: One who slaughters a tereifa and finds in it a living nine-month fetus—