Chullin 72b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages explain their position:

What do we find,

just as we find below,

in

an animal

that is tereifa, whose slaughter renders it pure

from the impurity of an unslaughtered animal, despite the fact that it is forbidden to eat,

so too the slaughter of the animal

—the mother—

will render the limb pure

from its impurity, despite the fact that it is forbidden to eat.

Rabbi Meir said to them: No,

it is not possible to compare the law of slaughter with regard to a tereifa to the slaughter of the mother, so that it should be effective in purifying the protruding limb.

Since

if it purified

—that is, even if

the slaughter of a tereifa purifies it

from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, this is because the slaughter is performed upon

a thing that

is

its body,

that is, upon the body of the animal.

But that protruding limb is a thing that is not the body of the slaughtered mother. Can it be said that slaughter will also be effective with regard to it and

purify the limb,

despite the fact that it is

a thing that is not its body?!

And the Mishna discusses:

From where

do we have the general rule

that a tereifa, whose slaughter renders it pure

from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass? The reasoning would seem to indicate the opposite. For

a impure animal is forbidden for eating,

even if it was slaughtered, and

a tereifa too is forbidden for eating.

And since their laws are equal with regard to eating, their laws should likewise be equal with regard to impurity—

Just as an impure animal,

which is forbidden for eating,

is not rendered pure by its slaughter

from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass,

so too a tereifa,

which is forbidden for eating like an impure animal,

slaughter will not render it pure.

The Mishna distinguishes between an animal with such a condition and a non-kosher animal:

No!

And the Mishna distinguishes between a tereifa and an impure animal:

No!

They cannot be compared. For

if you say with regard to an impure animal

that the reason its carcass is impure is

that it never had

a period of fitness

—there was never even one moment when it was fit for slaughter and for permitted eating, such that, by virtue of that period of fitness, its carcass could now become pure through slaughter. Rather, from the time of its creation it was impure

.

Will you say with regard to

an animal

that is a tereifa,

that its carcass should not be rendered impure like the carcass of an impure animal, because

it had a period of fitness

before it became a tereifa, and through slaughter it should have become fit like every pure animal. Since it was fundamentally fit for slaughter, the category of slaughter did not thereafter depart from it, and even if it became a tereifa, its carcass is purified through slaughter.

But this distinction is rejected:

Take away from yourself what you brought

in this distinction—that an impure animal did not have a period of fitness, whereas a pure animal did—for

behold,

a pure animal

that was born a tereifa from the womb,

and never had a period of fitness: from where do we know that its carcass will not cause impurity? It is thus again found that even the slaughter of a tereifa does not save it from impurity.

Rather, the distinction between a non-kosher animal and an animal with such a defect is as follows:

No,

Rather, the distinction between an impure animal and a tereifa is as follows:

No,

it is not possible to compare an impure animal and a tereifa, because

if you say with regard to an impure animal

that its carcass is not purified by slaughter,

for there is no slaughter within its species.

Slaughter that permits eating does not apply to the species of impure animals.

Will you say with regard to

a pure animal

that is a tereifa, for there is slaughter within its species,

since it belongs to the category of pure cattle and sheep that are fit for eating when they are fit and have not become tereifot

?

And for this reason, even when the animal itself is forbidden for eating because of its tereifa status, slaughter is effective for it to purify it from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass.

But

a live eight-month fetus

that was born before it completed its gestation period,

its slaughter does not purify it

from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass [and it is certainly forbidden for eating],

because there is no slaughter within its species.

For it is not included in “cattle and sheep”; rather, it belongs to the species of stillborn creatures. It has not yet attained the status of an “animal,” and therefore slaughter does not purify it either.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna that if a fetus extended its limb and one first slaughtered the mother, according to Rabbi Meir the flesh of the fetus became impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass through contact with the protruding limb.

The Gemara asks:

Why?

Why did the fetus become impure? The impurity that comes to it through its contact with the protruding limb is

the impurity of a concealed place.

For the contact occurs inside the mother’s body, which is a concealed place, and

impurity

of contact that is created within

a concealed place—

does it not cause impurity!?

Rabbi Meir

Let us say:

Should we resolve this by saying that

Rabbi Meir

follows his own position, that swallowed impurity causes impurity? For we learned: The midras of a person afflicted with a flux [that is, an object used by such a person while he stands upon it] is a primary source of impurity. This impurity applies only to a midras measuring at least three handbreadths by three handbreadths.

A garment of

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths, which was made into a midras for a person afflicted with a flux,

that was divided

into several pieces, so that each of the pieces no longer has the measure of an impure midras, is

pure from

the impurity of

the midras.

But

nevertheless,

it is impure

with the impurity of

contact with a midras.

That is, since when these pieces were still joined to one another [and were part of the impurity of the midras], they touched one another and rendered one another impure, according to the law of a midras that touches a vessel or a garment and renders it impure through its contact, at the level of a first degree of impurity, it follows that in addition to the impurity of midras that they possessed [which is at the level of a primary source of impurity], they possessed an additional impurity, namely, “the impurity of contact with a midras,” which is a first degree of impurity. The impurity of the contact by which they touched the midras does not depart from them when the midras is divided into small pieces—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And it was taught, Rabbi Yosei said concerning Rabbi Meir’s words: These pieces of the midras are completely pure, even from the impurity of contact, because:

takovo mnenie Rabi Meira.

That is, with what bedding did each of these pieces of the garment come into contact? When they were joined together as the afflicted person’s bedding, the contact between them was “contact in a concealed place,” since the connection between one part and another was within the thickness of the garment, concealed and not exposed.

And with what midras did this one come into contact

—that is, each and every one of these pieces of the garment—!? When they were joined together as the midras of the person afflicted with a flux, the contact of their joining to one another was “contact in a concealed place,” since the joining between one part and another is within the thickness of the garment and is concealed and not exposed.

Rather, there is another possibility through which the pieces of the garment would be impure, namely,

if a person afflicted with a flux touched it

when it became a midras, standing upon it barefoot [or standing upon it barefoot after it had already become a midras ],

so that it would be impure,

the garment also with the impurity of

contact with a person afflicted with a flux.

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 the concealed parts or not.

According to Rabbi Meir, impurity of the concealed parts renders impure; therefore, the pieces of the midras are impure with impurity of contact, even though their contact was concealed. Whereas according to Rabbi Yosei, impurity of the concealed parts does not render impure; therefore, the pieces are not impure with impurity of contact.

But the Gemara rejects this: one cannot prove from this Mishna that it was stated according to Rabbi Meir; rather, it can also be according to Rabbi Yosei.

And is it so that

was it not stated concerning it—

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 had

three

handbreadths

by three

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

which was divided,

and in each piece there was less than three handbreadths, so that at the time when the pieces were divided from one another, neither of them had the measure suitable for rendering impure with midras impurity. Therefore, none of these pieces can render its fellow impure with this impurity at the time of their separation, even though at the time of the division this is not contact of the concealed parts. Whereas before they were divided, when they were joined, they do not render one another impure, since the contact at the time of their joining is contact of the concealed parts. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei holds that the pieces are not impure.

But

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. And although this is not midras impurity, since three fingerbreadths do not contain the measure of a midras, nevertheless, they contain impurity of contact with a midras, for

at the time of their separation,

that is, at the time when they were cut

from their parent [that is, the large garment, which remained of a size suitable to be a midras even at the time when the small pieces separated from it], they became impure through contact with it, which is contact with the midras of a zav. Therefore they

receive impurity

through contact

from their parent.

And this is not impurity of the concealed parts, because the cutting of the garment is not done at once through the entire thickness of the garment. Rather, at the beginning of the cutting the garment is still thick, and as the cutting continues [even though the matter is done in a short time], the thickness of the garment becomes progressively reduced, until it is cut and completely separated. Therefore, at the time when the small piece separates from the rest of the garment, that small and reduced thickness which is separating is exposed and is not concealed. Therefore, even according to Rabbi Yosei, it contains impurity through contact with the large garment, which is the midras of a zav and a primary source of impurity.

And if so,

here,

in the case brought in our Mishna, where he slaughtered the mother and afterward cut the emerging limb,

also,

the law is likewise that

at the time of their separation

of the other parts of the fetus inside

from

the

limb

that is cut, the fetus too,

receives impurity from

the

limb,

because at the time of the final cutting this is not contact of the concealed parts, since the connection 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 contact of impurity with the emerging limb.

The Gemara now brings an additional rationale for this: the view of Rabbi Meir in our Mishna does not necessarily follow his position regarding a garment divided while impure with midras impurity, and it is likewise not necessarily the case that Rabbi Yosei would dispute Rabbi Meir’s view 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.

For

a garment is not destined for cutting,

it is not intended to be cut; rather, 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 place of the concealed parts. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei holds that they do not have impurity of contact with the midras of the zav.

But the limb of the

fetus

that emerges outside

is destined for cutting.

It stands to be cut, for it is forbidden for consumption, and it must be cut away from the other limbs of the fetus that are permitted.