Previous daf

1)

(a) What will be the Din if an animal is having difficulty giving birth, and prior to being Shechted, the fetus sticks out and withdraws ...

1. ... its foot?
2. ... its head?

(b) What does one then do with the baby in the latter case?

(c) What distinction does the Tana make between cutting of a piece of fetus inside the mother before it is Shechted, and cutting off a piece of spleen or kidney?

(d) What principle does the Tana present in this regard?

(a) Regarding the opening case in our Mishnah, on what grounds does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav forbid the foot itself (even though the rest of the animal is permitted)? Which Pasuk does he quote as the source?

(b) What else do we learn from this Pasuk? Which other animal becomes forbidden for leaving its boundaries?

(c) If, as Rav Yehudah is forced to explain, 'Mutar ba'Achilah' in the above case, refers to the rest of the animal, why does the Tana then need to add the clause 'Ve'hichzirah', seeing as the animal is permitted whether the fetus withdrew its foot or not?

(d) And what is the Chidush in the Seifa?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Bechoros say about a child who is born after a still-born twin? In what respect is he a Bechor and in what respect is he not?

(b) The Tana refers to two cases. One of them, where the first eighth-month baby stuck out his head alive and withdrew it.
What is the other?

(c) What can we extrapolate from the latter case? What would have been the Din if the first twin had stuck out his head alive, before withdrawing it?

(a) What is now the problem?

(b) We initially suggest that the Tana needs to teach us both cases, because we cannot learn one from the other. Even if we know that the head emerging from the womb renders it/him a Bechor in the case of ...

1. ... an animal, why would we not know it by a human being?
2. ... a human being, why would we not know it by an animal?

(a) The Mishnah later rules that once part of the placenta has emerged from the mother's womb, the baby is forbidden.
Why is that?

(b) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav?

(c) How would we explain our Mishnah if not for him?

(d) We nevertheless establish our Mishnah with regard to the Ubar (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav), and to answer the original Kashya on Rav Yehudah, we establish it like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (with regard to another Mishnah).
What does this mean?

6)

(a) We query Rav Yehudah from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana there say about a case where, in similar circumstances to our Mishnah, the baby stuck out a foot ...

1. ... and withdrew it before the mother's Shechitah?
2. ... and withdrew it after the Shechitah?
3. ... which was severed before the mother's Shechitah? Why is that?

(b) In the latter case, where the foot is severed after the Shechitah, Rebbi Meir considers the Ubar, Maga Neveilah.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) What problem do we have with establishing the first case ('Mutar ba'Achilah') by the Ubar (rather than by the foot itself)?

(d) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolve this problem?

(a) What does the Beraisa cited by Avimi mean when it says 'Parsah Hichzir, Achol, Parsos Hichzir, Achol'? To what does 'Parsah' refer?

(b) What is the problem with explaining 'Hichzir Parsah, Achol' with regard to the Ubar (like Rav Yehudah)?

(c) Why, according to Rav Yehudah, does the Tana say 'Hichzir'? Who actually establishes the Beraisa in this way?

(d) What problem do we have with the fact that the Tana quoted two Pesukim in Re'ei ("Mafreses *Parsah*" and "Sh'tei *Perasos*")? How do we initially interpret this?

(a) How do we answer this Kashya? What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk of "Parsos" (if not to permit the foot too)? What is a 'Kalut'?

(b) And we establish the author as Rebbi Shimon. In which case does Rebbi Shimon then forbid a Kalut ben Parah?

(c) Rav Yehudah counters Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the foot itself is permitted in principle, by citing Rav and Shmuel.
What do Rav and Shmuel say?

(a) With due respect to Rav and Shmuel, Ula cites Rebbi Yochanan, who proves his point from a Chatas that left its boundary.
What is his source for forbidding it even if it returned?

(b) What did Rebbi Yochanan extrapolate from there?

(c) We query Ula however, from a Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" (the source of the prohibition of all things that left their boundary).
If not for the word "Tereifah", what would we learn from Bikurim and Ma'aser Sheini?

(d) What do we then learn from "Tereifah" that proves Ula wrong?

(a) From where do we know that Bikurin and Ma'aser Sheini revert to their previous Heter once they are returned to their respective boundaries? Why should they be any different than the other cases which do not, as we just explained?

(b) In Eretz Yisrael, they cited the Machlokes between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan differently. According to them, Rav holds 'Yesh Leidah le'Eivarim'.
What does that mean?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(d) What is the difference between the two Leshonos? In which case will part of the foot be forbidden according to one Lashon and permitted according to the other?

(a) What She'eilah do we ask according to Rabbi Yochanan, regarding a fetus that stuck out a limb at a time before withdrawing it?

(b) Why might we not consider the fetus to have been born, even though most of it did emerge from its mother's womb?

(c) Assuming that in the previous case, it is not considered to have been born, what do we ask next?
Why, if one cut off limb by limb, might it not be considered born?

(a) We recite our Mishnah 'Zeh ha'K'lal Davar she'Gufah Asur, *ve'she'Einah Gufah Mutar*').
How do we attempt to resolve the She'eilah from there?

(b) How do we refute this suggestion? If the Tana is not coming to permit that case, then what is it coming to permit?

Next daf