Answer (Mishnah): The rule is, something that is part of the animal is forbidden. If it is not part of the animal, it is permitted.

Suggestion: The latter clause permits this case. ('Not part of the animal' refers to a fetus whose limbs were cut one by one.)

Rejection: No, it permits a fetus whose hooves are not split, according to R. Shimon;

He forbids a calf whose hooves are not split if it was born. It is permitted if it was found in a slaughtered cow.

Question (Rav Chananyah): If a fetus inside a Shelamim stuck out a leg (at the time of Shechitah) in the Mikdash, what is the law?

Since the Mikdash is the proper place to slaughter Korbanos, the leg is considered to be in its proper place;

Or, the proper place for the fetus is in the womb. The Mikdash is no substitute.

Counter-question (Abaye): Why didn't you ask (according to Rav, who holds that returning a limb before Shechitah does not help) about a Shelamim that stuck out a leg in Yerushalayim (and returned it, and it was slaughtered in the Mikdash. Is this as if it never left its proper place,) for Yerushalayim is its proper place to be eaten?!

Answer (Abaye): You did not ask, because you hold that it must remain in the womb;

Answer (Abaye): This answers also your question!

Question (Ilfa): If a fetus stuck out a leg between the cutting of the two Simanim, what is the law?

(Had the leg been out or in for the entire Shechitah, it would not become a Nevelah.) Do we join the cutting of the two Simanim, to be Metaher the limb from Tum'as Nevelah?

Answer (Rava): We join the two Simanim to permit eating the rest of the animal (even though the first Siman had potential to permit more than the second). All the more so, we join them to be Metaher the leg.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): Are we concerned for offspring of a fetus that stuck out a leg before Shechitah?

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: The calf impregnated a normal cow.

Rejection: If so, R. Yirmeyah should have asked about (offspring of) a normal Ben Peku'ah (fetus found inside a slaughtered cow) that did not stick out a leg!

(Rav Mesharshiya): According to the opinion that an animal's status depends (also) on its father, the child of a Ben Peku'ah that mated with a regular cow is forbidden, even if one slaughters it.

Answer: The case is, this fetus mated with a cow that likewise stuck out a leg before its mother was slaughtered.

Do we say that limbs of the child come from the corresponding limbs of the parents, and only the leg of the child is forbidden?

Or, do all parts of the child come from all parts of the parents, and the entire child is forbidden?

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Clearly, all parts of the child come from all parts of the parents. If not, parents who were blind or missing a limb would have children with the same blemishes.

Retraction (R. Yirmeyah): Rather, there is a different reason to ask whether the children are permitted;

All animals have Chelev and blood, which are forbidden, yet the offspring are permitted. Here also, even though the parents have a forbidden leg, the children are permitted;

Or, perhaps the children are permitted when there are two forbidden entities in the parents, but not when there are three?

Question: According to whom does R. Yirmeyah ask?

It is not according to R. Meir. He holds that a Ben Peku'ah must be slaughtered (so the leg of the parents is not forbidden)!

It is not according to R. Yehudah. He permits Chelev of a fetus (Ben Peku'ah)!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): The Gid ha'Nasheh (sciatic nerve) and Chelev of a fetus are forbidden;

R. Yehudah permits them.

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): Clearly, the children are permitted even though parts of the parents are forbidden.

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a fetus stuck out a leg before its mother was slaughtered, is milk of the child permitted?

All milk is like Ever Min ha'Chai (part of a living animal), yet the Torah permitted it. Also this is permitted;

Or, here is different, because part of the child (its leg) can never become permitted?

This question is unresolved.

(Mishnah): If one cuts the fetus... (it is permitted.)

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer #1: "And every animal with split hooves... . in an animal" includes a fetus.

Objection: If so, Temurah should apply to a fetus! (It says "in an animal" also regarding Temurah.)

(Mishnah #1): Temurah does not take effect in the following cases:

One said that a limb should be in place of a fetus, or vice-versa;

One said that a limb or fetus should be in place of a full animal, or vice-versa.

Answer #2: Rather, "and every animal" includes a fetus.

Question: If so, even if a piece of the spleen or kidneys is cut (before Shechitah), it should be permitted!

(Our Mishnah): If one cut a piece from a fetus (and left it) inside, it may be eaten (after Shechitah);

If one cut from the spleen or kidneys, it is forbidden.

Answer: "It (you will eat)" - when the animal is complete, what is inside is permitted, but not when part was cut off (what was cut is not permitted).

Question: If so, if one slaughters an animal and finds something resembling a dove inside, it should be permitted!

(R. Yochanan): If one slaughters an animal and finds something resembling a dove inside, it is forbidden.

Answer: The Torah permits "Perasos (two (i.e. split) hooves... in an animal)". A dove lacks this.

Question: If so, we should forbid a fetus with uncloven hooves found in a slaughtered animal! (We said that even R. Shimon permits it - 68b, 1:s:ii.)

Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Parsah... in an animal you may eat." (It says Parsah, and also Perasos, to permit whether or not the hooves are split.)

This is like R. Shimon. (Since he forbids a calf born with uncloven hooves, he needs a verse to permit a fetus with uncloven hooves.)

Defense (of Answer #1 - Rav Simi bar Ashi): R. Shimon is the Tana who holds that Temurah does not apply to fetuses, because the Torah equates Temurah to Ma'aser;

Just like Ma'aser does not apply to limbs and fetuses, also Temurah.

Question: How do we know that R. Shimon is the Tana?

Answer (Seifa of Mishnah #1 - R. Yosi): Regarding Hekdesh, if one said 'the leg of this animal is an Olah', the entire animal becomes an Olah;

Similarly regarding Temurah, if one said 'the leg of this animal is (a Korban) in place of this', the entire animal should become a Temurah!

Question: Whom does R. Yosi address?

Answer #1: He addresses R. Meir and R. Yehudah.

Rejection: They argue with R. Yosi's first premise!

(Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah) Suggestion: If one says 'the leg of this animal is an Olah', perhaps the entire animal is an Olah!

Rejection: "All that you will give from it to Hash-m will be Kodesh" - part of it will be Kodesh, but not all of it;

Suggestion: Perhaps one can redeem the Kodesh part!

Rejection: "It will be" - it remains Kodesh.

Rather, we sell it to someone who needs an Olah. The money (that he was Makdish to buy an Olah) becomes Chulin, except for the value of the leg (which was already Kodesh).

R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if one says 'the leg of this animal is an Olah', the entire animal is an Olah. We learn from "it will be."

Answer #2: R. Yosi (in the Mishnah) must address R. Shimon, for only he agrees that making the leg Hekdesh is Mekadesh the entire animal.

Rejection: This is no proof. R. Yosi merely explains how he learns. (Perhaps the other Tana'im reject his premise.)

(Mishnah): The first time an animal gives birth, one may cut off limbs of the child one by one (when each leaves) and cast them to dogs;

If the majority of the fetus comes out (together, and dies), it must be buried. The next child of the mother is not a Bechor.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): If a third of a Bechor left the womb, and the owner sold it to a Nochri, and another third came out, it has Kedushas Bechor.

He holds that the Kedushah comes retroactively, when the majority comes out. This shows that even the first part was a Bechor, so the sale was invalid.

(Rabah): The child has no Kedushah.

He holds that the Kedushah (normally) comes from now and onwards, so the sale was valid.

Rav Huna and Rabah are consistent with their opinions elsewhere;

(Rav Huna): If a Bechor was born one third through Caesarian section, and the rest came out from the womb, it has no Kedushah. (Tzlach - after a third came out, they tore until the womb.)

Since the Kedushah comes (only) retroactively, and the beginning of the birth cannot be Mekadesh it, it remains Chulin;

(Rabah): The child is a Bechor;

The Kedushah starts with birth (of the majority through the womb).

We needed to hear the argument in both cases.

Had we heard only the latter case, we would think that Rav Huna is always lenient, and says that even in the first case that the child is Chulin.

Had we only heard the first case, we would think that Rabah is always stringent, and says even in the latter case that the child is Kodesh.