Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A FETUS THAT PARTIALLY LEFT THE WOMB

(a) Question (Rav Chananyah): If a fetus inside a Shelamim stuck out a leg (at the time of slaughter) in the Mikdash, what is the law?

1. Since the Mikdash is the proper place to slaughter Korbanos, the leg is considered to be in its proper place;
2. Or, the proper place for the fetus is in the womb, the Mikdash is no substitute.
3. Counter-question (Abaye): Why didn't you ask if it sticks a leg outside of Yerushalayim, the proper place to eat Korbanos?
4. Answer (Abaye): You did not ask, because you hold that it must remain in the womb;

(b) Answer (Abaye): This is also the answer to your question!
(c) Question (Ilfa): If a fetus stuck out a leg between the cutting of the two Simanim, what is the law?

1. (Had the leg been out or in for the entire slaughter, it would not become a Nevelah -) do we join the cutting of the two Simanim, to Metaher the limb from Tum'as Nevelah?

(d) Answer (Rava): We join the two Simanim to permit eating the rest of the animal (even though the first Siman had potential to permit more than the second) - all the more so, we join them to Metaher the leg.
(e) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Are we concerned for offspring of this fetus that stuck out a leg before slaughter?

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Suggestion: The calf impregnated a normal cow.
3. Rejection: If so, R. Yirmeyah should have asked about a normal Ben Peku'ah (fetus found inside a slaughtered cow) that did not stick out a leg!

i. (Rav Mesharshiya): According to the opinion that the status of an animal is determined by the father (as well as the mother), the child of a Ben Peku'ah that mated with a regular cow is forbidden, even if one slaughters it.

4. Answer: The case is, this fetus mated with a cow that likewise stuck out a leg before its mother was slaughtered.

i. Do we say, limbs of the child come from the corresponding limbs of the parents, and only the leg of the child is forbidden?
ii. Or, do all parts of the child come from all parts of the parents, and the entire child is forbidden?

(f) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Clearly, all parts of the child come from all parts of the parents - if not, parents that were blind or missing a limb would have children with the same blemishes.
(g) (R. Yirmeyah answered his own question and asked a different question.)
(h) Question (R. Yirmeyah): All animals have Chelev and blood, which are forbidden, yet the offspring are permitted;

1. Here also, even though the parents have a forbidden leg, the children are permitted;
2. Or perhaps, when there are two forbidden entities in the parents, the children are permitted, but not when there are three?
3. Question: According to whom does R. Yirmeyah ask?

i. It is not according to R. Meir - he holds that a Ben Peku'ah must be slaughtered (so the leg of the parents is not forbidden)!
ii. It is not according to R. Yehudah - he permits Chelev of a fetus (Ben Peku'ah!)
iii. (Beraisa - R. Meir): The Gid ha'Nasheh and Chelev of a fetus are forbidden;
iv. R. Yehudah permits them.

(i) Answer: Clearly, the children are permitted in spite of the fact that parts of the parents are forbidden. (R. Yirmeyah answered his own question and asked a different question.)
(j) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a fetus stuck out a leg before its mother was slaughtered, is milk of the child permitted?

1. All milk is like Ever Min ha'Chai (part of a living animal), yet the Torah permitted it - also this is permitted;
2. Or, here is different, because part of the child (its leg) can never become permitted?

(k) This question is unresolved.

(a) (Mishnah): If one cuts the fetus...(it is permitted.)
(b) Question: From where do we know this?
(c) Answer #1: "And every animal with split hooves....in an animal" - this includes a fetus.
(d) Objection: If so, Temurah should apply to a fetus (since it says "In an animal" regarding Temurah)!

1. (Mishnah #1): Temurah does not take effect in the following cases:
2. One said that a limb should be in place of a fetus, or vice-versa;
3. One said that a limb or fetus should be in place of a full animal, or vice-versa.

(e) Answer #2: Rather, "And every animal" includes a fetus.
(f) Question: If so, even if a piece of the spleen or kidneys is cut, it should be permitted!

1. (Mishnah #2): If one cut from the spleen or kidneys, it is forbidden.

(g) Answer: "It" - when the animal is complete, what is inside is permitted, not when it is lacking.
(h) Question: If so, if one slaughters an animal and finds something resembling a dove inside, it should be permitted!

1. (R. Yochanan): If one slaughters an animal and finds something resembling a dove inside, it is forbidden.

(i) Answer: The Torah permits "Perasos (two (i.e. split) hooves)...in an animal"); a dove lacks this.
(j) Question: If so, if a fetus with unsplit hooves is found in a slaughtered animal, it should be forbidden!
(k) Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, Bei R. Shimon bar Yochai): "Parsah...in an animal you may eat".
(l) Defense (of Answer #1 - Rav Simi bar Ashi): R. Shimon is the Tana who holds that Temurah does not apply to fetuses, because the Torah equates Temurah to Ma'aser:

1. Just like Ma'aser does not apply to limbs and fetuses, also Temurah.

(m) Question: How do we know that R. Shimon is the Tana?
(n) Answer (Seifa of Mishnah #1 - R. Yosi): When one is Makdish, if he says 'The leg of this animal is an Olah', the entire animal becomes an Olah;

1. Similarly regarding Temurah, if one says 'The leg of this animal is (a Korban) in place of this', the entire animal should become a Temurah!
2. Question: To whom is R. Yosi speaking?
3. Answer #1: He addresses R. Meir and R. Yehudah.
4. Rejection: They argue with R. Yosi's first premise!

i. (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah): One might have thought, if one says 'The leg of this animal is an Olah', the entire animal is an Olah - "All that you will give *from it* to Hash-m will be Kodesh" - part of it will be Kodesh, not all of it;
ii. One might think, the animal is not Mekudash at all - "It will be", it keeps its Kedushah.
iii. It is sold to someone who needs an Olah; the money becomes Chulin, except for the value of the leg.
iv. R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if one says 'The leg of this animal is an Olah', the entire animal is an Olah - we learn from "It will be".
v. R. Yosi (in the Mishnah) must address R. Shimon, for only he agrees that making the leg Hekdesh is Mekadesh the whole animal.

(o) Rejection: This is no proof - R. Yosi merely explains how he learns.

(a) (Mishnah): The first time an animal gives birth, one may cut off limbs of the child one by one (when each leaves) and cast them to the dogs;
(b) If the majority of the fetus comes out (together, and dies), it must be buried; the next child of the mother is not a Bechor.
(c) (Gemara - Rav Huna): If a third of a Bechor left the womb, and the owner sold it to a non-Jew, and another third came out, it has Kedushas Bechor.

1. He holds that the Kedushah comes retroactively; when the majority comes out, this shows that even the first part was a Bechor, so the sale was invalid.

(d) (Rabah): The child has no Kedushah.

1. He holds that the Kedushah (normally) comes from now and onwards, so the sale was valid.

(e) Rav Huna and Rabah are consistent with their opinions elsewhere:

1. (Rav Huna): If a third of a Bechor was born by Caesarian section, and the rest came out from the womb, it has no Kedushah;

i. Since the Kedushah (only) comes retroactively, and the beginning of the birth cannot Mekadesh it, it remains Chulin;

2. (Rabah): The child is a Bechor;

i. The Kedushah starts with birth (of the majority through the womb.).

(f) It is necessary to hear the argument in both cases.

1. Had we heard only in this latter case, we would think that Rav Huna is always lenient, and says even in the first case that the child is Chulin.
2. Had we only heard the first case, we would think that Rabah is always stringent, and says even in the latter case that the child is Kodesh.