[70a] And if it was stated only [the former, we might argue that] in this one Rabbah stated matters. But in this [other] one it makes sense to say that he agrees with R. Huna. It is necessary to state both.
I.2
A. It was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: A beast producing its firstborn that is in hard labor — one cuts off the limbs [of the offspring] one by one and throws them to the dogs [M. 4:2 A-B]. Is it not the case that he cuts off and puts aside [the limbs and later throws them to the dogs]? And if you say that it is holy retroactively, it should be necessary then for him to bury them.
B. No. In this case what are we dealing with? Where he cuts off and throws [each one to the dogs]. But where he cuts off and puts aside [the limbs], what is the rule? They must be buried [when enough of the animal comes forth and it is retroactively a firstborn].
C. Why then was it taught in the latter text of the Mishnah: [If] the greater part of it came forth, lo, this is to be buried. And it [beast] is free of [the law of] the firstling [C-D]?
D. Let it be specified and taught therein [in the first text of the Mishnah]: Under what circumstance? Where he cuts off and throws each limb [to the dogs]. But where he cuts off and puts them aside they must be buried. This is in fact what was intended: Under what circumstance? Where he cuts off and throws each limb [to the dogs]. But where he cuts off and puts them aside, it is as if the greater portion came forth and they must be buried.
I.3
A. Raba posed a question: Did they for determining the status of the limbs follow the status of the majority or not? What is the situation [that Raba refers to]? If you say that the case in question is one where the major part [of the animal] came forth, with the lesser part of a limb and he posed the question: This lesser part that is outside, do we say it follows the status of the major part of the limb [that is still inside]? Or do we say that it follows the status of the major part of the animal [that has already come forth]? [If this is the question then] it is obvious that we do not ignore the major part of the foetus and follow the greater part of the limb [to determine the status]!
B. Rather, [what is the situation that Raba refers to]? The case in question is one where half the animal came forth with a major part of a limb. And he posed the question: This lesser part that is inside what is the rule? Do we follow the status of the major part of the limb? [Then we could argue that the greater part of the animal had come forth.]
C. Come and take note: [If] the greater part of it came forth, lo, this is to be buried [C]. What is meant by “the greater part?” If it means literally “the greater part,” up to this point had we not been instructed [of the legal principle] that the greater part is equivalent to the whole? Rather must it not be the case that the question is one where the major part of the animal came forth with the lesser part of a limb. And it makes the novel point that we do not ignore the greater part of the animal [that is outside] and follow the limb [whose greater part is inside the mother].
D. Raba posed a question: What is the law [with regard to the holiness of a firstborn] if he wrapped [the foetus during its birth] in a sheathe? In a cloak? In its afterbirth? [The foetus in these cases does not come in contact with the birth canal.] `In its afterbirth' is the natural manner [of birth, so why should this be a question]? Rather [it must mean, if he wrapped it] in the afterbirth of another [animal, what is the law]? If she wrapped it and brought it forth [i.e., either a woman wrapped her hands around (Rashi) or the female twin wrapped herself around (Tosafot)] what is the law?
E. What is the situation [of all these cases where the foetus was wrapped up during birth (Rashi)]? If it came forth head first [and then was wrapped], then it is born [by the time the rest of the animal comes forth]. Rather it must be that it came forth feet first.
F. [The Talmud poses several more questions.] If a weasel swallowed the foetus [in the mother's womb] and brought it forth, what is the law? Once he brought it forth it is outside [the womb and was not born naturally so is not a valid firstborn animal]. Rather it must be that it swallowed it and brought it forth and brought it back in and spit it up. And then it [the foetus] came forth on its own. What is the law?
G. If he attached together two wombs and it came forth from one and entered the other, what is the law? If it comes forth from its own is it a firstborn. But if it comes forth from another womb is it not a firstborn? Or perhaps even if it comes forth from a womb that is not its own, is it a firstborn? These questions stand unresolved.
H. R. Aha posed a question: If the walls of the womb expanded [so that the foetus did not touch them during its birth], what is the law? Does the airspace of the womb render it holy and [in this case] we have that circumstance? Or does the contact with the womb [during birth] render it holy and [in this case] we do not have that circumstance?
I. Mar bar R. Ashi posed a question: If the walls of the womb were torn out what is the law? If they were torn out, then they are not there [and what is the question]? Rather it must be that they were torn out and hung around the neck [of the mother]. What is the law? Does [the womb] in its proper place render it holy as a firstborn. But if it is not in its proper place, then it does not render it [the foetus] holy as a firstborn? Or perhaps even if it is not in its proper place does it render it holy?
J. R. Jeremiah posed a question to R. Zira: If the walls of the womb were mutilated, what is the law? He said to him, “You have touched upon a question that has already been asked of us [in another form]. For R. Zira posed a question. And some say, R. Zira posed a question of R. Assi: If the remaining [wall area] was greater in size than the opening, and it came forth through the opening, or if the opening [in the wall area] was greater than the remaining [wall area] and it came forth through the remaining, what is the law?” On this point I had a question only with regard to [a case of a womb with] the opening greater than the remaining [area]. For some remaining [area of the wall of the womb] exists! But where it was mutilated [then it is as if no wall exists], we do not pose any question.
I.1 contrasts the premise of our Mishnah paragraph with parallel concerns of different rules, working through the same problem in different ways. I.2 clarifies and spells out the implications of the rule of Mishnah and I.3 poses and series of questions probing the premises and principles of Mishnah.
4:3 A-E
A. A beast, the foetus of which died in its womb,
B. and [that foetus] the shepherd put in his hand and touched —
C. whether in the case of an unclean beast or a clean beast—
D. he is clean.
E. R. Yosé the Galilean says, “In the case of an unclean beast, he is unclean, and in the case of a clean beast, he is clean.”
I.1
A. What is the basis for the view of the first Tanna? Said R. Hisda, “It is based on a logical deduction a fortiori: If [being in the womb of] the mother [when she is slaughtered] can have the effect of rendering it [the foetus] permitted for eating should it not have the effect of rendering it clean from the uncleanness of carrion?”
B. We have found [a logical basis] with regard to the case for a clean animal. What is the source [of argument] for the case of an unclean animal? [Slaughtering the mother has no effect on the offspring in her womb. So we can deduce nothing further.]
C. [The verse states: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening” (Lev. 11:39).] “And if any animal... dies,” this refers to an unclean animal; “of which you may eat,” this refers to a clean animal. The unclean animal was juxtaposed in the verse to the clean animal [to teach us the following]. What is the rule [in our case where the mother is slaughtered] for the clean animal? Its foetus is clean [of the uncleanness of carrion]. So too, for the unclean animal, its foetus is clean.
D. And what is the basis for the view of R. Yosé the Galilean? Said R. Yitzhak, “Scripture stated, `And all that go on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening' (Lev. 11:27). I declared unclean to you [as carrion] all those animals that go on their paws.”
E. But what about this case of a foetus with uncloven hooves in the womb of a cow? Let it be deemed unclean. For it is like an animal that goes on its paws. [This specification of the verse refers to] those that go on their paws, among the animals that go on all fours. And this [case of a foetus with uncloven hooves in the womb of a cow] is a case of an animal that goes on all fours inside of an animal that goes on eight [counting each split hoof as two]!
F. [In accord with this logic] a cow [foetus] found in the womb of a camel should not be deemed unclean because it is a case of an animal that goes on eight found inside of an animal that goes on all fours.
G. [The verse could have stated,] “That go.” [Instead it stated,] “All that go,” to include [in the law] the case of a foetus of a cow that was found in the womb of a camel.
H. [Why not say] a foetus with uncloven hooves in the womb of a mother with uncloven hooves be deemed unclean [based on the verse]? For this instance we apply the logical deduction a fortiori of R. Hisda.
I. R. Ahadaboy bar Ammi posed a contradiction to this: [Based on your logic] a foetus of a swine in the womb of a swine should not be deemed unclean. For it is an animal that goes on all eight inside of an animal that goes on all eight!
J. But said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “From this [verse we derive that it is unclean], `Or if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the carcass of an unclean beast or a carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, [and it is hidden from him, and he has become unclean, he shall be guilty]' (Lev. 5:2).” And do we reason that the carcass of an unclean animal renders unclean and that [carcass] of a clean animal does not render unclean? So what does [the verse] refer to [by making this differentiation between clean and unclean carcasses]? [It implies] that the foetus in the womb of an unclean animal is unclean and one in a clean animal is clean.
K. And after deducing this from the teaching of R. Nahman bar Yitzhak [J], why do we need the teaching of R. Yitzhak [D]? If not for the teaching of R. Yitzhak, I would have reasoned all of it [the verse interpreted by Nahman bar Yitzhak] should go in accord with the view of Rabbi [see below, b. 71a]. It makes the novel point [applying part of the verse for our purposes here].
II.1
A. It was taught on Tannaite authority: Said R. Jonathan, “I remarked to Ben Azzai, `We have learned that the carcass of a clean beast renders unclean as carrion, and the carcass of an unclean beast renders unclean as carrion, and that the carcass of an unclean wild animal renders unclean as carrion. Regarding the carcass of a clean wild beast we have not learned [that it renders unclean as carrion]. What is the source of this rule?'
B. “He remarked to me, `[It is from the verse:] And all that go on their paws, among the animals that go [on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening (Lev. 11:27)].' I remarked to him, `But does it say, All animals? Does it not say, Among the animals? It comes to teach us regarding those that go on their paws of the animals [I.1 J].'
C. “He remarked to me, `And what does Ishmael say in this regard?' I remarked to him, `[The verse states: And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening (Lev. 11:39).] And if any animal... dies, this refers to an unclean animal; of which you may eat, this refers to a clean animal. We learned [the rules for] a wild animal are included in those of a beast; and for a beast in those for a wild animal; those for a clean wild animal in those for a clean beast; those for an unclean wild animal in those for an unclean beast; [71a] those for an unclean beast in those for an unclean wild animal; those for a clean beast in those for a clean wild animal.' And these are the words he [Ben Azzai] said to me, `Too bad for Ben Azzai that he did not serve R. Ishmael.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.