Chullin Daf 70 צולין דַף 70

Rava asked: הלכו באיברין אחר הרוב – did they follow the majority regarding limbs, or not? The Gemara first suggests that the case is where most of a bechor emerged from the womb, and the emerged majority included the minority of a particular limb, and Rava’s inquiry is whether the minority of that אבר follows its own majority to consider it entirely inside the womb (resulting in the majority of the fetus not having left the womb), or if it follows the majority of the fetus. However, the Gemara objects: פשיטא דלא שבקינן רובא דעובר ואזלינן בתר רוב אבר – it is obvious that we do not forsake the majority of the fetus and follow the majority of the limb! Therefore, the Gemara explains Rava’s inquiry is  כגון שיצא חציו ברוב אבר – where half the bechor emerged, with the majority of a particular limb, and his question is: ההוא מיעוט דבגואי – that minority of the limb which is inside, מהו למישדייה בתר רוב אבר – do we assign it to the majority of the limb, considering that entire limb “born,” which would result in the majority of the fetus being “born,” or not?

The Gemara asks a series of questions about חציצות in the birth of a bechor, which is sanctified by passing through the womb. Rava asks: כרכו בסיב – if one wrapped [the fetus] in palm bast, or in his garment, does this חציצה prevent the animal from gaining bechor status? What if it was wrapped בשליא אחרת – in the amniotic sac of another fetus? What if the woman wrapped the fetus in her hands and drew it out? [These inquiries are relevant where the fetus was emerging feetfirst, allowing it to be wrapped before being considered born.] Additional inquiries: בלעתהו חולדה והוציאתו – if a weasel swallowed [the fetus] inside the womb and drew it out, and then reinserted it and spit it out back into the womb, after which it was born normally, can it become a bechor through this second emergence? הדביק שני רחמים – if one attached two wombs of animals to each other, so a fetus passed from one into the other, and was then “born” from the second animal, is it a bechor? If the birth canal opened wide and the fetus was born without touching the birth canal, can the airspace of the womb render it a bechor?

The next Mishnah states: בהמה שמת עוברה בתוך מעיה – if an animal’s fetus dies inside its womb, and the shepherd inserted his hand into the womb and touched it, the Tanna Kamma says that whether it is a kosher or nonkosher animal, the shepherd remains tahor. Rebbe Yose HaGlili says that if it is a nonkosher animal, he is tamei, but if it is a kosher animal, he is tahor. Rav Chisda explains that a dead fetus inside a kosher animal is tahor based on a kal vachomer: אם הועילה אמו להתירו באכילה – if its mother succeeds to permit [the dead fetus] in consumption (through her shechitah), לא תועיל לו לטהוריה מידי נבלה – should she not succeed to keep it tahor from neveilah while she is alive? The Tanna Kamma holds the same applies to a nonkosher animal, based on a hekesh. Rebbe Yose HaGlili darshens a passuk which says that if someone touches the carcass of a nonkosher חיה, or a nonkosher בהמה, or a nonkosher שרץ, he is tamei. This implies that touching the נבילה of a kosher animal is not metamei, which is not true!? Rather, the passuk is referring to a fetus, teaching that a dead fetus inside the womb is only tamei in the case of a nonkosher animal.