Chullin 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara nevertheless raises an objection to Rabba’s statement:

But the fetus and the living creature

mentioned in our Mishna, where the midwife extended her hand into the intestines of the woman giving birth and touched the dead fetus inside her: The halakha is that the midwife is impure for seven days, while the woman is pure,

are comparable to two rings,

since both of them—the fetus and the midwife’s hand—are swallowed inside the woman’s intestines, yet they are exposed to one another within the woman’s intestines,

and

nevertheless,

the fetus renders the midwife impure.

This implies that the pregnant woman is pure because this is contact in a concealed place, whereas the midwife is impure because, with regard to her hand inside, the fetus is exposed. This proves that Rabba’s statement is incorrect?!

Rabba said: The

case is

different with regard to this fetus,

for although it is swallowed, it renders one impure

since it will ultimately emerge.

Therefore, it is judged already now according to its eventual status, as though it had emerged from the place where it is swallowed; consequently, it renders the midwife impure.

Rava

raised

an objection

: Is it only that a

fetus will ultimately emerge,

whereas

a ring will not ultimately emerge?

But a ring, too, will ultimately emerge, and nevertheless it is judged as swallowed?

Rather, Rava said: The people of Pumbedita,

that is, the people of Pumbedita,

know the reason for this matter,

as they know the reason for the statement of our Mishna.

And who are they?

Who are these people of Pumbedita?—

Rav Yosef!

As Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This impurity,

with which the midwife mentioned in our Mishna becomes impure,

is not by Torah law,

since it is swallowed impurity,

but

the midwife’s impurity is

by rabbinic decree.

The Gemara discusses this:

What

was Shmuel’s reason for stating this at such length:

“It is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic decree”?

It would have sufficed for him to say: “This impurity is by rabbinic decree.”

The Gemara explains: The purpose of this extended formulation is

lest you say

that our Mishna was stated

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: “A

dead fetus

inside

a woman’s intestines is impure,”

and therefore the midwife is impure. Rabbi Akiva maintains that swallowed impurity renders one impure, and that swallowed purity can become impure; therefore, the midwife is impure even by Torah law.

Rather,

our Mishna was stated

even according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Yishmael, who said: “A fetus inside a woman

is pure,”

because swallowed impurity does not render one impure, but

the Sages decreed rabbinic impurity in this case.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason

for this decree of impurity concerning the midwife?

Rav Hoshaya said: It is a decree lest the fetus put its head outside the corridor,

the uterus, [and once it has put its head out, it is considered born and is no longer included in the category of “swallowed impurity,” and it renders one impure by Torah law]. There is concern that the midwife may not notice this and may touch it, thinking that it is still inside and does not render one impure. Therefore, the Sages decreed that she becomes impure even when it is “swallowed.”

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if indeed the decree is lest the fetus emerge with its head, in which case the matter would be judged as a birth, then should we also decree impurity upon

the woman

giving birth,

as well,

even before the fetus has put its head out? The Gemara answers:

The woman feels it herself

when the fetus’s head emerges.

But if so, if the woman feels the emergence of her child’s head,

then let her say,

let her tell

the midwife

that the fetus’s head has emerged, so that she will be careful not to become impure through contact with it. Why, then, is a decree imposed upon her?

The Gemara explains: The woman giving birth

is preoccupied.

She is occupied with the pangs and pains of childbirth, and her attention is not free to warn the midwife about the impurity.

Therefore, impurity is decreed only upon the midwife, who becomes impure through any contact with the dead fetus, whereas no decree is imposed upon the woman giving birth, since she feels the emergence of the head.

Earlier, we learned that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree concerning swallowed impurity and swallowed purity.

Now the Gemara clarifies:

What

is the source of the opinion of

Rabbi Yishmael, and what

is the source of the opinion of

Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught:

It is stated [Numbers 19:16]:

“And whoever touches upon the open field”—

to exclude a fetus in a woman’s intestines,

because something found upon the open field is exposed and renders one impure. The verse comes to exclude a fetus hidden and swallowed in the soil of the field,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says:

From this verse, “And whoever touches upon the open field,” we expound

to include

the impurity of

the cover and side of the grave

[the cover is the lid of the coffin; the side is the walls enclosing the sides of the coffin], which also render one impure. This is what is expounded from the verse. But the law of swallowed impurity is not expounded from it.

And Rabbi Yishmael,

from where does he derive the law of

the cover and side of the grave?

It was received as halakha,

that is, it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that the cover and side render one impure. Consequently, the verse “And whoever touches upon the open field” is superfluous, and it can be used to derive the law that a fetus hidden in a woman’s intestines does not render one impure.

The Gemara asks: It is indeed the case that Rabbi Akiva expounds the verse “upon the open field” to include the impurity of the cover and side.

But it still requires clarification:

And Rabbi Akiva, a fetus in a woman’s intestines

which is

impure by Torah law—

from where does he derive this?

For, ostensibly, the plain meaning of this verse [even after we have derived the impurity of the cover and side] indicates that only ordinary corpse impurity located upon the open field renders one impure. From where does he derive the novel ruling that even a fetus in its mother’s intestines renders one impure?

Rabbi Oshaya said: The verse states

Numbers 19:13] “Anyone who touches a corpse, the soul of a person

who dies, shall be impure.” This verse implies that it is speaking of a “corpse” that is within another “soul.”

who dies, shall be impure.” The verse implies that it is speaking of a “dead person” who is inside another “soul.”

What is a corpse that is within the

soul of

another person

?

You must say that this is a fetus in a woman’s intestines!

And from here we learn that even a dead fetus in a woman’s intestines renders one impure.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

who maintains that the impurity of a fetus is derived from “And whoever touches,” what does he derive from “Anyone who touches a corpse, the soul of a person”?

The Gemara answers:

This

verse

is necessary for him,

as Rabbi Yishmael requires it

for a quarter-log of blood that comes from a corpse, which renders one impure. As it is stated: “Anyone who touches a corpse, the soul of a person.”

This implies that contact with a part of the person that causes and sustains the existence of the soul also renders one impure.

And

what is

that factor which sustains

a person’s soul

that we derive

renders one impure?

You must say that this is a quarter-log of blood.

For a person’s life depends upon this quarter-log.

And Rabbi Akiva, who derives the impurity of a fetus from “the soul of a person,” from where does he derive the impurity of a quarter-log of blood?

And Rabbi Akiva follows his own reasoning, as he said: Even a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses,

half a quarter-log from one corpse and half from another corpse,

renders one impure by means of a tent.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived that a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses renders one impure by means of a tent?

As it is stated [

Leviticus 21:11]:

“And he shall not enter upon any souls of the dead.”

The plural “souls” indicates two, while “dead” indicates a quarter-log of blood, for when it is lacking, the person is dead.

It is thus explained that the verse refers to blood gathered from

two souls,

that is, from two corpses,

and

the quantity of blood is

one measure,

namely, a quarter-log of blood.

Mishna:

After discussing in the previous mishnayot and Gemara sugyot the matters of ritual impurity and purity of a dead fetus found in its mother’s womb, the Mishna before us discusses the status of the fetus’s purity when it extended its hand outside, before its mother was slaughtered.

Earlier, at the beginning of the chapter, we learned that if a fetus extended its hand outside its mother’s womb, the hand is forbidden for consumption. And if they cut off the limb, it is explained below, on 127b, that the severed limb imparts impurity like an animal carcass, as the limb of a living animal.

The Mishna below explains that after they cut off the protruding limb, the remaining flesh of the fetus in the mother’s womb is pure and does not become impure through contact and connection with the protruding limb, which is impure. However, if they cut off the protruding limb only after the mother was slaughtered, Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree in this matter, as will be explained below in the Mishna.

Our Mishna also addresses the source of the law that a slaughtered tereifa does not impart impurity like an animal carcass:

a.

An animal struggling to give birth, and it extended

its

hand

outside,

and a person cut

it,

and afterward slaughtered its mother,

the flesh

remaining inside

is pure,

and does not become impure through contact with that limb that extended outside [and whose status is that of a limb of a living animal, which is impure and imparts impurity like an animal carcass], because the fetus is regarded as a living creature, like its mother, and a living animal does not contract ritual impurity during its lifetime.

b.

If he slaughtered

first

its mother [

after the fetus had extended its hand ],

and afterward cut off

its hand, then

the flesh

of the fetus located inside becomes impure through

“contact with a carcass,”

through contact with the protruding hand, because a limb of a living animal imparts impurity like an animal carcass,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

The flesh of the fetus does not become impure, because its contact with the protruding hand is

“contact with a slaughtered tereifa”

[as in the case of contact with a slaughtered tereifa animal: although it is forbidden for consumption, its slaughter purifies it from biblical animal-carcass impurity. They decreed impurity upon it only by rabbinic law with regard to consecrated items, as will be explained below].