Chullin 70b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

An animal whose fetus died inside its entrails, and the shepherd extended his hand

into its entrails,

and touched it

the fetus—

Whether in an impure animal or in a pure animal,

the fetus is

pure.

Therefore, even the shepherd who touched it is pure.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: With an

animal

impure,

the fetus is

impure,

and even the shepherd who touched it is impure.

And

if

with a

pure

animal, he is pure.

Below, the Gemara explains the reasons for these laws.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

What is the reason of the first tanna

who holds that in every manner, whether with a pure animal or with an impure animal, the fetus is pure?

Rav Ḥisda said: A kal va-chomer: If its mother benefited it

the fetus

by permitting it for eating,

for when the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was inside her, the partitions of her womb benefited it by making it permitted for eating, even if it was dead,

and

would its mother’s partition not benefit it

during her lifetime

to purify it [

to make it pure]

from

the impurity of

a carcass?!

But the Gemara continues to discuss: This permission, by which its being within its mother’s partition purifies it from the impurity of a carcass, and which is learned by a kal va-chomer from the permission for eating,

we find,

we find it only with regard to

a pure animal,

for if it was slaughtered and the fetus was found dead inside it, its being within its mother’s partition permitted it for eating.

But with regard to

an impure animal,

whose fetus within it is not destined to be permitted for eating through its mother’s slaughter,

from where do we know

that the fetus within it does not render impure like a carcass?

The Gemara explains:

The verse says [Leviticus 11:39],

“

When an animal

that is yours for eating dies, one who touches its carcass shall become impure until evening.”

And the Gemara expounds: “From the animal,” stated in the verse—

this is an impure animal.

“That is yours for eating”—

this is a pure animal. It was juxtaposed

the carcass of

an impure animal to

the carcass of

a pure animal,

to teach you:

Just as a pure animal’s

carcass of

its fetus

found within it is

pure, so too an impure animal’s

carcass of

its fetus

found within it is

pure.

This is the reason for the words of the first tanna in our Mishna, who declares the carcass of an impure animal within its mother’s entrails pure, like the carcass of a pure animal.

But the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who distinguishes between the carcass of a fetus of a pure animal, which alone is pure, and the carcass of a fetus of an impure animal, which is impure,

what is the reason

for this distinction?

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

[Leviticus 11:27]:

“And every one that walks upon its paws

among every animal that walks

on four—they are impure for you. Anyone who touches their carcass shall become impure until evening.”

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds as follows:

Those that walk upon paws,

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

in

an animal

I have rendered impure for you.

As it is stated at the end of the verse, “One who touches their carcass shall become impure.”

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

But the Gemara asks:

But from now on,

a

clovenless

fetus [whose hooves are clovenless, that is, complete and not split, and it does not have the sign of purity of “dividing the hoof”], found dead

in the entrails of a cow—

should it render impure,

for “those that walk upon paws among animals,” it is,

as we learned from what is stated in the verse, that the carcass of a fetus that walks upon paws renders impure?

If so, how can Rabbi Yosei say that everything found in a pure animal is pure? For this clovenless fetus is found inside a pure animal, and necessarily it is impure!?

The Gemara answers: In this verse it says, “And every one that walks upon its paws among every animal that walks upon four,” and we learn as follows: The impurity decreed by the Torah applies only to the carcass of a fetus that is

one that walks upon paws

[whose hooves are clovenless], and is found

in

an animal that is

one that walks

on

four

[that is, whose mother’s four hooves too are clovenless and complete].

And

if

this one,

the clovenless fetus found in a cow’s entrails,

“one that walks on four in

those that walk

on eight” it is.

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

The Gemara challenges: If so, a fetus having the form of a

cow,

and found

in the entrails of a camel,

it too

should not render impure, for

this fetus has the form of a cow and is

one that walks on eight

[for its hooves are split], found

in

those that walk

on four, it is.

For a camel has four clovenless hooves. If so, it too should not render impure, since the impurity of a fetus is only “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 did not say only

“walks

upon its paws,” but rather it said

“and every one that walks

upon its paws,” the word “every” comes

to include

even a fetus having the form of a

cow,

found

in the entrails of a camel,

whose carcass also renders impure.

The Gemara challenges: A cow fetus

clovenless

in its hooves, found

in

the

entrails

of a cow that is also

clovenless,

apparently its law is

to render impure! For

it is

one that walks on four

[for its hooves are clovenless], found

in

one that

walks

on

four. If so, its law is that it should render impure, as explicitly stated in the verse, whereas Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not distinguish in his words, but said, “With a pure [animal], he is pure”!

If so, it should render one impure, as explicitly stated in the verse, whereas Rabbi Yosei HaGelili did not distinguish in his statement, but said, “With a pure animal, it is pure”!

The Gemara answers:

For this,

with regard to this matter, Rabbi Yosei concedes that

it was effective

it assists

the kal va-chomer of Rav Ḥisda

brought above: “If its mother benefited it by permitting it for eating, would she not benefit it by purifying it from the status of a carcass”?! If so, certainly this fetus is pure.

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami objected to him:

According to your words, even a

pig

found

in the entrails of a sow should not render impure! For

it is

one that walks

on

eight

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

in

one that

walks

on

eight,

and if so, even its carcass should not render impure? How, then, did Rabbi Yosei teach in our Mishna that every carcass of a dead fetus found in an impure animal renders impure? A pig is an impure animal, and necessarily its fetus’s carcass does not render impure?

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The source for Rabbi Yosei’s words, that the carcass of a fetus of an impure animal renders impure through contact, is

from here:

It is stated [Leviticus 5:2]:

“Or if 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.”

Now, does the carcass of an impure animal

stated in the verse

alone render impure, whereas with a pure animal it does not render impure

its carcass!?

Rather, what is this

impure thing of which Scripture spoke, in which there is a distinction between the carcass of an impure animal and that of a pure animal?

It is a fetus

that died in its mother’s entrails,

which

specifically

with an impure [animal]

is

impure. And

if

with a pure [animal]

it is, it is

pure.

From here is the source for Rabbi Yosei’s words: only the carcass of a fetus of an impure animal renders impure, and not that of a pure animal.

The Gemara asks:

And

since

once it has emerged for him,

for we have learned Rabbi Yosei’s law

from Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

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

Rabbi Yitzḥak’s

exposition from the verse “and every one that walks upon its paws”

why do I need it?

The Gemara answers:

Were it not for

the exposition

of Rabbi Yitzḥak

from “and every one that walks upon its paws,”

I would have thought

that

the entire

verse of “when a person touches” [from which Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak derives Rabbi Yosei’s law] came solely

for Rabbi’s matter,

as it is needed for Rabbi’s law [as will be explained below, on 71a, and it is learned from the word “animal” in this verse]. Although Rabbi learns his law from “an impure animal,” whereas Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak learns from “an impure wild animal” in that same verse, nevertheless, it is impossible to learn both laws, because the rule is that every passage stated once and repeated is repeated because of one novelty. Therefore, no additional laws may be expounded from this passage.

And since the word “animal” is expounded for Rabbi’s ruling, as stated, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak no longer has [grounds] to derive Rabbi Yosei’s ruling from the word “impure” in this verse. And since we have found that an impure animal was equated with a pure one, we have [grounds] to equate them and declare the fetus in both of them pure, and not to expound from the verse “the carcass of an impure animal” to render the fetus of the impure one impure.

Therefore

it teaches us

Rabbi Yitzḥak’s exposition of “and everything that walks on its paws,” that at the very least the fetus of an impure animal that walks on four [feet] is impure; and necessarily the equation of an impure animal with a pure animal is nullified, and it is possible to learn and expound from the verse “the carcass of an impure animal” concerning the fetus of an impure one, that it too renders [one] impure, in accordance with the exposition of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. And even “those that walk on eight,” such as a pig in the womb of a sow, render [one] impure.

It was taught: Rabbi Yonatan said:

I said

I said

to Ben Azzai: We have learned

about

the carcass of a pure animal, which renders [one] impure.

From what is said: “And when there dies of the animal that is for you as food, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening.” And it follows that even an animal permitted for eating—its carcass renders [one] impure through contact.

And

likewise concerning

the carcass of an impure animal, which renders [one] impure.

And

the carcass of an impure wild animal, which renders [one] impure,

as it is said: “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 is it impure?

He said,

said

to me

Ben Azzai: This matter is learned from what is said [Leviticus 11:27],

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

“Among every” is an inclusion, and it comes to include even a pure wild animal; and at the end of that verse it is said, “one who touches their carcass shall be impure,” and 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 was “and every” wild animal said,

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

But surely only “among every” wild animal was said.

And the meaning of the matter is that only

for those walking on paws in

the

animal,

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

it is that it came

the verse to include: the carcass of a fetus of an impure wild animal renders [one] impure. And one can no longer learn from this to the impurity of the carcass of the pure wild animal itself?!

He said

said

to me

Ben Azzai:

And what does Ishmael say concerning this matter?

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

I said to him:

Rabbi Ishmael learned this from the verse [Leviticus 11:39]: “And when there dies of the animal that is for you as food, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening,” and he expounds the verse as follows: “

which dies from the animal” —

this is an impure animal.

“which is for you as food” —

this is

a pure animal.

And behold,

we have learned

elsewhere the principle that

a wild animal

is

included within an animal, and an animal

is

included within a wild animal.

Therefore,

a pure wild animal

is

included within a pure animal;

therefore the carcass of a pure wild animal renders [one] impure, just as the carcass of a pure animal renders [one] impure.

And likewise,

an impure wild animal

—its carcass renders [one] impure, because it is

included within an impure animal,

which is mentioned in the verse, whose carcass renders [one] impure.

And likewise it should be taught in the reverse: