Chullin 71a — the Talmud in English

When an impure animal is mentioned in the Torah,

an impure domesticated animal is included within an impure animal

mentioned in the Torah.

And likewise, when a pure animal is mentioned,

a pure domesticated animal is included within a pure animal,

mentioned in the Torah.

And Rabbi Yonatan concludes his words:

And in these words he said to me

Ben Azzai about himself:

Pity,

there is loss in the world

concerning

a veteran student such as I,

Ben Azzai,

who did not serve Rabbi

Ishmael!”

And the Gemara discusses what we said:

An animal is included within a domesticated animal—

from where do we know it?

As it is written [Deuteronomy 14:4–5]

“This is the domesticated animal that you may eat: an ox, a sheep of sheep,

and a goat-sheep, a ram, a gazelle, and a deer, an antelope, a wild ox, a tamed wild ox, and a zemer.”

And one must examine this, for the verse began, “This is the domesticated animal,” and concluded with “a ram and a gazelle,” which are animals:

How is this so?

Rather, from here we learn that

an animal

is

included within a domesticated animal.

A domesticated animal is included within an animal—from where do we know it?

As it is written [Leviticus 11:2–3]

“This is the animal that you may eat, from every domesticated animal that is on the earth: every one that has a split hoof.”

The verse began with “This is the animal,” and concluded with “that has a split hoof,” which are signs of a domesticated animal:

How is this so?

Rather, from here we learn that

a domesticated animal is included within an animal

is.

The Gemara further discusses why these animals and domesticated animals were included within one another, as we learned in a baraita:

And the Gemara explains:

A pure animal

was included

within a pure domesticated animal, with regard to the signs.

For although signs were not stated for a pure animal, its permission to be eaten is through the signs stated for a pure domesticated animal, namely, “having a split hoof” and “bringing up the cud.”

And that

an impure animal

was included

within an impure domesticated animal

is

for

the matter of the prohibition of

crossbreeding [A0059]][one animal with another]. For this prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to a domesticated animal, as it is said [Leviticus 19:19], “And you shall not crossbreed your domesticated animal,” which implies both an impure domesticated animal and a pure domesticated animal; and from this we learn likewise with regard to an animal.

one animal with another]. This prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to a domesticated animal, as it is written [Leviticus 19:19]: “And you shall not crossbreed your domesticated animal,” which indicates both an impure domesticated animal and a pure domesticated animal; and from this we learn that the prohibition applies to an animal as well.

And likewise, the words of the baraita, that

an impure domesticated animal

was included

within an impure animal,

were needed

for the teaching of Rabbi:

As it was taught,

it is stated in the passage concerning one who unknowingly became impure with regard to the Temple and sacred things [Leviticus 5:2–6]: “Or a person who touches any impure thing, or the carcass of an impure animal or the carcass of an impure domesticated animal, and it was hidden from him [the fact of his impurity, and he entered the Temple inadvertently while impure, or ate sacred meat while impure, as will be explained below], and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord for his sin that he committed.”

And apparently, from the plain meaning of the verse it follows that for mere contact with impurity, inadvertently, one brings a sin-offering [in the wording of the verse, a “guilt-offering,” which is an ascending-and-descending offering].

Rabbi says:

An animal is included within a domesticated animal, as we learned. And if so,

I could read

that is, it would be sufficient for me if I read in the wording of the verse

“an animal

impure” alone, and I would learn that the same is the law concerning the carcass of a domesticated animal.

And if so, “or the carcass of an

animal

impure”—

why was it stated?

Rather, we learn as follows:

It was stated here,

with regard to one who inadvertently touches impurity, “or the carcass of an

impure domesticated animal.” And it was stated elsewhere [Leviticus 7:21, with regard to one who knowingly touches impurity]: “And when a person touches any impure thing, whether human impurity, or an

impure domesticated animal,

or any impure abomination, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belong to the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from its people.” And it is explained in this verse that there is a liability of karet only if an impure person ate sacred meat.

And from this we learn:

Just as there,

with regard to one who knowingly touches impurity, he is liable for karet only for

sacred impurity,

that is, if he ate sacred food while impure; meaning, he is not liable for mere contact with impurity,

so too here,

with regard to one who touches impurity inadvertently, he brings an ascending-and-descending offering only for

sacred impurity,

if he ate sacred meat or entered the Temple while impure.

And for this teaching, we need to include an impure domesticated animal within an animal. For if not, this verse mentioning “an impure domesticated animal” would not be superfluous, and therefore we would have no source from which to learn Rabbi’s statement, that one brings an ascending-and-descending offering only for eating sacred food or entering the Temple while impure.

And the Gemara continues explaining the baraita with which we dealt above:

A pure domesticated animal

was included

within a pure animal.

For what purpose? —

For formation.

For the law of a pure domesticated animal formed from a human being [as will be explained below] is like the law of an animal formed from a human being. [The wording “formation” is used because the creation of animals is called formation, as it is stated in Genesis 2:19: “And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field.”] And since the creation of an animal is called “formation,” as in the creation of a human being, a woman who gives birth to an animal has the law of a woman who gives birth to a human being, as will be explained.

And this is the law:

As we learned,

a woman

who miscarries a species of domesticated animal, animal, or bird, whether

the forms of living creatures of these fetuses that fell were

impure, whether

they were

pure,

then

if

it was a

male, she shall sit

the woman

for a male.

This is according to the law of the impurity of a woman who gives birth to a male: she is impure for seven days like a menstruant [Leviticus 12:2–4], and afterward she shall sit thirty-three days in blood of purity [during these days she is pure with regard to her husband, but she is not permitted to enter the Temple or touch sacred things ].

And

likewise,

if

the thing she miscarried had the form of a

female, she shall sit for a female,

according to the law of the impurity of a woman who gives birth to a female: fourteen days of menstruant impurity, followed by sixty-six days of purity.

And if it

is not known

whether she miscarried the form of a male or a female,

she shall sit for a male and for a female.

For the stringency of both is imposed upon her. With regard to the impurity of a woman who gives birth, she is impure for fourteen days like a female; whereas with regard to the days of purity, after the fourteen days she has days of purity only until the fortieth day after the birth, and if she sees blood after those forty days, she is impure.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

And his reason is as brought above, because the creation of an animal is called “formation,” as with a human being.

And the Sages say: Anything that is not of the form of a human being is not a fetus!

And its birth does not impart impurity at all.

And the Gemara returns to explain the reason for the method of the Sages in our Mishna, who maintain that the carcass of a fetus in its mother’s womb does not impart impurity at all, whether the fetus is from a pure domesticated animal or from an impure one.

And the Gemara asks:

And according to the Rabbis,

who maintain that the carcass of a fetus does not impart impurity,

this verse,

the verse from which Rabbi Yosei learned that the carcass of a fetus of an impure domesticated animal imparts impurity [as brought above: “When a person touches any impure thing, or the carcass of an impure animal or the carcass of an impure domesticated animal”; and from the fact that “impure” is written, we learn that the subject is the carcass of the fetus, since the carcass of a domesticated animal imparts impurity in every case, whether it is the carcass of an impure or of a pure animal].

If so, according to the Rabbis,

why do I need

the verse to write “an impure domesticated animal”? After all, the carcass of a pure domesticated animal also imparts impurity.

The Gemara answers:

The whole of it,

the entire verse [which also mentions an impure animal],

is for the teaching of Rabbi,

for Rabbi’s exposition, who learns through the gezerah shavah “domesticated animal—domesticated animal” that even one who inadvertently becomes impure through the carcass of an impure domesticated animal does not bring an offering until he eats sacred food or enters the Temple while impure,

it came.

This verse is required for that purpose.

Mishna:

As a continuation of the previous Mishna, which explains the law of a domesticated-animal fetus that died inside its mother, our Mishna explains the law of a human fetus that died inside its mother: what its impurity is, what the law of its mother is, and likewise the impurity of one who touches it.

The principal subject is the matter of “swallowed impurity,” which is a thing of impurity [such as a piece of an animal carcass and the like] swallowed inside another body, which does not impart impurity because it is “swallowed.”

The sugya likewise deals with the matter of “swallowed purity,” which is a pure thing swallowed inside another body, and because it is swallowed it does not contract impurity from a corpse even if the body swallowing it is found inside a tent containing a corpse.

Likewise, if there is impurity together with it in the same body that swallows it, it does not contract impurity because it is “swallowed.”

The sugya before us deals with matters of impurity and purity, and several concepts in these matters are explained here. A.

Contact impurity,

when a person, a vessel, or food touches a corpse or any impure thing, such as an animal carcass or an impure creeping creature. This impurity is explicit in the Torah, as it is stated [Numbers 19:11]: “One who touches the dead, of any human soul, shall be impure for seven days.”

B.

Tent impurity,

through which one who enters a tent in which there is a corpse [at least an olive-bulk of it] becomes impure. This impurity too is explicit in the Torah, as it is stated [Numbers 19:14]: “Anyone who enters the tent, and everything that is in the tent, shall be impure for seven days.”

C.

Carrying impurity:

This impurity applies to a person who carries the impurity, even though he did not touch it. And even if he carried it on a stone, since he carried it, he became impure. This impurity is not explicit in the Torah; rather, it was learned through oral tradition [Sifrei, the passage of the Red Heifer, on the verse “and whoever touches upon the open field.” See Rambam there, halakha 2, and Kesef Mishneh there].

D.

Shifting impurity,

which is included within carrying impurity. This is when he caused the impurity to move and shifted it from its place—for example, a beam lying on a wall, with the impurity placed on one end, and a pure person moved the other end of the beam and caused the impurity to move: he becomes impure with shifting impurity. Also included within carrying and shifting impurity is a novel law stated only with regard to a zav: if a zav shifted a pure person, or carried him, the latter becomes impure with shifting and carrying impurity [and this was stated only with regard to a zav, and not with regard to the other impure persons].

E.

Hidden places:

Contact impurity applies only when the contact occurs in an exposed place on the body. However, impurity found within a bodily cavity, which is hidden, does not impart impurity through contact. This is learned from the verse [Leviticus 15:11], “For whoever the zav touches, and his hands he has not washed”: the verse teaches that the zav imparts impurity only when he touched with his hands, which are exposed, and not when he touched something in his hidden places. And all the other impurities are also learned from here, that they impart impurity only through exposed contact and not through hidden contact, because the verse expressed contact impurity with the term “touching,” to teach us that every impurity that comes through contact does not impart impurity in hidden places [Niddah 42a]. However, carrying impurity applies even when the impurity is in hidden places. For although touching there does not impart impurity, nevertheless the person carrying the impurity becomes impure through his carrying [Rambam, Impurity of a Corpse 1:8], because carrying impurity does not depend upon contact; rather, its essence is carrying.

F. “

Swallowed impurity”

will be explained in the sugya before us.

G.

Food impurity:

Just as a person becomes impure through contact with impurity, so food becomes impure [if it was prepared for this through contact with one of the seven liquids]. Food contracts impurity only if it was fit for consumption. But if it became moldy or rotten and is no longer fit, it does not contract impurity. Likewise, the carcass of an animal or domesticated animal imparts impurity to a person or to food that touches it only when it has the status of “food,” in that it is intrinsically fit to be eaten. But if it became spoiled and is no longer “food,” it does not impart impurity. [This will be discussed immediately below in the Gemara.]

A woman whose fetus died inside her, and the midwife extended

her hand

her hand

into the mother’s womb

and touched it,

the fetus. Therefore,

the midwife is impure

with seven-day impurity

for seven days, according to the law of one who touches a corpse.

And

if

the woman

who is pregnant is

pure,

until

the dead fetus emerges. For as long as it is inside her, it does not render her impure.

The reason for the difference between the mother and the midwife will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

It is apparently explained in our Mishna that absorbed impurity does not impart impurity. And for this reason the woman who gives birth is pure, since the dead fetus is absorbed within her.

And concerning this,

Rabba said: Just as

absorbed impurity

within another thing, such as a dead fetus, which is impure, found within the woman’s body,

does not impart impurity

to others through contact [when they touch it] or through carrying [when a person carries it],

so purity,

a pure thing,

absorbed

within another thing

does not become impure.

That is, it does not receive impurity, for example, if the pure thing was absorbed when it was in the tent of the dead. [It is explained below that this matter is learned by means of a kal va-chomer.]

And the Gemara discusses:

Absorbed impurity—from where do we know

that it does not impart impurity to others?

For it is written

concerning a person who became impure through eating the carcass of an animal [Leviticus 11:40]:

“And one who eats of its carcass shall wash his garments

[and immerse for his purification, and even after the immersion he does not become pure immediately, but] “he shall be impure until the evening, [and when evening comes he becomes pure].”

And the Gemara proves:

Are we not dealing,

is it not also speaking here of a case

where he ate close to sunset,

and immersed immediately, while at sunset the piece of carcass still existed in his abdomen and had not yet been digested,

and

nevertheless, despite the fact that the carcass still exists in his intestines,

the Merciful One says

that he is

pure

already at evening?! And it is proven that if the impurity is absorbed within his body, even though it exists, it does not impart impurity and does not prevent him from becoming pure.

But the Gemara rejects this: It is stated in the book of Deuteronomy [14:21]: “You shall not eat any carcass. To the stranger [the resident alien, who is not an Israelite] who is in your cities, you shall give it, and he shall eat it.” And we learn from this that only a carcass fit to be given to a stranger for eating is called a carcass. But a carcass that is not fit to be given to a stranger for eating is not called a carcass. If so,

perhaps

it is possible that specifically a carcass that was eaten close to sunset does not impart impurity, because

there it is different, for it is not fit for a stranger,

it is not fit to be given to a stranger for eating, since when it is inside a person’s body, after he has eaten it, it is repulsive and is not fit for human consumption. If so, it is possible that the reason it does not impart impurity is that it is not called a carcass, and not because it is absorbed impurity?!

And the Gemara adds:

That works,

this difficulty is not difficult

for

the view of

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: One and this one,

whether with regard to imparting impurity to a person, which is a severe impurity,

and one and this one,

whether with regard to imparting impurity to food and liquids, which is a light impurity, the carcass has the power to impart impurity even when it has become unfit for human consumption,

until

it becomes putrid and becomes unfit even

for

the consumption of

a dog, it is well

that one can prove that absorbed impurity does not impart impurity from the fact that the carcass found in a person’s intestines does not impart impurity to him even when he ate it close to sunset and immersed immediately, despite the fact that it has the power to impart impurity if it were not absorbed in his intestines, since it has not yet become unfit for a dog, but only for a person.

But according to Bar Pada, who says that severe impurity

which renders a person impure does not render him impure except when it is fit

for

the eating of

a convert, and

only

light impurity

, to render impure with the impurity of foods and liquids, renders impure

until

it becomes unfit

for

the eating of

a dog,

according to his view it is difficult: how is it proven that absorbed impurity does not render impure from the fact that one who eats an unslaughtered carcass close to sunset is not rendered impure by the unslaughtered carcass in his intestines, when it is possible that he becomes pure at sunset

because

this unslaughtered carcass, absorbed in his body and repulsive,

is not fit for a convert.

And because of this it does not render him impure, and not because it is absorbed impurity!?

And the Gemara answers: there is still a possibility that an absorbed unslaughtered carcass will be fit for a convert, if he took a small piece of it and swallowed it whole, without chewing it, because

although it is not fit,

even though it is not fit for consumption by another person who

in his presence

he swallowed it, since it is repulsive in his presence, but for another person,

not in his presence,

it was eaten,

it is indeed fit for him,

it is still fit for eating [if the person who ate it returned and expelled it], for he does not know that this piece was swallowed by another person, and he is not repulsed by it. And since there is such a possibility, that a piece of an absorbed unslaughtered carcass will be fit for consumption by a convert, it is considered an “unslaughtered carcass” and transmits impurity. And since we find that it does not render the person who swallows it impure, even if it was in his intestines after sunset, it is proven that absorbed impurity does not render a person impure.

But the Gemara continues to discuss:

we have found

, indeed we have found the source for the fact that

absorbed impurity

does not render impure.

However, regarding what Rabba said above, “Thus,

absorbed purity

does not become impure [does not receive impurity],”

from where do we know

that it indeed does not receive impurity?

And the Gemara explains: we learned this through a

kal va-chomer

from an earthenware vessel covered and enclosed with a tight seal, for this vessel “protects” the “absorbed” purity within it from becoming impure in the tent of the dead, but on the other hand we find that it does not “protect” the impurity inside it from rendering impure in the tent of the dead; and from here we learn concerning purity absorbed in a person that it does not become impure, by a kal va-chomer:

And if an earthenware vessel enclosed with a tight seal

[that is, even though its cover is joined and tightly fastened to it] , and inside it there is an olive-bulk of a corpse, whose power of protection from impurity is not great,

so that it does not protect

the

impurity inside it from rendering impure,

both the vessel in which it is located and the entire house in which the vessel containing the olive-bulk of the corpse is located, as

the Master said

in tractate Oholot [the beginning of chapter seven], concerning the impurity of the tent of the dead:

“compressed impurity,”

impurity buried in the ground, with no space of a handbreadth above it,

breaks through

the impurity

and rises,

and renders impure with the impurity of a tent everything that overshadows it

up to the sky.

And if the law regarding “compressed impurity,” buried and absorbed in the ground, is thus—that the ground does not prevent the impurity from rendering impure with the impurity of a tent—then certainly impurity of a corpse absorbed inside a vessel breaks through and rises, and the vessel inside which it is absorbed cannot prevent it from rendering impure in a tent. Nevertheless, we find that if a pure object was absorbed inside an earthenware vessel enclosed with a tight seal, and the vessel stands in the tent of the dead,

the vessel protects

the earthenware vessel

the purity inside it from becoming impure.