Resources for Kesubos daf 60

1.     The גמרא says that mother’s milk is מותר for everyone at all ages as long as it was already פּריש into a כלי. This גמרא leads the ראשונים into a discussion about the permissibility of eating human flesh. There is a כלל from the משנה in בכורות דף ה ע"ב that כל היוצא מן הטמא טמא which means anything that comes out of a non-kosher species is not kosher. Yet the גמרא says that mother’s milk and human blood areמעיקר הדין kosher (except for an issue of מראית עין on the blood). Based on this, the רמב"ן here says that human flesh is מותר! (To be clear, he is referring to human flesh that somehow got chopped off while the person was alive. Once they are dead, all human flesh becomes אסור בהנאה.) The רמב"ן has multiple proofs. Besides what was mentioned above (that mothers milk must be considered יוצא מן הטהור), the fact that blood of a human is מותר would not be true if his בשר was אסור since blood is also included in the איסור בשר. We see this by the איסור שרץ where the blood of a שרץ does not have an איסור דם but does have an איסור שרץ. Lastly, there is a גירסא in our גמרא brought by תוספות which explicitly says that בשר אדם is מותר (as opposed to our גירסא which says דם). If the רמב"ן is right, it leaves us with another question: why is there no איסור אבר מן החי? In fact, the ריטב"א actually says this whole question is not relevant because there is an איסור אבר מן החי on human flesh. The רשב"א in שו"ת חלק א׳ סימן שס"ד answers for the רמב"ן that אבר מן החי only applies to something that would need שחיטה to remove the איסור. However, by something that doesn’t need שחיטה like by a grasshopper or fish there is no איסור אבר מן החי. However, the רשב"א himself holds there is an איסור דרבנן to eat human flesh. The רמב"ם  in הלכות מאכלות אסורות פּרק ב הל׳ ג holds that while he agrees there is no איסור לאו, there is an איסור עשה as the פּסוק says "זאת החיה אשר תאכלו" and doesn’t list humans. The רמב"ן points out that this דרשה does not appear anywhere is ש"ס and one cannot make up their own דרשות (although he admits the רמב"ם  was probably מדייק it from a ספרי). In any event, how would the רמב"ם  explain why mother’s milk is מותר if humans are not kosher and we say כל היוצא מן הטמא טמא? The מגיד משנה answers with a big יסוד that is brought להלכה by the ש"ך ין יו"ד סימן ע"ט. He says that we only say the principle of כל היוצא מן הטמא טמא by an איסור לאו but not by an איסור עשה. If so, since a human is only an איסור עשה the milk is still מותר.

2.     The גמרא says that a sick person can be יונק from a goat on שבת since it is considered מפרק כלאחר יד. There is an interesting question raised by the אחרונים : is the concept of כלאחר יד  limited to שבת  or does it apply to all of תורה? The חלקת מחוקק in אבן העזר סימן קכ"ג ס"קה says that if a person wrote a גט with their left hand it would be כשר בדיעבד even though on שבת it would be considered כותב כלאחר יד and not considered a כתיבה. The reason he says it is כשר is because the notion of כלאחר יד is a function of the concept of מלאכת מחשבת which only applies to שבת. However, the קובץ הערות here in סימן ר"ב disagrees and says that the concept of כלאחר יד is not a function of מלאכת מחשבת. Rather, it applies throughout ש"ס since the תורה only discussed when things were done in the normal way. His proof is that if you are מבשל the קרבן פּסח in water and eat it you violate a לאו but if you are מבשל it in water using heat from the sun then you are פּטור since that is not the normal דרך בישול. You see from there that כלאחר יד has nothing to do with מלאכת מחשבת. The בית שמואל there in ס"ק ד also seemed to agree with the  קובץ שיעורים.