## Chullin Daf 70a

###### Chullin 70a:1
[Chullin 70a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:1)

וְאִי אִתְּמַר בְּהָא: בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבָּה, אֲבָל בְּהָא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if their dispute **was stated** only **with regard to that** case, when one-third emerged through the wall of the womb, one might have thought it is only **in that** case that **Rabba says** the animal is consecrated from that point forward, as that results in a stringency, i.e., the fetus is subject to firstborn status. **But in this** case, when after one-third emerged it was sold to a gentile, and where ruling that the animal is consecrated from that point forward results in a leniency, one might **say** that Rabba **concedes to Rav Huna.** Therefore, it was **necessary** for the dispute to be stated in both cases.


###### Chullin 70a:2
[Chullin 70a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:2)

תְּנַן: הַמְבַכֶּרֶת הַמְקַשָּׁה לֵילֵד – מְחַתֵּךְ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לִכְלָבִים. מַאי לָאו, מְחַתֵּךְ וּמַנִּיחַ? וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא קָדוֹשׁ – יִקָּבֵר מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with the opinion of Rav Huna. **We learned** in the mishna: 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. What, is it not** teaching that **one cuts** each limb **and leaves** it outside the body, casting the limbs to the dogs only after he has already extracted a majority of its body? **And if you say** a firstborn is **consecrated retroactively,** then once the majority of the fetus emerges from the womb all of the limbs would be consecrated retroactively according to Rav Huna. Accordingly, the mishna **should have** said the limbs **must be buried.**


###### Chullin 70a:3
[Chullin 70a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:3)

לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּמְחַתֵּךְ וּמַשְׁלִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, here we are dealing with one who cuts** each limb **and** immediately **casts** it to the dogs, before any consecration takes effect.


###### Chullin 70a:4
[Chullin 70a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:4)

אֲבָל מְחַתֵּךְ וּמַנִּיחַ, מַאי יִקָּבֵר? אַדִּתְנָא סֵיפָא: ״יָצָא רוּבּוֹ יִקָּבֵר וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה״, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידֵיהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּמְחַתֵּךְ וּמַשְׁלִיךְ אֵבֶר אֵבֶר, אֲבָל מְחַתֵּךְ וּמַנִּיחַ – יִקָּבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to this, if **one cuts** the limbs **and leaves** them, **what** is the *halakha*? Each one **must be buried.** If that is so, **rather than teaching in the latter clause** of the mishna: If **a majority of** the fetus **had** already **emerged** it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up **it must be buried, and** any future offspring from that animal **is exempted from firstborn** status; **let** the *tanna* instead **distinguish and teach** a case in which the limbs are consecrated **within the** context of the first case **itself,** in the following manner: **In what** case **is this statement,** that the limbs may be cast to the dogs, **said?** It is **with regard to one who cuts** pieces of the fetus **and** immediately **casts** them to the dogs **limb by limb,** before a majority has emerged. **But** if **one cuts and leaves** the limbs until a majority has emerged, each one of them **must be buried.**


###### Chullin 70a:5
[Chullin 70a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:5)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בִּמְחַתֵּךְ וּמַשְׁלִיךְ, אֲבָל מְחַתֵּךְ וּמַנִּיחַ – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁיָּצָא רוּבּוֹ, וְיִקָּבֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is indeed what** the latter clause of the mishna **is saying: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **with regard to one who cuts and casts** the limbs to the dogs before a majority emerges. **But** if **one cuts and leaves** the limbs until a majority emerges it is **regarded as though a majority of it emerged** at one time, **and** so **it must be buried.**


###### Chullin 70a:6
[Chullin 70a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:6)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הָלְכוּ בְּאֵיבָרִין אַחַר הָרוֹב, אוֹ לֹא הָלְכוּ בְּאֵיבָרִין אַחַר הָרוֹב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** Does **one follow the majority with regard to limbs or** does **one not follow the majority with regard to limbs?**


###### Chullin 70a:7
[Chullin 70a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:7)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי: אִילֵּימָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא רוֹב בְּמִיעוּט אֵבֶר, וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: הַאי מִיעוּט דְּבָרַאי, בָּתַר רוֹב דְּאֵבֶר שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ, אוֹ בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּעוּבָּר שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this dilemma; what exactly is Rava’s question? **If we say** it is referring to a case **where** the **majority** of the fetus **emerged,** but that majority **includes** the emergence of the **minority** part **of** one of its **limbs,** then Rava is **raising the** following **dilemma:** With regard to **this minority** part of a limb **that is outside** the womb, do **we cast it,** i.e., count it, together **with** the **majority of** that **limb,** which is still inside the womb, as if the entire limb was still inside the womb? If so, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has not yet emerged. **Or** perhaps **we cast it** and count it together **with the majority of the fetus** that has already emerged, and so it is regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged and it is duly consecrated.


###### Chullin 70a:8
[Chullin 70a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:8)

פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא שָׁבְקִינַן רוּבָּא דְּעוּבָּר, וְאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוֹב אֵבֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this possibility: In that case it is **obvious that we do not disregard the majority of** the **fetus and go after the majority of** the **limb.** Consequently, Rava would not have raised a dilemma about this.


###### Chullin 70a:9
[Chullin 70a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:9)

אֶלָּא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא חֶצְיוֹ בְּרוֹב אֵבֶר, וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: הָהוּא מִיעוּט דִּבְגַוַּאי, מַהוּ לְמִישְׁדְּיֵיהּ בָּתַר רוֹב אֵבֶר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the dilemma is referring to a case **where half of** the fetus **emerged,** but that half **includes the majority of** a certain **limb, and** Rava **raises the** following **dilemma:** With regard to **this minority** part of a limb **that is inside** the womb, **what is** the *halakha* as **to** whether **one casts it** and counts it together **with the majority of** that **limb** and considers it as if that entire limb has emerged? If it is counted, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged, and it is duly consecrated.


###### Chullin 70a:10
[Chullin 70a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:10)

תָּא שָׁמַע: יָצָא רוּבּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר. מַאי רוּבּוֹ? אִילֵּימָא רוּבּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, עַד הַשְׁתָּא לָא אַשְׁמְעִינַן דְּרוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from a statement of the mishna: If **a majority of** the fetus **had** already **emerged,** it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up **it must be buried.** The Gemara clarifies: **What** is meant by **a majority of** the fetus? **If we say** it means **literally the majority of** the fetus, then the following difficulty arises: **Until now had we not learned** the principle that **the majority** of an item is considered **like all** of **it?** This is a well-established principle and it is not necessary to teach it again in this context.


###### Chullin 70a:11
[Chullin 70a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:11)

אֶלָּא לָאו, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא חֶצְיוֹ בְּרוֹב אֵבֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is** the mishna **not** referring to a case **where half of** the fetus **emerged,** but that half **includes the majority of a limb?** If so, the mishna directly resolves Rava’s dilemma and teaches that the minority part of the limb inside the womb is regarded as though it had emerged.


###### Chullin 70a:12
[Chullin 70a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:12)

לָא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא רוּבּוֹ בְּמִיעוּט אֵבֶר, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא שָׁבְקִינַן רוּבּוֹ דְּעוּבָּר דִּבְהֵמָה וְאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר אֵבֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** the mishna could be referring to a case **where** the **majority of** the fetus **emerged,** but that majority **includes** the emergence of the **minority of a limb, and it teaches us that we do not disregard the majority of** the **fetus and go after the majority of** the **limb.**


###### Chullin 70a:13
[Chullin 70a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:13)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כְּרָכוֹ בְּסִיב, מַהוּ? בְּטַלִּיתוֹ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ A firstborn animal is consecrated by virtue of the fact that its birth is the first in which the womb of the mother opens, as indicated by the verse: “Consecrate to Me every firstborn, that which opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2). Concerning this condition, **Rava raises a dilemma:** If **one wrapped** the fetus **in** the **bast** of a palm tree while it was still in the womb, and it therefore did not come in contact with the opening of the womb directly when it emerged, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to whether it is consecrated? Likewise, if one wrapped it **in his robe** when it emerged, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 70a:14
[Chullin 70a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:14)

בְּשִׁלְיָתוֹ, מַהוּ? בְּשִׁלְיָתוֹ? אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא! אֶלָּא בְּשִׁלְיָא אַחֶרֶת, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava adds: If it emerged wrapped **in its afterbirth, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara interjects: How could one suggest that being wrapped **in its afterbirth** would pose a problem? **That is its** natural **manner** of birth, and the afterbirth is consequently not considered an interposition. Accordingly, it is considered as though it was in direct contact with the opening of the womb. **Rather,** Rava’s dilemma must be as follows: If it emerged wrapped **in** the **afterbirth** of **a different** animal, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 70a:15
[Chullin 70a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:15)

כְּרָכַתּוּ וַאֲחָזַתּוּ וְהוֹצִיאַתּוּ, מַהוּ? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּנְפַק דֶּרֶךְ רֵישֵׁיהּ – פְּטַרְתֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא דִּנְפַק דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Another dilemma: If one **wrapped it** in one’s hands **and held it and brought it out** in that fashion, such that the fetus did not come in direct contact with the opening of the womb, **what is** the *halakha*? With regard to all these dilemmas the Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** the fetus **had** already partially **emerged headfirst** and then one wrapped up the body, which was still inside the womb, the *halakha* in such a case is clear: Since its head emerged, it is already considered to have been born and to have **opened up** the womb, and it is duly consecrated. **Rather,** the dilemma is in a case **where it** partially **emerged hind legs first,** and the majority of the body, which was still in the womb, was wrapped before it emerged.


###### Chullin 70a:16
[Chullin 70a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:16)

בְּלָעַתְהוּ חוּלְדָּה וְהוֹצִיאַתּוּ, מַהוּ? הוֹצִיאַתּוּ? הָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא, בְּלָעַתּוּ וְהוֹצִיאַתּוּ, וְהִכְנִיסַתּוּ וֶהֱקִיאַתּוּ, וְיָצָא מֵאֵלָיו, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava raises additional dilemmas: If **a weasel** entered the womb and **swallowed** the fetus there, **and** then exited the womb, **bringing** the fetus **out** in its stomach, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara interjects: Is there any doubt about a case where the weasel **brought** the fetus **out** in its stomach? In such a case it is the weasel that **brought it out,** and it is certainly not regarded as though the fetus opened the womb. **Rather,** the dilemma concerns a case where the weasel **swallowed** the fetus **and brought it out, and** then **brought it** back **into** the womb **and vomited it** out while inside the womb, **and** the fetus subsequently **emerged of its own accord. What is** the *halakha* in this case?


###### Chullin 70a:17
[Chullin 70a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:17)

הִדְבִּיק שְׁנֵי רְחָמִים, וְיָצָא מִזֶּה וְנִכְנַס לָזֶה, מַהוּ? דִּידֵיהּ פָּטַר, דְּלָאו דִּידֵיהּ לָא פָּטַר, אוֹ דִלְמָא דְּלָאו דִּידֵיהּ נָמֵי פָּטַר? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Another dilemma: If **one pressed together** the openings of **two wombs** of two animals giving birth to firstborns, **and** a fetus **exited from** the womb of **this** animal **and entered** the womb of **that** animal, and then emerged from the womb of the second animal, after which the second animal gave birth to its fetus, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to whether the fetus of the second animal is consecrated as a firstborn? Is the womb considered to have **opened** only when **its own** fetus emerges from inside, but a fetus **that is not its own** is **not** halakhically considered to have **opened** the womb? **Or perhaps** even a fetus **that is not its own** is **also** considered to have **opened** the womb? The Gemara does not provide a resolution for these dilemmas and concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 70a:18
[Chullin 70a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:18)

בָּעֵי רַב אַחָא: נִפְתְּחוּ כּוֹתְלֵי בֵּית הָרֶחֶם, מַהוּ? אֲוִיר רֶחֶם מַקְדִּישׁ, וְהָאִיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא נְגִיעַת רֶחֶם מְקַדְּשָׁה, וְהָא לֵיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa raises a dilemma:** If **the walls of the** opening of the **womb opened** and widened to such an extent that when the fetus emerged it did not touch them, **what is** the *halakha*? Does the **airspace** of the opening of the **womb consecrate** the fetus as it is born, **and** this situation **exists** here in this case; **or perhaps** it is the **contact with** the opening of the **womb** that **consecrates it, and** this situation **does not exist** here in this case?


###### Chullin 70a:19
[Chullin 70a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:19)

בָּעֵי מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: נֶעְקְרוּ כּוֹתְלֵי בֵּית הָרֶחֶם, מַהוּ? נֶעְקְרוּ – לֵיתַנְהוּ! אֶלָּא נֶעְקְרוּ וְתָלוּ לֵיהּ בְּצַוְּארֵיהּ, מַאי? בִּמְקוֹמָן מְקַדְּשִׁי, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן לֹא מְקַדְּשִׁי, אוֹ דִלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן נָמֵי מְקַדְּשִׁי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** If **the walls of the** opening of the **womb were removed, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara interjects: The *halakha* in this case is clear, since if **they were removed they are not** there to consecrate the fetus. **Rather,** the dilemma is in a case where **they were removed** from their original place, recessed inside the womb, **and** as the fetus emerged, the walls **lay on its neck.** In such a case, **what is** the *halakha*? Do the walls of the opening of the womb **consecrate** a fetus only **when they are in their** natural **place,** but **when they are not in their** natural **place they cannot consecrate** a fetus? **Or perhaps when they are not in their** natural **place they also consecrate** the fetus.


###### Chullin 70a:20
[Chullin 70a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:20)

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: נִגְמְמוּ כּוֹתְלֵי בֵּית הָרֶחֶם, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא נָגְעַתְּ בְּבַעְיָא דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי אַסִּי: עוֹמֵד מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַפָּרוּץ וְיָצָא דֶּרֶךְ פָּרוּץ, פָּרוּץ מְרוּבֶּה עַל הָעוֹמֵד וְיָצָא דֶּרֶךְ עוֹמֵד, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira:** If **the walls of the opening of the womb were thinned [*nigmemu*]** by removing the inner layer, **what is** the *halakha*? If the fetus then emerges through them is it consecrated? Rabbi Zeira **said to him: You have touched upon a dilemma that was** already **raised before us,** and that discussion provides the answer to your dilemma. **As Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma, and some say Rabbi Zeira raised** that **dilemma before Rabbi Asi:** If a section of the opening of the womb was cut away, but the **standing** section, i.e., the part remaining, **is greater** in size **than the breached,** removed, section, **and** the offspring **emerged through the breached** section; or if the **breached** section **is greater** in size **than the standing** section **and** the offspring **emerged through** the **standing** section, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 70a:21
[Chullin 70a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/70a:21)

עַד כָּאן לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ אֶלָּא פָּרוּץ מְרוּבֶּה עַל הָעוֹמֵד, דְּאִיכָּא עוֹמֵד בְּעוֹלָם, אֲבָל נִגְמְמוּ – לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira explains how this dilemma can resolve Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma: That **dilemma was raised only with regard to** a case where the **breached** section **is greater than the standing** section, **as there is** at least some part of the womb still **standing** and therefore one can consider the possibility that it could consecrate the fetus. **But a dilemma was not raised with regard to** case where the walls **were thinned,** because in that case it is obvious that the fetus is not consecrated, as there is nothing left to consecrate it.