![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Masechet Chullin Daf 70
Feb. 6th, 2019 09:42 amDaf 69 continued
This was actually in Rabbi Linzer's shiur on Daf 70, and since I didn't really follow it before I listened I'm summarizing it now.
Whence this whole idea that a ben Pekuach fetus in a mother who is shechted has the status as if it were itself shechted?
The Gemara suggests it's from Devarim 14:6. "And every animal that has a split hoof and is cloven into two hooves, chews the cud, of the animals, it you may eat" The Rabbis understand 'of the animals' , since behema is mentioned twice in the verse, as meaning 'in the animals', and therefore that the fetus within its mother is covered by shechita.
But then it objects that this implies we understand the fetus as being a behema! But since this fetus can't be used in temura, the law of substitutional sacrifice, how can we call it a behema? So we embark on a more complicated drash of the same verse. The kol in 'every animal', rather, includes parts of the animal, like the fetus. But this must be distinguished from other parts of the animal, like a severed kidney, which we know from the Mishnah are not included in this halakha. So the Gemara learns from "it may you eat" that the part of an animal included in its law must be a complete entity, not a part of a thing.
But Rabbi Yochanan teaches that if you find the fetus to be dove-shaped, it is forbidden. Rabbi Linzer's class was debating whether this meant the fetus was at an early developmental state that didn't yet look like a cow, or if it was a genetic mutation that didn't look like a cow. The Gemara answers by pointing that the verse mentions hooves, so a ben Pekuah must be a)a part of the mother b)but a whole entity on its own c)not dove shaped.
Then the Gemara cites Rabbi Yishmael in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that a fetus that is cow-shaped need not have fully formed split hooves to be a ben Pekuah, and the Gemara saves its position by rereading the language about hooves so that it can also refer to nonsplit hooves. So a ben Pekuah must be a)a part of the mother b)but a whole entity on its own c)not dove shaped and d)have hooves that are either split or not split.
Then Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to save the original drash of the verse from 'babehema' by saying it reflects Rabbi Shimon's opinion about temurah, and the Gemara accepts this possibility but seems to still prefer its more complicated drash.
Daf 70
A stillborn has the status of neveilah and therefore transmits tumah. What about a stillborn that is still inside the mother's womb? If someone reaches in to try to deliver, and they touch a stillborn, are they tamei?
The Tanna Kamma says no. Rabbi Yosei haGlili says no in the case of a kosher animal, yes in the case of a nonkosher animal.
They're both reasoning from the case of the ben Pekuah. If you were to shecht the mother, the fetus would be kosher and not even need shechting, so how could it possibly be a neveila now and then change status and become not a neveila? So Rabbi Yosei says that since the ben Pekuah only applies to kosher animals, this non-neveila situation is only with regard to kosher stillborns. The Tanna Kamma understands the pasuk in Devarim, which mentions 'all animals' as referring to kosher and nonkosher animals by ignoring the second clause which adds that "you may eat".
This was actually in Rabbi Linzer's shiur on Daf 70, and since I didn't really follow it before I listened I'm summarizing it now.
Whence this whole idea that a ben Pekuach fetus in a mother who is shechted has the status as if it were itself shechted?
The Gemara suggests it's from Devarim 14:6. "And every animal that has a split hoof and is cloven into two hooves, chews the cud, of the animals, it you may eat" The Rabbis understand 'of the animals' , since behema is mentioned twice in the verse, as meaning 'in the animals', and therefore that the fetus within its mother is covered by shechita.
But then it objects that this implies we understand the fetus as being a behema! But since this fetus can't be used in temura, the law of substitutional sacrifice, how can we call it a behema? So we embark on a more complicated drash of the same verse. The kol in 'every animal', rather, includes parts of the animal, like the fetus. But this must be distinguished from other parts of the animal, like a severed kidney, which we know from the Mishnah are not included in this halakha. So the Gemara learns from "it may you eat" that the part of an animal included in its law must be a complete entity, not a part of a thing.
But Rabbi Yochanan teaches that if you find the fetus to be dove-shaped, it is forbidden. Rabbi Linzer's class was debating whether this meant the fetus was at an early developmental state that didn't yet look like a cow, or if it was a genetic mutation that didn't look like a cow. The Gemara answers by pointing that the verse mentions hooves, so a ben Pekuah must be a)a part of the mother b)but a whole entity on its own c)not dove shaped.
Then the Gemara cites Rabbi Yishmael in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that a fetus that is cow-shaped need not have fully formed split hooves to be a ben Pekuah, and the Gemara saves its position by rereading the language about hooves so that it can also refer to nonsplit hooves. So a ben Pekuah must be a)a part of the mother b)but a whole entity on its own c)not dove shaped and d)have hooves that are either split or not split.
Then Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to save the original drash of the verse from 'babehema' by saying it reflects Rabbi Shimon's opinion about temurah, and the Gemara accepts this possibility but seems to still prefer its more complicated drash.
Daf 70
A stillborn has the status of neveilah and therefore transmits tumah. What about a stillborn that is still inside the mother's womb? If someone reaches in to try to deliver, and they touch a stillborn, are they tamei?
The Tanna Kamma says no. Rabbi Yosei haGlili says no in the case of a kosher animal, yes in the case of a nonkosher animal.
They're both reasoning from the case of the ben Pekuah. If you were to shecht the mother, the fetus would be kosher and not even need shechting, so how could it possibly be a neveila now and then change status and become not a neveila? So Rabbi Yosei says that since the ben Pekuah only applies to kosher animals, this non-neveila situation is only with regard to kosher stillborns. The Tanna Kamma understands the pasuk in Devarim, which mentions 'all animals' as referring to kosher and nonkosher animals by ignoring the second clause which adds that "you may eat".