Commentary for Chullin 136:8
שחט את אמו ואחר כך החזירו אסור באכילה
If it refers to the foetus, why is it forbidden? - As R'Nahman B'Isaac had said [elsewhere]: It would not have been necessary to mention it except in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off; we may say the same here: It was only stated in so far as it affects the part where it is cut off.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the ruling in the second clause 'It may not be eaten' only means that a little more than the part which protruded may not be eaten but the rest of the foetus may.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Chullin 136:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.