Question (Mishnah): When an animal gives birth for the first time, one may cut off the limbs of the child and cast them to the dogs.

Suggestion: One may pile up the limbs before casting them to the dogs.

According to Rav Huna, the child is Mekudash retroactively once the majority is in front of us. We should need to bury the limbs!

Answer: No, the Mishnah permits only casting each limb to the dogs after it is cut, so there is never a majority in front of us. (He may not cut much faster than the dogs eat.)

Question (Seifa): If the majority of the fetus comes out, it must be buried. The next child of the mother is not a Bechor.

The Tana should have distinguished between more similar cases! He should require casting each limb to the dogs after it is cut, and require burying them if they are stored up and there is a majority in front of us!

Answer: Indeed, this is what the Tana means!

One may cast each limb to the dogs after it is cut, but if they are stored up (and there is a majority in front of us), it is as if the majority came out at once, and they must be buried.

Question (Rava): Is a limb judged based on its majority?

Question: What does Rava ask about?

Suggestion: If a minority of a limb came out, and this helps comprise a majority of the child, do we view it as if this limb did not leave at all (so a majority has not been born), or does the part that left join to make a majority that was born?

Rejection: That would be obvious. The fact that the majority of this limb is inside does not prevail over the fact that the majority was born.

Answer: He asked about the majority of a limb that came out, and this helps comprise exactly half of the child. Do we view it as if the entire limb came out (so a majority has been born)?

Answer (Mishnah): If the majority came out, it must be buried.

Question: What is the case?

If indeed the majority came out, this is obvious!

Answer: Rather, it discusses Rava's case. (The Mishnah considers this a majority.)

Rejection: No. The case is, a minority of a limb came out, and this helps comprise a majority of the child;

The Mishnah teaches that the fact that the majority of this limb is inside does not prevail over the fact that the majority was born.

Questions (Rava): Is the child Kodesh if it left the womb wrapped (by people) in moss, or in a garment, or in its fetal sac?

Objection: It is normal to leave in its fetal sac. Clearly this does not inhibit the Kedushah!

Correction: Rather, it was wrapped in a fetal sac of another fetus.

Question: If it was wrapped in someone's hands (Rashi; Tosfos - in a female fetus) when it came out, is it Kodesh?

Question: How did it come out?

Version #1 (Rashi): If the head left first, it became Kodesh once the head left, before the person held it!

Version #2 (Tosfos): If the female's head left first, the male is surely not a Bechor!

Answer: Rather, the feet left first.

Question: If a Sheretz (stuck its mouth in the womb and) swallowed the fetus and removed it from the womb, what is the law?

Objection: That is precisely like if it was wrapped when it left. We already asked this!

Correction: Rather, if a Sheretz swallowed the fetus, took it from the womb, returned it, spit it out, and then the fetus left the womb, what is the law?

Question: The wombs of two animals (A and B) that had not yet given birth were stuck together. A male fetus left A's womb and entered B's womb. (Later, the animals were separated, and the child came out of B.)

Clearly, the child is a Bechor, and the next child of A is not;

Does the child also exempt B's first child from being considered a Bechor (since A's child was the first to leave B's womb)?

These questions are unresolved.

Question (Rav Acha): If the walls of the womb opened wide and the child was born without touching them, what is the law?

If the airspace of the womb is Mekadesh, it is a Bechor;

If it must touch the womb to become Mekudash, it is Chulin.

Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): If the walls of the womb were uprooted (and the child was born), what is the law?

Objection: If they are not there, the child is not Peter Rechem (the first to leave the womb)!

Correction: Rather, the womb recessed inside the mother;

Is the womb Mekadesh only when in it is in its proper place, or even when not?

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If the inner walls of the womb fell off, what is the law?

Answer (R. Zeira): You can derive the answer to your question from my question.

Question (R. Zeira): If most of the walls of the womb are intact, and the fetus left through an area where they had fallen; or, if most of the walls of the womb had fallen, and the fetus left through an area where they were intact, what is the law?

The question is only when part of the wall remains. If the entire inner wall is gone, the child is Chulin.

(Mishnah): If a shepherd touched a dead fetus inside an animal, his hand is Tahor, whether the animal is Tahor or Tamei;

R. Yosi ha'Gelili says, if the animal is Tamei, his hand is Tamei. If the animal is Tahor, his hand is Tahor.

(Gemara): What is the first Tana's reason?

Answer (Rav Chisda): He learns from a Kal va'Chomer;

If the mother can permit a fetus (even if it is dead) to be eaten (if it was inside when she was slaughtered), all the more she is Metaher it (from Tum'as Nevelah)!

Question: This Kal va'Chomer does not apply to a Tamei animal! (It may not be eaten.)

Answer: "When an animal will die" refers to a Tamei animal. "That you may eat" refers to a Tahor animal;

The Torah equates the laws of Tahor and Tamei animals. Just like a fetus in a Tahor animal is not Tamei, also in a Tamei animal.

Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Gelili's reason?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): "Anything that walks on the soles of its feet in every Chayah that walks... " - things that walk on their soles (have uncloven hooves) inside [the womb of] an animal are Tamei.

Question: If so, a fetus with uncloven hooves inside a cow should be Tamei, for it walks on its soles!

Answer: What walks on its soles "in every Chayah that walks on four" is Tamei. A cow walks on eight (since each hoof is split).

Question: If so, a calf (fetus) inside a camel should not be Tamei, for it walks on eight and is inside something that walks on four!

Answer: "That walks... and all that walks" includes a calf in a camel. (It is Tamei.)

Question: A fetus (of a Tahor animal) with uncloven hooves inside a Tahor mother with uncloven hooves should be Tamei, for it walks on four and it is inside something that walks on four!

Answer: Rav Chisda's Kal va'Chomer is Metaher.

Objection (Rav Achdevoy bar R. Ami): A pig inside a pig should not be Tamei, for it walks on eight! (Its hooves are split.)

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) Question: "If one will touch anything Tamei, or the Nevelah of a Tamei Chayah (or Tamei Behemah or Tamei Sheretz)" - are Nevelos only of Tamei animals Tamei, but not of Tahor animals?!

Answer: Rather, the verse teaches that a (dead) fetus in a Tamei animal is Tamei, but one inside a Tahor animal it is Tahor.

Question: What does Rav Nachman learn from R. Yitzchak's verse?

Answer: Without R. Yitzchak's verse, one might have thought that Rav Nachman's verse teaches only Rebbi's law (that one who became Tamei brings a Korban only if he entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim), but fetuses of Tamei animals are Tahor, since they are equated to Tahor animals;

R. Yitzchak's verse teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa - R. Yonason): The Torah teaches that Nevelos of (Tahor or Tamei species of) Behemos are Tamei, and also of Tamei Chayos;

Question: What is the source that Nevelos of Tahor Chayos are Tamei?

Answer (Ben Azai): We learn from "anything that goes on its soles, in every Chayah that goes."

Objection (R. Yonason): It says "in every Chayah", not 'every Chayah'!

Ben Azai: How did R. Yishmael explain?

R. Yonason: "When an animal will die" refers to a Tamei animal. "That you may eat" refers to a Tahor animal;

We learned that Tahor and Tamei Chayos are included in 'Behemah', and that Tahor and Tamei Behemos are included in 'Chayah'.