1) CONDITIONS FOR “KEDUSHAS BECHOR”

(a) 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.
1. Suggestion: One may pile up the limbs before casting them to the dogs.
2. Objection: According to Rav Huna, the child is Mekudash retroactively once the majority is in front of us – we should have to bury the limbs!
(b) Answer: No, the Mishnah (only) permits casting each limb to the dogs after it is cut (and not cutting much faster than the dogs eat, so that) there is never be a majority in front of us.
(c) Question (Seifa): If the majority of the fetus comes out, it must be buried; the next child of the mother is not a Bechor.
1. 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! 2. Answer: Indeed, this is what the Tana means!
i. Each limb may be cast 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.
(d) Question (Rava): Is a limb judged based on its majority?
1. Question: What does Rava ask about?
i. Suggestion: If a minority of a limb came out, and this helps comprise a majority of the child, do we view it like 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?
ii. 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.
2. Answer: He asked, if the majority of a limb came out, and this helps comprise exactly half of the child, do we view it like if the entire limb came out (so a majority has been born)?
(b) \## Answer (Mishnah): If the majority came out, it must be buried.
1. Question: What is the case?
i. If indeed the majority came out, this is obvious!
2. Answer: Rather, the case is that of Rava’s question (and the Mishnah considers this a majority.)
(c) Rejection: No, the case is, a minority of a limb came out, and this helps comprise a majority of the child;
1. 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.
(d) 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?
1. Question: It is normal to leave in its fetal sac, clearly this does not inhibit the Kedushah!
2. Correction: Rather, if it was wrapped in a fetal sac of another fetus, is it Kodesh?
(e) Question: If it was wrapped in someone’s hands (Rashi; Tosfos – in a female fetus) when it came out, is it Kodesh?
1. Question: How did it come out?
i. Version #1 (Rashi): If the head left first, it became Kodesh once the head left, before the person held it!
ii. Version #2 (Tosfos): If the female’s head left first, the male is surely not a Bechor!
2. Answer: Rather, the feet left first.
(f) Question: If a Sheretz swallowed (in its mouth) the fetus and took it from the womb, what is the law?
1. Objection: That is precisely like if it was wrapped when it left, we already asked this!
2. Correction: Rather, if a Sheretz swallowed the fetus, took it from the womb, returned it, spit it out, and then the fetus left, what is the law?
(g) 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.)
1. Clearly, the child is a Bechor, and the next child of A is not;
2. 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)?
(h) These questions are unresolved.
(i) Question (Rav Acha): If the walls of the womb opened wide and the child was born without touching them – what is the law?
1. If the airspace of the womb is Mekadesh, it is a Bechor;
2. If it must touch the womb to become Mekudash, it is Chulin.
(j) Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): If the walls of the womb were uprooted (and the child was born), what is the law?
1. Objection: If they are not there, the child is not Peter Rechem (the first to leave the womb!)
2. Correction: Rather, the womb recessed inside the mother;
3. Does the womb Mekadesh only when in is in its proper place, or even when not?
(k) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If the inner walls of the womb fell off, what is the law?
(l) Answer (R. Zeira): You can derive the answer to your question from my question.
1. 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?
i. The question is only when part of the wall remains – if the entire inner wall is gone, the child is Chulin.
70b—————————————70b
2) “TUM’AH” OF A DEAD FETUS

(a) (Mishnah): If a man touched a dead fetus inside an animal, his hand is Tahor, whether the animal is Tahor or Tamei;
(b) R. Yosi ha’Galili says, if the animal is Tamei, his hand is Tamei; if the animal is Tahor, his hand is Tahor.
(c) (Gemara): What is the reason for the first Tana?
(d) Answer (Rav Chisda): He learns from a Kal va’Chomer:
1. 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!)
(e) Question: This Kal va’Chomer does not apply to a Tamei animal (since it may not be eaten!)
(f) Answer: “When an animal will die” refers to a Tamei animal; “That you may eat” refers to a Tahor animal;
1. 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.
(g) Question: What is R. Yosi ha’Galili’s reason?
(h) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): “Anything that walks on the soles of its feet, *in* every Chayah that walks…” – things inside a Tamei animal (i.e. fetuses) that walk on their soles are Tamei.
1. Question: If so, a fetus with unsplit hooves inside a cow should be Tamei, for it walks on its soles!
2. Answer: Something that walks on its soles, “In every Chayah that walks on four” is Tamei – a cow walks on eight (since each hoof is split.)
3. 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!
4. Answer: “That walks…and all that walks” includes a calf in a camel (it is Tamei.)
5. Question: A fetus (of a Tahor animal) with unsplit hooves inside a Tahor mother with unsplit hooves should be Tamei, for it walks on four and is inside something that walks on four!
6. Answer: Rav Chisda’s Kal va’Chomer is Metaher.
7. Objection (Rav Achdevoy bar R. Ami): A pig inside a pig should not be Tamei, for it walks on eight (its hooves are split)!
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): “If one will touch anything Tamei, or the Nevelah of a Tamei Chayah (or Tamei Behemah or Tamei Sheretz)”.
1. Question: Are Nevelos of Tamei animals Tamei, but not of Tahor animals?!
2. Answer: Rather, the verse teaches that a (dead) fetus in a Tamei animal is Tamei, one inside a Tahor animal it is Tahor.
(j) Question: What does Rav Nachman learn from R. Yitzchak’s verse?
(k) Answer: Without R. Yitzchak’s verse, one might have thought that Rav Nachman’s verse only teaches 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; 1. R. Yitzchak’s verse teaches that this is not so.