meir asks:

{{From Insights to the Daf:


QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a Shilya (placenta) that partially emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered is forbidden to be eaten. The Gemara first cites a verse as the source for this law, but then the Gemara explains that it is logical that the Shilya is forbidden (and the verse cited is an "Asmachta"), since there certainly is a fetus within every placenta. Accordingly, once the fetus has emerged from the womb, it does not become permitted with the Shechitah of its mother.

Why is it obvious that once the Shilya has emerged, it becomes forbidden? What forbids it? Why is it not considered part of the mother until the entire fetus emerges?}}

It is not part of the mother as the first Mishna of the Perek explains - the foetus and its ancillary parts are not like Techul and KeLayos - the parts of the mother that are disconnected from the mother, even though they remain within and never left the insides of the mother, are Eiver Min HaChay, the mother;s Shechicta is not Mattir them. Whereas the Ubbar becomes Muttar A"Y Shechitas Imo.

Rashi clearly says that the Chidush of the Mishna is that the Shalya is not EMiHaCh

But this too is not clear. The Mishnah does not qualify the state of the Shalya, it would seem to include Shalya be it connected or disconnected to the mother

If it is connected - then it certainly is Muttar via the mother's Shchita.

If it is disconnected - then surely it is Assur because the Ubbar is not found, it must already have been ejected and is Nolad and the Shalya is Tafel to the Ubbar and so Shechitas HaEim is not Mattir after birth.

Is this perhaps the Chiddush? - that the Shalya is Tafel to the Ubbar and therefore Nittar as Ben PeKuAh?

In that case the Mishnah should simply have relied upon the next Bava - Shalya SeYazta MikzaSo is entirely Assur, even the majority which remained within because we suspect that [since we did not observe a shape emerging] the Shelil is NiMuAch and in that dissolved liquid was the head and so it is deemed to be Nolad, therefore the entire Shalya is Assur

The Kollel replies:

1) According to the Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 5:13), the Shilya that partially emerged from the womb is forbidden because of Ever Min ha'Chai. This is evident from the context of the Rambam, since he cites it among other Dinim which deal with things forbidden because of Ever Min ha'Chai. This is also stated there by the Magid Mishneh, who writes that whatever part of the Shilya went out is considered a limb of the animal that left the fetus and is therefore forbidden.

2) There is actually no proof from the Mishnah on 68a that the Shilya is not Ever Min ha'Chai, as you suggested. This is because the above Mishnah is not discussing a Shilya that left the mother. On the contrary, we see from the first part of the Mishnah that the hand of the Ubar is permitted only because the hand was returned inside the mother before the Shechitah took place. If the hand would have remained outside at the time of the Shechitah, the hand would have been forbidden because of Ever Min ha'Chai. The next part of the Mishnah (68a) states only that the cut-up fetus is rendered permitted by the Shechitah of the mother because it never left the mother. If the fetus would have left the mother, the Shechitah would not have been effective to permit it. It would have been prohibited because of Ever Min ha'Chai, according to the Rambam. Therefore, even though the entire fetus had not yet emerged, we still say that whatever part of it did emerge is considered Ever Min ha'Chai since the Halachah is that whatever emerges from an animal is considered Ever Min ha'Chai, as we see from the Mishnah on 68a, that if the hand had not returned inside before Shechitah it would have been forbidden as Ever Min ha'Chai.

3) All of the above applies according to the Rambam's opinion. However, the Ra'avad writes there that the Shilya is not considered food. It is Pirsha b'Alma -- it is a waste material which is not important enough to be considered food. According to the Ra'avad, we still need to understand why the Shilya is forbidden.

4) The Pri To'ar (written by the author of the Or ha'Chayim on Chumash) to Shulchan Aruch YD 81:8 writes that according to the Ra'avad there is indeed no prohibition on the Shilya in its own right. It is prohibited only if there is some part of the fetus still connected to it. The Ra'avad's source for this is the Gemara in Chulin 113b that states that the Shilya is Pirsha b'Alma.

There are several other explanations in the Mefarshim for why the Shilya is forbidden. (See Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 117:10; Chazon Ish, Bechoros 16:16; Kehilos Yakov, Pesachim #14, DH Od.)

I may come back to this later, but for the moment I must close here.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

The Kollel adds:

Here is a different explanation for why the Shilya is forbidden:

1) The Chazon Ish (Bechoros 16:16) explains that the Shilya is forbidden because it is considered a Neveilah (because even it if came from a kosher species, it nevertheless did not undergo Shechitah) or a Tamei animal (if it came from a non-kosher species). However, if somebody eats a Shilya he is not liable -- he does not receive Malkus -- because eating a Shilya (even if one ate a large amount) is considered equivalent to eating a "Chatzi Shi'ur." However much of the Shilya one eats, even though a Torah prohibition has been thereby transgressed, is considered a small amount of forbidden food, for which one does not receive lashes. This is because the prohibition is not sufficiently severe to justify Malkus, in the same way that the prohibition of eating less than a k'Zayis of forbidden food is not sufficiently severe to warrant Malkus.

2) The Chazon Ish cites the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 87:7) who writes that if one cooks up a Shilya together with milk, or if one cooks up soft bones with milk, he is not liable for Malkus for transgressing the prohibition of cooking meat and milk. One sees from this that the Shilya is not considered as flesh of the animal, and therefore one who eats it does not receive Malkus even though a Torah prohibition was violated. The comparison to soft bones is significant. The Shilya and the bones are both items that belong to the body of the animal, but are not fully considered as meat. Therefore, even though they are both considered as meat mid'Oraisa, nevertheless one does not receive Malkus for cooking them with milk, because they are not the primary part of the animal.

3) The Chazon Ish cites the Gemara in Chulin 113b that I mentioned in my previous reply. He writes that the Gemara there states that one does not transgress the prohibition of meat amd milk with the Shilya because it is less than the minimum Shi'ur of a k'Zayis. The Chazon Ish seems to mean that when the Gemara there states that Shilya is Pirsha b'Alma, this means that it is similar to less than a k'Zayis. It does not possess the full status of meat to make a person liable for cooking it with milk.

4) To summarize, anything which was not inside the animal at the time of Shechitah is considered a Neveilah because Shechitah helps only for what is inside the animal. However, since it is not full-fledged meat, one does not receive Malkus for eating the Shilya.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom