x-mailing-list: [email protected]
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[email protected]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Chulin 077: Insights to the Daf: Partially Emerged Placenta
meir asks:
>>From Insights to the Daf:
THE PLACENTA THAT PARTIALLY EMERGED FROM THE WOMB
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
meir, Melb Australia
----------------------------------------------
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 *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at [email protected] or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Tel/Fax(US): 646-820-3315; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
