Chullin 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If an animal’s fetus died inside its womb, and the shepherd inserted his hand

into its womb,

and touched it

the fetus—

Whether in a non-kosher animal or in a kosher animal,

the fetus is

pure.

Therefore, the shepherd who touched it is also pure.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: In a

non-kosher

animal,

the fetus is

impure,

and the shepherd who touched it is likewise impure.

And

if

in a

kosher

animal, it is pure.

The Gemara below explains the reasons for these laws.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason of the first tanna,

who maintains that in every case, whether in a kosher animal or in a non-kosher animal, the fetus is pure?

Rav Ḥisda said: This is a kal va-chomer: If its mother benefited it

the fetus

by permitting it to be eaten,

for when the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was inside her, the walls of her womb benefited it by permitting it to be eaten, even if it was dead,

then

should she not benefit it

by the protection of her womb while she is alive

to purify it [

to render it pure]

from

the impurity of a

carcass?!

The Gemara continues to discuss the matter: This permission—that its being within its mother’s protection purifies it from the impurity of a carcass, which is derived through a kal va-chomer from permission to eat it—

we have found

only with regard to a

kosher animal,

for if it was slaughtered and the fetus was found dead inside it, its being within its mother’s protection permitted it to be eaten.

But with regard to a

non-kosher animal,

whose fetus will not become permitted to be eaten through its mother’s slaughter,

from where do we know

that the fetus within it does not convey impurity like a carcass?

The Gemara explains:

The verse states [Leviticus 11:39]:

“

When an animal dies

that is among those permitted to you for eating, one who touches its carcass shall become impure until evening.”

The Gemara derives: The phrase “from the animal” stated in the verse—

this is a non-kosher animal.

“That is among those permitted to you for eating”—

this is a kosher animal. It juxtaposes

the carcass of a

non-kosher animal to the

carcass of a

kosher animal,

to teach you:

Just as a kosher animal’s

carcass—the

carcass of its fetus

found inside it—

is pure, so too, with regard to a non-kosher animal,

the

carcass of its fetus

found inside it is

pure.

This is the reason for the words of the first tanna in our Mishna, who declares the carcass of a non-kosher animal inside its mother’s womb pure, just as the carcass of a kosher animal.

But the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who distinguishes between the carcass of a fetus of a kosher animal, which alone is pure, and the carcass of a fetus of a non-kosher animal, which is impure—

what is the reason

for this distinction?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: For the verse states [Leviticus 11:27]:

“

And every creature that walks on its paws

among all animals that walk

on four, they are impure for you; anyone who touches their carcass shall become impure until evening.”

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives as follows:

Those that walk on paws,

that is, those that walk on complete paws, whose hooves are not split, that are found

in

an animal—

I have declared impure for you.

As it says at the end of the verse: “Anyone who touches their carcass shall become impure.”

But the carcass of a fetus found in a kosher animal is pure.

The Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

a

cloven-less

fetus—that is, one whose hooves are joined, meaning complete and not split—found dead

in the womb of a cow—

should it become impure,

for it is “one that walks on paws among an animal,”

as we have learned from the verse, that the carcass of a fetus that walks on paws conveys impurity?

If so, how can Rabbi Yosei say that everything found in a kosher animal is pure? This cloven-less fetus is found inside a kosher animal, yet it must be impure!?

The Gemara answers: The verse states, “And every creature that walks on its paws among all animals that walk on four,” and we derive that the impurity decreed by the Torah applies only to the carcass of a fetus that is

one that walks on paws [

whose hooves are joined], and is found

in

an animal that is

one that walks

on

four

[that is, the mother’s four hooves are also joined and complete].

And

if

this one,

a cloven-less fetus found in a cow’s womb, were

“a four-legged creature in

an

eight-legged creature.”

For the cow in which it is found has split hooves, each divided into two, and it is as though it had eight hooves. Therefore, this fetus is considered a creature with four hooves found inside an animal with eight legs [since its hooves are split].

The Gemara objects: If so, a fetus with the form of a

cow

found

in the womb of a camel

also

should not become impure, for

this fetus, which has the form of a cow, is

one that walks on eight

[since its hooves are split], found

in

an

animal that walks on four.

For a camel has four joined hooves. If so, it too should not become impure, since the impurity of a fetus applies only to “one that walks on four among one that walks on four,” whereas this fetus is “one that walks on eight among one that walks on four”!?

The Gemara answers: Since the verse does not state merely

“that walks

on its paws,” but states

“and every creature that walks

on its paws,” the word “every” comes

to include

even a fetus with the form of a

cow

found

in the womb of a camel,

whose carcass likewise conveys impurity.

The Gemara objects: A cow fetus

with joined hooves

found

in

the

womb of

a cow whose hooves are also

joined

should apparently

become impure, for

it is

one that walks on four

[since its hooves are joined] found

in

one that

walks

on

four.

If so, its status should be that it conveys impurity, as explicitly stated in the verse, whereas Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not qualify his statement, but said, “In a kosher animal, it is pure”!?

The Gemara answers: For this purpose, with regard to this matter, Rabbi Yosei concedes that

it is effective

that is, it is supported by

Rav Ḥisda’s kal va-chomer

stated above: “If its mother benefited it by permitting it to be eaten,

will she not benefit it by purifying it from the impurity of a carcass”!? If so, this fetus is certainly pure.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami challenged him:

According to your reasoning, even a

pig

found

in the womb of a sow should not become impure, for

it is

one that walks

on

eight

[a pig’s hooves are split like those of a kosher animal] found

in

one that

walks

on

eight,

and if so, its carcass should not convey impurity? How, then, did Rabbi Yosei teach in our Mishna that every impure fetus found in a non-kosher animal conveys impurity? A pig is a non-kosher animal, and necessarily its fetus’s carcass should not convey impurity?

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The source for Rabbi Yosei’s statement that the carcass of a fetus of a non-kosher animal conveys impurity through contact is

from here:

It is stated [Leviticus 5:2]:

“Or when a person touches any impure thing, or the carcass of an impure wild animal, or the carcass of an impure animal, or the carcass of an impure creeping creature.”

Is it possible that the carcass of a non-kosher animal

mentioned in the verse alone

conveys impurity, while the carcass of a kosher animal does not convey impurity

?

Rather, what is this

impure creature about which the verse speaks, in which there is a distinction between the carcass of a non-kosher animal and that of a kosher animal?

—

This is a fetus

that died in its mother’s womb,

which

specifically

in a non-kosher animal

is

impure. And

if

in a kosher animal,

it is

pure.

This is the source for Rabbi Yosei’s statement that only the carcass of a fetus of a non-kosher animal conveys impurity, but not that of a kosher animal.

The Gemara asks:

And

since

once he derives it,

that we have learned Rabbi Yosei’s ruling

from Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

from “when a person touches,” as stated, if so,

why do I need Rabbi Yitzḥak’s

derivation from the verse “and every creature that walks on its paws”

?

The Gemara answers:

Were it not for

the derivation

of Rabbi Yitzḥak

from “and every creature that walks on its paws,”

I would have thought

that

the entire

verse “when a person touches” [from which Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak derives Rabbi Yosei’s ruling] had come solely

for Rabbi’s ruling,

which is necessary for Rabbi’s ruling [as will be explained below, on 71a, and which is derived from the word “animal” in this verse]. Although Rabbi derives his ruling from “non-kosher animal,” whereas Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak derives his ruling from “impure wild animal” in the same verse, nevertheless, the two laws cannot both be derived, because the principle is that whenever a passage is stated once and then repeated, it is repeated because of a single novel element. Therefore, no additional laws may be derived from this passage.

Once the word “animal” is expounded for Rabbi’s ruling, as stated, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak can no longer derive Rabbi Yosei’s ruling from the word “impure” in this verse. And since we have found that an impure animal is equated with a pure one, we must apply this equation and declare the fetus in both cases pure, rather than expound from the verse “the carcass of an impure animal” that the fetus of an impure animal is impure.

Therefore

Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches us

the exposition of “everything that walks on its paws”: At the very least, the fetus of an impure four-legged animal is impure. Consequently, the equation of an impure animal with a pure animal is necessarily nullified, and it is possible to derive and expound from the verse “the carcass of an impure animal” with regard to the fetus of an impure animal, that it too imparts impurity, in accordance with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s exposition. And even animals that “walk on eight,” such as a pig in the womb of a sow, impart impurity.

It was taught: Rabbi Yonatan said:

I said,

I said

to Ben Azzai: We have learned

about

the carcass of a pure animal, which imparts impurity.

This is derived from that which is stated: “When an animal dies, of the animals that are for you to eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” Thus, even an animal that is permitted for consumption has a carcass that imparts impurity through contact.

And

likewise with regard to

the carcass of an impure animal, which imparts impurity.

And

the carcass of an impure wild animal, which imparts impurity,

as it is stated: “Or through the carcass of an impure wild animal, or through the carcass of an impure animal.”

However, the law of

the carcass of a pure wild animal—we have not learned,

and from where do we know that it is impure?

He said,

said

to me

Ben Azzai: This matter is learned from that which is stated [Leviticus 11:27],

“Everything that walks on its paws, among every wild animal that walks.”

The word “every” is an amplification, and it comes to include even a pure wild animal. And at the end of that same verse it is stated: “One who touches their carcass shall be impure.” This is the source for the impurity of the carcass of a pure wild animal.

I said,

I said

to him

to Ben Azzai:

But is it stated, “and every wild animal,”

so that from this one could include all wild animals, even pure ones?

Yet it states only, “among every wild animal.”

The meaning is that only

for those walking on paws within the

animal,

wild animal,

that is, for the fetuses within their mother’s womb,

does it come

to include them: The carcass of a fetus of an impure wild animal imparts impurity. But one still cannot derive from this the impurity of the carcass of the pure wild animal itself!?

He said

said

to me

Ben Azzai:

And what does Ishmael say about this matter?

From where did he derive the impurity of the carcass of a pure wild animal?

I said to him:

Rabbi Ishmael learned this from the verse [Leviticus 11:39]: “When an animal dies, of the animals that are for you to eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening,” and he expounds the verse as follows: “

When an animal dies” —

this is an impure animal.

“That is for you to eat”

— this is

a pure animal.

And indeed,

we have learned

elsewhere the principle that

a wild animal

is

included within the category of an animal, and an animal

is

included within the category of a wild animal.

Therefore,

a pure wild animal

is

included within the category of a pure animal;

consequently, the carcass of a pure wild animal imparts impurity, just as the carcass of a pure animal imparts impurity.

Likewise,

an impure wild animal

has a carcass that imparts impurity, because it is

included within the category of an impure animal,

which is mentioned in the verse, whose carcass imparts impurity.

And likewise, the matter can be taught in reverse: