## Chullin Daf 75a

###### Chullin 75a:1
[Chullin 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:1)

בִּשְׁחִיטָה יַבִּישְׁתָּא, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish answers: The *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the **slaughter** of the mother was **dry,** i.e., where no blood was emitted, and therefore, even the mother was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. **And** the *baraita* is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that the flesh of a slaughtered animal is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by virtue of the fact that it is permitted for consumption, regardless of whether or not it came into contact with blood or other liquids.


###### Chullin 75a:2
[Chullin 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:2)

מַאן תַּנָּא עָבַר בְּנָהָר הוּכְשַׁר, הָלַךְ לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת נִטְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִים, וְצָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חַי, וְכׇל שֶׁהוּא חַי אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** this *baraita*: If a *ben pekua* grew up and **passed through a river, it was** thereby **rendered susceptible** to impurity, and therefore if it **went** from there **to a cemetery, it is rendered impure? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:** The flesh of a *ben pekua* **can become impure with the ritual impurity of food, but it** first **needs to be rendered susceptible** to ritual impurity by coming in contact with liquid. **But the Rabbis say: It cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food because it is alive, and any live** animal **cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food,** even if it is permitted for consumption.


###### Chullin 75a:3
[Chullin 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:3)

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** standard line of **reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Beit Shammai said the same thing,** i.e., they both hold that even a live animal can become impure with the ritual impurity of food.


###### Chullin 75a:4
[Chullin 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:4)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, דִּתְנַן: דָּגִים, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיִּצּוֹדוּ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיָּמוּתוּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לִחְיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** is **that which we stated** in the *baraita*. The opinion of **Beit Shammai** is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Okatzin* 3:8): With regard to **fish, from when are they susceptible to impurity** as food? **Beit Shammai say: From when they are caught** in a trap, as at this point they are considered food, since they do not require slaughter. **And Beit Hillel say: From when they die. Rabbi Akiva says: From when they are no** longer **able to live.**


###### Chullin 75a:5
[Chullin 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:5)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דָּג מְקַרְטֵעַ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes that mishna: **What** is the difference **between** the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Beit Hillel? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The difference **between them** is the case of **a convulsing fish.** Rabbi Akiva holds that such a fish can already become ritually impure, while Beit Hillel require it to have actually died.


###### Chullin 75a:6
[Chullin 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:6)

בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: נוֹלְדוּ בְּדָגִים סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה, מַהוּ? תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, וְתִיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma:** According to Rabbi Akiva, if **symptoms of a *tereifa* developed in a fish,** e.g., a perforation in the intestines, which will certainly result in the animal’s death (see 42a), **what is** the *halakha*? Can it already be rendered ritually impure as if it were now dead? The Gemara clarifies: One can **raise this dilemma according to the one who says** that an animal that is **a *tereifa*** can **live,** i.e., it will not necessarily die within a year, **and** one can **raise this dilemma according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa* cannot live,** but will die within a year.


###### Chullin 75a:7
[Chullin 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:7)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, בְּהֵמָה הוּא דִּנְפִישָׁא חַיּוּתַהּ, אֲבָל דָּגִים דְּלָא נְפִישָׁא חַיּוּתַיְיהוּ – לָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּהֵמָה דְּיֵשׁ בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל דָּגִים דְּאֵין בְּמִינָן שְׁחִיטָה – אֵימָא לָא. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: One can **raise this dilemma according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa*** can **live,** as perhaps that opinion is limited to **an animal, as** an animal has **a strong life force,** and it could live despite such symptoms. **But** with regard to **a fish, whose life force is not strong,** all would agree that it will **not** survive. **Or perhaps, even according to the one who says** that **a *tereifa* cannot live,** it is possible that **this matter,** that a *tereifa* is regarded as dead, applies only to **an animal, as** the requirement to **slaughter** it in order to permit it for consumption **applies to this type** of creature, i.e., to animals, and so to invalidate its slaughter, the Torah classifies an animal that is a *tereifa* as though it is dead. But with regard to **fish, where** the requirement to **slaughter** it in order to permit it **does not apply to this type** of creature, **I would say** that a fish with symptoms of a *tereifa* is **not** considered as though it were dead. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 75a:8
[Chullin 75a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:8)

הֵטִילָה נֵפֶל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Rabbis state in the mishna that a nine-month-old fetus is considered to be part of its mother. Therefore, when the mother is slaughtered, the entire fetus is permitted, including all its fats. The Gemara asks: If an animal **expelled a non-viable newborn,** what is the status of the fetus’s fat? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat** of any other **domesticated animal,** and one is liable to receive *karet* if he eats it. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal,** which is not prohibited.


###### Chullin 75a:9
[Chullin 75a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:9)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה – אַוֵּירָא גָּרֵים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה – חֳדָשִׁים גָּרְמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of** any other **domesticated animal,** as he maintains that the exit of a fetus through **the airspace** of the opening of the womb **causes** it to be regarded as an independent animal. **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal,** as he maintains that the completion of the **months** of gestation **causes** a fetus to be regarded as an independent animal, and this stillborn did not reach this stage.


###### Chullin 75a:10
[Chullin 75a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:10)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֹא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה, וְתָלַשׁ חֵלֶב שֶׁל בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי וְאָכַל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה, חֳדָשִׁים גָּרְמִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: חֶלְבּוֹ כְּחֵלֶב חַיָּה, חֳדָשִׁים וְאַוֵּירָא גָּרְמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that there is another explanation of this dispute: In **any case where its months** of gestation **were not completed,** everyone agrees that **it is nothing,** i.e., it is not an independent animal and its fat is not included in the prohibition of forbidden fats. **When they disagree** it is with regard to a case **where** one **inserted his hand into the womb of an animal and removed the fat of a live nine-**month**-old** fetus **and ate** it. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Its fat is like the fat of** any other **domesticated animal,** as the **months** of gestation alone **cause** it to be regarded as an independent animal. **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Its fat is like the fat of an undomesticated animal,** as it is the **months** of gestation **and** its exit through the **airspace** of the opening of the womb that together **cause** it to be regarded as an independent animal. Since this fetus was not yet born, it is not subject to the prohibition of forbidden fats.


###### Chullin 75a:11
[Chullin 75a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:11)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מָה חֵלֶב וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּאָשָׁם – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל, אַף כֹּל – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** from a *baraita* that discusses the sacrifice of the fat surrounding a fetus inside a pregnant animal: **Just** as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice **the fat and two kidneys** (see Leviticus 7:3–4), **which is stated with regard to a guilt offering,** the fat of **a fetus is excluded from the category** of fats that one is required to sacrifice because a guilt offering is always a male, **so too,** with regard to **every** offering, even in the case of a female offering, the fat of **a fetus is excluded from the category** of fats that one is required to sacrifice.


###### Chullin 75a:12
[Chullin 75a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:12)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains his objection: **Granted, according to my** opinion that the fat of a fetus is forbidden for consumption, **this is why a verse was necessary to exclude** it from being sacrificed on the altar. **But according to your** opinion that it is not forbidden, **why is** a verse **necessary** to exclude it? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish **said to him: My explanation is also** derived **from** the verse **here,** which serves as the source for the fact that the fat of a fetus is not forbidden.


###### Chullin 75a:13
[Chullin 75a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:13)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָה חֵלֶב וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּאָשָׁם מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל, אַף כֹּל – מוּצָא מִכְּלַל שְׁלִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** that there is another version of this objection in which **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised** an **objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan** from that *baraita*: **Just** as with regard to the requirement to sacrifice **“the fat and two kidneys” that is stated with regard to a guilt offering,** the fat of **a fetus is excluded from the category** of fats that one is required to sacrifice, **so too,** with regard to **every** offering, the fat of **a fetus is excluded from the category** of fats that one is required to sacrifice.


###### Chullin 75a:14
[Chullin 75a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מַיעֲטֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ – לִיקְרַב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמְּחוּסַּר זְמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains the objection: **Granted, according to my** opinion that the fat of the fetus is not prohibited like the other fats, it is **due to that** reason that **the Merciful One excludes it** from the requirement of being sacrificed. **But according to your** opinion, that the fat of the fetus is considered one of the forbidden fats, **let it** also **be sacrificed.** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him:** The reason that this fat is not sacrificed is **just as it is** with regard to an offering **whose time has not yet** arrived, i.e., it is not yet seven days old, which may not be sacrificed (see Leviticus 22:27) despite being of a species of animal that may be sacrificed. Similarly, with regard to the fat of the fetus, despite being included among those fats that are prohibited, it may not be sacrificed.


###### Chullin 75a:15
[Chullin 75a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר – מַתִּיר, לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר – אוֹסֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute in the mishna with regard to a nine-month-old fetus found alive inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir holds that the fetus itself must be slaughtered in order to permit it, whereas the Rabbis hold that it is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother. **Rabbi Ami said:** With regard to **one who slaughtered a *tereifa* and found inside it a live nine-**month**-old** fetus: **According to the statement of** Rabbi Meir, **who prohibits** a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal until it is slaughtered itself, if it is found inside a *tereifa* **he permits** the fetus once it is slaughtered itself. But **according to the statement** of Rabbi Yehuda, referred to as the Rabbis in the mishna, **who permits** a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, if it is found inside a *tereifa* **he prohibits** it, even if it is slaughtered itself.


###### Chullin 75a:16
[Chullin 75a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:16)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר נָמֵי מוּתָּר, אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין אַכְשַׁר בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: According to the statement of** Rabbi Yehuda, **who permits** a nine-month-old fetus found inside a kosher animal by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, he **also permits** it if it is found inside a *tereifa*, once the fetus itself is slaughtered. The reason is that **the Merciful One considers four *simanim* to be fit** for slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and gullet of the mother and those of the fetus, with the fetus being permitted by the cutting of either pair.


###### Chullin 75a:17
[Chullin 75a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/75a:17)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַטְּרֵפָה, וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said:** With regard to **one who slaughtered a *tereifa* and found inside it a live nine-**month**-old** fetus,