Chullin 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

When an impure animal is mentioned in the Torah,

an impure domesticated animal is included in the category of impure animal

mentioned in the Torah.

And likewise, when a pure animal is mentioned,

a pure domesticated animal is included in the category of pure animal,

mentioned in the Torah.

And Rabbi Yonatan concludes his account:

And in these words,

Ben Azzai said to himself:

Woe,

there is loss in the world

on account of

a veteran scholar such as myself,

Ben Azzai,

who did not serve Rabbi

Yishmael!”

And the Gemara discusses what we said:

An animal is included in the category of domesticated animal—

from where do we derive this?

As it is written: [Deuteronomy 14:4–5]

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

and a goat, a deer and a gazelle and a fallow deer, a wild goat, an antelope, a wild ox, and a giraffe.”

And one must examine the fact that the verse begins, “This is the domesticated animal,” and concludes with “a deer and a gazelle,” which are animals:

How is this so?

Rather, from here we learn that

an animal

is

included in the category of domesticated animal.

A domesticated animal is included in the category of animal—from where do we derive this?

As it is written: [Leviticus 11:2–3]

“This is the animal that you may eat from among all the domesticated animals that are upon the earth: whatever has a divided hoof.”

The verse begins with “This is the animal,” and concludes with “whatever has a divided hoof,” which are signs of a domesticated animal:

How is this so?

Rather, from here we learn that

a domesticated animal is included in the category of animal

itself.

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

And the Gemara explains:

A pure animal

was included

in the category of pure domesticated animal with regard to the identifying signs.

Although no identifying signs were stated for a pure animal, its permissibility for consumption is determined by the signs stated for a pure domesticated animal: “having a divided hoof” and “bringing up its cud.”

And the fact that

an impure animal

was included

in the category of impure domesticated animal

is

with regard to the

prohibition of

crossbreeding

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 statement of the baraita that

an impure domesticated animal

was included

in the category of impure animal

is needed

for the teaching of Rabbi:

As it was taught:

In the passage concerning one who unwittingly enters the Temple or eats sacred food while impure [Leviticus 5:2–6], it is written: “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 matter of his impurity, and he unwittingly entered the Temple in his impurity or ate sacred meat in his impurity, as will be explained below], and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord for his sin that he committed.”

At first glance, the plain meaning of the verse indicates that merely touching impurity unwittingly obligates one to bring a sin-offering [in the wording of the verse, an asham, which is a sliding-scale offering].

Rabbi says:

An animal is included in the category of domesticated animal, as we learned. Therefore,

I could read

that is, it would suffice for me to read in the wording of the verse

“animal

impure” alone, and I would derive that the same law applies to the carcass of a domesticated animal.

If so, “or the carcass of an

impure domesticated

animal,”

why is it stated?

Rather, we derive as follows:

It is stated here,

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

impure domesticated animal.” And it is stated elsewhere, [Leviticus 7:21, concerning one who knowingly touches impurity]: “And when a person touches any impure thing, whether the impurity of a human being, or an

impure domesticated animal,

or any impure detestable creature, and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.” This verse makes clear that the punishment of karet applies only when an impure person eats sacred meat.

And from this we derive:

Just as there,

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

the impurity of sacred objects,

that is, when he ate sacred food while impure, and he is not liable merely for touching impurity,

so too here,

with regard to one who touched impurity unwittingly, he brings a sliding-scale offering only for

the impurity of sacred objects,

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

For the purpose of this derivation, we must include an impure domesticated animal in the category of animal. Were this not so, the phrase “impure domesticated animal” would not be superfluous, and we would have no source from which to derive Rabbi’s statement that one brings a sliding-scale offering only for eating sacred food or entering the Temple while impure.

The Gemara continues its explanation of the baraita discussed above:

A pure domesticated animal

was included

in the category of pure animal.

For what purpose?—

For formation.

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 [and the term “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”]. Since the creation of an animal is called “formation,” just as the creation of a human being is, a woman who gives birth to an animal has the status 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 form resembling a domesticated animal, an animal, or a bird, whether

the fetuses that were miscarried had the form of impure creatures,

or whether

they were

pure,

then

if

it was

a male, she shall sit

the woman

for a male.

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

And

likewise,

if

the thing she miscarried had the form of

a female, she shall sit for a female,

in accordance with the impurity of a woman who gives birth to a female: two weeks of menstrual 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.

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

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

His reasoning is as stated above: the creation of an animal is called “formation,” as is the creation of a human being.

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

Its birth does not impart impurity at all.

The Gemara returns to explain the rationale of the Sages’ opinion 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 belongs to a pure domesticated animal or to an impure one.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the Sages,

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

this verse,

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

if so, according to the Sages,

why do I need

the verse to write “impure domesticated animal”? The carcass of a pure domesticated animal also imparts impurity.

The Gemara answers:

The entirety of it,

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

is for the teaching of Rabbi,

for Rabbi’s exposition, which derives by means of the gezera shava of “domesticated animal” and “domesticated animal” that even one who unwittingly becomes impure through contact with the carcass of an impure domesticated animal brings an offering only if he eats sacred food or enters the Temple while impure;

it came

for this purpose.

Mishna:

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

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

The sugya also discusses “concealed purity,” meaning a pure object swallowed inside another body; because it is swallowed, it does not contract impurity imparted by a corpse, even if the body that swallowed it is located inside a tent over the corpse.

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

The sugya before us deals with the laws of impurity and purity. Several concepts in these matters are explained here:

Contact impurity,

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

b.

Tent impurity,

whereby one who enters a tent in which a corpse is located [or at least an olive-bulk of it] becomes impure. This impurity too is explicitly stated in the Torah, as it is written [Numbers 19:14]: “This is the teaching: when a person dies in a tent, everyone 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 source of impurity, even if he did not touch it. Even if he carried it on top of a stone, since he carried it, he became impure. This impurity is not explicit in the Torah; rather, it was learned through the oral tradition [Sifrei, Parashat Para, on the verse “and whatever touches upon the open field.” See Rambam there, halakha 2, and Kesef Mishne there].

d.

Displacement impurity is included within carrying impurity. This is when one causes the impurity to move and displaces it from its place—for example, a beam lying on a wall, with the impurity resting on one end, and a pure person moves the other end of the beam, thereby causing the impurity to move; he becomes impure with displacement impurity. Also included in the laws of carrying and displacement impurity is a special law stated only with regard to a zav: if a zav displaced a pure person, or carried him, that person becomes impure with carrying and displacement impurity [and this law applies only to a zav, not to other impure persons].

e.

The concealed parts:

Contact impurity applies only when contact occurs in an exposed place on the body. However, impurity located inside a bodily cavity, which is concealed, does not impart impurity through contact. This is learned from the verse [Leviticus 15:11]: “For anyone whom the zav touches, without having rinsed his hands,” teaching that the zav imparts impurity only when he touches with his hands, which are exposed, and not when he touches something with a concealed part of his body. The other types of impurity are also learned from here: they impart impurity only through exposed contact and not through concealed contact, since the verse expressed contact impurity with the term “touching,” teaching us that any impurity transmitted through contact does not impart impurity through the concealed parts [Niddah 42a]. However, carrying impurity applies even when the impurity is located in the concealed parts. For although contact there does not impart impurity, nevertheless, the person carrying the impurity becomes impure through carrying it [Rambam, Impurity of a Corpse 1:8], since carrying impurity does not depend on contact, but is fundamentally a matter of carrying.

f. “

Concealed impurity”

will be explained in the sugya before us.

g.

Impurity of food:

Just as a person becomes impure through contact with impurity, so too food becomes impure [if it has been rendered susceptible to impurity by being wetted with one of the seven liquids]. Food contracts impurity only if it is fit for consumption. But if it has become spoiled or rotten and is no longer fit to eat, 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,” meaning that it is inherently fit for consumption. But if it has deteriorated 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 a midwife extended

her hand,

delivering,

her hand

into the mother’s womb,

and touched it,

the fetus. Then

the midwife becomes impure

with seven-day impurity

for seven days, like 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.

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

Gemara:

It appears, ostensibly, that our Mishna teaches that tumah that is swallowed does not impart tumah. Therefore, the woman who gives birth is pure, since the dead fetus is swallowed within her.

And concerning this,

Rabba said: Just as

swallowed tumah

within another entity—for example, a dead fetus, which is impure, found within a woman’s body—

does not impart tumah

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

so too, taharah,

a pure object,

swallowed

within another entity,

does not become impure.

That is, it does not contract tumah, for example, if the pure object was swallowed while it was in a tent containing a corpse. [The Gemara below explains that this principle is derived by means of a kal va-homer.]

And the Gemara discusses:

From where do we know

that swallowed tumah does not impart impurity to others?

As it is written

with regard to a person who became impure by eating the carcass of an animal [Leviticus 11:40]:

“And one who eats of its carcass shall launder his garments,

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

And the Gemara proves:

Are we not dealing

with a case as well

where he ate shortly before sunset,

and immersed immediately, while at sunset the piece of carcass was still present in his stomach and had not yet been digested,

and

nevertheless, despite the fact that the carcass was still present in his intestines,

the Merciful One states

that he is

pure

already in the evening?! It follows that when impurity is swallowed within a person’s body, even though it still exists, it does not impart impurity and does not prevent him from becoming pure.

The Gemara, however, rejects this proof: 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 it is learned from this that only a carcass fit to be given to a stranger for consumption is called a carcass. But a carcass that is unfit to be given to a stranger for consumption is not called a carcass. If so,

perhaps

it is possible that specifically a carcass eaten shortly before sunset does not impart impurity, because

the case there is different, since it is unfit for a stranger,

as it is unfit to be given to a stranger for consumption, since once it is inside a person’s body after he has eaten it, it is repulsive and unfit for human consumption. If so, it is possible that the reason it does not impart impurity is that it is no longer called a carcass, and not because it is swallowed tumah?!

The Gemara adds:

Granted,

this difficulty is not difficult

according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yohanan, who said: One and the same

whether the carcass imparts impurity to a person, which is severe impurity,

and one and the same

whether it imparts impurity to food and beverages, which is lesser 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, then it is well

to prove that swallowed tumah does not impart impurity from the fact that a carcass located in a person’s intestines does not impart impurity to him even when he ate it shortly before sunset and immersed immediately, despite the fact that it would have the power to impart impurity had it not been swallowed in his intestines, since it has not yet become unfit for consumption by a dog, but only for human consumption.

Rather, according to Bar Padda, who says that severe impurity—

which renders a person impure—renders him impure only when it is fit

for

consumption by

a convert, and

only

mild impurity—

which renders food and liquids impure—renders him impure

until

it becomes unfit

for

consumption by

a dog,

his opinion encounters the following difficulty: How is it proven that absorbed impurity does not render one impure from the fact that one who eats an unslaughtered animal shortly before sunset does not become impure from the unslaughtered animal in his intestines? Perhaps he becomes pure at sunset

because

this unslaughtered animal, absorbed within his body and having become repulsive,

is not fit for a convert.

Thus, it does not render him impure for that reason, and not because it is absorbed impurity!?

The Gemara answers: It is still possible for an absorbed unslaughtered animal to be fit for a convert if he took a small piece of it and swallowed it whole, without chewing it, for

although it is not fit,

even though it is unfit for consumption by another person, who

witnessed him

swallowing it, because it is repulsive to him, for another person,

who did not witness it,

could eat it,

it is indeed fit for him.

It would still be fit for consumption [if the person who ate it returned and expelled it], since he would not know that this piece had been swallowed by another person and would not find it repulsive. Since such a possibility exists—that a piece of an absorbed unslaughtered animal could be fit for consumption by a convert—it is considered an “unslaughtered animal” and renders one impure. And since we find that it does not render the person who swallowed it impure, even if it remained in his intestines after sunset, it is proven that absorbed impurity does not render [him] impure [unclear: the source ends with an incomplete word].

But the Gemara continues its discussion:

We have found

indeed, we have found the source for the statement that

absorbed impurity

does not render one impure.

However, as for 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?

The Gemara explains: We learn this by means of a

kal va-chomer

from an earthenware vessel covered and enclosed with a tight-fitting seal, which “protects” the purity “absorbed” within it from becoming impure through the impurity of a corpse in a tent. Yet, on the other hand, we find that it does not “protect” impurity located within it from rendering other things impure through the impurity of a corpse in a tent. From this we learn, by a kal va-chomer, that purity absorbed within a person does not become impure:

If an earthenware vessel enclosed with a tight-fitting seal

—that is, even though its cover is firmly attached and tightly sealed to it — and there is within it an olive-bulk of a corpse, whose power to protect from impurity is not great,

so that it does not protect

the

impurity within it from rendering [others] 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], with regard to the impurity of a corpse in a tent:

“Crushed” impurity,

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

breaks through

the impurity

and rises,

rendering impure with the impurity of a tent everything that extends over it

up to the firmament.

And if, with regard to “crushed” impurity, buried and absorbed in the ground, the law is that the ground does not prevent the impurity from rendering things impure with the impurity of a tent, then certainly the impurity of a corpse absorbed within a vessel breaks through and rises, and the vessel within which it is absorbed cannot prevent it from rendering things impure through the impurity of a tent. Nevertheless, we find that if something pure was absorbed within an earthenware vessel enclosed with a tight-fitting seal, and the vessel was standing within a tent containing a corpse,

the vessel protects

the earthenware vessel

so that the purity within it does not become impure.