Chullin 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

A person,

whose power to shield from ritual impurity is greater than that of a vessel,

who shields

the person

against the impurity within him from imparting impurity,

as we learned, that impurity absorbed within a person does not impart impurity,

is it not logical that he shields

a person

against the purity within him [such as if he swallowed a pure ring],

from becoming impure,

from becoming impure,

from contracting impurity if the person is found in the tent of the corpse?!

And it is proven that purity absorbed within a person does not contract impurity!

However, the Gemara attempts to refute this kal va-chomer and to prove that the power of an earthenware vessel sealed with a tightly fitting cover to shield the purity within it from becoming impure is greater than the power of a person to shield the purity within him:

What is the case with an earthenware vessel,

for which it is logical that it should shield the purity within it from contracting impurity, since we find that its power to prevent impurity is greater than that of a person,

as

an earthenware vessel

does not impart impurity from its outside,

as it becomes impure only if a creeping animal enters the hollow of its airspace, and not if the animal touches it on its exterior; therefore, its power to “guard” the purity within it is greater.

Can you say the same with regard to a person, who imparts impurity from his outside,

as the touch of an impure object to the exterior of a person renders him impure? Therefore, it is possible that a person does not have the power to shield purity absorbed within him from becoming impure through the impurity of a tent containing a corpse.

The Gemara rejects this refutation:

Are we, then, speaking of the outside?

Did we derive through a kal va-chomer from an earthenware vessel to a person that he shields from contracting impurity by deriving it from the “outside”?

After all,

we are speaking of the inside,

as we derived and discussed through a kal va-chomer the inside of an earthenware vessel, which shields from contracting impurity, and applied it through a kal va-chomer to a person.

Moreover,

on the contrary,

the inside of an

earthenware vessel

with regard to impurity

is more stringent

than the inside of a person,

as

an earthenware vessel

imparts impurity through its airspace:

if a creeping animal is found within the airspace of the vessel, it renders the vessel impure; but if a creeping animal is found inside a person without touching him, the person does not become impure through it, but only through contact with it.

The Gemara now continues to clarify the law that “absorbed impurity does not impart impurity”:

We find the case of impurity absorbed above,

as we find from the verse “and one who eats of its carcass” that absorbed impurity does not impart impurity; however, this derivation concerns only a case in which the impurity entered and was absorbed through the person’s mouth.

But

impurity absorbed below,

which was inserted from behind him into the rectum,

from where do we know

that impurity absorbed in this manner likewise does not impart impurity?

The Gemara explains:

It is a kal va-chomer!

It is

And if

swallowing through the mouth above,

which does not cause digestion,

as long as it has not descended below, the piece remains intact, nevertheless

shields

his body from this impurity,

when the piece enters

below, as

“below”

causes digestion,

and the piece is immediately considered as though it no longer exists,

is it not logical that

swallowing in this manner

shields

from impurity?! And we thus derive that even an object absorbed below does not impart impurity.

The Gemara refutes this:

Does

food that enters from below

cause digestion below?

Food is digested

only

when it enters

by way of

the

upper

route, through the mouth. Only when food descends in the usual sequence of eating and digestion is it properly digested. But if it did not enter through the mouth, it is never digested?!

The Gemara answers:

Even so,

although digestion occurs only through the combination of its entering from above and descending below, nevertheless,

the digestion of “below” is the primary one,

as this part is the principal factor in digestion.

The Gemara continues its discussion of absorbed impurity:

We find,

up to this point we have discussed and found the law of

impurity absorbed in a person.

That is, impurity absorbed by a person does not impart impurity.

But with regard to an object of impurity

absorbed in an animal, from where do we know?

The Gemara explains:

It is a kal va-chomer!

!

And if a person, who imparts impurity while alive,

nevertheless

shields

the

absorbed

object within him from imparting impurity to others,

an animal, which does not impart impurity while alive,

as an animal does not contract impurity during its lifetime,

is it not logical that it should shield an absorbed object

within it from imparting impurity?!

The Gemara refutes this kal va-chomer and proves that an animal is more stringent than a person with regard to contracting impurity:

What is the case with a person, who requires remaining in a house afflicted with leprosy,

for if a person enters a house afflicted with leprosy, he does not immediately render his garments impure, as it is stated [Leviticus 14:46]: “And he who enters the house all the days that he quarantines it shall be impure until evening”; the verse does not state: “He shall wash his garments.” But concerning one who remains in the house for the time sufficient to eat, it is stated [Leviticus 14:47]: “And he who eats in the house shall wash his garments” [and in the Sifra they explain that “he who eats” refers to one who remains there for the time sufficient to eat].

Can you say the same with regard to an animal, which does not require remaining in a house afflicted with leprosy

in order to render the vessels upon it impure? Rather, they become impure immediately, since they are included in the category of “he who enters the house”; the animal itself becomes impure immediately, and therefore the vessels become impure immediately as well.

It is thus proven that an animal is more stringent and contracts impurity more readily than a person.

If so, the kal va-chomer from which we sought to prove that an animal shields impurity absorbed within it is refuted, since it is proven that an animal is more stringent with regard to contracting impurity.

The Gemara challenges this refutation and resolves the kal va-chomer:

With regard to an animal, which does not require remaining in a house afflicted with leprosy, for what halakhic purpose

does it not require remaining? Necessarily,

with regard to the vessels on its back

[since an animal does not contract impurity and is not subject to wearing garments]. If it entered with vessels, they do not require remaining; rather, they become impure immediately.

After all,

a person

who enters with vessels on his back

also

himself

does not require

remaining; rather, the vessels become impure immediately.

As we learned

in tractate Negaim [13:9]: A person

who enters a house afflicted with leprosy with his vessels on his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands

[not as garments that he was wearing, but as objects that he was holding in his hands],

he and they are immediately impure!

But if

the

person who entered

was wearing his garments,

his clothing,

and his sandals

on his feet

and his rings

on his fingers,

on his finger,

as they too are included among his garments, then

he is immediately impure. But

they,

the

garments,

remain pure until he remains

for the period of

the time sufficient to eat half a loaf [the time required to eat half a loaf of bread, which is the food of two meals, consisting of eight eggs] .

the time required to eat half a loaf of bread, which is the food for two meals, measuring eight eggs] .

And the duration of eating is measured according to eating

wheat bread,

whose eating takes little time.

And not barley bread,

whose eating continues for a longer time.

Likewise, the time is measured according to the duration of eating when the person

reclines,

for then the bread is eaten more quickly, since he does not turn away or occupy himself with other matters while eating.

A

nd likewise, this duration should be as though he

eats

his bread

with relish.

For the taste of the relish sustains his appetite and hastens his eating.

It follows that with regard to the impurity of a house afflicted with tzaraat, an animal is not treated more stringently than a person, since both immediately impart impurity to vessels. The kal va-chomer is therefore resolved: a person becomes impure while alive, yet in any event protects what is swallowed inside him from imparting impurity; all the more so an animal, which does not become impure while alive, protects the impurity swallowed inside it.

The Gemara now discusses Rabba’s statement that swallowed impurity does not impart impurity, and swallowed purity does not contract impurity. This implies that there is some novelty in these laws, such that Rabba needed to state them. Accordingly, the Gemara raises the following objection:

He said

he challenged

Rava:

But

did we not learn both of them!?

The two laws stated by Rabba have already been taught in the Mishna:

we learned swallowed impurity,

and likewise

we learned swallowed purity.

Swallowed impurity

we learned,

as we learned

in tractate Mikvaot [10:8]:

If a priest swallowed

a

ritually impure ring,

which had contracted impurity from a corpse [and metal vessels such as this ring, which became impure through a corpse, have the status of a corpse, since contact with them imparts corpse impurity], and when he swallowed it, the one who swallowed it touched the impure ring with his lips and became impure; therefore he ...

immerses. A

fter he immersed, even though the impure ring is still inside his body, he

eats teruma.

It is thus evident that the impure ring does not prevent him from eating teruma, since it is swallowed inside his body.

The Mishna continues: If he

vomited it,

then it is

impure,

since it is now no longer swallowed,

and it rendered him impure

through the contact he had with it as it emerged, and he must immerse because of this impurity.

Likewise,

swallowed purity,

which does not contract impurity, was also taught in the Mishna.

As we learned,

in that same Mishna:

If a person swallowed

a

pure ring and entered a tent containing a corpse

while this ring was swallowed inside him, and the person became impure through the tent of the corpse,

and he was sprinkled

with the water of the red heifer on the third day of his impurity, as required for one impure through a corpse,

and he was sprinkled again

for purification on the seventh day,

and immersed, and

afterward

he vomited it, it is

pure

as it had been.

Since he had immersed and it was pure, it did not impart impurity to him through his contact with it when he vomited it.

It is therefore evident that swallowed purity, such as this ring, does not contract impurity when it entered the tent of the corpse in this manner, even if the person who swallowed it became impure.

Rava thus asks: What novelty did Rabba introduce with his statement, “Just as swallowed impurity does not impart impurity, so swallowed purity does not contract impurity,” when we already learned this in the Mishna in tractate Mikvaot?

The Gemara answers that Rabba’s statement cannot be derived from that Mishna. The fact that an impure ring swallowed by a person does not impart impurity to the person who swallowed it is not necessarily because it is “swallowed impurity.” It may instead be because the contact of the impure ring with the person inside his intestines is contact with an interior place—a hidden and concealed contact—and impurity imparts impurity to a person only when it touches an exposed place on the body. This is as they expound from the verse [Leviticus 15:11], “And he has not rinsed his hands in water”: Just as his hands are exposed, so too everything [that imparts impurity must touch him] in an exposed place.

Likewise, the second law stated in the Mishna—“If he swallowed a pure ring and entered a tent containing a corpse, it remains pure as it had been”—cannot establish the law that “swallowed purity does not contract impurity,” because here too one can say that the reason the ring does not become impure is that its contact is “contact with an interior place.”

The Gemara explains the novelty in Rabba’s statement:

When Rabba stated

his law, he was speaking of a case in which there is no contact with an interior place, and the protection from impurity or from the loss of purity is solely because the objects are swallowed.

A

s, for example, when a person swallowed

two rings,

one impure and one pure.

In this case, the matter is not considered impurity of an interior place. For although the two rings are concealed inside his intestines, nevertheless, each ring is exposed to the other. The novelty of Rabba’s statement is that

e

ven though they are not concealed from one another, nevertheless,

the impure one does not impart impurity to the pure one

[the impure ring does not impart impurity to the pure ring] , because both are swallowed. Therefore, there is no impurity here.