POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 70
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.
(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.
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!
(c) Question (Seifa): If the majority of the fetus comes out,
it must be buried; the next child of the mother is not a
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!
(d) Question (Rava): Is a limb judged based on its majority?
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
1. Question: What does Rava ask about?
(b) \\## Answer (Mishnah): If the majority came out, it must
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?
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)?
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
1. Question: What is the case?
(c) Rejection: No, the case is, a minority of a limb came
out, and this helps comprise a majority of the child;
i. If indeed the majority came out, this is
2. Answer: Rather, the case is that of Rava's question
(and the Mishnah considers this a majority.)
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
1. Question: It is normal to leave in its fetal sac,
clearly this does not inhibit the Kedushah!
(e) Question: If it was wrapped in someone's hands (Rashi;
Tosfos - in a female fetus) when it came out, is it
2. Correction: Rather, if it was wrapped in a fetal sac
of another fetus, is it Kodesh?
1. Question: How did it come out?
(f) Question: If a Sheretz swallowed (in its mouth) the fetus
and took it from the womb, what is the law?
i. Version #1 (Rashi): If the head left first, it
became Kodesh once the head left, before the
person held it!
2. Answer: Rather, the feet left first.
ii. Version #2 (Tosfos): If the female's head left
first, the male is surely not a Bechor!
1. Objection: That is precisely like if it was wrapped
when it left, we already asked this!
(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.)
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?
1. Clearly, the child is a Bechor, and the next child
of A is not;
(h) These questions are unresolved.
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)?
(i) Question (Rav Acha): If the walls of the womb opened wide
and the child was born without touching them - what is
1. If the airspace of the womb is Mekadesh, it is a
(j) Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): If the walls of the womb
were uprooted (and the child was born), what is the law?
2. If it must touch the womb to become Mekudash, it is
1. Objection: If they are not there, the child is not
Peter Rechem (the first to leave the womb!)
(k) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If the inner walls of the womb
fell off, what is the law?
2. Correction: Rather, the womb recessed inside the
3. Does the womb Mekadesh only when in is in its proper
place, or even when not?
(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.
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
(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
(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!
(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)".
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)!
1. Question: Are Nevelos of Tamei animals Tamei, but
not of Tahor animals?!
(j) Question: What does Rav Nachman learn from R. Yitzchak's
2. Answer: Rather, the verse teaches that a (dead)
fetus in a Tamei animal is Tamei, one inside a Tahor
animal it is Tahor.
(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
1. R. Yitzchak's verse teaches that this is not so.