Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chananya asks what the Din will be if the fetus of a Shelamim animal sticks out its foot in the Azarah - whether we apply the 'Migu' that since the walls of the Azarah are effective to permit the Shechitah of the animal, they will also serve to permit the foot via the Shechitah of the mother.

(b) Abaye counters the She'eilah, by citing Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim. He cannot be referring to a Shelamim which stuck out its foot in Yerushalayim, and they Shechted the mother on the spot - because then the mother would be forbidden too, because of Shechutei Chutz.

(c) So he must be referring to a case - where, according to those who hold 'Yesh Leidah le'Eivarim, the fetus withdrew its foot and was then returned to the Azarah and Shechted, and the She'eilah is whether the walls of Yerushalayim will permit consider the foot as if it had not left its boundary, and permit it with the subsequent Shechitah.

(d) And the point that Abaye is making is that - seeing as for some reason, it is obvious (even to Rav Chananya), that the walls of Yerushalayim will not permit the foot when the mother is ultimately Shechted, the walls of the Azarah will not do so either.

(a) Ilfa asks what the Din will be if the fetus sticks out its foot between the Shechitah of the first and second Siman - whether the Shechitah of the second Siman will combine with that of the first to remove Tum'as Neveilah from the foot, even though it cannot combine with it to permit its consumption.

(b) Rava answers with a 'Kal va'Chomer'- because if the first Siman generally combines with the second to permit the entire animal to be eaten, it will certainly combine with it to remove Tum'as Neveilos from only one limb.

(c) And when Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the animal with the forbidden foot will affect its babies, he means to ask - if the ben Peku'ah subsequently mates with another animal who gives birth to babies, those babies will be forbidden or not.

(d) We query Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a statement by Rav Mesharshaya, who says that - according to those who contend with the seed of the father (even though primarily, we go after the animal's mother), a baby born to a regular animal whose father is a ben Peku'ah - cannot be rectified (since from the mother's side, it requires Shechitah, whereas from the father's side, it does not (leaving the animal either as if its Simanim are half Shechted, or as if it only has one Siman).

(e) In that case - Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah cannot be speaking in such a case, which is sufficiently problematic without Rebbi Yirmiyah.

(a) So we try to establish the She'eilah by the case of a baby that is born to a bas Peku'ah whose father is our ben Peku'ah with the forbidden foot as to - whether the defect in the foot extends exclusively to the baby's foot (permitting the rest of the animal), or whether it spreads to the entire body (rendering the animal Asur).

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah himself proves that this cannot have been the She'eilah that he was asking - because according to the first side of the She'eilah, a blind animal ought to give birth to a blind one, and a lame animal, to a lame one (which simply doesn't happen).

(c) We finally establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard to Cheilev and Dam, meaning that - when all's said and done, all animals are formed from the Cheilev and Dam of the father.

(d) We suggest that the baby might ...

1. ... therefore be permitted - because if it is anyway formed from two Isurim, what difference will it make if we add another one?
2. ... forbidden - because the Torah may have permitted specifically two Isurim, and not three.

(a) We query this however 'mi'Mah Nafshach'. When we say that, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, there is an Isur of Cheilev and Dam, but not of Yotzei - we are referring to the Mishnah later, where he does not hold of the Heter of be Peku'ah in the first place.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, there is an Isur of Yotzei, but not of Cheilev - we are referring to a Beraisa, where he permits the Isur of Cheilev on a Shelil (a fetus), even though he concedes that the blood is forbidden (see Hagahos me'ha'Rav Renshberg). Either way, there are two Isurim and not three.

(b) We therefore refute the current theory - and conclude that there is no such thing as an Isur 'mi'Ko'ach ha'Av' (in the way that we just explained).

(c) And we establish Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah with regard (not the babies themselves, but) to their milk - whether (bearing in mind that milk ought to be forbidden because of Eiver min ha'Chai), the milk of the ben Peku'ah's daughter is not worse than the milk of any other Kasher animal, since unlike them, it has no Heter Shechitah (which normally permits the milk together with the animal), as we explained earlier.

(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is -Teiku.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chol *Beheimah* Mafreses Parsah ... *bi'Veheimah* Osah Tocheilu" - that a fetus inside the mother's womb (one animal inside another one) becomes permitted with its mother's Shechitah (and we will add the source for the ruling that even permits a piece of it shortly).

(b) The Mishnah in Temurah rules - that if one declares a Temurah, any combination of Eiver, Ubar and Sheleimin one against the other - it is not valid.

(c) But according to our previous statement - which considers an Ubar inside its mother a Beheimah, it should be.

(d) So we learn it from the beginning of the Pasuk there "*ve'Chol* Beheimah Mefreses Parsah" - which implies that whatever one finds inside a Shechted animal is permitted (including an Ubar).

(a) From the end of the Pasuk "*Osah* Tocheilu" we learn - that the D'rashah from "ve'Chol Beheimah" does not incorporate a piece of the mother itself (leaving the mother deficient.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan rules that a fetus 'Demus Yonah' (in the shape of a dove) that is found inside a Shechted animal - is forbidden ...

(c) ... even though it is not part of the mother itself - because, in order to be permitted, it must have "Perasos" (hoofs), as the Torah specifies.

(d) The problem with a Kalut (whose hoofs are only half split, but are not called 'Perasos') is - that it ought to be forbidden like a D'mus Yonah, yet, as we learned above, it is permitted.

(a) We answer by establishing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael like Rebbi Shimon - who learns from "Perasos" and "Parsah" - that any fetus is permitted inside the mother, irrespective of whether its hoofs are completely split ("Perasos") or half-split ("Parsah"), including a Kalut, but not a D'mus Yonah.

(b) Rav Shimi bar Ashi reinstates our original answer (considering an Ubar a Beheimah), and the reason that it is not subject to Temurah is because the author of the Mishnah in Temurah is Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon learns that Temurah does not apply to limbs - from a Hekesh to Ma'aser Beheimah (as we shall now see).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Ma'aser Beheimah) ...

1. ... "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet" - that Ma'aser Beheimah only applies to a complete animal that is able to walk (precluding both Ubrin and Eivarim).
2. ... "Kol Ma'aser Bakar va'Tzon ... Lo Yevaker Bein Tov la'Ra" (seeing as Ma'aser is already included in the prohibition of Temurah together with all the other Korbanos) - that we compare other Korbanos to Ma'aser in many regards, including that Ubrin and Eivarim are not subject to Temurah.

8)

(a) Rebbi Yossi rules in the Mishnah in Temurah that if someone declares the foot of an animal an Olah - then the Kedushas Olah spreads to the entire animal.

(b) He then extrapolate from there - that if someone declares the leg of an animal a Temurah instead of a Hekdesh animal, then likewise the Kedushah ought to spread to the entire animal.

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol Asher Yiten *Mimenu* la'Hashem ... " - that if someone declares Hekdesh one limb of an animal, then that limb becomes Hekdesh, but not the entire animal.
2. ... "*Yih'yeh* Kodesh" - that the limb concerned remains Kadosh and cannot simply be redeemed.

(d) The owner must - sell the animal as an Olah, and the money that he receives for it, with the exception of what corresponds to the limb that is Hekdesh, is Chulin (the Sugya in Temurah explains how this works).

(a) The current opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon hold - that the Hekdesh spreads to the entire animal, which becomes an Olah, because they Darshen "Yih'yeh" to mean that the entire animal becomes forbidden, not just the one limb.

(b) The Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi in the Mishnah in Temurah cannot be Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah - since he is talking to someone who holds, like he does, that the entire animal becomes Hekdesh, whereas Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah do not hold like that, as we just saw.

(a) The Tana Kama must therefore be - Rebbi Shimon, who agrees with him that the Hekdesh spreads to the entire animal (as we see in the Beraisa).

(b) Rebbi Yossi is saying to Rebbi Shimon - that just as he agrees with him that the Kedushah of the one limb spreads to the entire animal, he ought also to agree that the same applies to the limb of the Temurah.

(c) To which Rebbi Shimon will reply - that he learns Temurah from Ma'aser, as we just explained; a proof that he is the author of the Mishnah in Temurah 'Ein Mamirin' (like Rav Shimi bar Ashi explained).

(d) We refute this proof however - by establishing Rebbi Yossi himself as the Tana Kama. He is saying his own original thoughts, and is not necessarily talking to anybody who disagrees.

(a) A Bechor is considered born, regarding Kedushas Bechor - when the majority of the fetus has emerged from the womb (provided the head did not emerge first).

(b) Our Mishnah rules that an animal that is having difficulty in giving birth to a firstborn ...

1. ... may be cut it up as it emerges and thrown to the dogs.
2. ... must be buried, once most of the fetus has emerged intact.

(a) If one sold the first third of the Bechor that emerged to a Nochri and then the second third emerged, Rav Huna declares the animal Kadosh - because he holds that once the majority of the fetus has emerged, the Bechor is Kadosh retroactively, thereby negating the sale.

(b) Rabah argues with him - validating the sale and declaring the Bechor Chulin, because in his opinion, a Bechor becomes Kadosh only once the majority has emerged, and not retroactively, and by the time that occurred, the animal had already been sold to a Nochri ...

(c) ... thereby exempting the owner from giving it to a Kohen.

(a) And they follow their own reasoning in a second Machlokes. In a case where one third of a Bechor emerged via a cut and two thirds via the womb, Rav Huna rules - that the Bechor is not Kadosh ...

(b) ... Rabah rules - that it is.

(c) Rav Huna holds that it is - because he reckons the Bechorah retroactively, which means that the majority of the birth at the point when the majority of the fetus has left the womb, must have taken place via the womb, which in this case it had not; whereas according to Rabah - we do not reckon retroactively, and as long as the majority of the birth takes place via the womb, as it did in this case, it is considered a Bechor.

(d) They need to repeat the same Machlokes twice, because if they had not presented ...

1. ... the second Machlokes, we would have thought that Rav Huna only reckons retroactively in the first case, because it constitutes going le'Chumra, but the second case, where it entails going le'Kula, he will concede to Rabah and not reckon retroactively.
2. ... the first Machlokes, we would have thought that Rabah reckons retroactively in the second case because it constitutes going le'Chumra, but in the first case, where it entails going le'Kula, he will concede to Rav Huna that we reckon retroactively.