Chullin 71b — the Talmud in English

A person,

whose power to save from impurity is greater than the power of a vessel,

for he saves

a person

from the impurity within him becoming impure,

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

is it not logical that he saves

a person

from the purity within him

[such as if he swallowed a pure ring]

from becoming impure,

from receiving impurity, if the person is found in the tent of the dead?!

And it is proven that purity swallowed within a person does not receive impurity!

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

What is there about an earthenware vessel,

that it is logical that it should save the purity within it from receiving impurity, because we find that its power to prevent impurity is greater than that of a person,

for an

earthenware vessel

does not impart impurity from its back,

as it becomes impure only if a creeping creature enters the hollow of its airspace, but not if the creeping creature touches it on its outer side; therefore, its power to “protect” the purity within it is greater.

Can you say the same of a person, who imparts impurity from his back,

for the touch of an impure thing upon a person on his outer side makes him impure, and therefore it is possible that a person does not have the power to save the purity swallowed within him from becoming impure in the tent of the dead?

And the Gemara rejects this refutation:

Are we, after all, speaking of the back?

Did we learn through a kal va-chomer for a person from an earthenware vessel, that it saves from receiving impurity, from its “back”?

Behold,

we are speaking of its inside,

we learned and discussed through a kal va-chomer the inside of an earthenware vessel, which saves from receiving impurity—and a kal va-chomer applies to a person.

And even more than this,

on the contrary,

the inside of an

earthenware vessel

with regard to impurity

is more stringent

than the inside of a person,

for

an earthenware vessel

imparts impurity from its airspace,

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

And now the Gemara continues and clarifies the law that “swallowed impurity does not impart impurity”:

We find swallowed impurity above,

indeed, we find that swallowed impurity does not impart impurity from the verse, “and one who eats of its carcass,” but this derivation applies only to a case in which the impurity entered and was swallowed through his mouth.

However,

swallowed impurity below,

which was inserted for him from behind into the rectum,

from where do we know

that even impurity swallowed in this manner does not impart impurity?

And the Gemara explains:

It is a kal va-chomer!

It is

a kal va-chomer:

What of swallowing through his mouth from above,

which does not cause digestion,

for as long as it has not descended below, the piece remains as it is, and nevertheless

it saves

his body from this impurity?

When the piece entered from

below, for

the “below”

causes digestion,

and the piece is immediately considered as though it is not present, is it not

logical that

swallowing in this manner

saves

from impurity?! And we learn that even something swallowed from below does not impart impurity.

The Gemara refutes:

Is it the case

that when food enters from below, it

causes digestion below?

For food is digested

only when it enters

through

the

from

above,

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

And 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 great,

for this part is the principal part of digestion.

The Gemara continues and discusses the matter of swallowed impurity:

We find,

until now we dealt with and found the law of impurity

swallowed by a person.

That is, swallowed by means of a person, which does not impart impurity.

But the impure object

swallowed by an animal—from where do we know?

The Gemara explains:

It is a kal va-chomer!

!

And what of a person, who imparts impurity while alive,

nevertheless he

saves from

the object

swallowed

within him from imparting impurity to others.

An animal, which does not impart impurity while alive,

for an animal does not receive impurity during its lifetime,

is it not logical that it should save what is swallowed

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 receiving impurity:

What is there about a person, that he requires remaining in a stricken house,

for if a person enters a stricken house, he does not make his garments impure immediately, because it is stated [Leviticus 14:46], “And he who enters the house all the days that he has confined it shall be impure until evening.” And it does not state, “He shall wash his garments.” But concerning one who remains in the house for the time sufficient for eating, 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” means one who remains for the time sufficient for eating].

Can you say the same of an animal, which does not require remaining in a stricken house

in order to make the vessels upon it impure; rather, they become impure immediately, since they are included in “he who enters the house,” who himself becomes impure immediately, and therefore they become impure immediately.

And it is proven that an animal is more stringent, and receives impurity with much greater “ease” than a person.

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

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

An animal, which does not require remaining in a stricken house—for what law is this relevant?

With regard to what does it not require remaining? Necessarily,

with regard to the vessels upon its back

[for an animal does not receive impurity and is not subject to wearing garments]; if it entered with vessels, it does not require remaining, but they become impure immediately.

Behold,

a person

who enters with vessels upon him

also

he

does not require

remaining; rather, the vessels become impure immediately.

For we learned

in tractate Nega’im [13:9]: A person

who enters a stricken house, with his vessels upon his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands,

[not that they were in his hands by way of wearing, but that he held them in his hand],

he and they are immediately impure!

But if

the

person who entered

was wearing his vessels,

his garments,

and his sandals

were on

his feet, and his rings

were on

his finger,

for they too are included among his garments, behold,

he is immediately impure. But

if

they,

the garments,

remain pure until he remains

for the duration of

the time required for eating half a loaf

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

And the duration of the eating is measured according to the eating of

wheat bread,

whose eating time is short.

And not barley bread,

whose eating takes a longer time.

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

reclines,

for then the bread is eaten more quickly, since he does not turn away and engage in other matters while eating it.

And

likewise, that this duration should be as though he

eats

his bread

with relish.

For through the taste of the relish, his appetite continues, and he hastens his eating.

It follows that, with regard to the impurity of a house afflicted with a lesion, there is no greater stringency in an animal than in a person, since both render utensils impure immediately. And thus the kal va-chomer is resolved: a person renders impure while alive, and nevertheless protects what is swallowed within him from rendering [others] impure; all the more so an animal, which does not render impure while alive, protects from impurity swallowed within it.

And now the Gemara discusses the words of Rabba, who said: swallowed impurity does not render impure, and swallowed purity does not receive impurity; and it is implied that there is novelty in them, such that Rabba needed to state them. Concerning this, the Gemara brings an objection:

He said

he objected:

Rava:

Is it not the case that

we learned both of them!?

The two laws that Rabba stated, we already learned in the Mishna:

swallowed impurity, we learned

and likewise

swallowed purity, we learned.

Swallowed impurity

we learned,

as we learned

in tractate Mikvaot [10:8]:

If

a priest

swallowed an impure ring,

which had become impure with corpse impurity [and metal utensils such as this ring that became impure through a corpse have the status of a corpse, whose touch renders one impure with corpse impurity]. And when he swallowed it, the swallower touched the impure ring with his lips and became impure, and therefore he

immerses. And

after he immersed, even though the impure ring was still inside his body,

he eats teruma.

And it is proven that the impure ring does not prevent him from eating teruma, since it is swallowed within his body.

And the Mishna continues and says: If it

was vomited up,

then it is

impure,

since now it is not swallowed,

and it rendered him impure

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

And likewise, also

swallowed purity,

which does not receive impurity, we also learned it.

As we learned,

in that same Mishna there:

If

a person

swallowed a pure ring and entered the tent of the corpse,

while this ring was swallowed within him, and the person became impure from the tent of the corpse,

and he was sprinkled

with the water of purification 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 this purification on the seventh day,

and immersed, and

afterward

it was vomited up, behold it is

pure

as it had been.

And since he immersed, and it is pure, it does not render him impure through his contact with it when it was vomited up.

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

If so, Rava asks, what did Rabba innovate with his words, “Just as swallowed impurity does not render impure, so swallowed purity does not become impure”? We already learned this in the Mishna in tractate Mikvaot?

The Gemara answers that it is impossible to learn Rabba’s words from this Mishna. For the fact that an impure ring that is swallowed does not render impure the person within whom it is swallowed is not necessarily because it is “swallowed impurity,” but rather because the contact of the impure ring with the person inside his intestines is “contact of the hidden parts,” which is hidden and concealed contact; and impurity renders a person impure only when the impurity touches him in an exposed place of the body. And as they expound from the verse [Leviticus 15:11], “And he has not rinsed his hands with water”: Just as his hands are exposed, so too everything that is exposed.

Likewise, from the second law stated in the Mishna, that “if he swallowed a pure ring and entered the tent of the corpse, it is pure as it had been,” one cannot learn the law that “swallowed purity does not become impure,” for in this matter too it can be said that the reason the ring does not become impure is because it is “contact of the hidden parts.”

And the Gemara explains the novelty in Rabba’s words:

When Rabba said

his law, it was in a case where there is no contact of the hidden parts, where the protection from impurity or from purity is only because they are swallowed.

And

for example, a person swallowed

two rings,

one impure and one pure.

And in this manner the matter is not considered impurity of the hidden parts, because although the two rings are concealed inside his intestines, nevertheless the two rings, each in relation to the other, are exposed one toward its fellow. And the novelty in his words is

that

even though they are not concealed from one another, nevertheless

the impure one does not render the pure one impure [

the impure ring does not render the pure one impure ], because both of them are swallowed. Therefore, there is no impurity here.