Talking Talmud

The permutations of when a horse and a donkey (male and female and the reverse) mate -- and whether their progeny is allowed to mate. Or are their progeny in violation of "kilayim" -- even the generation later? Also, the "koy" -- is it a creation unto itself or is it kilayim?

Chapter 5! With a focus on the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day, and with a new mishnah. The mishnah goes through the variables of whether the animal is consecrated and the location of slaughtering, but once the offspring is also slaughtered on the same day, it's going to involve lashes for violating the halakhah. Plus, the sages open the question as to whether this is the mother and her offspring only, or also a father and his offspring (and clearly it is the case for male and female offspring, regardless of the above question). And the answer depends on the language in the verse about this case -- and comes to include both male and female animal parents .

In the case of a bone fracture, as long as the greater portion of the bone is covered by flesh and skin, it is acceptable for consumption. With an apparent treatment of regeneration of an animal's limb via another animal's bone, which seems to have been a serious treatment at the time, with consult between the sages and veterinarians. Also, a new mishnah! One who can manage it can each the following potentially stomach-turning delicacies -- including the amniotic sac. Though the partial emergence of the amniotic sac would render all of it not-kosher. Note the practices of the Amorites that were prohibited. Also, when it comes to the idea of giving the placenta to the dogs -- what is the rationale to specify this? Note that the question is based on the potential sanctity of a potential "bekhor" -- first-born -- of the animal. Which leads to the math of how many animals would be first-borns in sanctity.

A new mishnah! Handling the back legs of an animal, if a bone is broken, if the leg is intact... then kosher slaughtering renders the animal permitted for consumption. But where is the severing, with regard to the leg joint? And then the Gemara dives in, raising dispute on those same details -- whether the bone is broken, but the limb is not severed, how much flesh remains? Again, where is the break with regard to the leg joint?

The odd case of the entirety of an animal fetus that is permitted for food after its mother is slaughtered in a kosher way - and the entire fetus is permitted, even though some animal parts are usually prohibited, even with proper slaughtering. The Gemara presents two versions of the passage addressing the different opinions on this case. Also, the case of finding the fetus alive in the womb after kosher shechitah - it doesn't need shechitah, but what's the difference between that and the original case? Whether the ben pakuah (fetus, under these terms) steps on the ground. Also, is the offspring considered the ben pakuah of its father as well as of its mother? But at the rabbinic level, the ben pakuah should be slaughtered anyway. And also the decree was made for the future generations of the ben pakuah. Plus, the informative case of terumah and demai and the possibility of asking whether even an ignoramus has separated properly. [Who's Who: Rabbi Shimon Shazuri]

Several cases: One who eats the extended limb from the fetus -- with that person get lashes or not, for eating the limb of a live animal? And a source for the halakhah. And the difference between "animals" vs. creepy crawlies and impurity (and susceptibility to impurity). Also, a new mishnah! On an 8-month fetus vs. a 9-month fetus, as found in the womb. And when the forbidden fat becomes permitted to eat -- and also the "gid ha-nasheh"/sciatic nerve.

Does a slaughtered animal that is a treyfa transmit impurity? It seems so. For a consecrated animal. At least at the rabbinic level of prohibition. Plus, the difference between a fetus, even with a protruding limb, as compared to other organs of the animal that might be detached from within and would lead to more complex prohibition -- it's a treyfa! Also, in the case of an animal that dies by other causes aside from kosher slaughtering, then what are the implications for the impurity of the animal, for a hanging limb, and more?

NOTE: Another difficult episode, including mention of fetal death.

Rava's understanding of the mishnah - specifically recognizing a different tradition coming from Pompedita regarding the impurity at a rabbinic level and not the level of a Torah prohibition. Including the impurity of a midwife who attends to a woman in travail. Also, a long mishnah - specifically with an eye to the purity and impurity of the animals in the fetal cases. And the impact of kosher slaughtering on the cases -- depending on the order of operations.

NOTE: This episode may be emotionally difficult, including the topic of still-births -- animal and human (not together).

On the transfer of impurity from the carcass of a domesticated vs. non-domesticated animal, including that of a fetus. How does each category include the other categories (of domesticated including non-domesticated, pure including impure, etc.). With credit to Rabbi Yishmael and his methodology of learning these halakhot. Also, a new mishnah! On how the midwife becomes impure in removing the fetus. Plus, a question on how something that is fully enclosed and ritually impure can give off impurity, because it should not be able to. Nor to become impure. Plus, the question of impurity of food - as determined by whether it is fit for consumption by a dog.

More on case of the fetus -- when does the principle of "majority" apply to limbs emerging? Or does it ever? When is it considered as if it was born? What if half of the fetus has emerged, but a majority of a particular limb? A nuanced, and likely boundary-pushing case. Also, what if the fetus were wrapped while it was still internal? Is that a barrier to the sanctity of the first-born? What about its amniotic sac? What about shenanigans by a weasel that removes and replaces the fetus? Also - a new mishnah about whether the fetus is pure or impure, as per the parent, or (as the main view in the mishnah stipulates), the fetus is inherently pure and won't convey impurity. The Gemara probes this rationale. Plus, an important distinction between animals' feet - when they are paws as compared to cloven hooves.