Color Code: Case: Black; Ruling: Green or Red; Name of Tanna: Gold; Reason: Blue; Condition: Purple; Proof: Grey ; Rule: Fuscia
Chapter 4
The fourth Perek of Messeches Chullin focuses on the status of an unborn fetus and its relationship to its mother. Does it have an existence separate from its mother or is it considered simply an extension of, and part of, the mother itself? This has implications for a variety of Halachos, including whether the Schechitah of the mother works to similarly permit eating the unborn fetus. The Mishnah addresses variations of this theme as well as implications for the rule of the Bechor and Tumah and Taharah.
Mishnah 4:1
The first two Mishnayos describe situations where an animal is having trouble birthing. Our Mishna focuses on two potential scenarios. First, where a portion of the fetus emerges (i.e., a hand or head) only to retract itself back into the mother, the question is whether the fetus retains its status as a potential Ben Pekuah.*
Second, if because of the complications, and to allow time to properly Schecht the mother, they cut up the fetus in utero and leave the pieces inside, the severed limbs will be permitted once the mother is Schechted. However, if they were to cut an internal organ of the mother and leave it inside, that organ will remain prohibited even after Schechita.
*We are not concerned with the prohibition of Aiver min HaChai.
בְּהֵמָה הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד,
וְהוֹצִיא הָעֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ, מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
הוֹצִיא אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֱחֱזִירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה כְיָלוּד.
חוֹתֵךְ מֵעֻבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ, מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת, אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוּפָהּ, מֻתָּר:
(1) If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted.
Mishnah 4:2
Under normal circumstances, the first born animal must be given to a Kohein. Importantly, the Kedusha of a Bechor only comes into existence once most of the animal emerges. Prior to that point, the fetus has not inherent Kedusha and, therefore, our Mishnah teaches, it may be cut into pieces and its limbs thrown to the dogs. Once a majority has emerged, it has the status of a Bechor and if he severs limbs, they must be buried. The animal born after afterwards will no longer be considered a Bechor.
הַמְבַכֶּרֶת הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד,
מְחַתֵּךְ אֵבָר אֵבָר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לַכְּלָבִים.
יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר,
וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה:
(2) If an animal giving birth for the first time was having difficulty, one may cut off each limb [as it comes out] and throw it to the dogs. If the greater portion came forth it must be buried, and she is exempt from the law of the firstling.
Mishnah 4:3
It is common for a person to assist the mother (whether person or animal) during childbirth. This is especially so when there is a stillborn and assistance is required to expel the fetus. Our Mishnah discusses the purity status of the assisting person and whether, by virtue of touching the fetus while it remains in the mother, he/she becomes Tamei.
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּת עֻבָּרָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְהוֹשִׁיט הָרוֹעֶה אֶת יָדוֹ וְנָגַע בּוֹ,
בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בִּטְמֵאָה, טָמֵא, וּבִטְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר.
הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּת וְלָדָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וּפָשְׁטָה חַיָּה אֶת יָדָהּ וְנָגְעָה בוֹ,
הַחַיָּה טְמֵאָה טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה,
וְהָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד:
(3) If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.
Mishnah 4 4
Our Mishnah continues the discussion of the status of a limb of a fetus that is either cut off prior to, or protrudes out from its mother at the time of, Shechita. A separated limb has the status of אבר מן החי and is Tamei like a Niveila. A protruding limb, called an אבר היוצא,, is likewise prohibited from being eaten. The focus of our Mishnah is whether such a limb, when severed after the mother's Shechita, has the status of אבר מן החי and, thereby, by virtue of its Tumah, have the capacity to make the fetus Tamei as well. From its silence, it seems that the Mishna is indifferent whether the fetus, itself, is actually living or dead.
Unique in the Mishnah is that after setting out the basis for the dispute between Rabi Meir and the Chachomim, itself not a common feature of the Mishna, the Mishna then questions the underlying premise supporting both Rabi Meir and the Chachomim--namely, why is it, in fact, the case, that the Shechita of an animal that is a Treifa releases it from the status of a NiVeila.
To assist in following the conversation, I have highlighted the back in forth. The premises are in purple and the conclusions are in either red or green.
בְּהֵמָה הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, וְהוֹצִיא עֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וַחֲתָכָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ, הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר.
שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכָהּ, הַבָּשָׂר מַגַּע נְבֵלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַגַּע טְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה.
מַה מָּצִינוּ בַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבָר.
אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא, אִם טִהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ, דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבָר, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוּפָהּ?
מִנַּיִן לַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ?
בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה, אַף טְרֵפָה אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה.
מַה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף טְרֵפָה לֹא תְטַהֲרֶנָּה שְׁחִיטָתָהּ.
לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכֹּשֶׁר, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכֹּשֶׁר.
טֹל לְךָ מַה שֶּׁהֵבֵאתָ, הֲרֵי שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה טְרֵפָה מִן הַבֶּטֶן מִנַּיִן.
לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵין בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה.
בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה חַי, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ שְׁחִיטָה:
(4) If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, For just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.
Introduction to 4:5
The Pasuk in Devarim (14:6) states:
כָל־בְּהֵמָ֞ה מַפְרֶ֣סֶת פַּרְסָ֗ה וְשֹׁסַ֤עַת שֶׁ֙סַע֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י פְרָס֔וֹת מַעֲלַ֥ת גֵּרָ֖ה בַּבְּהֵמָ֑ה אֹתָ֖הּ תֹּאכֵֽלוּ׃
From this, the Chachomim derive that, assuming an animal is properly Schechted, if it is a female and has a fetus growing inside, the fetus is permitted to be eaten without having to perform a separate Schechita. This is called a Ben Pekuah. The Mishnah differentiates between a full term and partial term fetus. The later, whether found alive or stillborn, is considered to be part of the mother and, therefore, is permitted based on the mother's Schechita. Regarding a full-term, live fetus, the Mishnah describes a three-way Machlokes whether the animal requires its own Schechita.
If the mother is turns out to be a Treifa or Niveila, since it did not have a proper Schechita, a pre-term fetus is prohibited (i.e., it is deemed a part of the mother). However, a live, full-term animal can be separately Schechted and consumed.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה
וּמָצָא בָהּ בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה חַי אוֹ מֵת, אוֹ בֶן תִּשְׁעָה מֵת, קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ.
מָצָא בֶן תִּשְׁעָה חַי,
טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּב בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ בֶן שְׁמֹנֶה שָׁנִים וְחוֹרֵשׁ בַּשָּׂדֶה, שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
קְרָעָהּ וּמָצָא בָהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ:
(5) If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eights years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.
Mishnah 4:6
Our Mishnah discusses whether a proper Shechita will act to permit a broken limb of an animal. Because the discussion focuses on the leg, the Mishna includes some additional rules regarding Treifos arising from the leg.
בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה, כְּשֵׁרָה.
מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה, פְּסוּלָה.
וְכֵן שֶׁנִּטַּל צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין.
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּם, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
וְאִם לָאו, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ:
(6) If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the joint, it is permitted; If above the joint, it is terefah. So too if the juncture of the tendons was gone, [it is terefah]. If the bone was broken but the greater part of the flesh [around the fracture] remained, it is rendered clean by the slaughtering; Otherwise it is not rendered clean by the slaughtering.
Mishnah 4:7
The final Mishnah of the Perek focuses on the amniotic sac. Not quite a limb, it nevertheless, is separate from the animal itself and therefore the Mishna discusses whether it is permissible to eat, can it contract Tumah, is it a source of Tumah, and what happens if a portion of it emerges from the mother prior to Shechita.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ שִׁלְיָא,
נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּפָה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה,
וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין וְלֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
חִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ,
מְטַמְּאָה טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין אֲבָל לֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ,
אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה.
סִימַן וָלָד בָּאִשָּׁה,
וְסִימַן וָלָד בַּבְּהֵמָה.
הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא,
יַשְׁלִיכֶנָּה לִכְלָבִים.
וּבַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, תִּקָּבֵר.
וְאֵין קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּאִילָן, מִפְנֵי דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי:
(7) If a person slaughtered an animal and found in it an amniotic sac, he who is not fastidious may eat it. It does not contract uncleanness, either food uncleanness or the uncleanness of nevelah. If he intended to eat it, it can contract food uncleanness but not the uncleanness of nevelah. If part of the amniotic sac emerged [before the slaughtering of the mother], it may not be eaten; For it is a sign of birth in a woman and also a sign of birth in an animal. If an animal which was pregnant for the first time miscarried an amniotic sac, it may be thrown to dogs. But in the case of a consecrated animal it must be buried. It may not be buried at cross-roads or hung on a tree, for these are amorite practices.