Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SLAUGHTER OF AN ANIMAL THAT IS GIVING BIRTH

(a) (Mishnah): If an animal was slaughtered when it was giving birth, and the fetus stuck out a leg (from the womb) and returned it, it may be eaten;

1. If it stuck out its head, even if it returned it, it is as if the fetus was born.

(b) If one cut up a fetus in (a live) mother, it may be eaten;

1. If the spleen or kidneys were cut up, it is forbidden.
2. The rule is - something which is part of the animal is forbidden; if it is not part of the animal, it is permitted.

(c) (Gemara - Rav Yehudah): The leg which left the womb may not be eaten.

1. "Meat torn in the field you may not eat" - once meat leaves its proper place, it is forbidden.

(d) Question (Mishnah): If the fetus stuck out a leg and returned it, *it* may be eaten.

1. Suggestion: 'It' refers to the leg, it may be eaten!

(e) Answer: No, it refers to the rest of the fetus.
(f) Question: The rest of the fetus is permitted even if the leg was not returned - why did the Mishnah say that the leg was returned?
(g) Answer: It says that the leg was returned for parallel structure with the Seifa:

1. (Seifa): If it stuck out its head, even if it returned it, it is as if it was born.

(h) Question: Why must our Mishnah teach that - another Mishnah teaches that!

1. (Mishnah): A man can be a Bechor (firstborn) regarding inheritance (to receive a double portion), but not a Bechor regarding (the Mitzvah to redeem him by giving five Shekalim to) a Kohen:

i. This is if he was born after a Nefel (non-viable baby), even if the Nefel stuck its head out alive, or after a viable baby (that had the proper nine months in the womb) that stuck its head out after it already died.
ii. Inference: If the first baby was viable and stuck its head out alive (and later died), the next child would not be a Bechor even regarding inheritance (because the first child was considered born)!

2. Suggestion: Our Mishnah teaches about animals, that Mishnah teaches about people.

i. We cannot learn about people from animals, for animals do not have a birth canal (perhaps that is why emergence of the head is like birth)!
ii. We cannot learn about animals from people, for a person's face is important.

3. Rejection: Another Mishnah teaches about animals!

i. (Mishnah): If a fetal sac partially left the womb, it is forbidden to eat; just like it indicates a fetus in a woman, also in an animal.

4. Summation of question: If the leg is permitted in the Reisha because the fetus drew it back, we can say that the Seifa discusses returning the head for consistency;
5. But if the leg is forbidden whether or not it was returned (and only the rest of the fetus is permitted), there was no need to mention returning (the leg or head) in either clause!

(i) Answer: Really, the Reisha only permits the rest of the fetus;

1. It says that the leg returned, for this permits the place where we cut the leg (i.e. the part that was even with the edge of the womb but did not leave.)
2. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak likewise explained that a Beraisa (below) permits this part of the leg.

(j) Question (Beraisa): If an animal was giving birth, the fetus stuck out a leg and returned it, and then the mother was slaughtered, it is permitted (to eat it);

1. If it returned the leg after slaughter, it is forbidden.
2. If the fetus stuck out a leg and it was cut off before slaughter, what is outside is Tamei and forbidden, what is inside is Tahor and permitted;

3. R. Meir says, if the leg was cut off after slaughter, the rest of the fetus is like meat that touched a Nevelah;
4. Chachamim say, it is like meat that touched a slaughtered Treifah.
5. Culmination of question - Suggestion: The Reisha says 'If the fetus stuck out a leg and returned it before slaughter, *it* is permitted' - this refers to the leg.

(k) Answer #1: No, it refers to the rest of the fetus.
(l) Objection: But the Seifa says, if it returned it after slaughter, it is forbidden - why should the fetus be forbidden?!
(m) Answer #2: We can answer like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered another Beraisa - it refers to the place where we cut the leg.
(n) Question (Beraisa): If it returned "Parsah (a leg)", it is permitted; if it returned "Perasos", it is permitted.

1. Suggestion: This means, the limbs that were returned before slaughter may be eaten; but not limbs that were not returned; the part of the fetus that stayed inside is permitted.
2. Rejection: This cannot be - the rest of the fetus is permitted even if no limbs were returned!

(o) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Returning the limb permits the place where we cut the leg.
(p) Question: But the Beraisa expounds two words, Parsah and Perasos!

1. Suggestion: One permits the place that is cut, the other permits the limb itself.

(q) Answer: No, one permits the place that is cut, the other permits a fetus whose hooves are not split, according to R. Shimon:

1. (R. Shimon): If an animal with unsplit hooves was born to a cow, it is forbidden.

i. This is only if the baby was born, but if it was found inside the cow after slaughter, it is permitted.

(a) Version #1 (Ula, citing R. Yochanan): The limb itself is permitted (if it was returned.)
(b) Rav Yehudah: But Rav and Shmuel say that it is forbidden!
(c) Ula: Rav and Shmuel are so special, we treasure the dirt they were buried in - nevertheless, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan.
(d) (R. Yochanan): "U'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah Lo Sochelu" forbids all meat that left its proper place;

1. The Torah teaches that if Basar Chatas left the Azarah it is forbidden (there is no remedy);
2. We infer, in all other cases, if the meat is returned to its proper place, it is permitted.

(e) Question (Beraisa): If Ma'aser Sheni or Bikurim left their proper place (Yerushalayim) and returned, they are permitted;

1. One might have thought, also meat that left its proper place and returned is permitted - "U'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah Lo Sochelu" teaches that this is not so.
2. Question: How do we learn this from the verse?
3. Answer (Rabah): Just like a Treifah never becomes permitted, also meat that leaves its proper place.
4. This refutes Ula.

(f) Question: The Beraisa permits Ma'aser Sheni and Bikurim that left Yerushalayim and returned - what is the source of this?
(g) Answer: "You may not eat in your gates Ma'aser..." - but you may eat it if it left and returned.

(a) Version #2: Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael explained the argument between Rav and R. Yochanan as follows:
(b) (Rav): A limb that leaves the womb is considered to have been born.
(c) (R. Yochanan): It is not as if it was born.
(d) Question: What do Rav and R. Yochanan argue about (Rif; Rashi - what is the difference between the two versions of the argument)?
(e) Answer: If the majority of a limb left the womb, they argue whether or not the minority left inside becomes forbidden (in this version, Rav forbids it.)
(f) Question #1: According to R. Yochanan, if the fetus stuck out limbs and returned them one by one, until the majority of the fetus was at some point outside, what is the law?

1. Since the majority left, it is born?
2. Or, once a limb returns, it is as if it never left (and now, only a minority is outside, it is not yet born)?

(g) Question #2: If we say, once a limb returns, it is as if it never left - if it stuck out limbs one by one and they were cut off, until the majority left, what is the law?

1. Since the majority left, it is born?
2. Or, perhaps a majority must be outside at one time?

(h) Answer (Mishnah): The rule is - something which is part of the animal is forbidden; if it is not part of the animal, it is permitted.

1. Suggestion: The latter clause permits this case (the limbs were cut one by one.)

(i) Rejection: No, it permits a fetus whose hooves are not split, according to R. Shimon.

1. He holds that if such a calf was born it is forbidden, but it is permitted if it was found in a slaughtered cow.