1) DOES THE FORBIDDEN LIMB BECOME “NEVEILAH”

(a) Answer #2 (Ravina): A Mishkav is not destined to be cut, but the limb of the fetus is destined to be cut (because it is forbidden);
1. Anything destined to be cut is considered to be cut already.
2. Suggestion: This is like R. Meir.
i. (Mishnah): If a handle of a vessel is too long and is destined to be cut, when immersing the vessel, one must immerse as much of the handle as will be kept;
ii. R. Yehudah says, the entire handle must be immersed.
3. Rejection: All agree in the case of the fetus – since foods are not strongly connected, we view them as if they were already cut.
(b) Question: According to Ula, we understand why the Mishnah said that the limb was cut – if not, the fetus would be Tahor;
1. According to Ravina, even if the limb was not cut, the fetus is Tamei!
(c) Answer: This is true; the Seifa says that it was cut merely for parallel structure to the Reisha.
(d) (Mishnah): The fetus is like something that touched a slaughtered Treifah.
(e) Question: A slaughtered Treifah is not Tamei!
(f) Answer (Shmuel’s father): A slaughtered Treifah is Metamei Kodshim (mid’Rabanan).
(g) (Mishnah): We find that slaughter of a Treifah inhibits Tum’as Neveilah – similarly, slaughter of the mother inhibits Tum’as Neveilah from a limb (that left the womb)!
(h) (Beraisa – R. Meir): If you say that slaughter of the mother is Metaher the limb, it should also permit it (to be eaten)!
(i) Chachamim: It is easier to permit something which is not part of the slaughtered animal than something which is part of it.
1. If part of the fetus was cut off (from the fetus) inside in the mother, slaughter of the mother permits it; if the spleen or kidneys of the mother were cut off, they do not become permitted.
(j) Question: How does that answer R. Meir’s question?
(k) Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated, it means as follows:
1. R. Meir: If you say that slaughter of the mother is Metaher the limb, it should also permit it!
2. Chachamim: We learn from a Treifah – slaughter is Metaher it, but does not permit it.
3. R. Meir: Slaughter is Metaher the Treifah itself – you have no source that slaughter of the mother is Metaher a limb (which is not part of the mother)!
4. Chachamim: Slaughter helps more for something which is not part of the slaughtered animal than for a part of it
i. If part of the fetus was cut inside in the mother, slaughter of the mother permits it; if the spleen or kidneys of the mother were cut, they do not become permitted.
(l) Support (that this is the argument – Beraisa – R. Meir): If you say that slaughter of the mother is Metaher the limb, it should also permit it!
1. Chachamim: We learn from a Treifah – slaughter is Metaher it, but does not permit it.
2. R. Meir: Slaughter is Metaher the Treifah itself, or a dangling limb of an animal – you have no source that slaughter of the mother is Metaher a limb (which is not part of the mother)!
3. Chachamim: Slaughter helps more for something which is not part of the slaughtered animal than for a part of it.
i. If part of the fetus was cut inside in the mother, slaughter of the mother permits it; if the spleen or kidneys of the mother were cut, they do not become permitted
2) WHEN IS A LIMB CONSIDERED TO HAVE FALLEN OFF?
(a) Version #1 – (Reish Lakish): R. Meir and Chachamim argue about a dangling limb just like they argue about the limb of the fetus.
(b) (R. Yochanan): They only argue about the fetus’ limb, but all agree that slaughter makes Nipul (makes a dangling limb Ever Min ha’Chai, as if it fell off in the animal’s lifetime, it is Tamei.)
1. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): According to R. Yochanan, Chachamim say that slaughter is Metaher the fetus’ limb but not a dangling limb, because the former could have become permitted (had the fetus returned the limb to the womb before slaughter), the latter could not have.
(c) Question (Beraisa – R. Meir): Slaughter is Metaher the Treifah itself, or a dangling limb – you have no source that slaughter of the mother is Metaher the fetus’ limb!
73b—————————————73b

1. According to Reish Lakish, we can say that R. Meir addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning;
i. I hold that slaughter does not Metaher the fetus’ limb nor a dangling limb – even if you say that it is Metaher a dangling limb, you have no source for the fetus’ limb.
2. The Beraisa cannot be explained according to R. Yochanan!
(d) Rather, the Amora’im argue as follows.
(e) Version #2 – (Reish Lakish): R. Meir and Chachamim argue about a dangling limb just like they argue about the limb of the fetus.
(f) (R. Yochanan): They only argue about the fetus’ limb, but all agree that slaughter does not make Nipul.
1. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): According to R. Yochanan, R. Meir says that slaughter is Metaher a dangling limb but not the fetus’ limb, because the former is part of the animal slaughtered, the latter is not. (End of Version #2)
(g) (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): All agree that death (without slaughter) makes Nipul, slaughter does not make Nipul.
(h) Question: What limb does he refer to?
1. It cannot be a fetus’ limb that left the womb – they argue about this!
(i) Answer: He refers to a dangling limb.
(j) Question: Why must he teach this – both of these are learned from Mishnayos!
1. (Mishnah – R. Meir): If an animal (with a dangling limb) dies, the meat cannot become Tamei until it is Huchshar (water falls on it); the limb has Tum’as Ever Min ha’Chai, not Tum’as Neveilah.
2. (Mishnah – R. Meir): If an animal (with a dangling limb and flesh) was slaughtered, (the limb and flesh are) Huchsheru (Lekabel Tum’ah, but it is not Ever Min ha’Chai); R. Shimon says, they are not Huchsheru.
(k) Answer: The latter Mishnah could have been understood differently, that R. Meir says that slaughter makes Nipul (the limb becomes Ever Min ha’Chai), the flesh is Huchshar.
(l) Question: But it says ‘Huchsheru’ (plural)!
(m) Answer: This could refer to dangling flesh and meat that separated (after slaughter) from a dangling limb.
(n) Question: Why must the Tana teach both, surely the law of Hechsher is the same for both!
(o) Answer: One might have thought, since the limb is (after slaughter) Ever Min ha’Chai, which has a severe Tum’ah, meat that separates from it does not need Hechsher – he teaches, this is not so.
3) THE PROHIBITION OF A DANGLING LIMB
(a) (Rav Yosef): Rabah bar bar Chanah supports R. Yitzchak bar Yosef.
1. (Beraisa): “Do not eat meat torn in the field” – this includes dangling limbs and flesh, in Behemos, Chayos and birds.
2. (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The prohibition is only Rabbinic.
(b) (Rav Yosef citing Rav): If one eats it, he is lashed.
(c) A Talmid: No – Rav holds, one who eats it is not lashed.
1. Rav Huna: On whom should we rely?
2. Rav Yosef: Rav said both (in different cases)!
i. If the animal died (without slaughter), the limb is Ever Min ha’Chai, one is lashed for eating it;
ii. If the animal was slaughtered, the limb is forbidden only mid’Rabanan.