(Mishnah): If an animal was slaughtered when it was giving birth, and the fetus stuck out a leg (from the womb) and returned it, it may be eaten;

If it stuck out its head, even if it returned it, it is as if the fetus was born.

If one cut a piece from a fetus (and left it) inside, it may be eaten (after the mother is slaughtered);

If one cut a piece from the spleen or kidneys, it is forbidden (even after Shechitah).

The rule is, something that is part of the animal is forbidden. If it is not part of the animal, it is permitted.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): The leg that left the womb may not be eaten.

"Meat torn in the field you may not eat" (permanently) forbids meat that left its proper place.

Question (Mishnah): If the fetus stuck out a leg and returned it, it may be eaten.

Suggestion: 'It' refers to the leg. It may be eaten!

Answer: No, it refers to the rest of the fetus.

Question: The rest of the fetus is permitted even if the leg was not returned. Why did the Mishnah say that the leg was returned?

Answer: This is for parallel structure with the Seifa:

(Seifa): If it stuck out its head, even if it returned it, it is as if it was born.

Question: Why must our Mishnah teach that? Another Mishnah teaches that!

(Mishnah): A man can be a Bechor (firstborn) regarding inheritance (to receive a double portion), but not a Bechor regarding (the Mitzvah to redeem him by giving five Shekalim to) a Kohen:

This is if he was born after a Nefel (non-viable baby), even if the Nefel stuck its head out alive, or after a viable baby (that was in the womb for nine months) that stuck its head out after it already died.

Inference: If the first baby was viable and stuck its head out alive (and later died), the next child would not be a Bechor even regarding inheritance (because the first child was considered born)!

Suggestion: Our Mishnah teaches about animals. That Mishnah teaches about people.

We cannot learn about people from animals, for animals do not have a birth canal. (Perhaps that is why emergence of the head is like birth!)

We cannot learn about animals from people, for a person's face is important.

Rejection: Another Mishnah teaches about animals!

(Mishnah): If a fetal sac partially left the womb, one may not eat it. Just like it indicates a fetus in a woman, also in an animal.

Summation of question: If the leg is permitted in the Reisha because the fetus drew it back, we can say that the Seifa discusses returning the head for consistency;

However, if the leg is forbidden whether or not it was returned (and only the rest of the fetus is permitted), there was no need to mention returning (the leg or head) in either clause!

Answer: Really, the Reisha permits only the rest of the fetus;

It says that the leg returned, for this permits the place where we cut the leg (i.e. the part that was even with the edge of the womb but did not leave.)

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak likewise explained that a Beraisa (below) permits this part of the leg.

Question (Beraisa): If an animal was giving birth, and the fetus stuck out a leg and returned it, and then the mother was slaughtered, it is permitted (to eat it);

If it returned the leg after Shechitah, it is forbidden.

If the fetus stuck out a leg and it was cut off before Shechitah, what is outside is Tamei and forbidden. What is inside is Tahor and permitted;

R. Meir says, if the leg was cut off after Shechitah, the rest of the fetus is like meat that touched a Nevelah;

Chachamim say, it is like meat that touched a slaughtered Treifah.

Culmination of question - Suggestion: In the Reisha, 'if the fetus stuck out a leg and returned it before Shechitah, it is permitted' refers to the leg.

Answer #1: No, it refers to (the rest of) the fetus.

Objection (Seifa): If it returned it after Shechitah, it is forbidden.

Why should (the rest of) the fetus be forbidden?!

Answer #2: We can answer like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered another Beraisa. It refers to the place where we cut the leg.

Question (Beraisa): If it returned "Parsah (a leg)", it is permitted. If it returned "Perasos", it is permitted.

Suggestion: This means that if it stuck out limbs, only those that it returned before Shechitah may be eaten.

Answer #1: No. It means that if it returned, the fetus is permitted.

Rejection: This cannot be. The rest of the fetus is permitted even if no limbs were returned!

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Returning the limb permits the place where we cut the leg.

Question: The Beraisa expounds two words, Parsah and Perasos!

Suggestion: One permits the place that is cut, and the other permits the limb itself.

Answer: No. One permits the place that is cut, and the other permits a fetus whose hooves are not split, according to R. Shimon;

(R. Shimon): If an animal with uncloven hooves was born to a cow, it is forbidden.

This is only if the baby was born, but if it was found inside the cow after Shechitah, it is permitted.

Version #1 (Ula, citing R. Yochanan): The limb itself is permitted (if it was returned).

Rav Yehudah: Rav and Shmuel forbid!

Ula: Rav and Shmuel are so special, that we treasure the earth in which they were buried. However, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan.

(R. Yochanan): "U'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah Lo Sochelu" forbids all meat that left its proper place;

The Torah forbids meat of a Chatas that left the Azarah (there is no remedy);

Inference: In all other cases, if the meat is returned to its proper place, it is permitted.

Question (Beraisa): If Ma'aser Sheni or Bikurim left their proper place (Yerushalayim) and returned, they are permitted;

Suggestion: Also meat that left its proper place and returned is permitted!

Rejection: "U'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah Lo Sochelu" teaches that this is not so.

Question: How do we learn this from the verse?

Answer (Rabah): Just like a Treifah never becomes permitted, also meat that left its proper place.

This refutes Ula.

Question: The Beraisa permits Ma'aser Sheni and Bikurim that left Yerushalayim and returned. What is the source of this?

Answer: "You may not eat in your gates (i.e. outside Yerushalayim) Ma'aser... ", but you may eat it if it left (Yerushalayim) and returned.

Version #2: Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael explained the argument between Rav and R. Yochanan as follows.

(Rav): A limb that leaves the womb is considered as if it was born.

(R. Yochanan): It is not as if it was born.

Question: What do Rav and R. Yochanan argue about? (Rif; Rashi - what is the difference between the two versions of the argument?)

Answer: If the majority of a limb left the womb, they argue about whether this forbids the minority left inside. (In this version, Rav forbids it.) (end of Version #2)

Question #1: According to R. Yochanan, if one by one, the fetus stuck out limbs and returned them, until the limbs that were once outside comprise the majority of the fetus, what is the law?

Since the majority left, it is born;

Or, once a limb returns, it is as if it never left. (Now the majority is inside, so it is not yet born.)

Question #2: If we say that once a limb returns, it is as if it never left, if it stuck out limbs one by one and they were cut off, until the majority left, what is the law?

Since the majority left, it is born;

Or, perhaps a majority must be outside at one time.