Commento su Hullin 4:9

בהמה המקשה. מותר באכילה – [it is permitted to eat – when the dam is properly slaughtered] the entire fetus and even the place cutting of the limb. For if it put out its hoof–hand and didn’t retracted, one must leave it from what is inside to the outside and to cut it, for the place of the cut you have distinguished the outer part, but the inner part is prohibited, because it stands on the rim of the womb. But if it withdrew it (i.e., its hoof–hand), one does not need to cut to the inner side, but one confines and cuts and the place that one cut is permitted. For what is the reason that the limb is forbidden when it leaves to the outside? Because of (Exodus 22:30): “[You must not eat] flesh torn by beasts in the field.” Meat that left outside of its compartment which for it is a field, is “torn.” Just as something that is “torn,” once it was “torn,” furthermore has no permit, even meat, since it went outside of its compartment. And the place of the cut did not leave outside of its compartment; furthermore, it is permitted when it returns prior to the ritual slaughter, for we call it (Deuteronomy 14:6): “and any other animal [that has true hoofs which are cleft in two and brings up the cud] – such (an animal) you may eat.”

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the status of the fetus within its mother’s womb, when it may be eaten by virtue of its mother having been properly slaughtered and when it may not.

הרי הוא כילוד – and furthermore, he may not benefit from the ritual slaughter of its mother, and he requires a ritual slaughter of its own if he is found living. But if he (i.e., the offspring) is found dead, it is like something that died of itself.

If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Generally, when a pregnant animal is slaughtered, the fetus may be eaten by virtue of its mother having been slaughtered. However, once the fetus has been born, it too needs to be slaughtered in order to be eaten. The mishnah determines that a fetus is considered to be “offspring” once its head has emerged, even if it puts its head back into the womb. If it puts forth a different limb, it is not considered as having been born. We should note that the same criterion exists for human beings. A fetus is halakhically considered a life once its head has emerged. The main ramification is that up until this point, it is permitted to terminate (I would have used the word sacrifice, but that might have been confusing) the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. Beyond that point, and it is not.

חותך מעובר שבמעיה – and he left the piece within her, it is permitted with the ritual slaughter of the animal and is not forbidden because of “the limb from a living animal” (one of the seven Noahide commandments).

Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted. If someone reaches into the mother and cuts off one of the fetus’s limbs and leaves the limb in the womb, when the mother is slaughtered, that limb may be eaten. This is not considered to be eating a limb from a living animal, which is prohibited, because this is a limb of an animal that has not yet come to life. In contrast, if he reaches in and cuts off an organ from the animal itself and leaves it in inside the animal and then slaughters the animal, that limb is prohibited because it is a limb from a living animal. Without this mishnah one might have thought that as long as the limb is inside the animal when the animal is slaughtered, it is permitted. The mishnah provides the general rule which explains this particular halakhah: if the limb is part of the animal’s body it is prohibited, but if it is not part of the animal’s body, because it is a fetus, it is permitted.

מהבכרת המקשה לילד – with the first of her womb. It is permitted to cut it up limb by limb when it comes outfirst.

Introduction A first born animal is holy and if it dies must be buried. In contrast, the meat of other animals can be given to dogs to eat. Our mishnah deals with an animal having trouble giving birth to her first born.

ומשליך לכלבים – for as long as its majority had not left [the womb], it is not holy.

If an animal giving birth for the first time was having difficulty, one may cut off each limb [as it comes out] and throw it to the dogs. This halakhah accords with the general principle we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. Since the fetus is still inside the womb, it is not considered a separate life. Rather it is considered to be one of its mother’s limbs. Therefore, it can be cut out and fed to the dogs. Note that the Mishnah uses the phrase “throw it to the dogs” because this is what the Torah states may be done with a nevelah, an animal that died without having been slaughtered.

יצא רובו – as one [complete animal], and [then] he cut it.

If the greater portion came forth it must be buried, and she is exempt from the law of the firstling. Once the majority of the fetus has emerged from its mother’s womb, it is considered as being born. From this point forth if one has to cut it up to save its mother (which is permitted) the flesh cannot be thrown to the dogs. Rather it must be buried, as is the rule for all firstlings that die. Furthermore, once the fetus is born, the next offspring born to this mother is not considered to be a firstling. Some commentators hold that this clause “she is exempt from the law of the firstling” applies to both clauses of the mishnah.

הרי זה יקבר – for with the exit of most, the sanctity takes effect upon it and we call it (Deuteronomy 15:19): “[You shall consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings] that are born [in your herd and in your flock.”

ונפטרה מן הבכורה – that which comes after him (i.e., the first-born male animal), is not a firstling, hether it first came out limb by limb, or whether the majority of it came out as one, for the second is not the first of the womb.

בבהמה טהורה טהור – from an a fortiori inference (see Tractate Hullin 70b), if [being inside] its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through its slaughter, even though it (i.e., the fetus) is dead, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass? And from where do we learn that the same applies regarding an unclean animal? For it states in Scripture (Leviticus 11:39): “If an animal that you may eat has died, anyone who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” [The phrase:” “If an animal…. has died,” this is an unclean animal; “that you may eat,” this is a clean–pure animal. A comparison of these juxtaposed “unclean animal” and “clean animal” – just as in a clean–pure animal, its fetus is pure, even in an unclean animal, its fetus is pure.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with ramifications of the notion that a fetus within its mother’s womb is considered to be a limb of its mother and not a separate life.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בטמאה טמא – and he derives it from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 5:2): “Or when a person touches any impure thing -be it the carcass of an impure beast or the carcass of impure cattle,” Does the carcass of an impure beast defile and the carcass of a pure animal does not defile? But rather, which is it {that in an impure animal it defiles and that in a pure animal it doesn’t defile)? This is a [dead] fetus that is in the womb of an impure animal that is impure, and [a dead fetus] that is in a pure animal that is pure, from an a fortiori. But regarding the impure animal, there is no a fortiori [inference], and we don’t expound an analogy based upon biblical inference. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. A nevelah, an animal that died without being slaughtered, is unclean. However, the fetus in its mother’s womb is not considered to be a nevelah. This is derived from a kal vehomer (a fortiori) argument. If a clean animal is slaughtered and found to be pregnant, her fetus can be eaten based on the mother’s valid slaughtering. It is not a nevelah. All the more so, a fetus that dies within a live mother is not considered to be a nevelah, because its mother is alive. According to the first opinion, this is true of both clean and unclean animals.

החיה טמאה טומאת שבעה – and it is from the Rabbis, as a decree lest the fetus bring forth its head outside the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he is like he was born and defiles and the midwife thinks that it (i.e., the fetus) is still in her womb and comes to be pure. But the shepherd who inserted his hand into the womb of the animal, as it is taught in our Mishnah is pure. We don’t make this decree, because the womb of the animal is revealed, and when it (i.e., the fetus) comes out, he sees it.

Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says that there is no “kal vehomer” argument when it comes to the unclean animal because when its mother is slaughtered, the fetus does not become fit for eating. Therefore, it has the status of nevelah even if it died within its mother’s womb.

ואשה טהורה עד שיצא הולד – for the woman creates excitement for herself when it (i.e., the fetus) brings forth its head outside of the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he does not come to be purified (see Talmud Hullin 72a).

If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out. If the human fetus dies within its mother’s womb, and the midwife touches it while it is still inside, the midwife is unclean for seven days, as is the rule for someone who comes into contact with a corpse. According to the Talmud this impurity is not “deoraita” from the Torah, but rather is a rabbinic decree. From the Torah, since the fetus is still in its mother it does not count as a separate life. However, the rabbis decreed that it should make her impure lest she touch it after its head has already emerged. The mother is considered clean from corpse impurity unless the head emerges and then the baby dies.

הבשר טהור – the flesh–meat of the fetus is pure, for the animal does not receive impurity while living.

Introduction If a fetus sticks a limb out when being born and someone cuts off that limb before slaughtering the mother, the limb causes impurity as would a nevelah, as do all limbs taken from living animals. Our mishnah teaches that in this case the fetus that remains in the mother does not have the status of nevelah and it is clean. The rabbis in our mishnah debate whether the same is true if they slaughtered the mother first and then cut the limb off of the fetus.

הבשר מגע נבילה – the flesh–meat of the fetus touched a limb from a living animal, which defiles like carrion.

If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. In this case, the fetus in its mother’s womb remains clean because it is considered to be a limb of its mother, while its mother is still alive. Even if the fetus dies it is still clean. Even if the unclean limb touches the fetus, the fetus is still clean because animals cannot become unclean while alive.

מגע טריפה שחוטה – for the ritual slaughter, even though it does not permit the limb for consumption, purifies it from being carrion, and it is like something torn that is ritually slaughtered that does not defile from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis with those things that are sanctified [for the Temple]: This is our reading.

If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. If after the fetus sticks out its limb, its mother is slaughtered, and then he cuts off the limb, we now have a case of a cut-off limb touching a dead fetus. Rabbi Meir holds that the fetus is rendered unclean by virtue of contact with the unclean limb. The limb has the status of nevelah and meat which has contact with nevelah is unclean.

אף שחיטת בהמה תטהר את העבר – and we don’t have the reading “of the fetus.”

But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, The other sages do not accord the limb the status of nevelah but rather terefah, and as we shall see below in the mishnah, a slaughtered terefah does not cause impurity.

לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טריפה אותה – this is according to the law, for it is a thing that is part of its body.

For just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. The rabbis say that just as slaughtering renders a terefah clean (and saves it from ever becoming an unclean nevelah) even though the meat is forbidden, so too slaughtering renders the limb clean, even though it cannot be eaten.

ומנין לטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה – for perhaps it does not purify it, and from the law, does not purify it, for an unclean–impure animal is prohibited for consumption and a torn animal is forbidden for consumption.

Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? Rabbi Meir rejects their argument. Slaughtering can render the terefah animal itself clean, but how can it render clean a part of the fetus, the limb, that was not attached to the fetus when its mother was slaughtered? Rather, the limb has the status of nevelah and renders the fetus unclean.

ומה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה – from being impure, for this is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus – see Leviticus 11:26,24: “among all the animals...that has true hoofs….whoever touches their carcasses shall be impure until evening” – all who touch them shall be impure, to include an unclean animal that its slaughter will not purify it.

From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? The mishnah now begins a prolonged argument trying to prove that a slaughtered terefah is clean, even though its meat cannot be eaten.

תאמר בטריפה שהיתה לה שעת הכושר – for since it takes effect the law of ritual slaughtering, furthermore, it does not escape from it for it is within the general realm of the rest of sheep and cattle.

[For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? However, in a most rabbinic fashion, the rabbis do not begin with the proof but rather with a counter-proof, what one might have argued. Seemingly one might have compared the terefah with the unclean animal. Both an unclean animal and a terefah cannot be eaten. Therefore, one might have argued that just as shechitah (slaughtering) does not render an unclean animal clean, for its meat transmits impurity, so too the slaughtering of a terefah renders it unclean and able to transmit impurity.

טול לך מה שהבאת – take from here this proof that you brought.

No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? That argument can be refuted. An unclean animal is not rendered clean by slaughtering because it never had the opportunity to be made permitted/clean through slaughtering. In contrast, if the terefah animal had been slaughtered before it became a terefah, it would have been rendered clean. Therefore, even if it is slaughtered after it becomes a terefah, it is clean (although not edible).

הרי שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מנין – that it would make it pure.

Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? The mishnah, employing graphic language found in a few other midrashim but no where in the Mishnah, says that the distinction drawn between the terefah and the unclean animal must be removed. There is a terefah which would never have been permitted by shechitah the terefah that was born as such. This is similar to the unclean animal, which also never would have been permitted by shechitah. Therefore, our original question returns: How can the inedible terefah be rendered clean by slaughter?

שיש במינה שחיטה – therefore, it does not escape from the generalization of sheep and cattle. But a living animal [fetus] that is eight [months] old that was born from a living animal, we don’t have with what to purify it even it is slaughtered, because it is not included with cattle and sheep. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

[Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? The mishnah now adjusts the distinction between the terefah and the unclean animal. A terefah comes from a species of animal that is edible. Other such animals can be eaten after shechitah. Therefore, it is rendered clean by shechitah, just as other animals of its kind are. This would be true even for a terefah that was born as such. In contrast, an unclean animal is by definition from a species that can never be edible. Therefore, it is not rendered clean by shechitah.

אין שחיטתה מטהרתו – from being carrion, for the ritual slaughter of an eight [month] fetus is of any benefit, but rather, when it is in the womb of its mother, it is permitted through the slaughter of its mother (as we will learn in the next Mishnah).

[Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind. The rule that we posited in the previous section is that any animal whose “kind” can be permitted/edible by having been slaughtered, is also clean if it is slaughtered. An “eight months’ birth” refers to an animal born prematurely, one which is deformed and we know will die. The mishnah uses the term “eight months” because a human baby born at eight months is assumed not to be viable. An “eight months’ birth” is like a terefah it is an animal that is now alive, that we know will die shortly. Because of the general rule explained above, an animal born prematurely cannot be made clean by shechitah because none of its kind can be made permitted through shechitah. Such an animal that is slaughtered will have the status of nevelah.

One who slaughters an animals and finds in it an 8 month old fetus that lives: A full grown fetus that lives that is permitted to eat without slaughter, the helev and blood are not permitted by the rabbis and know that it doesn't need checking [for treifot]. We want to say that treifot do not cause loss since according to us it is already slaughtered even though it is alive. The halacha follows the chachamim on condition it [the fetus] did not walk on the ground. And the words of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that allows it even if it did walk on the ground are not the law.

ומוציא את דמו – and its fat alone is permitted, as it is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus), when it states, the fat and the two kidneys with a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 7:4: “the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins”), and we don’t need to say that from an a fortiori we would derive it, for just as regarding an offering of well-being–peace offering that anything of their species requires the fat-tail, for they require the fat and two kidneys. The guilt offering, that all of its species requires the tail, is it not the law that it requires the fat and the two kidneys? And what does the inference teach us, but rather to tell us that just as fat and the two kidneys that are stated with the guilt offering is removed from the general category of the embryo, for you are not able to state that the fat of the embryo that is found in a guilt offering should be offered with a female animal, even all, even the sacrifices that come from a female, the fat that is mentioned regarding them one removes from the category of the embryo. But since the fat of the embryo is not offered with all the sacrifices, it is permitted for consumption. But its blood is not worse than the blood of the limbs and we hold that in the Tractate Keritot that the blood of the limbs one violates a negative commandment.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with the status of a fetus found in its mother’s womb when she is slaughtered.

טעון שחיטה – for newborns indirectly to compare an animal by itself, and to nt to be included–to be derived by implication with all the cattle that you may eat.

If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir distinguishes between a live fetus found inside its mother after she has been slaughtered and a dead one. A dead fetus is considered to be part of its mother’s flesh and therefore when she is slaughtered the dead fetus is permitted. An eight months’ fetus is considered to be as if it is dead (for it could not live outside of the womb) and therefore it too is permitted when its mother is slaughtered. However, a living nine months’ fetus is an independent life. When it is found in its mother’s womb it too must be slaughtered before it can be eaten. Furthermore, one who slaughters it and its mother on the same day transgresses the biblical prohibition of slaughtering a mother and her offspring on the same day (Leviticus 22:28). We should note that the implication of this halakhah is that life begins before the fetus leaves the womb. The point at which this is so would seem to be the point at which the fetus would be viable outside of the womb.

וחייב באותו את בנו – that you should not slaughter it on the date that you ritually slaughter its mother.

But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eights years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. The other rabbis disagree. Any fetus found in its mother’s womb is permitted to be eaten without having to be slaughtered itself. All that one would need to do is drain the blood, the same rule which applies to all meat. Theoretically, as Rabbi Shimon Shezuri points out, one could even eat an eight year old animal without slaughtering it first, if it was born after its mother was slaughtered.

וחכמים אומרים שחיטת אמו מטהרתו – that the newly born and giving birth is the cause of it.

If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered. If he doesn’t slaughter the mother, then if the fetus is alive, it will need to be slaughtered. Since its mother was not slaughtered, there is no way to allow this animal to be eaten without proper slaughtering.

ר' שמעון שזורי כו' – to the words of the Sages, since that it (i.e., the animal) walked on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter according to the Rabbis. For one might exchange it in order to eat an animal without ritual slaughter. Burt Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits even after he it had a parted hoof on the

קרעה – [cut into] the animal without ritual slaughter.

בהמה שנתחכו – the hind–back [legs].

Introduction Our mishnah talks about two different subjects: 1) the status as a terefah an animal whose leg has been broken off; 2) a limb hanging from an animal and whether it is considered to still be part of the animal.

מן הארכובה ולמטה – there are three bones in the thigh. The lowest is the bone that is cut with the split hoofs when they flay the animal and this joint is called the knee that is sold with the head, and in the foreign tongue, we call that limb–joint YEENOKLAV, and in Arabic DUKBA. And above it there is the middle bone and the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh (see Talmud Hullin 76a) underneath it adjacent to the limb–joint of the knee that is sold with the head. And the uppermost is the thigh-bone which is inserted in the tail. And the joint which is between the end of the thigh-bone to the top of the middle bone is known and seen in a camel when it lies down more than the rest of the living creatures. And from the knee and below as it is taught in our Mishnah that it is kosher, which is from the beginning of the knee that is sold with the head and below. But from the knee and upward, which is from the end of the middle bone, which is the place of bunch of converging sinews in the thigh, in every place where the foot is cut, from there and above is “torn” (not kosher).

If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the joint, it is permitted; If above the joint, it is terefah. According to the rabbis there are three parts to an animal’s leg. The lowest part is the foot, the middle part is the calf and the upper part is the thigh. The place where the foot is attached to the calf and the place where the calf is attached to the thigh are both called “berech” which in modern Hebrew means knee. In the Talmud they debate which joint is “the joint” mentioned here. If it is the upper one, then it would mean that an animal whose leg has been severed below the knee (what we call the knee) is not a terefah. If it is the lower one, then only if it is severed below the place where the foot joins the calf is it not a terefah.

וכן שניטל צומת הגידין (if the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed – even if the foot was not cut off that the bone was not broken but the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh were removed, it is invalid–”torn.” So explained some of the Amoraim of the Mishnah in the Gemara (Talmud Hullin 76a-b). But this approach my teachers–Rabbis took hold of as essential and taught that in every place where the leg was cut off above from lower knee which they call Y’NUKLAV in the foreign tongue, whether in the place where the bunch of converging sinews or whether above from the bunch of converging sinews, it is [considered] “torn” (unfit, not kosher). But Maimonides and Rabbi Alfasi his teacher took hold as essential a different commentary–explanation – that from the knee and below is kosher and from the knee and above is unfit, for this is what he said: below from the upper knee which is the thigh-bone that is inserted in the tail, but not below immediately adjacent to it, but rather, below from the middle bone entirely, which is the lower bone, is definitely kosher. Above from the knee, which is the thigh-bone, is definitely “torn” (i.e., unfit, not kosher) in every place that he cut off. And similarly, if he removed the bunch of converging sinews, meaning to say, that in the middle bone, there is a place that is “torn” such as the bunch of converging sinews, and there is a place which is kosher, such as above from the bunch of converging sinew. But don’t be astonished how if he severed it above from the bunch on the middle bone, it is kosher, but when he lowers to cut the bunch, it is “torn,” that we can’t say that this torn part is similar to that one, for if one cuts from here and the animal dies, one cuts from there and the animal lives. And this animal is not forbidden because its leg was severed from this place, but rather because the bunch of sinews were cut, for their severing is within the general [definition] of those things that are torn. And the place of the bunch of the converging sinews begins from the place where they appear hard and white until the place that they begin to soften and redden.

So too if the juncture of the tendons was gone, [it is terefah]. The “juncture of the tendons” refers to the tendons that connect the thigh to the knee. If these are missing, the animal is a terefah even if the bone is still whole.

וצומת הגידין – they are three white sinews in the animal that meet and are connected together. One of them is thick and the [other] two are thin. If the thick one alone is removed, this is not the removal of the bunch of converging sinews, for two of them remain. But if the two think wones are removed from their place, it is permitted, for the one that is thick and larger than the other two, for the entire bunch of converging sinews were not removed, only a minority of them. But if most of each of them were severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher). And one does not need to state if all of them were severed or if all of them were removed. And with fowl, they are sixteen white sinews, even if only the majority of one of them was severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher).

If the bone was broken but the greater part of the flesh [around the fracture] remained, it is rendered clean by the slaughtering; Otherwise it is not rendered clean by the slaughtering. A limb that was separated from the animal when the animal was still alive cannot be rendered clean by slaughtering the animal. A broken bone does not mean that the limb must be considered separate. As long as most of the flesh remains, the limb is part of the animal and when the animal is slaughtered, the limb is permitted and clean. But if most of the flesh does not remain, then the limb is not considered as part of the animal and the limb is unclean even after the animal is slaughtered.

נשבר העצם – below from the knee in the place where it doesn’t make it “torn” (i.e., not kosher).

‘אם רוב הבשר קיים – which is the hide and flesh cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference of the break. For sometimes it is found this without that, such as when it widens from one side and is narrow from the other side, for the bone is not round. Therefore, it requires both.

שחיטתו מטהרתו – to the limb hanging down from the body, and it is permitted, even for consumption.

ואם לאו – that the hide and the flesh do not cover the majority, the slaughtering does not render it clean. But even though the animal is permitted, the limb is forbidden because of (Exodus 22:30): “you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; [you shall cast it to the dogs],” as we state (Tractate Hullin 73a), to include the limb and flesh hanging down from the body. But if the bone is broken form the knee and above to the place where it makes it “torn,” if most of the flesh exists, the limb and the animal are permitted. But if not, the limb and the animal are prohibited. And the law of the fowl is like the law of the animals of the field for this matter.

שליא (placenta–after-birth) – a jind of pocket where the fetus is placed into it.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with the status of the amniotic sac found in a slaughtered animal.

נפש היפה – for it is not counted on in his mind (and therefore forbidden to handle) on account of its repulsiveness.

If a person slaughtered an animal and found in it an amniotic sac, he who is not fastidious may eat it. When the mother is slaughtered, her amniotic sac is permitted to be eaten by virtue of the slaughtering of the mother. However, the mishnah notes that only one who is “not fastidious” and doesn’t mind eating “yucky” parts of the animal will eat it. [I guess they didn’t have hot dogs back then.]

תאכלנה – but we don’t say that it is the limb from a living animal (i.e., one of the seven Noahide commandments), but also is a remnant from the ritual slaughtering of the mother [animal].

It does not contract uncleanness, either food uncleanness or the uncleanness of nevelah. Although it is edible, the amniotic sac is not considered food. Nor is it considered to be the flesh/meat of the animal. Therefore, it cannot become ritually unclean in the way that food becomes ritually unclean. Furthermore, if the animal is not slaughtered properly and therefore becomes a nevelah, it is not unclean as is a nevelah. The sac is not considered to the edible flesh of the animal, and only such flesh is unclean.

ואינה מטמאה – as it is not considered food.

If he intended to eat it, it can contract food uncleanness but not the uncleanness of nevelah. If a person intends to eat it, his thoughts cause it to become “food” and it is susceptible to uncleanness. However, intention cannot cause the sac to become a “nevelah” because it is categorically not considered part of the edible flesh of the animal.

ולא טומאת נבילות – if the animal died.

If part of the amniotic sac emerged [before the slaughtering of the mother], it may not be eaten; For it is a sign of birth in a woman and also a sign of birth in an animal. Once the sac begins to emerge it is considered as if the woman has begun to give birth, for the head might be inside the sac. Therefore, even if the sac goes back inside the mother’s womb, it still cannot be eaten, even if found in the mother after she was slaughtered. In this sense is treated as if it was offspring and once offspring has emerged from the womb it cannot be eaten by virtue of the mother being slaughtered. However, the main difference is that while the offspring cannot be eaten based on its mother being slaughtered, the offspring itself can be slaughtered. In contrast, when the sac cannot be eaten based on the mother being slaughtered, it can never be eaten. Once the sac begins to emerge, it is a sign of childbirth in a woman as well, again because the head might be inside the sac. From this point she has the uncleanness of a woman who gave birth (see Leviticus 12:2).

מטמאה טומאת אוכלין (if he gave thought to it – for use as food) – of it came in contact with defilement, that his thought considers it as food. But not the uncleanness of carrion, for it is not meat but rather, merely like the rest of food in general.

If an animal which was pregnant for the first time miscarried an amniotic sac, it may be thrown to dogs. But in the case of a consecrated animal it must be buried. It may not be buried at cross-roads or hung on a tree, for these are amorite practices. The amniotic sac itself does not have the halakhic status of “offspring.” Therefore, the amniotic sac of an animal’s first birth does not have the sanctity of a firstling. It can be thrown to the dogs, whereas if it was sacred it would have had to have been buried. While it is not considered offspring, the sac is still part of the animal. Therefore, if it comes from a sanctified animal, one that was dedicated to the Temple, it must be buried because it is holy. The mishnah forbids practices that are deemed idolatrous or magical. It seems that some people bestowed amniotic sacs with magical powers and either hung them in a tree or buried them at crossroads. Magical practices are deemed to be “the ways of the Amorites” and are prohibited.

אסורה באכילה – and even though only a small part of it (i..e, the placenta–after-birth) came out, and it is obvious that all that all of the cleansing of the fetus was not there, we are concerned perhaps that with that particular piece, the head of the offspring came out and that is considered like it is born.

[הכי גרסינן] סימן ולד באשה. וסימן ולד בבהמה: המבכרת – this is her first issue of her womb.

ישליכנה לכלבים – for there is no sanctity in it. For even though there is no placenta–after-birth without a offspring, here, the majority is not sanctified, for perhaps it was a female, or it was an animal suspected of looking like one (i.e., a lamb looking like a kid and vice-versa – or a hybrid), and it is not holy (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter).

ובמוקדשין – as, for example, the cattle of peace-offering–well-being which expelled the after-birth–placenta.

תקבר – for since there is no after-birth–placenta without offspring, it is sanctified, for whether a male or a female that left from the animal that was sanctified to the Temple is holy.

בפרשת דרכים – a place where the paths separate into two. And the path of diviners to bury her there in order that she will not abort anymore.

דרכי האמורי – sorcery, as it is written (Exodus 23:24}: “[you shall not bow down to the gods in worship] or follow their practices.”