## Chullin Daf 69b

###### Chullin 69b:1
[Chullin 69b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:1)

בָּעֵינָא פְּרָסוֹת, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: In order for the fetus to be permitted, **I require** that it have **hooves,** and a dove-shaped fetus **does not have** hooves.


###### Chullin 69b:2
[Chullin 69b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:2)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, קָלוּט בִּמְעֵי פָּרָה לִיתְּסַר? הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: ״פַּרְסָה בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** that the fetus is permitted only if it fulfills the conditions mentioned in that verse, then a fetus with **non-cloven** hooves found **inside a cow’s womb should be forbidden,** whereas the *baraita* cited on 68b states that it is permitted. The Gemara answers: **This** is as **the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:** Each phrase in the verse is taken as a sufficient condition. Furthermore, the term “hoof” can be understood independently of the phrase “cloven into two hooves,” and is referring to a non-cloven hoof. Accordingly, the verse can be interpreted as teaching: An animal that has **a hoof, in the animal,** it **you may eat,** and teaches that even a fetus with a non-cloven hoof is permitted.


###### Chullin 69b:3
[Chullin 69b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:3)

רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״אֵין מְמִירִין״, הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּמַקֵּישׁ תְּמוּרָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּאֵבָרִים וְעוּבָּרִים, אַף תְּמוּרָה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֵבָרִים וְעוּבָּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Actually,** the *halakha* that the fetus and its severed pieces are permitted **should be** derived **as you** previously **said,** i.e., from the phrase: An animal in the animal. **And** with regard to **that which posed a difficulty for you,** i.e., the mishna in *Temura* that states **one cannot substitute** a non-sacred animal for the fetus of a pregnant offering, that difficulty can be resolved by saying: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who compares substitution to** the animal **tithe: Just as the** animal **tithe does not apply to limbs and fetuses** but only to live animals that can walk, as it is stated: “Whatever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32), **so too, substitution does not apply to limbs and fetuses.**


###### Chullin 69b:4
[Chullin 69b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:4)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא, דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים, הָאוֹמֵר: ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ – כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, אַף כְּשֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״רֶגֶל שֶׁל זוֹ תַּחַת זוֹ״ – תְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ תְּמוּרָה תַּחְתֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do you say** that this mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara explains: **As we learned** in the same mishna (*Temura* 10a) that **Rabbi Yosei says: But with regard to consecrated** offerings, if **one says the leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering,** then **all of** the animal **is** consecrated as **a burnt offering.** Accordingly, **even** with regard to substitution, if one says: **The leg of this** non-sacred animal should be substituted **instead of that** offering, **the entire** animal **should be a substitute in its stead.**


###### Chullin 69b:5
[Chullin 69b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:5)

לְמַאן קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִי אִית לְהוּ הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ תְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה׳ יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״ – מִמֶּנּוּ קֹדֶשׁ, וְלֹא כּוּלּוֹ קֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei clearly disagrees with the opinion that substituting a limb is not possible. But Rabbi Yosei’s formulation indicates that even according to that opinion, if a single limb is consecrated then the entire animal becomes consecrated. The Gemara clarifies: **To whom is** Rabbi Yosei **responding? If we say** he is responding **to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, do they accept this reasoning? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that in the case of **one who says: The leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering, all of it will be a burnt offering.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “And if it is an animal of those that they bring as an offering to the Lord, **anything of it that one gives to the Lord, it shall be sacred”** (Leviticus 27:9). The verse indicates that the part **of it** that one gives will be **sacred, but all of it** will **not** be **sacred.**


###### Chullin 69b:6
[Chullin 69b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:6)

יָכוֹל תֵּצֵא לְחוּלִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״ – בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא. הָא כֵּיצַד? תִּמָּכֵר לְצׇרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וְדָמֶיהָ חוּלִּין, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי אֵבֶר שֶׁבָּהּ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A non-sacred animal with a consecrated limb may not be sacrificed. Accordingly, one **might** have thought the consecrated limb may be redeemed and thereby **transferred to non-sacred** status. Therefore, **the verse states: “It shall be** sacred,” indicating that **it shall** remain **as it is. How** is **this** possible? The animal **should be sold for the needs of burnt offerings,** i.e., to an individual who will sacrifice the entire animal as a burnt offering, **and the payment** received **for** the animal will be **non-sacred, except for the payment** received in exchange **for** that one **limb** that is consecrated. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Chullin 69b:7
[Chullin 69b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:7)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ – תְּהֵא כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִהְיֶה״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: From where** is it derived **that** in the case of **one who says: The leg of this** animal **is a burnt offering, all of it becomes a burnt offering? The verse states: “It shall be** sacred.” This serves **to include all of** the animal, indicating that it all becomes sacred.


###### Chullin 69b:8
[Chullin 69b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:8)

לְמַאן? אִי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מִי אִית לְהוּ הַאי סְבָרָא? אֶלָּא לָאו לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reiterates its question: **To whom is** Rabbi Yosei responding? Rabbi Yosei clearly disagrees with the opinion that if a single limb is consecrated then the entire animal becomes consecrated. **If we say** he is responding **to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, do they accept this reasoning? Rather, isn’t** Rabbi Yosei responding **to Rabbi Shimon,** as the Gemara suggests above in resolution of the difficulty from the mishna in *Temura*?


###### Chullin 69b:9
[Chullin 69b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:9)

לָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי טַעְמָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is possible that Rabbi Yosei is not responding directly to any other opinion; rather, **he stated his own reasoning,** without reference to that of another Sage. Consequently, his statement affords no proof that the mishna in *Temura* expresses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Chullin 69b:10
[Chullin 69b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְבַכֶּרֶת, הַמְקַשָּׁה לֵילֵד – מְחַתֵּךְ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לִכְלָבִים. יָצָא רוּבּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וְנִפְטֶרֶת מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Upon its birth, the firstborn male offspring of a domesticated animal is automatically consecrated with firstborn status, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Furthermore, if it dies, it may not be discarded, but must be buried. If **an animal that was giving birth to a firstborn male was encountering difficulty giving birth,** and in order to alleviate the difficulty one wishes to terminate the birth, **he may cut up** the fetus **limb by limb and cast it to the dogs.** Since the fetus was not born, it is non-sacred and does not require burial. If **a majority of** the fetus **had** already **emerged,** it is considered to have been born and is therefore consecrated; consequently, if one cut it up **it must be buried, and** the mother animal is **exempted from** having **firstborn** status conferred on any future offspring.


###### Chullin 69b:11
[Chullin 69b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** אִתְּמַר: יָצָא שְׁלִישׁ וּמְכָרוֹ לְגוֹי, וְחָזַר וְיָצָא שְׁלִישׁ אַחֵר – רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ, רַבָּה אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** An amoraic dispute **was stated** with regard to a case in which **one-third** of a firstborn fetus **emerged** from the womb **and** then **one sold it to a gentile, and then another one-third** of the fetus **emerged.** Once a majority of the fetus emerges it is considered born. The *halakha* is that a fetus partly owned by a gentile is not consecrated as a firstborn. In this case, the firstborn was sold to a gentile only after it had already partially emerged from the womb. **Rav Huna says** it is **consecrated,** while **Rabba says** it is **not consecrated.**


###### Chullin 69b:12
[Chullin 69b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:12)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר קָדוֹשׁ: קָסָבַר לְמַפְרֵעַ קָדוֹשׁ, וְכֵיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ רוּבֵּיהּ – אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא לְמַפְרֵעַ דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה קָדוֹשׁ, וּמַאי דְּזַבֵּין – לֹא כְּלוּם זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rav Huna says** it is **consecrated,** as **he maintains** a firstborn is **consecrated retroactively** from the moment the first part of its body emerges from the womb. **And** therefore in this case, **once most of it had emerged,** it **became clarified retroactively that it had** already **been consecrated from the outset, and** so with regard to **that which he had sold** to a gentile, it arises that **he did not** actually **sell anything** at all. Since it had already been consecrated, he did not have full ownership of it to be able to sell it.


###### Chullin 69b:13
[Chullin 69b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:13)

רַבָּה אָמַר אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ: קָסָבַר מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא קָדוֹשׁ, וּמַאי דְּזַבֵּין – שַׁפִּיר זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says** it is **not consecrated,** as he **maintains** a firstborn is consecrated **from that point forward,** i.e., only at the moment the majority of it emerges. **And** so with regard to **that which he had sold** to a gentile, it arises that **he had sold** it **properly,** i.e., the sale was valid because at the time of the sale it had not been consecrated. Accordingly, by the time the majority of its body emerged it was already partly owned by a gentile, and that prevented it from being consecrated.


###### Chullin 69b:14
[Chullin 69b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:14)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִתְּמַר: יָצָא שְׁלִישׁ דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן, וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם – רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, רַבָּה אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: Rav Huna and Rabba **follow their** lines of **reasoning, as** another dispute between them **was stated** with regard to a case in which **one-third** of a firstborn fetus **emerged through** the **wall** of the womb, i.e., via caesarean section, **and** then the other **two-thirds** emerged **through** the opening of the **womb.** The *halakha* is that a fetus is consecrated only if it emerged through the opening of the womb. In this case a majority did emerge through the opening, but the first majority to emerge was not through the opening. **Rav Huna says** it is **not consecrated** and **Rabba says** it is **consecrated.**


###### Chullin 69b:15
[Chullin 69b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:15)

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. רַב הוּנָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: לְמַפְרֵעַ קָדוֹשׁ, וְרוּבָּא קַמָּא לֵיתֵיהּ בְּרֶחֶם. רַבָּה אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ. רַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא קָדוֹשׁ, וְרוּבָּא דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם נָפֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: When **Rav Huna says** it is **not consecrated Rav Huna** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he says** a firstborn is **consecrated retroactively,** since the birth consecrates it. **And** in this case, **the first majority** that emerged, which defined its birth, was **not through** the opening of **the womb.** Therefore, it was not consecrated. Conversely, when **Rabba says** it is **consecrated Rabba** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he says** a firstborn is **consecrated from that point forward,** i.e., only once a majority of the fetus has emerged from the opening of the womb. This is because the emergence of a majority of the fetus through the opening of the womb consecrates it, even if that is not the first majority, **and** in this case **the majority** of the animal **emerged through** the opening of the **womb.**


###### Chullin 69b:16
[Chullin 69b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/69b:16)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָא: בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִשּׁוּם דִּלְקוּלָּא, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ דִּלְחוּמְרָא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it is **necessary** to convey Rav Huna and Rabba’s dispute in both of these cases. **As, had** the Sages **taught us** only their dispute **with regard to this** case, where after one-third emerged it was sold to a gentile, one might have thought that it is only **with regard to this** case that **Rav Huna says** the animal is consecrated retroactively. This is **because** to rule it is consecrated from that point forward **would be a leniency,** as then the fetus would be exempt from being subject to firstborn status. **But with regard to that** case, when one-third emerged through the wall of the womb, **where** Rabba’s opinion would lead to **a stringency,** one might **say** that Rav Huna **concedes to Rabba.**