Halacha
הלכה א
מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים יב כג) "לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר" לֶאֱסֹר אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ מִן הַחַי. וְעַל אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְנֹחַ (בראשית ט ד) "אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ". וְאִסּוּר אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּטְהוֹרִים אֲבָל לֹא בִּטְמֵאִים:
כסף משנה
1.
According to the Oral Tradition, we learnt1Chullin 102b. that [the intent of] the Torah's statement "Do not partake of the soul together with the meat" [is to] forbid a limb cut off from a living animal.2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 182) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 452) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. With regard to a limb cut off from a living animal, it was said to Noah [Genesis 9:4]: "But flesh, together with its soul, its blood, you may not eat."3This prohibition is also one of the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants (Hilchot Melachim 8:10).The prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies to kosher domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl, but not to non-kosher species.4Since the species is forbidden, no additional prohibitions apply.
הלכה ב
אֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּגוֹן הַיָּד וְהָרֶגֶל. וְאֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם כְּגוֹן הַלָּשׁוֹן וְהַבֵּיצִים וְהַטְּחוֹל וְהַכְּלָיוֹת וְחֵלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָאֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ כֻּלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ מִקְצָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְהָאֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי עַד שֶׁיִּפְרשׁ כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת. אֲבָל אִם פָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי הַבָּשָׂר בִּלְבַד חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ לֹא מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי:
כסף משנה
2.
The term ever [translated as "limb"] applies both to a limb that has flesh, sinews, and bones, e.g., a hand or a foot, and to an organ that does not have a bone, e.g., the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart, and the like.5The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that this represents a difference between this prohibition and the prohibition against ritual impurity stemming from a limb where the limb must possess a bone. He explains that there a bone is necessary, for the source of the impurity is that of a corpse, and a corpse possesses bones. [There is, however, one difference.] When an organ does not possess a bone, the prohibition [against partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies whether one cut off the entire organ or only part of it.6The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and does not accept this distinction. He maintains that partaking of part of an organ is also included in the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. When, by contrast, a limb possesses a bone, a person is not liable [for violating the prohibition against] a limb from a living animal unless he separates it in its complete state, with its flesh, sinews, and bones. If, however, he only removes flesh from the living animal, he is liable for [the prohibition against partaking of] a trefe [animal] as explained,7Chapter 4, Halachah 10. and not because of a limb from a living animal.הלכה ג
הָאוֹכֵל מֵאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת פָּטוּר. חָתַךְ מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִיד הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁתְּלָשׁוֹ מִן הַחַי וְהִפְרִיד הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר לְבַדּוֹ. וְאֵין הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים מִצְטָרְפִין בּוֹ לִכְזַיִת מֵאַחַר שֶׁשִּׁנָּה בְּרִיָּתוֹ:
כסף משנה
3.
One is liable for lashes only for partaking of an olive-sized portion of a limb from a living animal. Even if one eats an entire limb or organ, if it is the size of an olive, one is liable;8We do not consider an organ or limb as a distinct creature and hold him liable, as he is liable for partaking of an ant, even if it is smaller than an olive. Chulin 102a explains that we require an olive-sized portion for the verse that states the prohibition speaks of "partak[ing] of the soul." The term partaking is appropriate only when one eats an olive-sized portion. if not he is exempt.If one cut off a olive-sized portion of flesh, sinews, and bones from the limb according to its natural form and ate it, one is liable, even if it possessed only the smallest amount of meat.9Since one did not alter its natural form, one is liable for the bones and sinews as well. If, however, one separated a limb which he tore off from a living animal and detached the flesh from the sinews and the meat, he is not liable for lashes unless he eats an olive-sized portion of the meat alone. The bones and the sinews are not included in the olive-sized portion since he changed [the limb's] natural form.
הלכה ד
חִלְּקוֹ לְאֵיבָר זֶה וַאֲכָלוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אִם יֵשׁ בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. לָקַח כְּזַיִת מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלַק בְּפִיו בִּפְנִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְלָעֶנּוּ חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
4.
When one divides this organ and eats it bit by bit, he is liable if there is an olive-sized portion of meat in what he ate.10Even though he did not detach the meat from the sinews and the bones, since he cut the limb and distorted its natural form, we consider only the meat and not the other elements of the limb. If not, he is exempt. If he took an olive-sized portion of a limb with flesh, sinews, and bones according to its natural form and ate it, he is liable, even though it became divided inside his mouth before he swallows it.הלכה ה
תָּלַשׁ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְנִטְרְפָה בִּנְטִילָתוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַחַי וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. תָּלַשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַטְּרֵפָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ:
כסף משנה
5.
When a person rips a limb from a living animal and causes it to become trefe when doing so, he is doubly liable for partaking of it: once for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and once for [partaking of] a trefe. Both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.11This explains why the person is liable for the prohibition against partaking of a trefe, for seemingly, we should follow the principle "a prohibition does not fall on a substance which is already forbidden." This principle does not apply in this instance, for here, both prohibitions take effect at the same time. Hence, one does not take precedence over the other and the transgressor is liable for both. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-10; Chapter 14, Halachah 18, for explanation regarding these principles.) Similarly, if one rips fat from a living animal and partakes of it, he is doubly liable: for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and for [partaking of] fat.12He is liable for both prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope (issur mosif; i.e., it is forbidden to gentiles as well as Jews) than the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat (Lechem Mishneh).Kin'at Eliyahu asks why a limb taken from a forbidden species is not forbidden. Here also, the prohibition against taking a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope than that against partaking of a forbidden species. If he rips fat from a trefe [animal], he is liable for [the violation of] three [negative commandments].13The two mentioned in the previous clause and the prohibition against partaking of a trefe.
He is liable for all three prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat is of a wider scope than the prohibition against partaking of a trefe and the prohibition against partaking of limb of a living animal is of a wider scope than the other two (ibid.).
הלכה ו
בָּשָׂר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵיבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בָּהּ אִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַשׁ אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נָפַל מֵחַיִּים. לְפִיכָךְ לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. אֲבָל הַיָּכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:
כסף משנה
6.
[The following rules apply when] meat is disjoined from an animal and an organ is hanging from it. If it is impossible that this meat will again become a living part of the body, it is forbidden,14From a comparison to the following halachah, it appears that this prohibition is of Scriptural origin. but one is not liable for lashes for it. [This applies] even though it was not separated [from the animal] until after it was slaughtered. If the animal dies, we consider [the limb] as if it fell off while [the animal] was alive.15Chullin 74a makes this distinction between an animal that dies naturally and one which is ritually slaughtered. Therefore one receives lashes for [partaking] of it, because of the prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal. If, however, the limb could again become a living part of the body and the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted.16For it is considered as part of the animal.הלכה ז
שָׁמַט אֵיבָר אוֹ מְעָכוֹ אוֹ דָּכוֹ כְּגוֹן הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁמָּעַךְ אוֹתָן אוֹ נִתְּקָן הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת חַיִּים. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מַסְרִיחַ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִמִּנְהָג שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקֶּדֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי:
כסף משנה
7.
If one pulled an organ [from its natural position],17Without detaching it. crushed it, ground it, e.g., one crushed testicles or pulled them from their place [and then slaughtered the animal, the organ] is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is] that it possesses a trace of life - as evidenced by the fact that it does not decay. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to partake of it as a result of a custom followed by the entire Jewish people from previous generations. For it resembles a limb separated from a living animal.הלכה ח
עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אִם הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָעוֹר חוֹפֶה רֹב עָבְיוֹ שֶׁל עֶצֶם הַנִּשְׁבָּר וְרֹב הֶקֵּף הַשֶּׁבֶר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֶצֶם לַחוּץ הֲרֵי הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר. וּכְשֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף יַחְתֹּךְ מִמְּקוֹם הַשֶּׁבֶר וְיַשְׁלִיכוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אֶת רֻבּוֹ אֲבָל הָיָה אוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר מְרֻסָּס אוֹ נִתְאַכֵּל כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְרוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִתְלַקֵּט הָרֹב מִמְּקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעָלָיו נְקָבִים נְקָבִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדַּק הַבָּשָׂר. אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְדַר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת. אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְרַר הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַעְלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כִּקְלִיפָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַטָּה מֵעַל הָעֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּעֶצֶם. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ מוֹרִין לְאִסּוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא הַבָּשָׂר. וְאִם אָכַל מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:
כסף משנה
8.
[The following laws apply when an animal's] bone was broken:18In Hilchot Shechitah 8:11-12, the Rambam mentions instances where a broken bone causes an animal to be designated as trefe. Here the Rambam is speaking of instances where the broken bone does not cause the animal to be trefe and the question involves merely the broken limb. May the meat from that limb be eaten or not? If the flesh or the skin covers the majority of the thickness of the broken bone and the majority of the circumference of the fracture, it is permitted. If the bone emerged outside [the skin], the limb is forbidden. When the animal or the fowl is slaughtered, one should cut off [the limb] at the place where it is broken and discard it. The remainder of the limb is permitted.We rule that [the limb] is forbidden until the flesh is healed [in all the following situations]: the bone broke, the flesh covers the bone, but that flesh was crushed or decayed like flesh which a doctor would remove, it is scattered in many different places,19I.e., when one would calculate the entire amount of the flesh, it would be large enough to cover the majority of the bone. Nevertheless, it is not located in large sections, but is instead, made up of many small pieces. there were many perforations within the flesh,20None of these perforations, however, caused a decrease in the mass of the flesh. the flesh was cracked or pierced like a ring, the flesh was rubbed off from above until only a [thin] peel remained, or the flesh decayed from below around the broken bone to the extent that the flesh surrounding the bone does not touch it.21Chullin 76b mentions all these circumstances without reaching a final ruling regarding them. Hence we rule stringently. If a person partook [of the limb] in any of these [circumstances], he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
הלכה ט
הַמּוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְהִנִּיחַ הַחֲתִיכוֹת בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ. הֲרֵי אוֹתָן הַחֲתִיכוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ. אֲבָל אִם חָתַךְ מִן הָעֻבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ הֲרֵי חֲתִיכַת הָעֻבָּר אוֹ אֵיבָרוֹ מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְלֹא יָצָא. עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ נֶאֱסַר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לְעוֹלָם בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט אִמּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱזִיר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁחַט אוֹ נוֹלַד הַוָּלָד וְחָיָה כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה. שֶׁכָּל בָּשָׂר שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לִמְחִצָּתוֹ נֶאֱסַר כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁפָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) "וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה" כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא לוֹ כְּשָׂדֶה נַעֲשָׂה טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
9.
When a person inserts his hand into the inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, one of the kidneys, or the like,22I.e., organs that do not cause an animal to be considered as a trefe. but leaves [the severed organ] inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as organs from a living animal although they remained within the animal's womb. If, however, he cut away [a portion of] a fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered [the mother], the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge [outside the mother].23This distinction is made on the basis of Chulin 68a, 69a. The rationale is that the animal's organs are an integral part of it. On the basis of Deuteronomy 14:5, "You shall eat it," our Sages explain when it's whole, you may eat everything within it, but not when it is lacking. The fetus, however, is not considered an integral part of the animal. Hence, as long as its limbs have not emerged outside the womb, they are permitted with the slaughter of the mother.When a fetus sticks its foreleg or hind leg out of the womb, that limb is forbidden forever, whether one cuts off [the limb] before he slaughters the mother or afterwards.24From this halachah and Halachah 11, we see that there are two prohibitions involved: partaking of a limb considered trefe and partaking of a limb from a living animal. At times, one applies, and in other situations, the other applies. Even if it returns the limb to the womb of the mother and afterwards, [the mother] was slaughtered or the fetus was born and lived for several years,25The Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh interpret this as referring to a situation where the fetus was not born before the mother was ritually slaughtered (see also Halachah 12). Instead, the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was still in its womb. Afterwards, the fetus was taken out and it survived. If, however, the fetus is born before the mother is slaughtered, the leg which emerged is not forbidden. When the calf is slaughtered, all of its legs are permitted. There are authorities who differ whether this is the Rambam's intent. Most, however, agree that this ruling should be followed in practice [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 14:2)]. that limb is forbidden as a trefe. [The rationale is that] all meat that emerged from its natural position is forbidden as flesh that was separated from a living animal.
[This is derived from the phrase (Exodus 22:30 :] "Meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field." [Our Rabbis extrapolated:] When meat comes out to a place that is like a field for it,26I.e., it is not its natural place. it becomes trefe, as we explained.27See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.
הלכה י
הוֹצִיא מִקְצָת הָאֵיבָר וְנִשְׁאַר מִקְצָתוֹ בִּפְנִים אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אֶלָּא מִעוּטוֹ הַיּוֹצֵא אָסוּר וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים מֻתָּר. וְאִם חָתַךְ הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ וְנִשְׁחֲטָה. אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא בִּלְבַד אָסוּר וּשְׁאָר הָאֵיבָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הֶחְזִירוֹ וַחֲתָכוֹ וְהוּא בַּחוּץ. בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ אָסוּר. וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנֶּגֶד הָאֲוִיר. אַחַר שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ הַיּוֹצֵא חוֹזֵר וְחוֹתֵךְ מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ:
כסף משנה
10.
[When the fetus] sticks out a portion of a limb and a portion remains within, even if it is only the minority of it, the portion which emerged is forbidden and that which remained within is permitted.If he cuts off the portion of the limb that emerged after it was returned within the animal and the animal was slaughtered, only that portion is forbidden, the remainder of the limb is permitted. If he did not return it to the womb and it remained outside and he cut it off there, the place where he cut it off - i.e., the place on the limb open to the air after the limb was cut off - is forbidden. He must afterwards cut off this portion as well. [This applies] whether he [originally] cut off the portion of the limb before [the mother] was slaughtered or afterwards.
הלכה יא
כָּל אֵיבָר עֻבָּר שֶׁיָּצָא וַחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה וְהוּא בַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְלוֹקִין עָלָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת הָעֻבָּר קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם נֶחְתַּךְ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה הָאוֹכְלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכוֹ הָאוֹכְלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי:
כסף משנה
11.
Whenever a limb emerges and is cut off before the animal is slaughtered while it is outside, it is considered as a limb from a living animal28As evident from a comparison to Halachah 9, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only when the limb was cut off following the ritual slaughter of the mother. and one is worthy of lashes for partaking of it. [This applies] even if the fetus dies before [the mother] is slaughtered.29For the ruling is dependent on the mother's condition, not that of the fetus. Even if the fetus dies, it is permitted to partake of it after the slaughter of the mother (see Tosafos, Chullin 72a). If it is cut off after ritual slaughter, one who partakes of it is not liable for lashes,30I.e., he is not liable for lashes for transgressing the prohibition against partaking of a limb of a living animal. As reflected by Halachah 9, he violates the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. The Ra'avad maintains that he is liable for lashes for this violation. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this situation is comparable to a maimed limb as described in Halachah 6 in which instance a Scriptural prohibition is involved, but one is not liable for lashes. even if it dies. If [the mother] dies and then one cuts off this limb, one who partakes of it is liable for lashes for the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal.31And not for either the prohibition against partaking of a trefe or a nevelah. The death of the mother causes the limb to be considered as if it fell off during the animal's lifetime. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 2:9 which explains the parallels that apply with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.הלכה יב
עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֵיבָר וְנֶאֱסַר הָאֵיבָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד וַהֲרֵי הִיא נְקֵבָה. הֶחָלָב שֶׁלָּהּ אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ מִסָּפֵק. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בָּא מִכְּלָל הָאֵיבָרִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אֵיבָר אֶחָד אָסוּר. וַהֲרֵי זֶה כַּחֲלֵב טְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּחֲלֵב טְהוֹרָה:
כסף משנה
12.
[The following rule applies when] a fetus sticks out a limb and that limb becomes forbidden and then the fetus is born.32The Maggid Mishneh states that this also refers to a situation where the fetus was born after the mother was slaughtered. If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because of an unresolved halachic question.33Chullin 69a asks whether this milk can be compared to milk from a kosher animal or not. The distinction is that a kosher animal will become permitted if it is slaughtered in the ritual manner and this limb will never become permitted. For the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.הלכה יג
הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שִׁלְיָא מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. וְשִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם הָיְתָה שִׁלְיָא זוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד מַה שֶּׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁמָּא שִׁלְיָא זוֹ שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ הָלַךְ לוֹ וָלָד שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ וְוָלָד זֶה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן הָלְכָה שִׁלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם לֹא נִמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן וָלָד כְּלָל שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה:
כסף משנה
13.
When a person slaughters a kosher animal that is pregnant and discovers a fetus - whether live or dead - within it, the fetus is permitted to be eaten.34With regard to a live fetus, see the following halachah. With regard to a dead fetus, the Rambam is emphasizing that it is not considered as a separate entity (in which case it would be forbidden as a nevelah), but instead as one of the limbs of the mother. Even the placenta is permitted to be eaten.35Chapter 4, Halachah 5, states that a placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. In this instance, however, since the placenta has not been expelled, it is still considered part of the mother's body and permitted.[The following rules apply if] a portion of the placenta emerged and then one slaughtered the mother. If the placenta was attached to the fetus, the portion which emerged is forbidden36Like the limb of a fetus that emerged before ritual slaughter (Maggid Mishneh).
The Ra'avad states that the placenta is comparable to an animal's waste products and therefore is not forbidden at all. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling. and the remainder is permitted. If it is not attached to the fetus, it is forbidden in its entirety, for perhaps the fetus that was in this placenta disappeared37Which was not permitted because of the slaughter of the mother. and maybe the placenta of the fetus that is found in the womb disappeared. Needless to say, if a fetus is not found in the womb at all, the placenta is forbidden in its entirety.
הלכה יד
מָצָא בָּהּ עֻבָּר חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים גְּמוּרִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּחְיֶה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה:
כסף משנה
14.
If one finds a living fetus [in the womb of a slaughtered animal] - even though it has been carried for nine months,38I.e., the period of gestation was full term. and it is possible that it will live, it does not require ritual slaughter.39And can be killed in any manner. Instead, it is acceptable because of the slaughter of its mother. If it steps on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter.40Because of the impression that might be created (Chullin 75b).הלכה טו
קָרַע אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה לְהַתִּירוֹ וְאֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ. וְאִם לֹא גָּמְרוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַי בִּמְעֵי הַטְּרֵפָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מֵאִמּוֹ. כָּל עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ אֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד וְצָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה:
כסף משנה
15.
If a person ripped open an animal41Without slaughtering it according to Torah law. or slaughtered an animal that was trefe and found a live fetus that had been carried for nine months, [that fetus] must be ritually slaughtered to be permitted.42The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:3) states that at present, we do not permit any fetus found in the womb of a trefe even if it was ritually slaughtered. The slaughter of its mother is not effective.43Since the slaughter of the mother does not cause the mother to be permitted, it is not effective with regard to the fetus.If the period [of gestation] was not completed, it is forbidden even though it is alive in the womb of the trefe animal. [The rationale is that] it is considered as one of the mother's limbs.44Since the period of gestation has not been completed, it is not considered as an independent entity. Even if it is taken from the womb and lives for a brief time, ritual slaughter does not cause it to be permitted. Whenever an animal thrust its head [out of the womb] and then returned it and [only] afterwards its mother was slaughtered, the slaughter of its mother has no bearing on it, it is considered as if it was born and it must be ritual slaughtered [to be permitted].