Explanation: It has no life, [so it is not considered born] until its majority leaves. The head does not suffice.

Implied question: Shmuel, who said the head does not exempt (make it considered born) Nefalim, was refuted in Bechoros (46b)!

Answer: A Nefel, which has the form of a face, is better than a Sandal. (The head exempts a Nefel, but not a Sandal.)

Implied question: We said that a child, which has life, once its head comes out [it is considered born. We hold that this applies even to a Nefel, which has no life!]

Answer: This is not precise what we said there, that it has life. It is even if it has no life, for Shmuel was refuted.

Implied question: The Yerushalmi connotes that the child with a Sandal does not survive! (Here we say that she is a Yoledes due to the child with the Sandal.)

Answer: Rather, [our Gemara means that the child with] it is proper to live, i.e. it was finished with the form of a face.

Alternate text: R. Chananel's text says "a child, which has life, once its majority comes out [it is considered born]. A Sandal, which has no life, [is considered born] once all of it comes out."

Explanation: "Its majority" means the majority of the head. "All of it" means the entire head;

It is obvious that we do not require the entire body, for the majority is like all of it.

Question: From this Beraisa, we should challenge what Rav Yehudah taught in the name of Shmuel (Sukah 32b), that the Lulav must extend a Tefach past the myrtle. He did not require the spine of the Lulav [to stick out a Tefach]. He argues with R. Parnach!

Answer #1: This Beraisa was not taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya. (Perhaps it is mistaken. Therefore, we do not challenge teachings from it.)

Answer #2: The Beraisa did not say "spine". The Gemara fixed the word "spine" into the Beraisa, for we hold like this.

Question: This Tefach is small, for it explains there (32b) that an Amah, which is five Tefachim, we consider it to be six [small] Tefachim. (Each is five sixths of a real Tefach.) Three [of these small] Tefachim are the Shi'ur for myrtle, and one [small Tefach] is for the Lulav [how much it must stick out. Why was Lulav taught with matters that require a full Tefach?]

Answer #1: In any case, since it is called Tefach, it is listed here with other Tefachim (matters with the Shi'ur of a Tefach).

Answer #2: The Tefach of a Lulav does not refer to the small Tefachim. Small Tefachim are only regarding the myrtle.

Questions: In Bava Basra (89a), it says that the rod of a balance scale is a Tefach. In Chulin (123a), it says that [hide being flayed from an animal], the amount to hold, i.e. a Tefach [is considered connected regarding Tum'ah]!

Also regarding Trefos, the Shi'ur for some matters is a Tefach!

Answer: In the conclusion, that we do not discuss mid'Rabanan laws, only matters written [in the Torah], but the Shi'ur is not explicit, this is fine. (The matters Tosfos asked from are not written.)

Explanation: This is to bring Tum'ah outside. If the oven became Tamei internally, the handle becomes Tamei, for it is considered like the oven itself.

Implied question: An [earthenware] oven does not receive Tum'ah from its outside!

Answer: [Even so,] if the inside became Tamei, also the outside becomes Tamei, like it says in Berachos (52b) "if the inside became Tamei, all of them (the inside, outside, brim, and handles) are Tamei." (Rashash points out that the Gemara there discusses Klei Shetef (those that can be immersed)! Indeed, Bechoros 38a, says that for this law, Rabanan made Klei Shetef like Klei Cheres. Rashash asks why Tosfos did not cite Bechoros 38a.)

Also in Toras Kohanim, it says that [a Kli Cheres] is Metamei more than it becomes Tamei. It is Metamei others through its back, but it does not become Tamei through its back.

A handle has the law of the back. If a Sheretz touched the handle, the oven did not become Tamei, like it says in the Tosefta (Kelim Perek 6);

Tum'ah of Klei Cheres is only through the inside or moving it. It does not say [that it becomes Tamei] through the handle.

In Chulin (118a, the Gemara) wanted to say that a handle brings Tum'ah [to the oven]. It would have to establish the Tosefta to discuss an oven without a handle.

Question: Why is a big oven less than four Tefachim Tahor? Even a smaller oven is Tamei!

Answer: Big and small refer to the width. When it is very wide, it needs a height of four Tefachim to hold the heat;

However, a small oven, which is narrow, a height of a Tefach suffices.

Explanation: Once [the oven] was finished, its remnants (if it broke, are Mekabel Tum'ah if they) are the majority [of its initial size].

The text in Mishnayos says "initially, any size [receives Tum'ah]. The majority [must remain in order to receive Tum'ah] from when it was finished. When is it finished?...

The Gemara often reverses the order of the Mishnah, according to the need, for in Chulin (124a) we asked "what is the majority of a Tefach useful for?", and it answers that it was taught about a big oven at the end. (Maharam - the Mishnah connotes that "the majority must remain" refers to a small oven, which was taught just before these words. Therefore, it asked that the majority of a Tefach is not useful. It answered that really, "the majority..." refers to a big oven. Our Gemara cited the Mishnah out of order, lest we err like the Gemara in Chulin initially did. This is not in our text in Chulin (PF).)

The Gemara asked "we said that the remnant [of a big oven] is four [Tefachim]!", and answered that this is for an oven that was [initially] nine, and this is for an oven that was seven.

Explanation #1: Rashi explained there that an oven that was nine, it suffices for four to remain, even though it is not the majority. For an oven that was seven, the majority suffices, even though it is not four.

Objection (R. Tam): The end should not be more stringent than the beginning! Initially, we require four. (All the more so a remnant must be at least four!)

Explanation #2: Rather, it seems like Rashi explained here. An oven that was seven, four is the majority. An oven that was nine, the majority [must remain].

Question: Why did it mention an oven that was nine? It should have said that if it was eight, and the majority must remain [and the same applies to any amount above eight]! (Aruch l'Ner - it is a leniency to be Metaher when four remains, and this is not the majority. We do not learn this leniency when it is eight.)

Answer: According to Rashi there, this is fine. It mentioned nine, even though four is its minority [it is still Mekabel Tum'ah].

Answer (to Objection (c)): R. Tam's question is not difficult at all. One who makes a Kli Cheres makes only something important;

However, a Kli that diminished, as long as it is proper [for use], it is not Batel, just like remnants of Tzitzis are Kosher.

Support: We asked "remnants of a Tefach - what are they useful for?" This connotes that if they were useful, it would be fine, even though it is less than the initial [Shi'ur].

Explanation: In Bava Basra (19a), R. Tam explained that sometimes "any amount" is less than a Tefach, and sometimes it is more than a Tefach. (Rashash - there, it is truly any amount [of land]. Here, we can say that a Tefach is called "any amount" in contrast to four Tefachim.)

Implied question: They argue about the wall of a Sukah! R. Shimon says that the fourth wall must be a Tefach.

Answer: In any case, all agree that one wall must be a Tefach;

However, regarding an oven, even though all agree that between the oven and the wall [the handle receives Tum'ah only up to] a Tefach, they argue about a Stam oven [handle, i.e. not near a wall].

Explanation: Rashi explained that a Kirah [is an oven that] has room to rest one pot on it.

Rejection: This is wrong. In Shabbos (38b), it says that a Kirah has room to rest two pots on it!

Explanation #1: You resolved [his teaching] by yourself. Initially, you forgot it. This is why [initially] he was silent.

Explanation #2: According to Rashi, who says that he said this in astonishment, we must say that initially, he was not concerned to answer him.

Implied question: It says below (27a) that the child [of R. Chiya's wife] delayed three months [after his twin, before coming out. Likewise, a Shilya can delay this long!]

Answer: In any case, it is not common. As long as we do not see so, we are not concerned for it.

Explanation: It mentioned specifically a Chayah or bird. [Then,] if the fetus came out first, and afterwards the Shilya, until three days we attribute (the Shilya to the fetus), and we are not concerned for another fetus.

Assertion: Seemingly, this is because women do not normally miscarry a Chayah or bird. Therefore, we have a Safek that the Shilya is not from them.

Question: In Chulin (77b), regarding the Mishnah "if part of a Shilya left the womb [and its mother was slaughtered], one may not eat it", R. Elazar taught that this is only if it is not tied to the fetus;

Explanation: There is another fetus. Since it is not tied to it, we are concerned for another fetus in the Shilya. Therefore, it is forbidden.

We bring to support him this Beraisa of one who miscarried a Chayah or bird.

Summation of question: What support is this? Just the contrary, here it connotes only a Chayah or bird, which is not normal, but if a [regular] Nefel [was with it], we attribute [the Shilya to the Nefel] for all three days, and if a viable baby [was with it, we attribute the Shilya to the baby] for even several days!

Answer (and retraction from assertion): It does not depend on what is normal or not normal;

Rather, the Gemara knew that after a human form a Shilya often delays, but after a Behemah, Chayah or bird, the Shilya does not normally separate from the fetus, even in an animal's womb, just like in a woman's womb.

Question: When it is not tied to the fetus, why does R. Elazar forbid eating it?

We say here that it is only a Safek (that there is another fetus in the Shilya), and not Vadai that there is another fetus, since it says "I put on it the stringency of two children, lest the Shefir of the Shilya dissolved;

If so, it is a Sefek-Sefeka [regarding eating]. Perhaps there is no other fetus. And even if there is, perhaps neither the head or majority came out [before Shechitah]!

Strengthening of question: In Bava Kama (11a) regarding a Shilya that left partially on Sunday [and finished coming out on Monday], it connotes that a Sefek-Sefeka is permitted;

It asks "what does this teach - that you cannot have part of a Shilya without a fetus? A Mishnah already taught this! An [animal] Shilya that left partially [and its mother was slaughtered], it is forbidden.

Explanation: If there could be part of a Shilya without a fetus, this would be a Sefek-Sefeka, and it would be permitted!

Answer #1: The Beraisa, which says "perhaps" discusses a Shilya after the fetus. R. Elazar discusses a Shilya that came out before the fetus;

Surely there is there another fetus when it is not tied to it, like we say in our Sugya "we attribute a Shilya to the fetus only when the Shilya comes [out] after the fetus."

There we bring a proof that when it is not tied, we are concerned for another fetus, to teach unlike R. Yochanan there.

Answer #2: Even regarding a Sefek-Sefeka, R. Elazar forbids. We decree the minority due to the majority;

Alternatively, [we decree] due to when there is not another fetus with it, lest people err;

They will think that we permit what is inside, not due to Sefek-Sefeka, rather, because "Kol b'Behemah" is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv, that even if the majority left, we permit the minority inside;

[They will err] since they see that we permit when the minority left, and it is possible that the head left in that minority, and it is as if the majority left. It will not cross their minds that it is permitted due to Sefek-Sefeka.