בהמה המקשה. מותר באכילה – [it is permitted to eat – when the dam is properly slaughtered] the entire fetus and even the place cutting of the limb. For if it put out its hoof–hand and didn’t retracted, one must leave it from what is inside to the outside and to cut it, for the place of the cut you have distinguished the outer part, but the inner part is prohibited, because it stands on the rim of the womb. But if it withdrew it (i.e., its hoof–hand), one does not need to cut to the inner side, but one confines and cuts and the place that one cut is permitted. For what is the reason that the limb is forbidden when it leaves to the outside? Because of (Exodus 22:30): “[You must not eat] flesh torn by beasts in the field.” Meat that left outside of its compartment which for it is a field, is “torn.” Just as something that is “torn,” once it was “torn,” furthermore has no permit, even meat, since it went outside of its compartment. And the place of the cut did not leave outside of its compartment; furthermore, it is permitted when it returns prior to the ritual slaughter, for we call it (Deuteronomy 14:6): “and any other animal [that has true hoofs which are cleft in two and brings up the cud] – such (an animal) you may eat.”

הרי הוא כילוד – and furthermore, he may not benefit from the ritual slaughter of its mother, and he requires a ritual slaughter of its own if he is found living. But if he (i.e., the offspring) is found dead, it is like something that died of itself.

חותך מעובר שבמעיה – and he left the piece within her, it is permitted with the ritual slaughter of the animal and is not forbidden because of “the limb from a living animal” (one of the seven Noahide commandments).

מהבכרת המקשה לילד – with the first of her womb. It is permitted to cut it up limb by limb when it comes outfirst.

ומשליך לכלבים – for as long as its majority had not left [the womb], it is not holy.

יצא רובו – as one [complete animal], and [then] he cut it.

הרי זה יקבר – for with the exit of most, the sanctity takes effect upon it and we call it (Deuteronomy 15:19): “[You shall consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings] that are born [in your herd and in your flock.”

ונפטרה מן הבכורה – that which comes after him (i.e., the first-born male animal), is not a firstling, hether it first came out limb by limb, or whether the majority of it came out as one, for the second is not the first of the womb.

בבהמה טהורה טהור – from an a fortiori inference (see Tractate Hullin 70b), if [being inside] its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through its slaughter, even though it (i.e., the fetus) is dead, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass? And from where do we learn that the same applies regarding an unclean animal? For it states in Scripture (Leviticus 11:39): “If an animal that you may eat has died, anyone who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” [The phrase:” “If an animal…. has died,” this is an unclean animal; “that you may eat,” this is a clean–pure animal. A comparison of these juxtaposed “unclean animal” and “clean animal” – just as in a clean–pure animal, its fetus is pure, even in an unclean animal, its fetus is pure.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בטמאה טמא – and he derives it from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 5:2): “Or when a person touches any impure thing -be it the carcass of an impure beast or the carcass of impure cattle,” Does the carcass of an impure beast defile and the carcass of a pure animal does not defile? But rather, which is it {that in an impure animal it defiles and that in a pure animal it doesn’t defile)? This is a [dead] fetus that is in the womb of an impure animal that is impure, and [a dead fetus] that is in a pure animal that is pure, from an a fortiori. But regarding the impure animal, there is no a fortiori [inference], and we don’t expound an analogy based upon biblical inference. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

החיה טמאה טומאת שבעה – and it is from the Rabbis, as a decree lest the fetus bring forth its head outside the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he is like he was born and defiles and the midwife thinks that it (i.e., the fetus) is still in her womb and comes to be pure. But the shepherd who inserted his hand into the womb of the animal, as it is taught in our Mishnah is pure. We don’t make this decree, because the womb of the animal is revealed, and when it (i.e., the fetus) comes out, he sees it.

ואשה טהורה עד שיצא הולד – for the woman creates excitement for herself when it (i.e., the fetus) brings forth its head outside of the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he does not come to be purified (see Talmud Hullin 72a).

הבשר טהור – the flesh–meat of the fetus is pure, for the animal does not receive impurity while living.

הבשר מגע נבילה – the flesh–meat of the fetus touched a limb from a living animal, which defiles like carrion.

מגע טריפה שחוטה – for the ritual slaughter, even though it does not permit the limb for consumption, purifies it from being carrion, and it is like something torn that is ritually slaughtered that does not defile from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis with those things that are sanctified [for the Temple]: This is our reading.

אף שחיטת בהמה תטהר את העבר – and we don’t have the reading “of the fetus.”

לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טריפה אותה – this is according to the law, for it is a thing that is part of its body.

ומנין לטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה – for perhaps it does not purify it, and from the law, does not purify it, for an unclean–impure animal is prohibited for consumption and a torn animal is forbidden for consumption.

ומה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה – from being impure, for this is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus – see Leviticus 11:26,24: “among all the animals...that has true hoofs….whoever touches their carcasses shall be impure until evening” – all who touch them shall be impure, to include an unclean animal that its slaughter will not purify it.

תאמר בטריפה שהיתה לה שעת הכושר – for since it takes effect the law of ritual slaughtering, furthermore, it does not escape from it for it is within the general realm of the rest of sheep and cattle.

טול לך מה שהבאת – take from here this proof that you brought.

הרי שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מנין – that it would make it pure.

שיש במינה שחיטה – therefore, it does not escape from the generalization of sheep and cattle. But a living animal [fetus] that is eight [months] old that was born from a living animal, we don’t have with what to purify it even it is slaughtered, because it is not included with cattle and sheep. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אין שחיטתה מטהרתו – from being carrion, for the ritual slaughter of an eight [month] fetus is of any benefit, but rather, when it is in the womb of its mother, it is permitted through the slaughter of its mother (as we will learn in the next Mishnah).

ומוציא את דמו – and its fat alone is permitted, as it is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus), when it states, the fat and the two kidneys with a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 7:4: “the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins”), and we don’t need to say that from an a fortiori we would derive it, for just as regarding an offering of well-being–peace offering that anything of their species requires the fat-tail, for they require the fat and two kidneys. The guilt offering, that all of its species requires the tail, is it not the law that it requires the fat and the two kidneys? And what does the inference teach us, but rather to tell us that just as fat and the two kidneys that are stated with the guilt offering is removed from the general category of the embryo, for you are not able to state that the fat of the embryo that is found in a guilt offering should be offered with a female animal, even all, even the sacrifices that come from a female, the fat that is mentioned regarding them one removes from the category of the embryo. But since the fat of the embryo is not offered with all the sacrifices, it is permitted for consumption. But its blood is not worse than the blood of the limbs and we hold that in the Tractate Keritot that the blood of the limbs one violates a negative commandment.

טעון שחיטה – for newborns indirectly to compare an animal by itself, and to nt to be included–to be derived by implication with all the cattle that you may eat.

וחייב באותו את בנו – that you should not slaughter it on the date that you ritually slaughter its mother.

וחכמים אומרים שחיטת אמו מטהרתו – that the newly born and giving birth is the cause of it.

ר' שמעון שזורי כו' – to the words of the Sages, since that it (i.e., the animal) walked on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter according to the Rabbis. For one might exchange it in order to eat an animal without ritual slaughter. Burt Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits even after he it had a parted hoof on the

קרעה – [cut into] the animal without ritual slaughter.

בהמה שנתחכו – the hind–back [legs].

מן הארכובה ולמטה – there are three bones in the thigh. The lowest is the bone that is cut with the split hoofs when they flay the animal and this joint is called the knee that is sold with the head, and in the foreign tongue, we call that limb–joint YEENOKLAV, and in Arabic DUKBA. And above it there is the middle bone and the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh (see Talmud Hullin 76a) underneath it adjacent to the limb–joint of the knee that is sold with the head. And the uppermost is the thigh-bone which is inserted in the tail. And the joint which is between the end of the thigh-bone to the top of the middle bone is known and seen in a camel when it lies down more than the rest of the living creatures. And from the knee and below as it is taught in our Mishnah that it is kosher, which is from the beginning of the knee that is sold with the head and below. But from the knee and upward, which is from the end of the middle bone, which is the place of bunch of converging sinews in the thigh, in every place where the foot is cut, from there and above is “torn” (not kosher).

וכן שניטל צומת הגידין (if the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed – even if the foot was not cut off that the bone was not broken but the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh were removed, it is invalid–”torn.” So explained some of the Amoraim of the Mishnah in the Gemara (Talmud Hullin 76a-b). But this approach my teachers–Rabbis took hold of as essential and taught that in every place where the leg was cut off above from lower knee which they call Y’NUKLAV in the foreign tongue, whether in the place where the bunch of converging sinews or whether above from the bunch of converging sinews, it is [considered] “torn” (unfit, not kosher). But Maimonides and Rabbi Alfasi his teacher took hold as essential a different commentary–explanation – that from the knee and below is kosher and from the knee and above is unfit, for this is what he said: below from the upper knee which is the thigh-bone that is inserted in the tail, but not below immediately adjacent to it, but rather, below from the middle bone entirely, which is the lower bone, is definitely kosher. Above from the knee, which is the thigh-bone, is definitely “torn” (i.e., unfit, not kosher) in every place that he cut off. And similarly, if he removed the bunch of converging sinews, meaning to say, that in the middle bone, there is a place that is “torn” such as the bunch of converging sinews, and there is a place which is kosher, such as above from the bunch of converging sinew. But don’t be astonished how if he severed it above from the bunch on the middle bone, it is kosher, but when he lowers to cut the bunch, it is “torn,” that we can’t say that this torn part is similar to that one, for if one cuts from here and the animal dies, one cuts from there and the animal lives. And this animal is not forbidden because its leg was severed from this place, but rather because the bunch of sinews were cut, for their severing is within the general [definition] of those things that are torn. And the place of the bunch of the converging sinews begins from the place where they appear hard and white until the place that they begin to soften and redden.

וצומת הגידין – they are three white sinews in the animal that meet and are connected together. One of them is thick and the [other] two are thin. If the thick one alone is removed, this is not the removal of the bunch of converging sinews, for two of them remain. But if the two think wones are removed from their place, it is permitted, for the one that is thick and larger than the other two, for the entire bunch of converging sinews were not removed, only a minority of them. But if most of each of them were severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher). And one does not need to state if all of them were severed or if all of them were removed. And with fowl, they are sixteen white sinews, even if only the majority of one of them was severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher).

נשבר העצם – below from the knee in the place where it doesn’t make it “torn” (i.e., not kosher).

‘אם רוב הבשר קיים – which is the hide and flesh cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference of the break. For sometimes it is found this without that, such as when it widens from one side and is narrow from the other side, for the bone is not round. Therefore, it requires both.

שחיטתו מטהרתו – to the limb hanging down from the body, and it is permitted, even for consumption.

ואם לאו – that the hide and the flesh do not cover the majority, the slaughtering does not render it clean. But even though the animal is permitted, the limb is forbidden because of (Exodus 22:30): “you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; [you shall cast it to the dogs],” as we state (Tractate Hullin 73a), to include the limb and flesh hanging down from the body. But if the bone is broken form the knee and above to the place where it makes it “torn,” if most of the flesh exists, the limb and the animal are permitted. But if not, the limb and the animal are prohibited. And the law of the fowl is like the law of the animals of the field for this matter.

שליא (placenta–after-birth) – a jind of pocket where the fetus is placed into it.

נפש היפה – for it is not counted on in his mind (and therefore forbidden to handle) on account of its repulsiveness.

תאכלנה – but we don’t say that it is the limb from a living animal (i.e., one of the seven Noahide commandments), but also is a remnant from the ritual slaughtering of the mother [animal].

ואינה מטמאה – as it is not considered food.

ולא טומאת נבילות – if the animal died.

מטמאה טומאת אוכלין (if he gave thought to it – for use as food) – of it came in contact with defilement, that his thought considers it as food. But not the uncleanness of carrion, for it is not meat but rather, merely like the rest of food in general.

אסורה באכילה – and even though only a small part of it (i..e, the placenta–after-birth) came out, and it is obvious that all that all of the cleansing of the fetus was not there, we are concerned perhaps that with that particular piece, the head of the offspring came out and that is considered like it is born.

[הכי גרסינן] סימן ולד באשה. וסימן ולד בבהמה: המבכרת – this is her first issue of her womb.

ישליכנה לכלבים – for there is no sanctity in it. For even though there is no placenta–after-birth without a offspring, here, the majority is not sanctified, for perhaps it was a female, or it was an animal suspected of looking like one (i.e., a lamb looking like a kid and vice-versa – or a hybrid), and it is not holy (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter).

ובמוקדשין – as, for example, the cattle of peace-offering–well-being which expelled the after-birth–placenta.

תקבר – for since there is no after-birth–placenta without offspring, it is sanctified, for whether a male or a female that left from the animal that was sanctified to the Temple is holy.

בפרשת דרכים – a place where the paths separate into two. And the path of diviners to bury her there in order that she will not abort anymore.

דרכי האמורי – sorcery, as it is written (Exodus 23:24}: “[you shall not bow down to the gods in worship] or follow their practices.”