Chullin 72a — the Talmud in English

However, the Gemara raises an objection to Rabba’s statement:

“But the fetus and the midwife”,

which are mentioned in our Mishna: When the midwife extends her hand into the womb of the woman giving birth and touches the dead fetus inside her, the ruling is that the midwife becomes impure for seven days, while the woman remains pure,

“are comparable to two rings,”

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

and

nevertheless

the fetus renders the midwife impure.

This implies that the pregnant woman remains pure because this is contact with a concealed part of the body, whereas the midwife becomes impure because, in relation to her hand inside the womb, the fetus is exposed. This proves that Rabba’s statement is incorrect?!

Rabba said: The case of this

different

fetus

is different: Although it is enclosed, it renders one impure

because it will eventually emerge.

Therefore, it is treated already now according to its eventual status, as though it had emerged from the place where it is enclosed; and for this reason it renders the midwife impure.

Rava

challenged

him:

Is it only a

fetus that will eventually emerge,

whereas a

ring will not eventually emerge?

But the ring, too, will eventually emerge, and nevertheless it is treated as an enclosed object.

Rather, Rava said: The people of Pumbedita

are

familiar with the reason for this matter;

they know the reason for the wording 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

that affects the midwife mentioned in our Mishna

is not of Torah origin,

because it is the impurity of an enclosed object;

rather,

the midwife’s impurity is

by rabbinic ordinance.

The Gemara asks:

What

is the reason for all this elaboration by Shmuel, saying

“It is not of Torah origin; rather, it is by rabbinic ordinance”?

It would have been sufficient for him to say: “This impurity is by rabbinic ordinance.”

The Gemara explains: The purpose of this elaboration is

lest you say

that our Mishna was stated

according to the view of Rabbi Akiva, who said: “A

fetus

dead

in a woman’s womb is impure,”

and therefore the midwife becomes impure. Rabbi Akiva maintains that an enclosed impure object transmits impurity and that an enclosed pure object can contract impurity; therefore, the midwife would become impure even by Torah law.

Rather,

our Mishna was stated

even according to

the view of

Rabbi Yishmael, who said: “A fetus in a woman’s womb

is pure,”

because an enclosed impure object does not transmit impurity. Nevertheless,

the Sages instituted a rabbinic impurity in this case.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

for this ordinance concerning the midwife’s impurity?

Rav Hoshaya said: It is an ordinance lest the fetus extend its head outside the corridor,

the womb, and once it has extended its head, it is considered a newborn and is no longer included in the category of “an enclosed impure object”; it transmits impurity by Torah law. There is concern that the midwife might not notice this and touch it, thinking that it is still inside and does not transmit impurity. Therefore, the Sages instituted that she becomes impure even when it is “enclosed.”

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if the ordinance is due to concern that the fetus may emerge with its head, in which case the matter would be treated like childbirth, then impurity should also be ordained for

the woman

giving birth,

as well,

even before the fetus has extended its head. The Gemara answers:

The woman senses it herself

when the fetus’s head emerges.

But if so—if the woman senses when her child’s head emerges—

let her say

tell

the midwife

that the fetus’s head has emerged, so that the midwife will take care not to become impure through contact with it. Why, then, was an ordinance imposed upon her?

The Gemara explains: The woman giving birth

is preoccupied.

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

Therefore, impurity is ordained only for the midwife: Whenever she touches the dead fetus, she becomes impure. But no such ordinance is imposed upon the woman giving birth, since she senses when the fetus’s head emerges.

Earlier we learned that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree concerning an enclosed impure object and an enclosed pure object.

Now the Gemara clarifies:

What

is the source of the view of

Rabbi Yishmael, and what

is the source of the view of

Rabbi Akiva? As it was taught:

It is stated [Numbers 19:16]:

“And anyone who touches upon the open field”—

to exclude a fetus in a woman’s womb,

because an object found upon the open field is exposed and transmits impurity. The verse therefore excludes a fetus hidden and enclosed within the earth of the field,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: From this verse, “And anyone who touches upon the open field,” we derive

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

to include

the impurity of

the covering stone and the side stones

[the covering stone is the cover of the coffin; the side stones are the walls enclosing the sides of the coffin], which also transmit impurity. This is what is derived from the verse; the law of an enclosed impure object is not derived from it.

And Rabbi Yishmael

from where does he derive the law of impurity of

the covering stone and the side stones?

It was received as a halakhic tradition.

It is a law given to Moses at Sinai that the covering stone and the side stones transmit impurity. Consequently, the verse “And anyone who touches upon the open field” is superfluous, and it can be used to derive the law that a fetus hidden in a woman’s womb does not transmit impurity.

The Gemara asks: It is true that Rabbi Akiva interprets the verse “upon the open field” as including the impurity of the covering stone and the side stones.

But it still must be understood:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, a fetus in a woman’s womb

that is

impure by Torah law—

from where does he derive this?

Apparently, the plain meaning of this verse—even after we have learned from it the impurity of the covering stone and the side stones—indicates that only the ordinary impurity of a corpse found upon the open field transmits impurity. From where, then, does Rabbi Akiva derive the novel teaching that a fetus in its mother’s womb also transmits impurity?

Rabbi Oshaya said: The verse states [Numbers 19:13]:

“Anyone who touches a

dead person, the soul of a human being

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

What dead person is

inside

the soul of another person

?

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

From here we learn that even a dead fetus in a woman’s womb transmits impurity.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

who holds that the impurity of a fetus is derived from “And anyone who touches,” what does he derive from “Anyone who touches a dead person, the soul of a human being”?

The Gemara answers:

This

verse

is needed by him

for the law

that a quarter-log of blood issuing from a corpse transmits impurity, as it is stated: “Anyone who touches a dead person, the soul of a human being.”

This implies that contact with a part of a person that causes and sustains the existence of the soul also transmits impurity.

And

what

is that factor which sustains the

soul of a human being

and which we derive

transmits impurity?

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

A person’s life depends upon this quarter-log.

And Rabbi Akiva, who derives the impurity of a fetus from “the soul of a human being,” 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 this corpse and half a quarter-log from another corpse,

transmits impurity through a tent.

As it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: From where do we know that a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses transmits impurity through a tent?

As it is stated [Leviticus 21:11]:

Leviticus 21:11]:

“And he shall not enter over any dead souls.”

The plural “souls” implies two, while “dead” implies a quarter-log of blood, through the loss of which a person dies.

It is thus clear 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 they discussed in the previous Mishnayot and Gemara sugyot the matters of impurity and purity of a dead fetus found in its mother’s womb, the Mishna before us discusses the law of the purity of a fetus that extended its hand outside, before its mother was slaughtered.

Above, 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. But if they cut off the limb, it is explained below, on 127b, that the severed limb imparts impurity like a carcass, according to the law of a limb from a living creature.

In the Mishna below it is explained that after they cut off the protruding limb, the rest of the flesh of the fetus remaining in the mother’s womb is pure, and does not become impure because of its 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 concerning this, as will be explained below in the Mishna.

Likewise, our Mishna deals with the source of the law that a slaughtered tereifa does not impart impurity like a carcass:

a.

An animal having difficulty giving birth, and the

the

fetus extended its hand

outside,

and a person cut it off

a person,

and afterward slaughtered its mother,

the flesh

remaining inside,

is pure,

and does not become impure through contact with that limb that emerged outside [and whose law is that of a limb from a living creature, which is impure and imparts impurity like a carcass], because the fetus is judged according to the law of a living creature, like its mother, and a living animal does not contract impurity during its life.

b.

He slaughtered

first

its mother [after the fetus had extended its hand],

the fetus had extended its foreleg],

and afterward cut off

its hand; behold,

the flesh

of the fetus found inside became impure by

“contact with a carcass,” through its contact with the hand that had emerged, because a limb from a living creature imparts impurity like a carcass,

through contact with the extended foreleg, because a limb from a living animal imparts impurity like an animal carcass,

the words 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” [according to the law of contact with a slaughtered tereifa animal, for although it is forbidden for consumption, its slaughter purifies it from carcass impurity by Torah law. Only they decreed upon it impurity by rabbinic enactment with regard to consecrated things, and this will be explained below].

the case of contact with an animal with a disqualifying condition that was slaughtered: although it is forbidden to eat, its slaughter purifies it from the ritual impurity of an animal carcass by Torah law. The Sages decreed that it nevertheless conveys impurity by rabbinic law when it is consecrated, as will be explained below].