Chullin 73a — the Talmud in English

And everything that is destined to be cut

such as this limb],

is considered as cut.

Therefore, the place of the cutting between the projecting limb is judged as cut and exposed, and this is not a concealed place. And since the projecting limb and the rest of the fetus touch one another, the limb renders the fetus impure with the impurity of contact.

It follows that the view of Rabbi Meir in our Mishna, who holds that the slaughter of the mother does not purify the fetus from the impurity of a carcass, is not necessarily because Rabbi Meir holds that the impurity of a concealed place renders impure; rather, our Mishna may have been stated even according to the view of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the impurity of a concealed place renders impure.

And the Gemara explains: This reasoning that “everything destined to be cut is considered as cut” [and by virtue of this reasoning Ravina established Rabbi Meir’s position in our Mishna as applying according to everyone],

according to whom

according to whose view was it stated? —

According to Rabbi Meir!

For it was taught:

It is the halakha concerning the immersion of vessels that an impure vessel is not purified from its impurity unless they immerse the entire vessel in all its parts [such as handles and the like]. And if a small part remains outside, the vessel is not pure through this immersion:

All handles of vessels that are long

more than necessary,

and are destined to be cut off,

he

immerses

the vessel

up to the measure-mark.

That is, up to the place where he intends to cut the handle. And that part which is destined to be cut off may remain outside the immersion water, and the vessel is purified,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah

says:

The vessel is not pure

until he immerses all of it,

including the part destined to be cut off.

That is, according to Rabbi Meir, everything destined to be cut is considered as cut, and therefore handles destined to be cut off do not require immersion. Whereas according to Rabbi Judah, everything destined to be cut is not considered as cut, and therefore these parts too require immersion.

And if so, our Mishna, which maintains that everything destined to be cut is considered as cut, is not according to Rabbi Judah. For according to him, even concerning the projecting limb of the fetus, which must be cut, we do not say of it, “it is considered as cut.” And if so, its contact does not render the rest of the fetus impure, since this contact is contact with a concealed place.

The Gemara rejects this:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is according to

the Rabbis,

that is, according to the view of Rabbi Judah [in the Mishna there], we can reconcile that only there, concerning the handles of vessels, does Rabbi Judah hold that what is destined to be cut is not considered as cut. However, here, in our Mishna, Rabbi Judah will agree with Rabbi Meir that the fetus is impure because of its contact with the projecting limb.

For

connections of foods

are considered as though they had separated.

They are considered as though they had already separated, since they are soft, and their connection is not as strong as that of vessels. And the same is true of the connection of the limb with the fetus, which is considered like a connection of foods for this matter.

Therefore, since

they touch one another,

they—the fetus and the limb—touch one another, the fetus is impure according to everyone, even according to Rabbi Judah.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

Granted, according to Ulla,

who explained the reason for Rabbi Meir’s words in our Mishna as being that the fetus is impure because at the end of the cutting, its contact with the limb is exposed and is not contact with a concealed place, and for that reason the fetus is impure, well;

this is what it teaches

in our Mishna: “He slaughtered its mother, and afterward

cut it

[the limb], for through this cutting the contact becomes exposed.

But according to Ravina,

who explains the reason for our Mishna as being that everything destined to be cut is considered as cut, and therefore even before the cutting the place is considered cut and exposed,

what

why did our Mishna state that the case concerns

“he cut it”?

For according to him, already from the time the limb emerged outside, even before the cutting, its connection is considered exposed contact, and for this reason it is impure. Why, then, did the tan[n]a establish the case as “he cut it”? And the Gemara answers:

Since at the beginning of the Mishna it taught,

because at the beginning of the Mishna the case concerns

“he cut it

and afterward slaughtered its mother—the flesh is pure,” therefore

it also taught at the end

[in the law “he slaughtered its mother and afterward cut it—it is impure”], that the case concerns

“he cut it.”

But there is no necessity to establish that the case concerns “he cut it”; rather, even if he did not cut the limb, the fetus is impure, since it is destined to be cut and is considered as cut. And this is not contact with a concealed place.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages say, the contact

of the projecting limb with the rest of the fetus is like contact with

a tereifa—

and it is judged like contact with

a slaughtered

animal, and therefore the fetus is pure.

The Gemara asks: From the fact that the Sages compare contact with the limb to contact with a slaughtered tereifa, it follows that a tereifa that was slaughtered has the status of contact. And this is difficult: Is it the case that

a slaughtered tereifa renders impure?

But it is pure!?

And the Gemara answers:

Yes.

It has the status of contact, through which some impurity takes effect,

as the father of Samuel [said].

For the father of Samuel said:

An animal

that is a tereifa and was slaughtered

is

rendering impure with regard to consecrated things.

That is, if the tereifa animal was an animal of consecrated property and it was slaughtered, it renders impure through contact. And this impurity is a rabbinic decree, and for this reason the Mishna stated “contact with a slaughtered tereifa.”

We learned in our Mishna: The reason for the words of the Sages, that the projecting limb does not render impure through the slaughter of the mother, is that

we find concerning a tereifa that its slaughter purifies it.

And if so,

even the slaughter of

the

animal,

the mother,

will purify the limb

of the fetus that projects.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said to them,

the Sages:

And who purified this limb

that emerged outside its mother

from

the impurity of

a carcass?

And according to your words, that

the slaughter of its mother

is what purified it,

if so, let it permit it

even

for eating,

and why, concerning the prohibition of eating, is it considered a carcass?

They said to him,

the Sages [below it will be explained what answer is contained in these words]:

Much

reason does this slaughter have to be

saving

the projecting limb of the fetus,

which

is

not its body,

and purifying it,

more than

saving

its body

itself from the impurity of a carcass.

For we learned

[in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter]:

One who cuts from the fetus that is in its womb

and leaves the piece inside it, and afterward slaughters it,

it is permitted

that limb which he cut

for eating.

But if he cuts

from the spleen or from the kidneys, it is forbidden for eating,

even if the piece was inside it at the time of slaughter. The slaughter of the mother does not benefit it by purifying it.

It follows from here that the slaughter benefits the fetus more than it benefits the mother itself!

The Gemara asks:

What is he saying?

What answer did the Sages give Rabbi Meir through this?

Rava said, and some say

there are those who say that this matter was said

by [the name of a sage ]:

[a certain sage's name]

A section is missing,

the baraita that was brought is missing a section.

And this is how it teaches

it should be recited:

Rabbi Meir said to them,

the Sages:

And who purified this limb

that projects

from

the impurity of

a carcass.

And according to your words, that

the slaughter of its mother

purifies it from the impurity of a carcass,

if so, let it permit it

even

for eating?

They said to him,

the Sages:

A tereifa proves it, for its slaughter purifies it from

the impurity of

a carcass, but does not permit it for eating.

For concerning eating, it remains under the prohibition of a carcass.

He said to them,

Rabbi Meir to the Sages:

No,

it is not possible to bring proof from a tereifa. For

if the slaughter of a tereifa purified it,

the animal, from the impurity of a carcass, because this slaughter is performed on

something that is its body,

should it for that reason

purify the limb

that projects, which is

something that is not its body

of the mother, but only of the fetus?!

They said to him,

the Sages:

Much

reason does this slaughter have to be

saving

this limb

which is not its body, more than

it can save something that is

its body

itself.

For we learned: One who cuts from the fetus that is in its womb —

it is permitted for eating. From the spleen or from the kidneys —

it is forbidden for eating.

And since its power is great to save something that is not its body, if slaughter purifies a tereifa from the impurity of a carcass, all the more so it purifies the projecting limb, which is not its body, from the impurity of a carcass.

It was also taught so;

this too we learned:

Rabbi Meir said to them,

the Sages:

And who purified this limb from a carcass? They said to him,

the Sages:

The slaughter of its mother.

He replied to them:

If so,

if it has the power to purify it from a carcass,

let it permit it

even

for eating.

They said to him: A tereifa proves it, for its slaughter purifies it from a carcass, but does not permit it for eating!

He said to them: If the slaughter of a tereifa purified it, and the dangling limb

that

is in it [that is, a limb that became diseased or was partially cut from it, yet it remains hanging and slightly attached to it; and as long as it has not completely fallen off, the slaughter of its mother is effective to purify it from the impurity of a carcass], this is because they are included among

[that is, a limb that has become diseased or has been partially severed from it, but remains hanging and slightly attached to it; as long as it has not fallen off entirely, its mother's slaughtering purifies it from the impurity of an unslaughtered animal], this is because they are included among

“something that is its body.”

And certainly it cannot be said that

this slaughter will purify

the

the

projecting limb of

the fetus, which is not

of

its body

of the slaughtered animal itself.

They said to him,

the Sages, concerning this distinction: Indeed, although the fetus is not something that is part of its body, nevertheless

much does it save

the slaughter of the animal

from

a thing

that

is

not its body, more

than from a thing that is

its body

of the animal itself.

For we learned: One who cuts

a person

from the fetus that is in its womb—it is permitted for eating.

But

from the spleen or from the kidneys

of the animal itself,

it is forbidden for eating!

It necessarily follows that the power of slaughter is greater to save the fetus, which is not its body, than the organs that are part of the body of the animal itself.

And the view of the Sages in our Mishna is explained: The slaughter of the mother purifies the projecting limb from the impurity of a carcass.

And concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

concerning

the matter of limbs projecting from

fetuses

while they are still in their mothers’ wombs,

so is the dispute

between them

concerning

the matter of

limbs

that are dangling from the animal itself. For according to Rabbi Meir, the dangling limb has the status of a carcass, like a limb projecting from the animal; and according to the Sages, slaughter purifies it from the impurity of a carcass, like a projecting limb.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is only

concerning a limb

that projects

from a fetus.

For according to Rabbi Meir it is impure like a carcass, whereas according to the Sages its law is like that of a slaughtered tereifa.

But, with regard to the limb

that is dangling

,

according to

everyone, “slaughter causes falling.”

That is, although during the animal’s lifetime the law is that as long as the limb has not completely fallen off, it is not considered a carcass and is part of the animal, nevertheless, once the animal has been slaughtered, this limb is regarded as though it were completely detached from it. And the slaughter does not purify it from the impurity of a carcass. And this is “slaughter causes falling”—that is, it causes the limb to be regarded as completely “fallen.”

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan according to the Rabbis,

who explained that when a fetus extended its hand outside, the hand is purified through the slaughter, whereas an animal whose one limb became dangling has no purification through slaughter; rather, immediately upon slaughter the limb becomes a carcass?

For

this one,

the limb of a fetus that extended outside,

has a remedy

—it has a remedy—

through return.

For if the fetus returns the limb inside, it is fit like all the limbs of the fetus, as Rabbi Yohanan holds [above, 68b], that if the limb was returned, the limb is permitted for eating.

But

if

this one,

the limb of an animal that became dangling,

has no remedy

—it has no remedy—

through return.

For since it became diseased and dangling, it is impossible for it to return and become healthy. For it concerns a limb that has been stricken and has no cure. If so, it can never return to its original state and fitness.

And for this reason Rabbi Yohanan holds that according to the Sages, slaughter purifies only the limb of the fetus that extended outside, but it does not purify the limb of the animal that became dangling.

Meitivi

from what we learned in the beraita above:

Rabbi Meir said to them

—to the Sages—

not

is it possible to compare the slaughter of a tereifa, which purifies from the impurity of a carcass, with the slaughter of the mother of a fetus, which, according to the Sages, also purifies the limb of a fetus that extends outside. For

if the slaughter of a tereifa purifies it and the dangling limb

that is

in it,

which

is a thing that

is

its body,

the body of the slaughtered animal, then will it

purify

also

the

limb of the fetus that extends outside,

which

is

a thing that is not its body!?