## Chullin Daf 74a

###### Chullin 74a:1
[Chullin 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:1)

אֵין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מִצְוַת פְּרוֹשׁ בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In fact, such limbs and flesh are not prohibited by Torah law, as the slaughter does not render them as though they had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and the verse cited in the *baraita* is not a true derivation but a mere support. Accordingly, **with regard to them, there is nothing other than** a rabbinic **mitzva to separate** oneself from consuming them.


###### Chullin 74a:2
[Chullin 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:2)

יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֲכָלוֹ לָזֶה – לוֹקֶה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְרַב: אֲכָלוֹ לָזֶה – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** If **one ate this** hanging limb he is **flogged** for violating the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. **One of the Sages said to him: Do not listen to his** statement in the name of Rav, as **this** is what **Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav:** If **one ate this** hanging limb **he is not flogged.**


###### Chullin 74a:3
[Chullin 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא: אֲנַן אַמַּאן נִסְמוֹךְ? אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? כִּי אֲמַרִי אֲנָא – בְּמִיתָה, דְּעוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל; כִּי אֲמַר אִיהוּ – בִּשְׁחִיטָה, דְּאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said to** Rav Yosef: **Upon whose** version of Rav’s ruling **shall we rely? Rav Yosef turned his face away** in anger **and said to him: What is the difficulty? When I said** in Rav’s name that one is flogged for eating a limb that had been hanging from an animal when it died, I was **referring to** a case of **death** by means other than slaughter, **which renders** the limb as though it had already **fallen** off prior to the animal’s death. **When** Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta **said** in the name of Rav that one is not flogged, he was **referring to** the case of **a slaughter, which does not render** the limb as though it had already **fallen off** prior to the slaughter and therefore serves to render the limb permitted for consumption.


###### Chullin 74a:4
[Chullin 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא הָא מִלְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל, שְׁחִיטָה אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל עָלָיו מֵהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא״, לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּחַיֵּיהֶם – מִ״נִּבְלָתָם״ נָפְקָא, אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל, וְאֵין שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said: From where is this matter that the Sages stated** derived: The **death** of an animal by means other than slaughter **renders** a hanging limb as though it had already **fallen off** prior to the slaughter, whereas the **slaughter** of the animal **does not render** a limb as though it had already **fallen off? As it is written** with regard to the eight species of impure creeping animals: **“And anything that these fall upon, when they are dead, it shall be impure”** (Leviticus 11:32). **What** does the term “when they are dead” serve **to exclude? If we say** it serves **to exclude** the time **when they are alive,** that principle is **derived from:** “And everything upon which any part **of their carcass** falls shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:35), which explicitly states that only their carcasses impart impurity. **Rather, learn from** the verse that **death renders** a hanging limb as though it had already **fallen off,** and **slaughter does not render** a hanging limb as though it had already **fallen off.**


###### Chullin 74a:5
[Chullin 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: וְהָא קְרָא בִּשְׁרָצִים כְּתִיב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִשְׁרָצִים, דְּלָאו בְּנֵי שְׁחִיטָה נִינְהוּ – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: But** this **verse is written with regard to creeping animals,** which do not require slaughter. How then can a *halakha* with regard to slaughter be derived from here? Rava **said to him: If,** because it is superfluous, this verse **is not** referring to the **matter of creeping animals, which are not subject to the** requirement of **slaughter, apply it** to the **matter of an animal,** which is subject to slaughter.


###### Chullin 74a:6
[Chullin 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:6)

וְאַכַּתִּי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, כְּעֵין מִיתָה: לַחִין – מְטַמְּאִים, יְבֵשִׁים – אֵין מְטַמְּאִים! תְּרֵי ״בְּמֹתָם״ כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** the phrase “when they are dead, it shall be impure” **is still necessary** to teach a different *halakha*, i.e., that they impart impurity only when they are still in a state **similar to** their state at the time of their **death,** i.e., if they **are moist they impart impurity,** whereas if they **are dry they do not impart impurity.** The Gemara explains that **“when they are dead” is written twice,** once in the verse cited, and once in the previous verse, which states: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:31).


###### Chullin 74a:7
[Chullin 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:7)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּאֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר חַי, אֲבָל בְּאֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר מֵת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל. וְרַבָּה אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזֶה כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute in the mishna (72a) with regard to a fetus that extended its foreleg and then its mother was slaughtered. Rabbi Meir holds that the foreleg is regarded as a carcass with the associated impurity, while the Rabbis hold that although it is not permitted for consumption, the slaughter prevents it from having the impurity of a carcass. With regard to this dispute, **Rav Ḥisda said:** The **dispute concerns** only **the limb of a fetus that was alive** when the mother was slaughtered; **but concerning** the case of **the limb of a fetus that was dead** when the mother was slaughtered, **everyone agrees** that **slaughter renders** the fetus’s limb as though it had already **fallen off** prior to the slaughter, and it imparts impurity as a limb from a living animal. **But Rabba said:** Just **as** there is **a dispute** between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **concerning this** case, where the fetus was alive, **so** too, there is **a dispute** between them **concerning that** case, where the fetus had died.


###### Chullin 74a:8
[Chullin 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:8)

בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה חַי. וְהָתַנְיָא: בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה חַי יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינוֹ שְׁחִיטָה – אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that **an eight-**month**-old** fetus that was born **alive** is not rendered ritually pure by slaughtering it. The reason given is that the concept of permitting an animal through slaughter is never stated with regard to that kind of animal. The Gemara challenges: But **isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* in a discussion about whether slaughter renders a *tereifa* pure from the impurity of a carcass: **An eight-**month**-old** fetus that was born **alive will prove** the point, **as even though there are** other animals **of that kind** that are permitted through **slaughter, its slaughter does not render it pure** from having the impurity of a carcass. This refutes the claim that the issue of slaughter rendering an animal pure from having the impurity of a carcass is a function of whether or not the concept of slaughter applies to that kind of animal.


###### Chullin 74a:9
[Chullin 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:9)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: יֵשׁ בְּמִינוֹ שְׁחִיטָה אַגַּב אִמּוֹ, וְתַנָּא דִּידַן מִינָא דְּאִמֵּיהּ לָא פָּרֵיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said:** The *tanna* of the *baraita* holds that even with regard to an eight-month-old fetus it can be said that **there are** animals **of that kind** that are permitted through **slaughter,** i.e., when they are still inside the womb and the mother is slaughtered; such an animal is permitted **by virtue of** the slaughter of **its mother.** Therefore, he cites the case of an eight-month-old fetus as a refutation. **But the *tanna* of our** mishna holds that the fact that this **kind** of animal is permitted by virtue of the slaughter **of its mother** does not define it as a kind of animal concerning which there is a concept of slaughter, and therefore he holds that this case **cannot be used as a refutation.**


###### Chullin 74a:10
[Chullin 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:10)

וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּפָרֵיךְ, טְרֵפָה דִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״, מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה וּמִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? זוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to that *tanna*** of the *baraita*, **who does use** it **as a refutation, from where does he** derive **that the slaughter of a *tereifa* renders it pure** from having the impurity of a carcass? The Gemara answers that he **derives it from that** which **Rav Yehuda** says that **Rav says, as Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says, and some say it was taught in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And if some domesticated animal,** of which you may eat, **dies,** one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The word “some” teaches that only **some** dead **animals impart impurity** as a carcass, **but some** dead **animals do not impart impurity** as a carcass. **And what is** it **that** does not impart impurity? **That is a *tereifa* that one slaughtered.**


###### Chullin 74a:11
[Chullin 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:11)

בָּעֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הוֹשִׁיט אֶת יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה, וְשָׁחַט בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, מַהוּ? תִּבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְתִבְּעֵי לְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Hoshaya raises a dilemma:** If one **inserted his hand inside the womb of an animal and slaughtered a nine-**month**-old** fetus that was **alive, what is** the *halakha*? Does the slaughter performed inside the mother render the fetus permitted? The Gemara notes: This dilemma **may be raised according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** and it **may be raised according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Chullin 74a:12
[Chullin 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:12)

תִּבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר בֶּן פְּקוּעָה טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּיָצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ – לָא שָׁרְיָא לֵיהּ שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: It **may be raised according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** It is possible that **Rabbi Meir states** in the mishna below that a nine-month-old ***ben pekua* requires slaughter,** and slaughter renders the animal permitted **only** in that case, because **that statement** may apply only in a case **where** the animal **emerged into the airspace of the world,** i.e., once it was born alive. **But** if it is still **inside its mother,** its **slaughter does not render it permitted.**


###### Chullin 74a:13
[Chullin 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:13)

אוֹ דִילְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין אַכְשַׁר בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps even the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Meir and maintain that a nine-month-old *ben pekua* is permitted by virtue of its mother’s slaughter, would concede that the slaughter of the fetus itself also permits it. Perhaps **with regard to** such an animal **the Merciful One considers four *simanim*,** i.e., the windpipe and the gullet of the mother and the windpipe and the gullet of the fetus, **to be fit** for slaughter, and the fetus is permitted by the cutting of either pair.


###### Chullin 74a:14
[Chullin 74a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:14)

אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְיָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה טְרֵפָה מִן הַבֶּטֶן, וְאִי אִיתָא, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי עַיֵּיל יְדֵיהּ וְשַׁחֲטַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥananya said: Come** and **hear** a resolution of this dilemma from the mishna (72b), as it considers an animal **that was born as a *tereifa* from the womb** as one that never had a period of potential fitness. **But if it is so,** that one can slaughter a fetus in its mother’s womb, **you find that** actually **it did have a period of** potential **fitness, as if one wants** to, **he can insert his hand** into the womb **and slaughter it** before it develops into a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 74a:15
[Chullin 74a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: תָּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹצְרָה טְרֵפָה מִן הַבֶּטֶן, וּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּבַעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Ḥananya: **Teach** that mishna as referring to a case **where** the fetus **was formed as a *tereifa*** from its outset **while inside the womb, and you find such** a case **where** a fetus **has five legs,** which certainly developed from the outset. Consequently, there was never a possibility of slaughtering it.


###### Chullin 74a:16
[Chullin 74a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה חַי אוֹ מֵת, אוֹ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה מֵת – קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who slaughtered an animal and found within it an eight-**month**-old** fetus, i.e., one that was not full term, whether it was **alive or dead, or a nine-**month**-old** fetus, i.e., one that was full term, that was **dead,** that fetus is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, as it is considered part of its mother. Therefore, its blood is considered part of its mother’s blood and is prohibited, so one must **tear** the fetus **and remove its blood** before it may be consumed.


###### Chullin 74a:17
[Chullin 74a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74a:17)

מָצָא בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי – טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּיב בְּ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he found** within it **a live nine-**month**-old** fetus, **it requires** its own **slaughter,** as it is considered an independent full-fledged animal, **and** if one slaughters both the mother and fetus on the same day, **one is liable for** violating the prohibition against slaughtering an animal **itself and its offspring** on the same day; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** Even when the fetus is nine months old, it is still considered part of its mother, and **the slaughter of its mother renders it permitted** for consumption.