Chullin 58aחולין נ״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 58a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
58aנ״ח א

שיחלא קמא אסירא מכאן ואילך הוה ליה זה וזה גורם ומותר

the first clutch [shiḥala] of eggs that were in its body at the time it was rendered a tereifa is prohibited for consumption, because these eggs are considered part of the bird and were therefore rendered tereifa along with it. But as for any egg fertilized from this point forward, it is a case where both this and that cause it, i.e., a tereifa female and a kosher male, and as a rule, when permitted and prohibited causes operate together, the joint result is permitted.

איתיביה רב אשי לאמימר ושוין בביצת טריפה שאסורה מפני שגדלה באיסור התם בדספנא מארעא

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And all agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, even eggs created after the bird was rendered a tereifa are prohibited. Ameimar said to him: There, the mishna is dealing with a bird that is heated by the earth, i.e., that was not fertilized by a male, and the female tereifa is therefore the sole source of the egg.

ולישני ליה בשיחלא קמא אם כן גדלה גמרה מיבעי ליה

The Gemara objects: And let Ameimar answer differently, that the mishna is dealing with the first clutch of eggs, which were part of the mother’s body when it became a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If this was so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.

אלא הא דתנן ולד טרפה ר' אליעזר אומר לא יקרב לגבי מזבח ור' יהושע אומר יקרב במאי קא מיפלגי בשנטרפה ולבסוף עיברה ר' אליעזר סבר זה וזה גורם אסור ורבי יהושע סבר זה וזה גורם מותר אי הכי אדמיפלגי לגבוה ליפלגו להדיוט

The Gemara objects: But if the offspring in the womb of an animal becomes a tereifa along with it, then that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal was rendered a tereifa and afterward became pregnant from a kosher male, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is permitted. But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them disagree concerning the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

להודיעך כחו דר' יהושע דאפילו לגבוה נמי שרי

The Gemara responds: The dispute addresses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High.

וליפלגו להדיוט להודיעך כחו דרבי אליעזר דאפילו להדיוט נמי אסור כח דהיתרא עדיף ליה

The Gemara challenges: But let them disagree concerning whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.

ומודים בביצת טרפה שאסורה בדספנא מארעא דחד גורם הוא

The Gemara concludes: Since Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree with regard to an offspring brought about by two causes, it follows that when the mishna states: And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, this is referring to a bird that is heated by the earth and was not fertilized by a male, so that there is only one cause, the tereifa mother bird.

רב אחא סבר לה כרב אחא בר יעקב ומתני לה לדאמימר כדאמרן

The Gemara notes: Rav Aḥa holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said at the end of the previous amud that a tereifa animal can be capable of giving birth, and similarly a tereifa bird can be capable of laying eggs as well, and he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar as we have said, that any egg fertilized after the bird became a tereifa is permitted.

רבינא לא סבר לה כדרב אחא בר יעקב ומתני לה לדאמימר בהאי לישנא אמר אמימר הני ביעי דספק טרפה דשיחלא קמא משהינן להו אי הדרה וטענה שריין ואי לא אסירן

But Ravina does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov. Rather, he holds that a tereifa cannot produce eggs or give birth. And he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar in this formulation: Ameimar said that with regard to these eggs of a bird concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is as follows: We leave aside the first clutch of eggs. If the bird produces eggs again, the first eggs are permitted for consumption, because the bird is certainly not a tereifa. And if not, they are prohibited, because they were considered part of the bird when it was rendered a tereifa.

איתיביה רב אשי לאמימר ומודים בביצת טרפה שאסורה מפני שגדלה באיסור אמר ליה התם בדשיחלא קמא אם כן גדלה גמרה מבעי ליה תני גמרה

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, a tereifa bird can produce eggs. Ameimar said to him: The mishna there deals with the first clutch of eggs, which existed before the bird became a tereifa. Rav Ashi asks: If so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition. Ameimar responded: Teach an emended version of the mishna: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.

אלא הא דתנן ולד טרפה ר' אליעזר אומר לא יקרב לגבי מזבח ר' יהושע אומר יקרב במאי קא מיפלגי כשעיברה ולבסוף נטרפה רבי אליעזר סבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ור' יהושע סבר עובר לאו ירך אמו הוא אי הכי אדמיפלגי לגבוה ליפלגו להדיוט

Rav Ashi asks: But if a tereifa cannot become pregnant, that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal became pregnant and only afterward was rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother and is rendered a tereifa as part of its body, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a fetus is not considered like the thigh of its mother. The Gemara objects: But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them dispute the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

להודיעך כחו דרבי יהושע וליפלגו בהדיוט להודיעך כחו דרבי אליעזר כח דהיתירא עדיף ליה

The Gemara responds: The mishna discusses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High. The Gemara suggests: But let them dispute whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.

ומודים ודאי בביצת טריפה שאסורה בדשיחלא קמא מאי טעמא גופה היא

The Gemara concludes: According to this explanation, when the mishna states: And they certainly concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, it is dealing with the first clutch of eggs in the bird’s oviduct at the time it becomes a tereifa. Even Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the fetus of an animal is not considered like the thigh of its mother, concedes that a bird’s egg is rendered a tereifa along with it. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yehoshua holds that an egg is a true part of its body.

והלכתא בזכר כל שנים עשר חדש בנקבה כל שאינה יולדת

The Gemara rules: And with regard to an animal concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is: In the case of a male, it is prohibited for an entire twelve-month period. After that point, the animal is certainly kosher. In the case of a female, any animal that does not give birth is prohibited. Once it has, it is certainly kosher.

אמר רב הונא כל בריה שאין בו עצם אינו מתקיים י"ב חדש אמר רב פפא שמע מינה מדרב הונא הא דאמר שמואל קישות שהתליע באיביה אסורה

§ Rav Huna says: Any creature that has no bones cannot last twelve months. Rav Pappa said: One may learn from Rav Huna’s statement about that which Shmuel says: If a serpent melon became infested by worms while attached to the ground [be’ibbeha], the worm is prohibited for consumption, in accordance with the verse: “And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).