Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Chullin 4:4 - 4:5

The Mishnah Yomi for Tuesday, November 4, 2025 is Chullin 4:4 - 4:5

＜ Previous DayTodayNext Day ＞

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Chullin Perek 4 Mishnah 4

חולין פרק ד׳ משנה ד׳

4
If an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and as a result the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother’s womb, and someone severed it and afterward slaughtered the mother animal, the flesh of the fetus is ritually pure. If one first slaughtered the mother animal and afterward severed the foreleg, the flesh of both the mother animal and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in contact with a carcass. Since the foreleg was not permitted to be consumed through the act of slaughtering, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted to be consumed by the slaughter, was in contact with it and so was rendered ritually impure from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The flesh has the ritual impurity of having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered, as the limb is regarded as a tereifa that was slaughtered. By Torah law, although it is prohibited to consume it, it does not impart ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a tereifa that was slaughtered, as well as anything that comes in contact with it, is regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it disqualifies sacrificial foods that come in contact with it. The Rabbis explain the rationale behind their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., ritual slaughter prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that its consumption is prohibited. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the body of the animal ritually pure, it is because the slaughter is performed on something that is part of its body, i.e., its throat. Does it necessarily follow that you should also render the limb that left the womb pure, given that it is something that is not part of the mother’s body? Certainly not. The mishna asks: From where is it derived with regard to a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure, i.e., prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass? The mishna notes there is a reason to say the slaughter should not render it pure, as one can compare a tereifa with a non-kosher animal: A non-kosher animal is prohibited for consumption; so too, a tereifa is prohibited for consumption. Therefore, conclude: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, its slaughter does not render it ritually pure, so too with regard to a tereifa, its slaughter should not render it ritually pure. The mishna questions the comparison: No, if you said that slaughtering cannot prevent an animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass in the case of a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that it did not have a period of potential fitness when slaughtering it could have rendered its consumption permitted, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this in the case of a tereifa, which did have a period of potential fitness? Perhaps, since the animal had a period of potential fitness its slaughter remains effective in preventing it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass. The mishna rejects this distinction: Take back to yourself this claim that you brought, as it is insufficient. What about a case where an animal was born as a tereifa from the womb, and so it never had a period of potential fitness? For such a case, from where is it derived that its slaughter renders it ritually pure? The mishna reformulates the distinction: No, if you say that slaughtering cannot prevent a prohibited animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, as the Torah states the concept of slaughtering only with regard to kosher animals, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this with regard to a tereifa kosher animal, given that there are other animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, i.e., kosher animals that are not tereifa? Perhaps, since the concept of slaughtering is relevant to that kind of animal it can serve to prevent the animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass even if the slaughter cannot render it permitted for consumption. The mishna notes: Based on this reasoning, one must conclude that with regard to an eight-month-old fetus that was born alive, slaughter does not render it ritually pure, as there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering. The Torah applies the concept of slaughter only with regard to animals that were born full term.
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:
ד׳

הבשר טהור – the flesh–meat of the fetus is pure, for the animal does not receive impurity while living.

הבשר מגע נבילה – the flesh–meat of the fetus touched a limb from a living animal, which defiles like carrion.

מגע טריפה שחוטה – for the ritual slaughter, even though it does not permit the limb for consumption, purifies it from being carrion, and it is like something torn that is ritually slaughtered that does not defile from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis with those things that are sanctified [for the Temple]: This is our reading.

אף שחיטת בהמה תטהר את העבר – and we don’t have the reading “of the fetus.”

לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טריפה אותה – this is according to the law, for it is a thing that is part of its body.

ומנין לטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה – for perhaps it does not purify it, and from the law, does not purify it, for an unclean–impure animal is prohibited for consumption and a torn animal is forbidden for consumption.

ומה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה – from being impure, for this is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus – see Leviticus 11:26,24: “among all the animals...that has true hoofs….whoever touches their carcasses shall be impure until evening” – all who touch them shall be impure, to include an unclean animal that its slaughter will not purify it.

תאמר בטריפה שהיתה לה שעת הכושר – for since it takes effect the law of ritual slaughtering, furthermore, it does not escape from it for it is within the general realm of the rest of sheep and cattle.

טול לך מה שהבאת – take from here this proof that you brought.

הרי שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מנין – that it would make it pure.

שיש במינה שחיטה – therefore, it does not escape from the generalization of sheep and cattle. But a living animal [fetus] that is eight [months] old that was born from a living animal, we don’t have with what to purify it even it is slaughtered, because it is not included with cattle and sheep. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אין שחיטתה מטהרתו – from being carrion, for the ritual slaughter of an eight [month] fetus is of any benefit, but rather, when it is in the womb of its mother, it is permitted through the slaughter of its mother (as we will learn in the next Mishnah).

הבשר טהור. בשר העובר טהור, שאין בהמה מקבלת טומאה מחיים:

הבשר מגע נבילה. בשר העובר מגע אבר מן החי, שהוא מטמא כנבלה:

מגע טריפה שחוטה. שהשחיטה אף על פי שאינה מתרת האבר באכילה, מטהרתו מידי נבילה. והויא כטריפה שחוטה שאינה מטמאה מן התורה אלא מדרבנן במוקדשין:

הכי גרסינן, אף שחיטת בהמה תטהר את האבר. ולא גרסינן את העובר:

לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טריפה אותה. מן הדין הוא שהרי דבר שגופה:

ומנין לטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה. דשמא אינה מטהרתה. ומן הדין אינה מטהרתה, שבהמה טמאה אסורה באכילה וטרפה אסורה באכילה: ומה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה, מלטמא, דהכי תניא בתורת כהנים, לכל הבהמה אשר היא מפרסת פרסה וגו׳, כל הנוגע בהם יטמא, להביא בהמה טמאה שלא תטהרנה שחיטתה:

תאמר בטריפה שהיתה לה שעת הכושר. דכיון דחל עלה תורת שחיטה, תו לא פקעה מינה והויא בכלל שאר צאן ובקר:

טול לך מה שהבאת. טול מכאן ראיה זו שהבאת:

הרי שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מנין. שתטהרנה:

שיש במינה שחיטה. הלכך לא נפקא מכלל צאן ובקר. אבל בן שמונה חי שנולד מבהמה חיה אין לנו במה לטהר אפילו נשחט, לפי שאינו בכלל בקר וצאן. והלכה כחכמים:

בן שמונה חי. אם נולד ושחטו:

אין שחיטתו מטהרתו. מידי נבלה, שאין שחיטה מועלת בבן שמונה. אלא כשהוא במעי אמו ניתר בשחיטת אמו:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Chullin Perek 4 Mishnah 5

חולין פרק ד׳ משנה ה׳

5
In the case of one who slaughtered an animal and found within it an eight-month-old fetus, i.e., one that was not full term, whether it was alive or dead, or a nine-month-old fetus, i.e., one that was full term, that was dead, that fetus is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, as it is considered part of its mother. Therefore, its blood is considered part of its mother’s blood and is prohibited, so one must tear the fetus and remove its blood before it may be consumed. If he found within it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, as it is considered an independent full-fledged animal, and if one slaughters both the mother and fetus on the same day, one is liable for violating the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Even when the fetus is nine months old, it is still considered part of its mother, and the slaughter of its mother renders it permitted for consumption. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if the fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field, the earlier slaughter of its mother rendered it permitted and it does not require slaughter before it is eaten. But if one tore an animal, i.e., he killed it without slaughtering it, and inside he found a live nine-month-old fetus, everyone agrees that the fetus requires its own slaughter because its mother was not slaughtered.
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:
ה׳

ומוציא את דמו – and its fat alone is permitted, as it is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus), when it states, the fat and the two kidneys with a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 7:4: “the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins”), and we don’t need to say that from an a fortiori we would derive it, for just as regarding an offering of well-being–peace offering that anything of their species requires the fat-tail, for they require the fat and two kidneys. The guilt offering, that all of its species requires the tail, is it not the law that it requires the fat and the two kidneys? And what does the inference teach us, but rather to tell us that just as fat and the two kidneys that are stated with the guilt offering is removed from the general category of the embryo, for you are not able to state that the fat of the embryo that is found in a guilt offering should be offered with a female animal, even all, even the sacrifices that come from a female, the fat that is mentioned regarding them one removes from the category of the embryo. But since the fat of the embryo is not offered with all the sacrifices, it is permitted for consumption. But its blood is not worse than the blood of the limbs and we hold that in the Tractate Keritot that the blood of the limbs one violates a negative commandment.

טעון שחיטה – for newborns indirectly to compare an animal by itself, and to nt to be included–to be derived by implication with all the cattle that you may eat.

וחייב באותו את בנו – that you should not slaughter it on the date that you ritually slaughter its mother.

וחכמים אומרים שחיטת אמו מטהרתו – that the newly born and giving birth is the cause of it.

ר' שמעון שזורי כו' – to the words of the Sages, since that it (i.e., the animal) walked on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter according to the Rabbis. For one might exchange it in order to eat an animal without ritual slaughter. Burt Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits even after he it had a parted hoof on the

קרעה – [cut into] the animal without ritual slaughter.

ומוציא את דמו. דחלבו בלבד הוא דשרי. כדתניא בתורת כהנים, כשהוא אומר חלב ושתי כליות באשם שאין צריך לומר דמקל וחומר הוה ילפינן לה, ומה שלמים שאין כל מינן טעון אליה, הרי הן טעונים חלב ושתי כליות. אשם שכל מינו טעון אליה, אינו דין שיטענו חלב ושתי כליות, ומה תלמוד לומר, אלא לומר לך מה חלב ושתי כליות האמור באשם מוצא מכלל שליל, שאינך יכול לומר חלב שליל הנמצא באשם יקריב, שהרי אין אשם בא נקבה, אף כל אפילו בקרבנות הבאים נקבה, חלב האמור בהן מוצא מכלל שליל. וכיון דאין חלב שליל קרב בכל הקרבנות, שרי באכילה. אבל דמו לא גרע מדם האיברים דקיימא לן במסכת כריתות דם האיברים עובר בלא תעשה:

טעון שחיטה. דחדשים גרמי לשוייה בהמה באנפי נפשה ולא אתרבי מכל בבהמה תאכלו:

וחייב באותו ואת בנו. שלא ישחטנו ביום ששחט את אמו:

וחכמים אומרים שחיטת אמו מטהרתו. דחדשים ולידה גרמי:

ר׳ שמעון שזורי כו׳ לדברי חכמים כיון שהלך על גבי קרקע טעון שחיטה מדרבנן, דאתי לאחלופי לאכול בהמה בלא שחיטה. ור׳ שמעון שזורי מתיר אפילו לאחר שהפריס על גבי קרקע. והלכה כחכמים:

קרעה. לבהמה בלא שחיטה:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us