R. Joseph sat before R. Huna and he say and stated, “Said R. Judah, said Rab, `If one ate such, he is subject to the punishment of flogging.' Said to him one of the rabbis, `Pay no attention to him. This is what R. Yitzhak bar Samuel bar Marta said in the name of Rab: If one ate such, he is not subject to the punishment of flogging.'”
D. Said to him R. Huna, “On which authority shall we rely?” R. Joseph [angrily] turned away. He [Joseph] said to him, “What is the question? I stated matters regarding an animal that dies that [the dangling flesh] is considered to be detached. They stated matters regarding the act of slaughter, [that dangling flesh] is not considered to be detached.” [See above IV.2 A.]
E. Said Raba, “What is the basis for this statement that as far as an animal that dies is concerned, it is considered to be detached. As far as the act of slaughter [is concerned], it is not considered to be detached? As it is written, `And anything upon which any of them falls when they are dead shall be unclean, [whether it is an article of wood or a garment or a skin or a sack, any vessel that is used for any purpose; it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it shall be clean] (Lev. 11:32).'” [“Falls when they are dead” implies that as far as an animal that dies is concerned it is considered to be detached.]
F. What circumstance does [the verse] exclude? If you say it excludes the case of [creeping things] that are still alive, we derive this from the term, “Of their carcass.” [“And if any part of their carcass falls upon any seed for sowing that is to be sown, it is clean” (Lev. 11:37).] Rather we may derive from this that as far as an animal that dies is concerned, it is considered to be detached. As far as the act of slaughter [is concerned], it is not considered to be detached.
G. Said R. Ada bar Ahavah to Raba, “But lo the verse stated matters with regard to creeping things.” He said to him, “If the matter does not pertain to creeping things that are not subject to the rules of slaughter, then you may teach that it pertains to beasts [that are subject to the rules of slaughter].” And yet you still need that they [creeping things] be as if they had just died. [That is, if they are] moist they render unclean [other objects]. And if they are dried out, they do not render unclean. Two times it is written, “When they are dead” (Lev. 11:31, 32). [So you may derive both principles.]
H. Said R. Hisda, “There is a dispute in the case of a limb of a live foetus [that protrudes from the mother]. But in the case of a limb of a dead foetus, all would agree that as for as the act of slaughter goes it is considered to be detached.” And Raba said, “Just as there is a dispute in this case, there is a dispute in that case.”
A. As to a live eight-month's birth, slaughtering it does not render it clean, because the like [of it] is not subject to slaughtering [M. 4:4 N]. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: [The case of] a live eight-month's birth will decide the matter. For even though the like of it is subject to slaughtering, the act of slaughter does not render it clean. [This teaching implies that the act of slaughter does not render clean a terefah-animal either.]
B. Said R. Kahana, “The like of it is subject to slaughtering by virtue of [an instance where one slaughtered] its mother [before it was born].” And [what is the basis for the view of] our Tanna [in the Mishnah here]? He does not raise a question based on the assumption that the mother is the like [of a live eight-month's birth]. But [the basis for] that Tanna who does raise a question [based on that assumption] what is his basis for the view that slaughtering a terefah-animal renders it clean [of the uncleanness of carrion]?
C. He may derive this from what R. Judah said in the name of Rab. For said R. Judah, said Rab, and some say that this was taught in a Tannaite teaching: Scripture stated, “And if from among any animal [of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening” (Lev. 11:39); “From among” implies] some of the animals render unclean and some of the animals do not render unclean. And which is it [that does not render unclean]? It is a terefah-animal that was slaughtered.
A. R. Hoshaia posed a question: If one inserted his hand into the womb of an animal and slaughtered a nine-month-old foetus what is the law? You may pose the question to R. Meir. And you may pose the question to the rabbis [of our Mishnah, D-E].
B. You may pose the question to R. Meir — on the point R. Meir stated that an animal born live from a slaughtered mother needs to be slaughtered [before one can eat it, was that] only in the circumstance where it emerged [from the womb]? But where it is still in the mother's womb, [might we argue that] slaughtering it will not render it permitted? Or perhaps even in accord with the view of the rabbis [might we argue that] through four organs the Torah allowed it to be rendered valid [i.e., the two of the mother or the two of the foetus]?
C. Said R. Hananiah, “Come and take note: Lo, what is born as a terefah from the womb [M. 4:4 L] — now if you hold the view [that slaughtering in the womb is effective] we find that it had a moment when it was valid. For if he wanted he could have put in his hand and slaughtered it.”
D. Said to him Raba, “Teach the matter [that the case was where] it was formed as a terefah-animal from the womb. And we find this in the case of an animal that has five legs.”
I.1 analyzes the reasoning of Mishnah's authorities and invokes Tannaite complements in establishing the premises. II.1 gives a principle in support of one view of Mishnah. III.1 then continues the exposition of the Mishnah-paragraph on its own terms. IV.1 extends the dispute of Mishnah to another related issue and works out the implications. IV.2 continues the foregoing, extending it to a second-level issue and IV.3 provides further inquiry into the theme. V.1 returns to the subject of Mishnah and explores its assumptions. V.2 concludes with a secondary matter.
A. He who slaughters a beast and found in it an eight-months' birth, living or dead, or a dead nine-months' birth,
B. tears it out and removes its blood.
C. “[If] he found a live nine-months' birth, it requires slaughtering.
D. “And it is liable to the rule concerning it and its young [Lev. 22:28, which are not to be slaughtered on the same day],” the words of R. Meir.
E. And sages say, “The slaughtering of its mother renders it clean.”
F. R. Simeon Shezuri says, “Even if [it grew to the] age of eight years and ploughs a field — the slaughtering of its mother renders it clean.”
G. [If] one cut [into a beast] and found in it a living nine-months' birth, it requires slaughtering,
H. because its mother has not been slaughtered.
A. Said R. Eleazar, Said R. Oshaia, “They followed this line [of reasoning discussed in the Mishnah] only with regard to [the need to perform on the offspring an act of] slaughtering.”
B. What does this come to exclude? It excludes [from that which is permitted in the offspring by virtue of the mother] the forbidden fats and the sinew of the hip [of the offspring].
C. Which forbidden fats [do we refer to in this statement]? If you say it refers to the fat of the foetus, concerning this there is a dispute. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: “[The prohibition of the sinew of the hip] applies to the foetus, and its fat is prohibited,” the words of R. Meir [M. 7:1D]. R. Judah says, “It does not apply to the foetus. Its fat is permitted” [M. 7:1E-F][T. 7:1 A-B].
D. And said R. Eleazar, said R. Oshaia, “The dispute pertains to a case of a live nine-months' birth. And R. Meir follows in accord with his view [that it must be slaughtered] and R. Judah with his view.”
E. Rather [it refers to] forbidden fats of the sinew. [But in this too] there is a dispute. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: “As to the sinew of the hip: One digs after it in every place in which it is located and removes it. And he cuts away its fat from its root,” the words of R. Meir [cf. M. 7:2B]. R. Judah says, “One removes it [merely] from the cap of the hip bone” [cf. M. 7:2C and T. 7:4 A-B].
F. Rather if you state the matter [of A], state it as follows: Said R. Eleazar, said R. Oshaia, “They followed this line [of reasoning discussed in the Mishnah] only with regard to matters pertaining to eating [the animal].” This excludes [from their concern in M.] one who interbreeds with the animal (Lev. 19:19) or plows with it [in a forbidden fashion, Deut. 22:10. These prohibitions pertain to the animal according to both views (Rashi).]
A. Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “According to the authority who permits the fats, he would also permit the blood [of this animal]. According to the authority who prohibits the fats, he would also prohibit the blood.”
B. And R. Yohanan said, “Even according to the authority who permits the fats, he would prohibit the blood.”
C. R. Yohanan raised an objection to the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish: [The Mishnah states explicitly in B that one] tears it out and removes its blood!
D. Said R. Zira, “[R. Yohanan intended in his statement] to say that [it is prohibited, but that he who eats the blood of this animal] is not subject to the punishment of extirpation.”
E. In accord with which authority do we state this matter? If you wish to say it is in accord with the view of R. Judah, this could only be with regard to the blood that flows [from the animal]. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: The blood that flows [out after the initial life-blood spurts out] is subject only to a warning [but there is no penalty for eating it]. R. Judah says, “[One who eats it] is subject to the penalty of extirpation” [T. Ker. 2:19 B-C].
F. R. Pappa, the son of R. Sala the pious interpreted before R. Pappa, “R. Judah interprets [that it could have stated] `blood' but instead stated, `[Moreover you shall eat] no blood whatever, [whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings]' (Lev. 7:26). [From this you may derive that] in any instance where one is liable [to the punishment of extirpation] for the life-blood, he is liable for the blood that flows. And in any instance where one is not liable for the life-blood [e.g., for the foetus], he is not liable for the blood that flows.
A. They raised a question: What is the rule [for whether one may redeem a first born ass] with a live birth [of a lamb] from a slaughtered mother? According to the view of R. Meir you should have no question. Because since he says that you must slaughter it, it is a perfectly good lamb. Where will you have a question? In accord with the view of the rabbis who said that the act of slaughter for the mother renders it clean.
B. What does it mean that the act of slaughter for the mother renders it clean? Is it like meat in a basket [and is not called a lamb anymore]? Or perhaps because it runs back and forth, we may call it a lamb [and redeem with it a first born ass]?
C. Mar Zutra said, “They do not redeem [with it].” And R. Ashi said, “They do redeem [with it].”
D. Said R. Ashi to Mar Zutra, “What is your view? You derived [from the common use in the verses of the word] `lamb' for this matter and for the matter of the paschal lamb.” [The verses are: “Every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem” (Exod. 13:13); “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats” (Exod. 12:5).]
E. But if you accept this than you should say, just as there [for the paschal lamb] you must have a male, without blemish and a year old, so here too [with regard to the redemption of the firstling] you must have a male, without blemish, a year old. It says, “You shall redeem.” “You shall redeem” includes [other animals].
F. If [it writes] “You shall redeem” [and] “You shall redeem” includes [other animals], then why not even all other kinds of animals [even the live birth from the slaughtered mother]? [No. You could not go that far. Because] if so, what good would it do to derive anything [from the common use in the verses of the word] `lamb'.
A. They raised a question: What is the law with regard to counting for this [live birth from a slaughtered mother] first- and second-remove uncleanness.
B. R. Yohanan said, “They count for it first- and second-remove uncleanness.” And R. Simeon b. Laqish said, “They do not count for it first- and second-remove uncleanness.” It is considered to be analogous to a nut that is enclosed in its shell.
C. R. Simeon b. Laqish posed a question to R. Yohanan: “The meat [of the offspring] is in the status of that which has touched carrion [namely, the hoof, which, located outside the womb, is unaffected by the slaughter of the mother],” the words of R. Meir. And sages say, “[It is in the status of that which has] touched terefah that has been slaughtered” [M. 4:4]. It makes perfect sense according to my view because I reasoned that they are like one body. That is why the foetus is made susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of the blood of the mother [that comes forth during the act of slaughter]. But according to your view, with what [liquid] does it become susceptible to uncleanness?
D. He [Yohanan] said to him, “With the act of slaughter itself and in accord with the view of R. Simeon [cf. M. 2:5 E].”
E. R. Yohanan posed a question to R. Simeon b. Laqish: If it [the live birth from a slaughtered mother] passed through a river, it became susceptible to uncleanness [by virtue of the water]. If it went to a cemetery, it became unclean [by virtue of passing over graves]. This makes perfect sense according to my view. For I maintain that they are two separate bodies. Because of this you say if it was rendered susceptible, then yes [it can become unclean]. But if it was not rendered susceptible, then no [it cannot become unclean]. But according to your view that they [mother and foetus] are like one body, lo [the foetus] is rendered susceptible by the blood of the mother [that comes forth during the act of slaughter].