## Chullin Daf 77b

###### Chullin 77b:1
[Chullin 77b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:1)

אִי לְטוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת – תְּנֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
and **if** you say it was **with regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses, we** already **learn** that *halakha* as well in another *baraita*.


###### Chullin 77b:2
[Chullin 77b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:2)

טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹר וְהַשִּׁלְיָא – אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, עוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ, וְהַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the **ritual impurity of food,** it is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The hide and the placenta** of an animal, which people do not typically eat, **cannot become impure** with the **ritual impurity of foods.** But **a hide that one cooked** until it became edible **and a placenta that one intended** to eat **can become impure** with the **impurity of foods.**


###### Chullin 77b:3
[Chullin 77b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:3)

טוּמְאַת נְבֵילוֹת נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״בְּנִבְלָתָהּ״ – וְלֹא בָּעוֹר, וְלֹא בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו, וְלֹא בַּגִּידִין, וְלֹא בַּקַּרְנַיִם, וְלֹא בַּטְּלָפַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **the ritual impurity of animal carcasses also, we** already **learn** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches **its carcass** shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The verse indicates that one is rendered impure if he touches its carcass, **but not** if he touches its **hide, and not its bones, and not** its **sinews, and not** its **horns, and not** its **hooves.**


###### Chullin 77b:4
[Chullin 77b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:4)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן צִיקֵי קְדֵרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba bar Rav Ḥana said** with regard to this *baraita*: This derivation **is necessary only** for a case in **which one prepared** these parts of the animal as a meat **pudding [*tzikei kedera*],** in which they are cooked for an extended period and spices are added. One might have thought they would be considered edible flesh and therefore impart the impurity of a carcass. The *baraita* therefore teaches that this is not so.


###### Chullin 77b:5
[Chullin 77b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:5)

לְעוֹלָם טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְשָׁאנֵי עוֹר חֲמוֹר דִּמְאִיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Given these two *baraitot*, why did Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa inquire about the status of the cooked hide of a donkey? The Gemara answers: **Actually,** Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was inquiring about **the impurity of foods, and** although the *halakha* was already taught in the first *baraita*, Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa thought it is possible that **the hide of a donkey is different, as it is repulsive** and perhaps even when cooked it is not regarded as food.


###### Chullin 77b:6
[Chullin 77b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:6)

שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ וָלָד, אֲבָל יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ וָלָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין אֵין עִמָּהּ וָלָד בֵּין יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ וָלָד – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: With regard to **a placenta,** part of **which emerged** from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited, as there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta. Commenting on this mishna, **Rabbi Elazar says:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where there was no fetus** found **in** the mother’s womb. **But if there was a fetus** with its head and the majority of its body **in** the womb, **one** need **not be concerned for** the existence of **another fetus** that might have been in the placenta. Therefore, the consumption of the placenta is permitted. **But Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether there was no fetus** found **in** the womb, or **whether there was a fetus, one** needs to **be concerned for** the existence of **another fetus** in the placenta, and therefore its consumption is prohibited.


###### Chullin 77b:7
[Chullin 77b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:7)

אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְחוּמְרָא אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to the way the Gemara records the dispute, Rabbi Yoḥanan rules stringently and Rabbi Elazar rules leniently. The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say** concerning this dispute: **Rabbi Elazar said** an explanation of the mishna that presents **a stringency?**


###### Chullin 77b:8
[Chullin 77b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:8)

אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד, אֲבָל קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Elazar says:** The ruling of the mishna is that the placenta is prohibited even if a fetus is found inside the womb. But the Sages **taught** this **only** in a case **where** the placenta **is not attached to** the **fetus** found inside. Consequently, one must be concerned with the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus that already left the womb, and it is therefore prohibited. **But if it is attached to** the **fetus** found inside, **there is no concern for** the possibility that the placenta came from **another fetus,** and therefore it is permitted.


###### Chullin 77b:9
[Chullin 77b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:9)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד, אֲבָל יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ וָלָד, בֵּין קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד בֵּין אֵין קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְחוּמְרָא אַמְרַהּ ר׳ אֶלְעָזָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In my understanding of the mishna, **we have** the ruling that the placenta is prohibited **only** in a case where there is **a placenta without** any **fetus** being found. **But if a fetus was** found **with it,** then **whether it is attached to the fetus** or **whether it is not attached to the fetus, there is no concern for** the existence of **another fetus.** The Gemara confirms: **And this** understanding of the two opinions **is** in line with that which **Rabbi Yirmeya says: Rabbi Elazar said** an explanation of the mishna that presents **a stringency.**


###### Chullin 77b:10
[Chullin 77b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:10)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, וְשִׁלְיָא עִמָּהֶן, בִּזְמַן שֶׁקְּשׁוּרָה בָּהֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, אֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה בָּהֶן – הֲרֵינִי מֵטִיל עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶר שְׁנֵי וְלָדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar:** The periods of purity and impurity observed by a woman after giving birth apply only after delivering a fetus with a human form. With regard to a woman **who expels** a fetus that has the form of **a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and** there is **a placenta with them,** the *halakha* is as follows: **When** the placenta is **attached to them, there is no concern for** the existence of **another fetus** that may have had a human form. But if the placenta is **not attached to them,** it is possible there was another fetus that had a human form and so **I** must **impose upon** the woman **the severity of two** types of **births,** i.e., both the longer period of impurity observed after delivering a female, and the shorter period of purity observed after delivering a male.


###### Chullin 77b:11
[Chullin 77b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:11)

שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמַר: שֶׁמָּא נִימּוֹחַ שָׁפִיר שֶׁל שִׁלְיָא, שֶׁמָּא נִימּוֹחָה שִׁלְיָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁפִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason is **that I** can **say:** Perhaps the placenta that was found did not come from the fetus that was found, but from a fetus with a human form. To say this one must be concerned with the possibility that **perhaps** the **fetus of** the **placenta** that was found had a human form, and that fetus **dissolved,** and **perhaps** the **placenta of** the **fetus** that was found **dissolved.**


###### Chullin 77b:12
[Chullin 77b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:12)

הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: רוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת דָּבָר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, וּמִיעוּט בְּהֵמוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? נִדְמֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: If **an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled** a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this ruling? **Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: The majority of domesticated animals give birth to something that** can be **consecrated** with **firstborn status,** i.e., an animal with the same form as its mother, **but a minority of animals** give birth to **something that cannot** be consecrated with **firstborn status, and what is this?** It is an animal that **resembles** a species other than that of its mother.


###### Chullin 77b:13
[Chullin 77b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:13)

וְכׇל הַיּוֹלְדוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת מֶחֱצָה זְכָרִים וּמֶחֱצָה נְקֵבוֹת, סְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּנִדְמֶה לְמֶחֱצָה דִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְהָווּ לְהוּ זְכָרִים מִיעוּטָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, with regard to **all gestating** animals, when they **give birth, half** of their offspring are **male and half** are **female.** Therefore, one can **combine the minority** of animals that **resemble** another species **with the half** that are **females, and** arrive at the conclusion that **male** offspring that resemble their species, which are the only offspring that can be consecrated with firstborn status, **are the minority.** Accordingly, one does not need to be concerned that the placenta found was from an animal consecrated with the status of a firstborn.


###### Chullin 77b:14
[Chullin 77b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:14)

וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין תִּקָּבֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? רוּבָּא בַּר מִיקְדָּשׁ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The continuation of the mishna states: **But in** the case of **sacrificial** animals the placenta **must be buried,** because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** to assume this? The Gemara answers: It is because the **majority** of the offspring of sacrificial animals **are fit to be sacred,** as, in contrast to firstborn status, both female and male offspring of sacrificial animals can be sacred. Therefore, one must be concerned that the offspring, and its placenta, were sacred.


###### Chullin 77b:15
[Chullin 77b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:15)

וְאֵין קוֹבְרִים אוֹתָהּ. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְפוּאָה – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי, אֵין בּוֹ רְפוּאָה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna adds: **But one may neither bury it** at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. The Gemara cites **Abaye and Rava, who both said: Anything that has** an apparently effective **medicinal** purpose or any other logical reason behind it **is not subject to** the prohibition against following **the ways of the Amorite.** But if **it does not have** an apparently effective **medicinal** purpose **it is subject to** the prohibition against following **the ways of the Amorite.**


###### Chullin 77b:16
[Chullin 77b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77b:16)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אִילָן שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר פֵּירוֹתָיו, סוֹקְרוֹ בְּסִיקְרָא וְטוֹעֲנוֹ בַּאֲבָנִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא טוֹעֲנוֹ בַּאֲבָנִים – כִּי הֵיכִי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If there is **a tree that sheds its fruit** prematurely, **one may paint it with red paint and load it with stones,** even though this is the practice of the Amorites? The Gemara explains the difficulty: **Granted,** it is permitted **to load it with stones,** as one does so for a logical reason, **in order**