Chullin Daf 69 צולין דַף 69

Rav Chananya asked: הוציא עובר את ידו בעזרה – if a fetus of a korban [שלמים] put its foreleg out of the womb in the עזרה, is it permitted with the mother’s shechitah? Do we say מגו דהוי מחיצה לגבי קדשים – since [the עזרה wall] is a boundary regarding [shechting] korbanos, it is also the “boundary” for this fetus, and its leg is not considered to have left its “boundary”? Or is the עזרה wall not a מחיצה for this law, because a fetus’s "מחיצה" is its mother’s womb? Abaye replied that he should have inquired about a fetus of קדשים קלים which put out its leg inside the walls of Yerushalayim, which is the boundary for eating קדשים קלם! Rather, he did not ask about that case because he agrees that מחיצת עובר אמו הוא – the boundary of a fetus is the womb of its mother, not the wall of Yerushalayim; for that same reason, the wall of the עזרה is also not its מחיצה.

Rebbe Yirmiyah asked: מהו לחוש לזרעו – if a fetus put out its limb before the mother’s shechitah, are we concerned for its seed? The Gemara analyzes the question: if this fetus later impregnated a normal female (and the question is if the offspring’s parallel limb is likewise prohibited), then if חוששין לזרע האב – we are concerned for the father’s seed, the entire offspring is prohibited, since its father does not require shechitah, and its mother does!? Rather, the inquiry is where it impregnated a female בן פקועה, the fetus found inside its mother after the mother was properly shechted that grew up. Do we say: אבר מוליד אבר – each limb of the father sires the parallel limb of the offspring, so the offspring’s limb would be prohibited, or do we say מבלבל זרעיה – [the father’s] seed is mixed, and every component of the father contributes to the entire child, and the entire offspring is prohibited? However, the Gemara says that the latter must be true, for otherwise the offspring of a blind animal would be blind!? The Gemara ultimately concludes that the inquiry is about the milk of a female fetus which had put out its limb before shechitah. Since all milk is fundamentally אבר מן החי – a “limb” removed from a live animal, and is still permitted, perhaps this animal’s milk is likewise permitted, despite its forbidden limb. Or perhaps normal milk is permitted because the אבר מן החי prohibition can be permitted through shechitah, whereas this limb can never be permitted? The Gemara concludes: תיקו.

Amoraim debate the sanctification of a firstborn animal: יצא שליש – if a third [of a bechor] emerged from the womb, ומכרו לעובד כוכבים – and [the owner] sold it to an idolator (which ordinarily exempts a firstborn animal from bechor status), and then another third emerged from the womb, completing the majority, Rav Huna says קדוש – it is sanctified as a bechor, and Rabbah says it is not קדוש. Rav Huna holds למפרע קדוש – [a bechor] is sanctified retroactively, so once the majority emerges, it is revealed retroactively that it was sanctified as a bechor from the beginning of birth, and his sale to the idolator was invalid. Rabbah holds מכאן ולהבא קדוש – it is sanctified from [the majority’s emergence] and onward, so his sale to the idolator was valid, exempting the animal from bechor sanctification. They argue similarly in another case: יצא שליש דרך דופן – if a third emerged through the mother’s abdominal wall, which would not sanctify a bechor, but the latter two-thirds emerged דרך רחם – through the womb through natural birth, Rav Huna says it is not קדוש, since the sanctification must take effect in the first majority to emerge, and Rabbah says it is קדוש, since a majority later emerged through the womb.