{"id":13997,"date":"2011-09-01T23:49:45","date_gmt":"2011-09-01T23:49:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_hullin_68a74b\/"},"modified":"2015-11-03T12:05:24","modified_gmt":"2015-11-03T17:05:24","slug":"masechet_hullin_68a74b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_hullin_68a74b\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Chullin 68a-74b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Chullin 68a-b: When a fetus can’t wait to see the world<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The fourth perek<\/em> of Masechet<\/a> Chullin<\/a><\/em> begins on today’s daf<\/em>. Entitled beheima ha-mekashe leiled<\/em> \u2013 “an animal that encounters difficulty while giving birth” \u2013 its focus is on the laws relating to an unborn fetus in its mother’s womb at the time that the mother is slaughtered.<\/p>\n

When an animal that is in labor encounters difficulty in delivery, and its owner suspects that it may die, one option is to slaughter the animal. Such a situation raises many questions \u2013 not about the animal itself, which can certainly be slaughtered and eaten \u2013 but with regard to its fetus. Generally speaking, we assume that ritual slaughter will permit the entire animal, together with everything inside it, to be eaten Just as all of the animal’s internal organs will become permitted by means of shechita<\/em>, similarly the fetus, which at the moment of slaughter is part of the animal, will become permitted, as well.<\/p>\n

What if the fetus is fully developed, and is viable after its mother’s death. Do we still view it as part of its mother, or do we recognize it as an independent entity? If it was part of its mother at the moment of slaughter, will it need its own shechita<\/em>? If we do not recognize it as an independent entity at all, how will that affect those parts of an animal that ordinarily cannot be eaten?<\/p>\n

These questions do not only relate to situations where the mother is slaughtered while in distress; the Mishnah<\/a> simply chose a case where such a situation would most likely occur. Although the case in the Mishnah \u2013 where the fetus’ front leg came out \u2013 is understood by the Tosafot Yom Tov<\/a><\/em> as an indication, or, perhaps, as a cause of the distress, in fact it is normal for kosher animals to be born front legs first.<\/p>\n

In any case, it is clear from the Mishnah that in such a case the fetus becomes permitted as a result of its mother’s slaughter; in the event that the fetus’ head came out it is considered to have been born, and as an independent entity would not become permitted by means of its mother’s slaughter.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 69a-b: Birth defects in kosher animals<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em><\/a>, when a pregnant animal is slaughtered its fetus becomes permitted together with all of the rest of the animal’s internal organs.<\/p>\n

On today’s daf<\/em> we learn that there are certain limitations to the rule of the Mishnah<\/a>. Rabbi Yochanan<\/a> teaches that if the slaughtered animal was opened and that the fetus had not developed into an animal, rather it has the appearance of a dove, it is forbidden. The Gemara<\/a> explains that this law is based on the fact that the Torah<\/a> requires that an animal have split hooves if it is to be eaten (see Devarim<\/a> 14:6<\/a>). At the same time, if the fetus has the form of an animal \u2013 even without split hooves \u2013 Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai<\/a> teaches that it is deemed kosher based on the fact that the same passage talks about a single hoof. Thus a kalut ben parah<\/a><\/em> \u2013 a single-hooved animal born of a cow (or any kosher animal) would be permitted.<\/p>\n

Occasionally an animal with split hooves will give birth to a creature that has a birth defect \u2013 its hooves are not split. Although such animals do not have the usual indicators of kashrut<\/em>, nevertheless we can be certain that it is from the family of kosher animals. This would be true even if the newborn animal does not have the appearance of the kosher mother, e.g. it looks like a camel or a donkey; since we know that it was born from a kosher animal it is kosher and can be slaughtered. This is not the case where the fetus does not have the appearance of an animal at all, e.g. when it looks like a bird or a lizard. The Me’iri<\/a> quotes the Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em> that derives this from the abovementioned passage that emphasizes that a behemah<\/em> \u2013 cattle \u2013 can be eaten when found in cattle, excluding other life forms that are found in cattle.<\/p>\n

Tosafot<\/a> explain that the Gemara chose the example of a bird because such a creature would not be viable; even if it had been born it could not live.<\/p>\n

\n

Chullin 70a-b: Theoretical questions applied to modern times<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the many types of sanctified animals is a bechor<\/em> \u2013 a firstborn animal from kosher species \u2013 that must be given to a kohen<\/a><\/em>. The kohen<\/em> is obligated to bring the bechor<\/em> to the Temple<\/a> in Jerusalem to be sacrificed, and he gets to eat its meat. In the event that such an animal develops a mum<\/em> \u2013 a blemish that precludes it from being brought as a sacrifice \u2013 in contrast with other sanctified animals it is not redeemed and exchanged, rather it becomes the property of the kohen<\/em> who can slaughter it and eat it even outside the Temple. Thus, unlike other kodashim<\/em> that do not operate in the absence of a Temple, the laws of bechor<\/em> apply even today, and in theory a firstborn animal must be set aside to be given to a kohen<\/em> who can make use of it after it develops a mum<\/em>. (Due to concern with the possibility that the bechor<\/em> may be misused, the recommended practice is to arrange for the animal to be sold, at least in part, to a non-Jew so that the laws of bechor<\/em> should not apply.)<\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on yesterday’s daf<\/em><\/a> discusses the ramifications of an animal that encounters difficulty while delivering an animal that will be a bechor<\/em>. Since the holiness of the bechor<\/em> is dependent on its playing the role of a peter rechem<\/em> \u2013 it must “open the womb” (see Shemot<\/a> 13:2<\/a>, 12<\/a>) \u2013 only if the majority of the animal has breached its mother’s womb will it become sanctified. Only in such a case will the firstborn be treated with the sanctity of a bechor<\/em>; if only parts of the fetus emerge it has no sanctity so the owner is free to kill it in order to save the mother and throw its meat to the dogs.<\/p>\n

On today’s daf<\/em> we find that Rava<\/a> asks a series of questions attempting to clarify what constitutes a peter rechem<\/em>. Among the questions that he asked are:<\/p>\n