בְּהֵמָה הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, וְהוֹצִיא הָעֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ, מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. הוֹצִיא אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֱחֱזִירוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה כְיָלוּד. חוֹתֵךְ מֵעֻבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ, מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת, אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוּפָהּ, מֻתָּר:

When a pregnant kosher animal is slaughtered, the slaughter also renders the consumption of its fetus permitted. Even if an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and meanwhile the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother animal’s womb and then brought it back inside, and then the mother animal was slaughtered, the consumption of the fetus is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. But if the fetus extended its head outside the womb, even if it then brought it back inside, the halakhic status of that fetus is like that of a newborn, and the slaughter of the mother animal does not permit the consumption of the fetus. Rather, it requires its own slaughter. If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in the womb and leaves those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, then even if those pieces are left inside the animal their consumption is prohibited, because an organ severed from a living being is not permitted by the subsequent slaughter of the animal. This is the principle: An item that is part of an animal’s body that was severed prior to its slaughter is prohibited even after slaughter, and an item that is not part of its body, i.e., its fetus, is permitted by virtue of its slaughter.

הַמְבַכֶּרֶת הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתֵּךְ אֵבָר אֵבָר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לַכְּלָבִים. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה:

Upon its birth, the firstborn male offspring of a domesticated animal is automatically consecrated with firstborn status, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Furthermore, if it dies, it may not be discarded, but must be buried. If an animal that was giving birth to a firstborn male was encountering difficulty giving birth, and in order to alleviate the difficulty one wishes to terminate the birth, he may cut up the fetus limb by limb and cast it to the dogs. Since the fetus was not born, it is non-sacred and does not require burial. If a majority of the fetus had already emerged, it is considered to have been born and is therefore consecrated; consequently, if one cut it up it must be buried, and the mother animal is exempted from having firstborn status conferred on any future offspring.

בְּהֵמָה הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, וְהוֹצִיא עֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וַחֲתָכָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ, הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר. שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכָהּ, הַבָּשָׂר מַגַּע נְבֵלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַגַּע טְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה. מַה מָּצִינוּ בַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבָר. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא, אִם טִהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ, דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבָר, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוּפָהּ. מִנַּיִן לַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ. בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה, אַף טְרֵפָה אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה. מַה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף טְרֵפָה לֹא תְטַהֲרֶנָּה שְׁחִיטָתָהּ. לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכֹּשֶׁר, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכֹּשֶׁר. טֹל לְךָ מַה שֶּׁהֵבֵאתָ, הֲרֵי שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה טְרֵפָה מִן הַבֶּטֶן מִנַּיִן. לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵין בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה חַי, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ שְׁחִיטָה:

If an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and as a result the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother’s womb, and someone severed it and afterward slaughtered the mother animal, the flesh of the fetus is ritually pure. If one first slaughtered the mother animal and afterward severed the foreleg, the flesh of both the mother animal and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in contact with a carcass. Since the foreleg was not permitted to be consumed through the act of slaughtering, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted to be consumed by the slaughter, was in contact with it and so was rendered ritually impure from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The flesh has the ritual impurity of having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered, as the limb is regarded as a tereifa that was slaughtered. By Torah law, although it is prohibited to consume it, it does not impart ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a tereifa that was slaughtered, as well as anything that comes in contact with it, is regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it disqualifies sacrificial foods that come in contact with it. The Rabbis explain the rationale behind their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., ritual slaughter prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that its consumption is prohibited. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the body of the animal ritually pure, it is because the slaughter is performed on something that is part of its body, i.e., its throat. Does it necessarily follow that you should also render the limb that left the womb pure, given that it is something that is not part of the mother’s body? Certainly not. The mishna asks: From where is it derived with regard to a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure, i.e., prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass? The mishna notes there is a reason to say the slaughter should not render it pure, as one can compare a tereifa with a non-kosher animal: A non-kosher animal is prohibited for consumption; so too, a tereifa is prohibited for consumption. Therefore, conclude: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, its slaughter does not render it ritually pure, so too with regard to a tereifa, its slaughter should not render it ritually pure. The mishna questions the comparison: No, if you said that slaughtering cannot prevent an animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass in the case of a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that it did not have a period of potential fitness when slaughtering it could have rendered its consumption permitted, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this in the case of a tereifa, which did have a period of potential fitness? Perhaps, since the animal had a period of potential fitness its slaughter remains effective in preventing it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass. The mishna rejects this distinction: Take back to yourself this claim that you brought, as it is insufficient. What about a case where an animal was born as a tereifa from the womb, and so it never had a period of potential fitness? For such a case, from where is it derived that its slaughter renders it ritually pure? The mishna reformulates the distinction: No, if you say that slaughtering cannot prevent a prohibited animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, as the Torah states the concept of slaughtering only with regard to kosher animals, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this with regard to a tereifa kosher animal, given that there are other animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, i.e., kosher animals that are not tereifa? Perhaps, since the concept of slaughtering is relevant to that kind of animal it can serve to prevent the animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass even if the slaughter cannot render it permitted for consumption. The mishna notes: Based on this reasoning, one must conclude that with regard to an eight-month-old fetus that was born alive, slaughter does not render it ritually pure, as there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering. The Torah applies the concept of slaughter only with regard to animals that were born full term.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה חַי אוֹ מֵת, אוֹ בֶן תִּשְׁעָה מֵת, קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ. מָצָא בֶן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּב בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ בֶן שְׁמֹנֶה שָׁנִים וְחוֹרֵשׁ בַּשָּׂדֶה, שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. קְרָעָהּ וּמָצָא בָהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ:

In the case of one who slaughtered an animal and found within it an eight-month-old fetus, i.e., one that was not full term, whether it was alive or dead, or a nine-month-old fetus, i.e., one that was full term, that was dead, that fetus is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, as it is considered part of its mother. Therefore, its blood is considered part of its mother’s blood and is prohibited, so one must tear the fetus and remove its blood before it may be consumed. If he found within it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, as it is considered an independent full-fledged animal, and if one slaughters both the mother and fetus on the same day, one is liable for violating the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Even when the fetus is nine months old, it is still considered part of its mother, and the slaughter of its mother renders it permitted for consumption. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if the fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field, the earlier slaughter of its mother rendered it permitted and it does not require slaughter before it is eaten. But if one tore an animal, i.e., he killed it without slaughtering it, and inside he found a live nine-month-old fetus, everyone agrees that the fetus requires its own slaughter because its mother was not slaughtered.

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה, כְּשֵׁרָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה, פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן שֶׁנִּטַּל צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּם, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ:

With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, the animal is kosher; from the leg joint and above, the animal is thereby rendered a tereifa and is not kosher. And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa and is not kosher. If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ שִׁלְיָא, נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּפָה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין וְלֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. חִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ, מְטַמְּאָה טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין אֲבָל לֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ, אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה. סִימַן וָלָד בָּאִשָּׁה, וְסִימַן וָלָד בַּבְּהֵמָה. הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא, יַשְׁלִיכֶנָּה לִכְלָבִים. וּבַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, תִּקָּבֵר. וְאֵין קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּאִילָן, מִפְנֵי דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי:

In the case of one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in its womb, one with a hearty soul [nefesh hayafa], i.e., who is not repulsed by it, may eat it, as its consumption was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. Nevertheless, since generally speaking, people do not consume such placentas, it is not regarded as food and so it cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food even were it to come into contact with a source of impurity. And furthermore, it does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses as it was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. But if one intended to eat it, one thereby elevated it to the status of food, and the placenta becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. But even so, it still does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses. With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited even after the mother animal is slaughtered because the emergence of the placenta is an indication of a fetus in a woman and an indication of a fetus in an animal. Accordingly, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born, a status that precludes it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Since the offspring is prohibited, its placenta is likewise prohibited. If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs, and one does not need to be concerned that the placenta came from a male fetus that has the consecrated status of a firstborn. But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, superstitious rites intended to prevent the animal from miscarrying again, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite, which prohibits Jews from practicing the superstitious rites observed by gentiles.