Chullin 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

Mudretsy razyasnyayut ikh metod:

«Chto my nakhodim»,

[kak nakhodim nizhe]

u

zhivotnogo

tereify, kotorogo ego shekhita ochishchaet

ot tumy nevela, nesmotrya na to, chto ego zapreshcheno est,

tak i shekhita zhivotnogo

[materi]

ochistit organ

kotoryi vyshel, ot ego tumy, nesmotrya na to, chto ego zapreshcheno est.

Rabi Meir skazal im: net

nelzya sravnivat zakon shekhity tereify s shekhitoi materi, kotoraia dolzhna ochistit vyshedshii organ.

Tak kak

esli ochistila

[to est dazhe esli ochishchaet]

ego shekhita tereify

ot tumy nevely, eto potomu, chto shekhita proizvedena v

tom, chto

iavliaetsia

ee telom,

to est v tele zhivotnogo.

No etot vyshedshii organ ne iavliaetsia telom zakolaemoi materi. Mozhno li skazat, chto shekhita pomozhet i v ego otnoshenii i

ochistit organ,

nesmotria na to, chto on

ne iavliaetsia ee telom?!

V-tretikh, Mishna rassuzhdaet:

otkuda

nam izvestno kak obshchee pravilo,

chto tereifa, ee shekhita ochishchaet

ot tumy nevely? Ved razum podskazyvaet obratno. Ved

nechistoe zhivotnoe zapreshcheno v pishchu,

dazhe esli ego zakololi, i

tereifa tozhe zapreshchena v pishchu.

I raz ikh zakon v otnoshenii edy odinakov, takim zhe dolzhen byt i ikh zakon v otnoshenii tumy —

Kak nechistoe zhivotnoe,

zapreshchennoe v pishchu,

ne ochishchaetsia ego shekhitoi

ot tumy nevely,

tak i tereifa,

zapreshchennaia v pishchu podobno nechistomu zhivotnomu,

ne ochistitsia shekhitoi.

Mishna razlichaet mezhdu tereifoi i nechistym zhivotnym:

Net!

Nelzya sravnivat ikh. Ved

esli ty skazhesh o nechistom zhivotnom,

chto prichina tumy ego nevely v tom,

chto u nego nikogda

ne bylo

vremeni prigodnosti

[to est ne bylo ni odnogo momenta, kogda ono bylo by godno dlya shekhity i kashernoi edy, tak chto blagodaria etomu vremeni prigodnosti ego nevela mogla by teper ochishchatsia shekhitoi; ono bylo nechistym s samogo rozhdeniia].

To skazhesh o

zhivotnom

tereife,

chto ego nevela ne sleduet delat nechistoi podobno nevelе nechistogo zhivotnogo, potomu chto

u nego bylo vremia prigodnosti

do togo, kak ono stalo tereifoi, i posle shekhity ono dolzhno bylo stat kashernym, kak lyuboe chistoe zhivotnoe. I raz iznachalno ono bylo godno dlya shekhity, zakon shekhity ne ischez iz nego, i dazhe esli ono stalo tereifoi, ego nevela ochishchaetsia shekhitoi.

Odnako eto razlichenie oprovergaetsia:

otbros ty to, chto privel

v etom razlichenii [chto u nechistogo ne bylo vremeni prigodnosti, a u chistogo bylo], ved

ved

chistoe zhivotnoe

rodivsheesia tereifoi iz utroby,

nikogda ne imelo vremeni prigodnosti,

otkuda

izvestno, chto ego nevela ne oskverniaet? I snova poluchaetsia, chto dazhe shekhita tereify ne spasает ot tumy.

No razlichie mezhdu nechistym zhivotnym i tereifoi takovo:

Net,

nelzya sravnivat nechistoe zhivotnoe s tereifoi. Potomu chto

esli ty skazhesh o nechistom zhivotnom,

chto ego nevela ne ochishchaetsia shekhitoi,

tak kak v ego rode net shekhity.

Shekhita, razreshaiushchaia est, ne primenima k rodam nechistykh zhivotnykh.

To skazhesh o

chistom zhivotnom

tereife, u kotoroi v ee rode est shekhita,

poskolku ona prinadlezhit k chistym rodam krupnogo i melkogo rogatogo skota, prigodnym dlya edy [kogda oni kasherny i ne iavliaiutsia tereifoi].

Poetomu dazhe kogda ona sama zapreshchena v pishchu iz-za tereify, ee shekhita ochishchaet ee ot tumy nevely.

No

zhivoi vosmimesiachnyi plod

rodivshiisia prezhde, chem zavershilsia srok ego vynashivaniia,

ego shekhita ne ochishchaet ego

ot tumy nevely [i razumeetsia, on zapreshchen v pishchu]

tak kak v ego rode net shekhity.

Ved on ne prinadlezhit k rodam «krupnogo i melkogo rogatogo skota», a otnositsia k rodu nedonoskov. On eshche ne dostig statusa «zhivotnogo», i poetomu dazhe shekhita ne ochishchaet ego.

Gemara:

V nashei Mishna skazano: esli plod vysunul nogu, a zatem mat byla zakolota, po mneniiu Rabi Meira myaso ploda oskverniaetsia tumoi nevely iz-za ego prikosnoveniia k vyshedshemu organu.

Gemara zadayet vopros:

pochemu

plod oskvernilsia? Ved tumа, postigayushchaia ego cherez prikosnovenie k vyshedshemu organu,

iavliaetsia tумoi skrytogo mesta.

Ved prikosnovenie proiskhodit v tele materi, v skrytom meste,

a tuma

ot prikosnoveniia, voznikshaia v

skrytom meste, —

ne oskverniaet!?

of contact that is created within

Skazhem, mozhem li my otvetit, chto

Can we resolve this by saying that

Rabi Meir

posleduet

svoemu mneniiu,

po kotоromu pogloshchennaya tuma oskverniaet?

Ved my uchili:

Izmerenie dlya lezhaniya zavisimogo ot tumy [to est predmet, kotoryi ispolzuet zavisimyi ot tumy, stoya na nem] iavliaetsia otcom tumy. Etot zakon otnositsia tolko k lezhaniu razmerom ne menee trekh tefakh na tri tefakha.

Odezhda razmerom

tri

tefakha

na tri

tefakha, kotoraia stala mestom lezhaniya zavisimogo ot tumy,

razdelennaya

na neskolko chastei, tak chto v kazhdoi iz chastei bolshe net razmera, neobkhodimogo dlya oskverniaiushchego lezhaniia, iavliaetsia

ochishchennoi ot

tumy

lezhaniya.

nevertheless,

Odnako

vse zhe

nechist

tumoi

prikosnoveniia mestom lezhaniya.

To est, kogda eti chasti byli soedineny drug s druga [i sostavlyali chast nechiatoi mestom lezhaniya], oni kasaлись drug druga i oskverняли drug druga po zakonu o mestе lezhaniya, kasaющemsia sosuda ili odezhdy i oskverniaющem ego prikosnoveniem do stepeni pervoi stepeni tumy. Poluchaetsia, chto pomimo tumy lezhaniya, kotoraia byla v nikh [a ona iavliaetsia ottsom tumy], v nikh byla eshche odna tuma — «tuma prikosnoveniia mestom lezhaniya», iavliaiushchaia pervoi stepeniu tumy. I tuma prikosnoveniia, kotoroi oni podverglis pri prikosnovenii k mestу lezhaniya, ne ischezaet iz nikh posle razdeleniia mestа lezhaniya na melkie chasti,

takovo mnenie Rabi Meira.

I bylo predbanno,

skazal Rabi Yosi

[na slova Rabi Meira]: eti chasti mestа lezhaniya polnostyu chisty, dazhe ot tumy prikosnoveniia, potomu chto:

K kakomu mestu lezhaniya on prikosnulsia

[to est kazhdaia iz etikh chastei odezhdy]? Ved kogda oni byli soedineny vmeste iavlialis mestom lezhaniya zavisimogo ot tumy, prikosnovenie mezhdu soedineniiami bylo «prikosnoveniem skrytogo mesta» [ved soedinenie mezhdu chastiami nakhoditsia v tolshche odezhdy, skryto i ne otkryto].

No,

sushchestvuet drugaia vozmozhnost, pri kotoroi kuski odezhdy byli by nechistymi:

esli zavisimyi ot tumy prikosnulsia k nei

v to vremia, kogda ona stanovilas mestom lezhaniya, to est stoyal na nei bosikom [ili stoyal na nei bosikom posle togo, kak ona uzhe stala mestom lezhaniya ],

odezhda byla by nechistoi

takzhe tumoi

prikosnoveniia k zavisimomu ot tumy.

It follows that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei is whether there is impurity of concealed areas, or not.

According to Rabbi Meir, impurity of concealed areas imparts impurity, and therefore the pieces of the garment designated for midras are impure with impurity imparted by contact, even though their contact was concealed. But according to Rabbi Yosei, impurity of concealed areas does not impart impurity, and therefore the pieces are not impure with impurity imparted by contact.

But the Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from this Mishna that it was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; rather, it can also be understood according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

And is it so?

Was it not stated concerning it

—that is, concerning this Mishna—

Ulla said: They taught

that Rabbi Yosei disputes Rabbi Meir

only

with regard to a garment upon which a zav had trodden, which was

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths [which is the measure of a garment designated for the midras of a zav],

which was divided,

and each piece was less than three handbreadths, so that when the pieces became separated from one another, none of them had the measure fit to impart impurity as midras. Therefore, none of these pieces can impart this impurity to the other at the time of their separation, even though at the time of division this is not contact in a concealed area. Before they were divided, however, while they were connected, they do not impart impurity to one another, because the contact at the time of their connection is contact in a concealed area. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei holds that the pieces are not impure.

However,

pieces of a garment whose measure is

three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths,

which come

and are cut

from a large garment

that became impure with midras impurity, and from which this measure of three fingerbreadths was cut, Rabbi Yosei concedes that they contain impurity. Although this is not midras impurity, since three fingerbreadths do not constitute the measure of midras, nevertheless they have impurity imparted by contact with midras, as

at the time of their separation,

that is, at the time they were cut

from their parent [i.e., the large garment, which remained large enough to be midras even when the small pieces were separated from it], they became impure through contact with it, which was contact with the midras of a zav. Therefore they

become susceptible to impurity

through contact

with their parent.

And this is not impurity of a concealed area, because the garment is not cut through its entire thickness all at once. Rather, at the beginning of the cutting the garment is still thick, and as the cutting continues [even though this takes place in a short time], the thickness of the garment gradually becomes narrower until it is cut and completely separated. Therefore, at the moment the small piece separates from the rest of the garment, the contact of that small, narrowed thickness as it separates is exposed and is not a concealed area. Consequently, even according to Rabbi Yosei, it has impurity through contact with the large garment, which is the midras of a zav and an avi ha-tumah.

If so,

here,

in the case presented in our Mishna, where one slaughtered the mother and afterward cut the emerging limb,

also,

the same law applies:

at the time of the separation

of the other parts of the fetus inside

from

the

limb

that is being cut, the fetus too

becomes impure from

the

limb,

because at the moment of the final cut this is not a concealed area, since the connection remaining at the end of the cutting is exposed.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei too concedes that in this manner the fetus is impure on account of the impurity imparted by contact with the emerging limb.

The Gemara now offers another rationale for why the opinion of Rabbi Meir in our Mishna does not necessarily accord with his position concerning a garment divided after becoming impure with midras, and why Rabbi Yosei does not necessarily disagree with Rabbi Meir’s opinion here, as follows:

Ravina said:

One cannot compare what Rabbi Yosei said—that a divided garment is pure—with what Rabbi Meir said here—that the emerging limb remains in its state of impurity even after the mother has been slaughtered.

Because

a garment is not destined for cutting,

it is not intended to be cut; on the contrary, it is preferable for it to remain whole. Therefore, we regard it as whole, and the connection between all the parts of the garment is a concealed area. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei holds that they do not have impurity imparted by contact with the midras of the zav.

But the

fetus’s

emerging limb

is destined for cutting.

It is meant to be cut, since it is forbidden to eat, and it must be cut away from the other limbs of the fetus, which are permitted.