1)

(a)If an animal is having difficulty giving birth, and prior to being Shechted, the fetus sticks out and withdraws ...

1. ... its leg - the fetus becomes permitted via the Shechitah of its mother.

2. ... its head - the fetus is considered born, and is not affected by its mother's Shechitah.

(b)In the latter case - if the baby is found to be ...

1. ... alive, it requires its own Shechitah, whereas if it is ...

2. ... dead, it has the Din of a Neveilah.

(c)The Tana permits a piece of fetus that one severs before the mother's Shechitah and leaves inside the mother, but forbids a piece of spleen or kidney in the same circumstances (as we already discussed in the previous Perek) ...

(d)... based on the principle that - any severed part of the animal's body remains forbidden after the mother's Shechitah, whereas whatever is not part of the animal itself is permitted (as we will learn later).

2)

(a)Regarding the opening case in our Mishnah, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav forbids the leg itself (even though the rest of the animal is permitted) - based on the principle that forbids any Basar that leaves its boundaries.

(b)And he learns this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Sochelu".

(c)We also learn from this Pasuk that - an animal of Kodshim that leaves its boundaries (Kodshei Kodshim that leave the Heichal or Kodshim Kalim that leave the Azarah) is forbidden

(d)Even though, as Rav Yehudah is forced to explain, Mutar ba'Achilah, in the above case, refers to the rest of the animal, the Tana nevertheless needs to add the clause Ve'hichzirah (even though the animal is permitted whether it withdraws its foot or not) - because he wants to add in the Seifa (Hotzi es Rosho), to teach us that even though the fetus withdraws its head, it is nevertheless forbidden.

(e)And the Chidush in the Seifa is that - once the animal sticks out its head, it is considered as if it is born (as we explained in the Mishnah), in which case it can no longer become permitted through its mother's Shechitah, even if it subsequently withdraws its head.

3)

(a)The Mishnah in Bechoros rules that a child who is born after a still-born twin - is a B'chor with regard to inheriting a double portion of his father's property, but not with regard to Pidyon ha'Ben.

(b)The Tana refers to two cases. One of them, where the first live eighth-month baby stuck out his head and withdrew it - the other, where it was a dead ninth month baby.

(c)We can extrapolate from the latter case that, if the first twin had stuck out his head alive before withdrawing it - then he would have been the B'chor in all respects.

4)

(a)The problem is - why we need two Mishnahs to teach us that the head emerging from the mother's womb renders a. an animal, and b. a human, a B'chor? Why can we not learn one from the other?

(b)We initially suggest that the Tana needs to teach us both cases, because even if we would know that the head emerging from the womb renders it/him a B'chor in the case of ...

1. ... an animal, we would not know it by a human being - because the former has no P'rozdor (corridor), allowing the birth of a head to be clearly visible, whereas a woman does.

2. ... a human being, we would not know it by an animal - because the face of a human being (which is made in the image of Hash-m) is Chashuv, whereas that of an animal is not.

5)

(a)The Mishnah later rules that once part of the placenta has emerged from the mother's womb, the baby is forbidden - because we are afraid that the head emerged, and if it did, the fetus is considered born, like a human baby.

(b)This poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - since we now have a Mishnah which teaches us that once the head of a fetus emerges, it is considered born, negating Rav Yehudah's explanation that our Mishnah learns the Reisha on account of the Seifa, which teaches us the same thing (as we just explained).

(c)If not for him, we would have explained that - the Chidush lies in the Reisha, and that the Tana learns the Seifa on account of the Reisha.

(d)We nevertheless establish our Mishnah with regard to the Ubar (like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav), and to answer the original Kashya on him, we establish it like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (with regard to another Mishnah), who explains that - the Tana is speaking about the location where the leg has been severed, which does indeed become permitted together with the rest of the fetus after it has been withdrawn.

6)

(a)We query Rav Yehudah from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that in a case where, in similar circumstances to our Mishnah, the baby sticks out a leg ...

1. ... and withdraws it before the mother's Shechitah - it may be eaten.

2. ... and withdraws it after the Shechitah - it is forbidden.

3. ... which is severed before the mother's Shechitah - the leg is Tamei (because of Eiver min ha'Chai (as we will explain in the ninth Perek), whereas the rest of the fetus remains Tahor - because a live animal is not subject to Tum'ah.

(b)In the latter case, where the leg is severed after the Shechitah, Rebbi Meir considers the Ubar, Maga Neveilah (which is a Rishon le'Tum'ah). According to the Rabbanan - it is considered 'Maga T'reifah Shechutah' (as will be explained later in the Perek).

(c)The problem with establishing the first case (Mutar ba'Achilah) by the Ubar (rather than by the leg itself) is - why it is then Asur in the Seifa (Shachat es Imo ve'Achar-Kach Hichziro).

(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves this problem - by establishing it with regard to the location of the cut (which does indeed remain Asur in this case even after it has been withdrawn).

7)

(a)We query Yehudah Amar Rav however, from a Beraisa, cited by Avimi when he came from bei Chuza'i, 'Parsah Hichzir, Achol; Parsos Hichzir, Achol'. From the Pasuk in Re'ei "Beheimah" ... "bi'Veheimah" we learn that - a live fetus that is found inside an animal that has been Shechted is permitted.

(b)We initially explain ...

1. ... Parsah Hichzir, Achol to mean that - if it sticks out one foot and withdraws it, then that foot is permitted, but not the other one.

2. ... Parsos Hichzir, Achol, to mean that - If it returned both feet, then one may eat the entire Ubar, including both feet (a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Rav).

(c)The problem with the latter statement is that - the Ubar ought to be be permitted even if it did not return its feet.

(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore explains ...

1. ... Parsah Hichzir, Achol with reference to the place of the cut, which is permitted once the animal withdraws its foot.

2. ... Parsos Hichzir, Achol that - the same applies to the location of both cuts.

(e)We refute this explanation too however, based on the Pesukim ("Parsah" "P'rasos") on which the Tana based his statement - because, once we know from "Parsah" that the location of one cut is permitted, why do we need "P'rasos" to teach us that the same applies to where it withdraws both feet?

8)

(a)So we answer that the Pasuk of "Parsos"comes to permit a Kalut - a fetus inside a cow which has split hooves like a camel.

(b)And we establish the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Shimon, who forbids a Kalut ben Parah - only if it is born.

(c)Rav Yehudah counters Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that the foot itself (that the Ubar withdraws) is permitted, by citing Rav and Shmuel - who maintain that it is forbidden.

9)

(a)With all due respect to Rav and Shmuel, Ula cites Rebbi Yochanan, who proves his point from a Chatas that left its boundary - which we know is forbidden even if it returned ...

(b)... from Moshe's conversation with Aharon, following Nadav and Avihu's death, and the subsequent discovery that the goat of Rosh Chodesh had been burned. Moshe asked Aharon whether it was burned because it left the Azarah (even though it had been returned).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan extrapolated from there that - only Kodshim that leave their boundaries and return remain forbidden, but that Chulin (such as our current case) become permitted once they return.

10)

(a)We query Ula however, from a Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk "u'Basar be'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" (the source of the prohibition of all things that leave their boundaries). If not for the word "T'reifah", we would learn from Bikurim and Ma'aser Sheini that - all things that leave their boundaries and return are permitted.

(b)But from "T'reifah" we learn that - like "T'reifah", all of them have no Heter (including the leg of an Ubar) proving Ula wrong.

11)

(a)We learn that Bikurin and Ma'aser Sheini revert to their previous Heter once they are returned to their respective boundaries - from the Lashon of the Pasuk forbidding them initially "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha Ma'asar Degancha ... ", which implies that if they are returned, they are permitted.

(b)In Eretz Yisrael, they cited the Machlokes between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan differently. According to them, Rav holds Yesh Leidah le'Eivarim - which means that once a limb leaves the womb it is considered born, and is forbidden.

(c)Whereas Rebbi Yochanan says Ein Leidah le'Evarim.

(d)The difference between the two Leshonos is - regarding a case where the animal sticks out the majority of a limb, with regard to the minority that remains inside, which becomes forbidden according to the second Lashon, but permitted according to the first.

12)

(a)We ask whether, according to Rabbi Yochanan - an Ubar that sticks out one limb at a time before withdrawing it, until eventually, it has stuck out most of its limbs (first one leg then the other, then the spine ... ), is considered to have been born or not.

(b)Perhaps it is not considered born, even though most of it did emerge from its mother's womb - because once a limb has returned, it is permitted (and can no longer combine with other limbs that leave the womb.

(c)Assuming the second side of the She'eilah, we ask what the Din will be in this regard if, instead of the Ubar withdrawing its limbs - they are severed one by one as they emerge, whether perhaps the animal is only considered born if the majority emerges from the womb and remains intact but not in this case.

13)

(a)we try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Zeh ha'Kelal Davar she'Gufah, Asur, ve'she'Einah Gufah, Mutar' - which seems to be coming to teach us that the animal is not considered born if its limbs are severed as they emerge.

(b)We refute this suggestion however by establishing the Chidush - in the case of a Kalut in the stomach of a cow (according to Rebbi Shimon, as we explained earlier).