Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 5, 2019 | 诇壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 70

When it is considered birth (in a stillborn animal) for purposes of determining was this a birth of a firstborn to exempt the next offspring from being a firstborn, particularly in a case of a difficult birth where the animal is taken out in parts? Is there impurity of a dead animal for fetuses for non-kosher animals? For kosher animals?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if their dispute was stated only with regard to that case, when one-third emerged through the wall of the womb, one might have thought it is only in that case that Rabba says the animal is consecrated from that point forward, as that results in a stringency, i.e., the fetus is subject to firstborn status. But in this case, when after one-third emerged it was sold to a gentile, and where ruling that the animal is consecrated from that point forward results in a leniency, one might say that Rabba concedes to Rav Huna. Therefore, it was necessary for the dispute to be stated in both cases.

转谞谉 讛诪讘讻专转 讛诪拽砖讛 诇讬诇讚 诪讞转讱 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜诪砖诇讬讱 诇讻诇讘讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖 讬拽讘专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the opinion of Rav Huna. We learned in the mishna: If an animal that was giving birth to a firstborn male was encountering difficulty giving birth, and in order to alleviate the difficulty one wishes to terminate the birth, he may cut up the fetus limb by limb and cast it to the dogs. What, is it not teaching that one cuts each limb and leaves it outside the body, casting the limbs to the dogs only after he has already extracted a majority of its body? And if you say a firstborn is consecrated retroactively, then once the majority of the fetus emerges from the womb all of the limbs would be consecrated retroactively according to Rav Huna. Accordingly, the mishna should have said the limbs must be buried.

诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讞转讱 讜诪砖诇讬讱

The Gemara responds: No, here we are dealing with one who cuts each limb and immediately casts it to the dogs, before any consecration takes effect.

讗讘诇 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 诪讗讬 讬拽讘专 讗讚转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讬拽讘专 讜谞驻讟专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讞转讱 讜诪砖诇讬讱 讗讘专 讗讘专 讗讘诇 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 讬拽讘专

The Gemara asks: But according to this, if one cuts the limbs and leaves them, what is the halakha? Each one must be buried. If that is so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: If a majority of the fetus had already emerged it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up it must be buried, and any future offspring from that animal is exempted from firstborn status; let the tanna instead distinguish and teach a case in which the limbs are consecrated within the context of the first case itself, in the following manner: In what case is this statement, that the limbs may be cast to the dogs, said? It is with regard to one who cuts pieces of the fetus and immediately casts them to the dogs limb by limb, before a majority has emerged. But if one cuts and leaves the limbs until a majority has emerged, each one of them must be buried.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讞转讱 讜诪砖诇讬讱 讗讘诇 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讜讬拽讘专

The Gemara answers: That is indeed what the latter clause of the mishna is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to one who cuts and casts the limbs to the dogs before a majority emerges. But if one cuts and leaves the limbs until a majority emerges it is regarded as though a majority of it emerged at one time, and so it must be buried.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讗讬讘专讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讗讬讘专讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

Rava raises a dilemma: Does one follow the majority with regard to limbs or does one not follow the majority with regard to limbs? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this dilemma; what exactly is Rava鈥檚 question?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘 讘诪讬注讜讟 讗讘专 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讬注讜讟 讚讘专讗讬 讘转专 专讜讘 讚讗讘专 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚注讜讘专 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

If we say it is referring to a case where the majority of the fetus emerged, but that majority includes the emergence of the minority part of one of its limbs, then Rava is raising the following dilemma: With regard to this minority part of a limb that is outside the womb, do we cast it, i.e., count it, together with the majority of that limb, which is still inside the womb, as if the entire limb was still inside the womb? If so, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has not yet emerged. Or perhaps we cast it and count it together with the majority of the fetus that has already emerged, and so it is regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged and it is duly consecrated.

驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 砖讘拽讬谞谉 专讜讘讗 讚注讜讘专 讜讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘 讗讘专

The Gemara rejects this possibility: In that case it is obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the fetus and go after the majority of the limb. Consequently, Rava would not have raised a dilemma about this.

讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞爪讬讜 讘专讜讘 讗讘专 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬注讜讟 讚讘讙讜讗讬 诪讛讜 诇诪讬砖讚讬讬讛 讘转专 专讜讘 讗讘专

Rather, the dilemma is referring to a case where half of the fetus emerged, but that half includes the majority of a certain limb, and Rava raises the following dilemma: With regard to this minority part of a limb that is inside the womb, what is the halakha as to whether one casts it and counts it together with the majority of that limb and considers it as if that entire limb has emerged? If it is counted, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged, and it is duly consecrated.

转讗 砖诪注 讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讜讘讜 诪诪砖 注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a statement of the mishna: If a majority of the fetus had already emerged, it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up it must be buried. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by a majority of the fetus? If we say it means literally the majority of the fetus, then the following difficulty arises: Until now had we not learned the principle that the majority of an item is considered like all of it? This is a well-established principle and it is not necessary to teach it again in this context.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞爪讬讜 讘专讜讘 讗讘专

Rather, is the mishna not referring to a case where half of the fetus emerged, but that half includes the majority of a limb? If so, the mishna directly resolves Rava鈥檚 dilemma and teaches that the minority part of the limb inside the womb is regarded as though it had emerged.

诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讘诪讬注讜讟 讗讘专 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 砖讘拽讬谞谉 专讜讘讜 讚注讜讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讜讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讘专

The Gemara responds: No, the mishna could be referring to a case where the majority of the fetus emerged, but that majority includes the emergence of the minority of a limb, and it teaches us that we do not disregard the majority of the fetus and go after the majority of the limb.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻专讻讜 讘住讬讘 诪讛讜 讘讟诇讬转讜 诪讛讜

搂 A firstborn animal is consecrated by virtue of the fact that its birth is the first in which the womb of the mother opens, as indicated by the verse: 鈥淐onsecrate to Me every firstborn, that which opens the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:2). Concerning this condition, Rava raises a dilemma: If one wrapped the fetus in the bast of a palm tree while it was still in the womb, and it therefore did not come in contact with the opening of the womb directly when it emerged, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is consecrated? Likewise, if one wrapped it in his robe when it emerged, what is the halakha?

讘砖诇讬转讜 诪讛讜 讘砖诇讬转讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘砖诇讬讗 讗讞专转 诪讛讜

Rava adds: If it emerged wrapped in its afterbirth, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: How could one suggest that being wrapped in its afterbirth would pose a problem? That is its natural manner of birth, and the afterbirth is consequently not considered an interposition. Accordingly, it is considered as though it was in direct contact with the opening of the womb. Rather, Rava鈥檚 dilemma must be as follows: If it emerged wrapped in the afterbirth of a different animal, what is the halakha?

讻专讻转讜 讜讗讞讝转讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚谞驻拽 讚专讱 专讬砖讬讛 驻讟专转讬讛 讗诇讗 讚谞驻拽 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜

Another dilemma: If one wrapped it in one鈥檚 hands and held it and brought it out in that fashion, such that the fetus did not come in direct contact with the opening of the womb, what is the halakha? With regard to all these dilemmas the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the fetus had already partially emerged headfirst and then one wrapped up the body, which was still inside the womb, the halakha in such a case is clear: Since its head emerged, it is already considered to have been born and to have opened up the womb, and it is duly consecrated. Rather, the dilemma is in a case where it partially emerged hind legs first, and the majority of the body, which was still in the womb, was wrapped before it emerged.

讘诇注转讛讜 讞讜诇讚讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 诪讛讜 讛讜爪讬讗转讜 讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诇注转讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 讜讛讻谞讬住转讜 讜讛拽讬讗转讜 讜讬爪讗 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讛讜

Rava raises additional dilemmas: If a weasel entered the womb and swallowed the fetus there, and then exited the womb, bringing the fetus out in its stomach, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: Is there any doubt about a case where the weasel brought the fetus out in its stomach? In such a case it is the weasel that brought it out, and it is certainly not regarded as though the fetus opened the womb. Rather, the dilemma concerns a case where the weasel swallowed the fetus and brought it out, and then brought it back into the womb and vomited it out while inside the womb, and the fetus subsequently emerged of its own accord. What is the halakha in this case?

讛讚讘讬拽 砖谞讬 专讞诪讬诐 讜讬爪讗 诪讝讛 讜谞讻谞住 诇讝讛 诪讛讜 讚讬讚讬讛 驻讟专 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 驻讟专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 驻讟专 转讬拽讜

Another dilemma: If one pressed together the openings of two wombs of two animals giving birth to firstborns, and a fetus exited from the womb of this animal and entered the womb of that animal, and then emerged from the womb of the second animal, after which the second animal gave birth to its fetus, what is the halakha with regard to whether the fetus of the second animal is consecrated as a firstborn? Is the womb considered to have opened only when its own fetus emerges from inside, but a fetus that is not its own is not halakhically considered to have opened the womb? Or perhaps even a fetus that is not its own is also considered to have opened the womb? The Gemara does not provide a resolution for these dilemmas and concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讗 谞驻转讞讜 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诪讛讜 讗讜讬专 专讞诐 诪拽讚讬砖 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 谞讙讬注转 专讞诐 诪拽讚砖讛 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

Rav A岣 raises a dilemma: If the walls of the opening of the womb opened and widened to such an extent that when the fetus emerged it did not touch them, what is the halakha? Does the airspace of the opening of the womb consecrate the fetus as it is born, and this situation exists here in this case; or perhaps it is the contact with the opening of the womb that consecrates it, and this situation does not exist here in this case?

讘注讬 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞注拽专讜 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诪讛讜 谞注拽专讜 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞注拽专讜 讜转诇讜 诇讬讛 讘爪讜讗专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诪拽讚砖讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 谞诪讬 诪拽讚砖讬

Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the walls of the opening of the womb were removed, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: The halakha in this case is clear, since if they were removed they are not there to consecrate the fetus. Rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were removed from their original place, recessed inside the womb, and as the fetus emerged, the walls lay on its neck. In such a case, what is the halakha? Do the walls of the opening of the womb consecrate a fetus only when they are in their natural place, but when they are not in their natural place they cannot consecrate a fetus? Or perhaps when they are not in their natural place they also consecrate the fetus.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讙诪诪讜 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 谞讙注转 讘讘注讬讗 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讜讬爪讗 讚专讱 驻专讜抓 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讜讬爪讗 讚专讱 注讜诪讚 诪讗讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the walls of the opening of the womb were thinned [nigmemu] by removing the inner layer, what is the halakha? If the fetus then emerges through them is it consecrated? Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have touched upon a dilemma that was already raised before us, and that discussion provides the answer to your dilemma. As Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma, and some say Rabbi Zeira raised that dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If a section of the opening of the womb was cut away, but the standing section, i.e., the part remaining, is greater in size than the breached, removed, section, and the offspring emerged through the breached section; or if the breached section is greater in size than the standing section and the offspring emerged through the standing section, what is the halakha?

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诪讚 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 谞讙诪诪讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi Zeira explains how this dilemma can resolve Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 dilemma: That dilemma was raised only with regard to a case where the breached section is greater than the standing section, as there is at least some part of the womb still standing and therefore one can consider the possibility that it could consecrate the fetus. But a dilemma was not raised with regard to case where the walls were thinned, because in that case it is obvious that the fetus is not consecrated, as there is nothing left to consecrate it.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 砖诪转 注讜讘专讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 讜讛讜砖讬讟 讛专讜注讛 讗转 讬讚讜 讜谞讙注 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讘讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗 讜讘讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专

MISHNA: With regard to an animal whose fetus died in its womb and the shepherd reached his hand into the womb and touched the fetus, both in the case of a non-kosher animal and in the case of a kosher animal the fetus does not have the status of an animal carcass that imparts ritual impurity, and the shepherd remains ritually pure. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: In the case of a non-kosher animal it is impure, and in the case of a kosher animal it is pure.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 讛讜注讬诇讛 讗诪讜 诇讛转讬专讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 转讜注讬诇 诇讜 诇讟讛讜专讬讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the first tanna? Rav 岣sda said: It is apparent through an a fortiori inference: If being inside its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through the slaughter of its mother even if the fetus was found dead inside the womb, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass?

讗砖讻讞谉 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬转拽砖 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 注讜讘专讛 讟讛讜专 讗祝 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注讜讘专讛 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: We found a rationale for this halakha with regard to a kosher animal; from where do we derive that the same applies to a non-kosher animal? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The Gemara interprets the verse as follows: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies,鈥 this is referring to a non-kosher animal; 鈥渙f those that you eat,鈥 this is referring to a kosher animal. The verse thereby juxtaposes a non-kosher animal to a kosher animal with regard to imparting impurity of a carcass, and teaches that just as with regard to a kosher animal, its fetus that died in its womb is pure, as derived above through an a fortiori inference, so too, with regard to a non-kosher animal, its dead fetus is pure.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讛讜诇讱 注诇 讻驻讬讜 讘讻诇 讛讞讬讛 讛讛诇讻转 讜讙讜壮 诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘讞讬讛 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Yitz岣k said that the verse states with regard to non-kosher animals that do not have cloven hooves: 鈥淎nd whatever walks on its paws, among any [bekhol] undomesticated animal [岣yya] that walks on all fours, they are impure for you; whoever touches their carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:27). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds this verse as follows: Those animals that walk on their paws, i.e., that do not have cloven hooves, which are inside the body of an animal, I rendered impure for you. Rabbi Yitz岣k interprets the term bekhol as meaning: Inside the body of, and the word 岣yya as meaning: A live animal. Accordingly, he understands the verse to be referring to a dead fetus found inside a living animal.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 拽诇讜讟 讘诪注讬 驻专讛 诇讬讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘讞讬讛 讛讜讗 诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讜讛讗讬 诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讘诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then a dead fetus with non-cloven hooves found inside a cow should be impure, despite the fact that it is from a kosher species, as it is an animal that walks on its paws that is inside the body of a kosher animal. The Gemara explains: The verse renders impure an animal that walks upon its four paws that is inside an animal that walks on four paws. But this is a case of an animal that walks on four inside an animal that walks on eight. Since the mother cow鈥檚 hooves are entirely split into two parts, it actually walks on eight parts and is not the animal referred to by the verse.

驻专讛 讘诪注讬 讙诪诇 诇讗 转讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讘诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讛讜讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讻诇 讛讜诇讱 诇专讘讜转 驻专讛 讘诪注讬 讙诪诇

The Gemara raises another objection: If that is so, then a dead fetus in the form of a cow, which has eight parts to its legs, inside the womb of a camel, a non-kosher animal with non-cloven hooves, should not be impure, as it is an animal that walks on eight inside an animal that walks on four, and the verse is not referring to it. The Gemara responds that the verse could have stated: Walks upon, but instead states: 鈥淎nd whatever walks upon,鈥 i.e., the addition of the word 鈥渨hatever鈥 serves to include a dead cow fetus in the womb of a camel, teaching that it is impure.

拽诇讜讟 讘诪注讬 拽诇讜讟讛 诇讬讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讘诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讛讜讗 诇讛讻讬 讗讛谞讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then a dead fetus with non-cloven hooves inside the womb of a cow with non-cloven hooves should be impure, as it is an animal that walks on four inside an animal that walks on four, but the halakha is that since the mother is a kosher species, it is pure. The Gemara explains: It is to that end that the a fortiori inference of Rav 岣sda is effective, as it renders pure the fetuses of all kosher animals, even if their hooves are not fully cloven.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讞讝讬专 讘诪注讬 讞讝讬专转讗 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讘诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讛讜讗

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami objects to this explanation that the verse renders impure only animals that walk on four inside animals that walk on four: If that is so, a dead pig fetus inside the womb of a female pig should not be impure, as a pig has cloven hooves, and so it is an animal that walks on eight inside an animal that walks on eight, and so the verse is not referring to it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讛讻讗 谞驻砖 讻讬 转讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 讗讜 讘谞讘诇转 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讜 讘谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讜 讘谞讘诇转 砖专抓 讟诪讗

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the sliding-scale offering brought by one who was unaware that he was impure when he ate consecrated food or entered the Temple: 鈥淎 person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of an impure creeping animal, and is guilty, it having being hidden from him that he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:2).

讜讻讬 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讜讘讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 注讜讘专 砖讘讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗 讜讘讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专

The verse presents a difficulty: Does only a carcass of a non-kosher animal impart impurity, and that of a kosher animal not impart impurity? The halakha is that both do. Rather, what is this animal to which the verse is referring? This is a fetus, which if inside a non-kosher animal is impure, and if inside a kosher animal is pure.

讜诪讗讞专 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And since this halakha is derived from the statement of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, why do I need the proof of Rabbi Yitz岣k from the verse: 鈥淎nd whatever walks on its paws, among any undomesticated animal that walks on all fours鈥 (Leviticus 11:27)? The Gemara explains: Were it not for the derivation of Rabbi Yitz岣k, I would say that the entire verse expounded by Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k comes to teach only that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derived from it, as cited by the Gemara later on. Rabbi Yitz岣k鈥檚 statement teaches us that the verse is also to be expounded as Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explained.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 谞诪转讬 诇讜 诇讘谉 注讝讗讬 诇诪讚谞讜 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讜谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 谞讘诇转 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛

搂 It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan, a student of Rabbi Yishmael, says: I said [namti] to ben Azzai: We learned that a carcass of a kosher domesticated animal imparts impurity from the verse: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). And we learned that a carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal imparts impurity, and that a carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal imparts impurity, from the verse: 鈥淎 person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal鈥 (Leviticus 5:2).

谞讘诇转 讞讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪谞讬谉 谞诐 诇讬 讻诇 讛讜诇讱 注诇 讻驻讬讜 讘讻诇 讛讞讬讛 讛讛诇讻转

But we did not yet learn about a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal. From where is it derived that it imparts impurity? Ben Azzai said to me that this is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd whatever walks on its paws, among any undomesticated animal that walks on all fours鈥 (Leviticus 11:27). The inclusive term 鈥渁mong any鈥 serves to include even a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal among those that impart impurity.

谞诪转讬 诇讜 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讞讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讻诇 讛讞讬讛 诇诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 谞诐 诇讬 讜诪讛 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 讛讝讛

Rabbi Yonatan continues. I said to ben Azzai: But does it state: And any undomesticated animal? Isn鈥檛 it stated only: 鈥淎mong any undomesticated animal鈥? And as explained earlier, this comes to teach that a dead fetus in the form of any of the animals that walk on their paws inside an undomesticated animal imparts impurity. He said to me: And what does Rabbi Yishmael, your teacher, say about this matter?

谞诪转讬 诇讜 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讚谞讜 讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讘讛诪讛 讘讻诇诇 讞讬讛

I said to him that Rabbi Yishmael derives all these halakhot from the verse: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39), as follows: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal [habehema] dies,鈥 this is referring to a non-kosher animal; 鈥渙f those that you eat,鈥 this is referring to a kosher animal. And we learned that a 岣yya is included in the category of a behema, i.e., the term behema can also refer collectively to both domesticated and undomesticated animals. And likewise, a behema is included in the category of a 岣yya.

讞讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

Furthermore, a kosher 岣yya is included when the Torah makes reference to a kosher behema, and a non-kosher 岣yya is included when the Torah makes reference to a non-kosher behema.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 70

讜讗讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if their dispute was stated only with regard to that case, when one-third emerged through the wall of the womb, one might have thought it is only in that case that Rabba says the animal is consecrated from that point forward, as that results in a stringency, i.e., the fetus is subject to firstborn status. But in this case, when after one-third emerged it was sold to a gentile, and where ruling that the animal is consecrated from that point forward results in a leniency, one might say that Rabba concedes to Rav Huna. Therefore, it was necessary for the dispute to be stated in both cases.

转谞谉 讛诪讘讻专转 讛诪拽砖讛 诇讬诇讚 诪讞转讱 讗讘专 讗讘专 讜诪砖诇讬讱 诇讻诇讘讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讗 拽讚讜砖 讬拽讘专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the opinion of Rav Huna. We learned in the mishna: If an animal that was giving birth to a firstborn male was encountering difficulty giving birth, and in order to alleviate the difficulty one wishes to terminate the birth, he may cut up the fetus limb by limb and cast it to the dogs. What, is it not teaching that one cuts each limb and leaves it outside the body, casting the limbs to the dogs only after he has already extracted a majority of its body? And if you say a firstborn is consecrated retroactively, then once the majority of the fetus emerges from the womb all of the limbs would be consecrated retroactively according to Rav Huna. Accordingly, the mishna should have said the limbs must be buried.

诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讞转讱 讜诪砖诇讬讱

The Gemara responds: No, here we are dealing with one who cuts each limb and immediately casts it to the dogs, before any consecration takes effect.

讗讘诇 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 诪讗讬 讬拽讘专 讗讚转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讬拽讘专 讜谞驻讟专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讞转讱 讜诪砖诇讬讱 讗讘专 讗讘专 讗讘诇 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 讬拽讘专

The Gemara asks: But according to this, if one cuts the limbs and leaves them, what is the halakha? Each one must be buried. If that is so, rather than teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: If a majority of the fetus had already emerged it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up it must be buried, and any future offspring from that animal is exempted from firstborn status; let the tanna instead distinguish and teach a case in which the limbs are consecrated within the context of the first case itself, in the following manner: In what case is this statement, that the limbs may be cast to the dogs, said? It is with regard to one who cuts pieces of the fetus and immediately casts them to the dogs limb by limb, before a majority has emerged. But if one cuts and leaves the limbs until a majority has emerged, each one of them must be buried.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讞转讱 讜诪砖诇讬讱 讗讘诇 诪讞转讱 讜诪谞讬讞 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讜讬拽讘专

The Gemara answers: That is indeed what the latter clause of the mishna is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to one who cuts and casts the limbs to the dogs before a majority emerges. But if one cuts and leaves the limbs until a majority emerges it is regarded as though a majority of it emerged at one time, and so it must be buried.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讗讬讘专讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讗讬讘专讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

Rava raises a dilemma: Does one follow the majority with regard to limbs or does one not follow the majority with regard to limbs? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this dilemma; what exactly is Rava鈥檚 question?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘 讘诪讬注讜讟 讗讘专 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讬注讜讟 讚讘专讗讬 讘转专 专讜讘 讚讗讘专 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚注讜讘专 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

If we say it is referring to a case where the majority of the fetus emerged, but that majority includes the emergence of the minority part of one of its limbs, then Rava is raising the following dilemma: With regard to this minority part of a limb that is outside the womb, do we cast it, i.e., count it, together with the majority of that limb, which is still inside the womb, as if the entire limb was still inside the womb? If so, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has not yet emerged. Or perhaps we cast it and count it together with the majority of the fetus that has already emerged, and so it is regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged and it is duly consecrated.

驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 砖讘拽讬谞谉 专讜讘讗 讚注讜讘专 讜讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘 讗讘专

The Gemara rejects this possibility: In that case it is obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the fetus and go after the majority of the limb. Consequently, Rava would not have raised a dilemma about this.

讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞爪讬讜 讘专讜讘 讗讘专 讜拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬注讜讟 讚讘讙讜讗讬 诪讛讜 诇诪讬砖讚讬讬讛 讘转专 专讜讘 讗讘专

Rather, the dilemma is referring to a case where half of the fetus emerged, but that half includes the majority of a certain limb, and Rava raises the following dilemma: With regard to this minority part of a limb that is inside the womb, what is the halakha as to whether one casts it and counts it together with the majority of that limb and considers it as if that entire limb has emerged? If it is counted, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged, and it is duly consecrated.

转讗 砖诪注 讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讜讘讜 诪诪砖 注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讚专讜讘讜 讻讻讜诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a statement of the mishna: If a majority of the fetus had already emerged, it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up it must be buried. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by a majority of the fetus? If we say it means literally the majority of the fetus, then the following difficulty arises: Until now had we not learned the principle that the majority of an item is considered like all of it? This is a well-established principle and it is not necessary to teach it again in this context.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讞爪讬讜 讘专讜讘 讗讘专

Rather, is the mishna not referring to a case where half of the fetus emerged, but that half includes the majority of a limb? If so, the mishna directly resolves Rava鈥檚 dilemma and teaches that the minority part of the limb inside the womb is regarded as though it had emerged.

诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 专讜讘讜 讘诪讬注讜讟 讗讘专 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 砖讘拽讬谞谉 专讜讘讜 讚注讜讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讜讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讗讘专

The Gemara responds: No, the mishna could be referring to a case where the majority of the fetus emerged, but that majority includes the emergence of the minority of a limb, and it teaches us that we do not disregard the majority of the fetus and go after the majority of the limb.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻专讻讜 讘住讬讘 诪讛讜 讘讟诇讬转讜 诪讛讜

搂 A firstborn animal is consecrated by virtue of the fact that its birth is the first in which the womb of the mother opens, as indicated by the verse: 鈥淐onsecrate to Me every firstborn, that which opens the womb鈥 (Exodus 13:2). Concerning this condition, Rava raises a dilemma: If one wrapped the fetus in the bast of a palm tree while it was still in the womb, and it therefore did not come in contact with the opening of the womb directly when it emerged, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is consecrated? Likewise, if one wrapped it in his robe when it emerged, what is the halakha?

讘砖诇讬转讜 诪讛讜 讘砖诇讬转讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘砖诇讬讗 讗讞专转 诪讛讜

Rava adds: If it emerged wrapped in its afterbirth, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: How could one suggest that being wrapped in its afterbirth would pose a problem? That is its natural manner of birth, and the afterbirth is consequently not considered an interposition. Accordingly, it is considered as though it was in direct contact with the opening of the womb. Rather, Rava鈥檚 dilemma must be as follows: If it emerged wrapped in the afterbirth of a different animal, what is the halakha?

讻专讻转讜 讜讗讞讝转讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚谞驻拽 讚专讱 专讬砖讬讛 驻讟专转讬讛 讗诇讗 讚谞驻拽 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜

Another dilemma: If one wrapped it in one鈥檚 hands and held it and brought it out in that fashion, such that the fetus did not come in direct contact with the opening of the womb, what is the halakha? With regard to all these dilemmas the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the fetus had already partially emerged headfirst and then one wrapped up the body, which was still inside the womb, the halakha in such a case is clear: Since its head emerged, it is already considered to have been born and to have opened up the womb, and it is duly consecrated. Rather, the dilemma is in a case where it partially emerged hind legs first, and the majority of the body, which was still in the womb, was wrapped before it emerged.

讘诇注转讛讜 讞讜诇讚讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 诪讛讜 讛讜爪讬讗转讜 讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诇注转讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗转讜 讜讛讻谞讬住转讜 讜讛拽讬讗转讜 讜讬爪讗 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讛讜

Rava raises additional dilemmas: If a weasel entered the womb and swallowed the fetus there, and then exited the womb, bringing the fetus out in its stomach, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: Is there any doubt about a case where the weasel brought the fetus out in its stomach? In such a case it is the weasel that brought it out, and it is certainly not regarded as though the fetus opened the womb. Rather, the dilemma concerns a case where the weasel swallowed the fetus and brought it out, and then brought it back into the womb and vomited it out while inside the womb, and the fetus subsequently emerged of its own accord. What is the halakha in this case?

讛讚讘讬拽 砖谞讬 专讞诪讬诐 讜讬爪讗 诪讝讛 讜谞讻谞住 诇讝讛 诪讛讜 讚讬讚讬讛 驻讟专 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 驻讟专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 驻讟专 转讬拽讜

Another dilemma: If one pressed together the openings of two wombs of two animals giving birth to firstborns, and a fetus exited from the womb of this animal and entered the womb of that animal, and then emerged from the womb of the second animal, after which the second animal gave birth to its fetus, what is the halakha with regard to whether the fetus of the second animal is consecrated as a firstborn? Is the womb considered to have opened only when its own fetus emerges from inside, but a fetus that is not its own is not halakhically considered to have opened the womb? Or perhaps even a fetus that is not its own is also considered to have opened the womb? The Gemara does not provide a resolution for these dilemmas and concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讗 谞驻转讞讜 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诪讛讜 讗讜讬专 专讞诐 诪拽讚讬砖 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 谞讙讬注转 专讞诐 诪拽讚砖讛 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

Rav A岣 raises a dilemma: If the walls of the opening of the womb opened and widened to such an extent that when the fetus emerged it did not touch them, what is the halakha? Does the airspace of the opening of the womb consecrate the fetus as it is born, and this situation exists here in this case; or perhaps it is the contact with the opening of the womb that consecrates it, and this situation does not exist here in this case?

讘注讬 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞注拽专讜 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诪讛讜 谞注拽专讜 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞注拽专讜 讜转诇讜 诇讬讛 讘爪讜讗专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诪拽讚砖讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 谞诪讬 诪拽讚砖讬

Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the walls of the opening of the womb were removed, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: The halakha in this case is clear, since if they were removed they are not there to consecrate the fetus. Rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were removed from their original place, recessed inside the womb, and as the fetus emerged, the walls lay on its neck. In such a case, what is the halakha? Do the walls of the opening of the womb consecrate a fetus only when they are in their natural place, but when they are not in their natural place they cannot consecrate a fetus? Or perhaps when they are not in their natural place they also consecrate the fetus.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讙诪诪讜 讻讜转诇讬 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讗 谞讙注转 讘讘注讬讗 讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讜讬爪讗 讚专讱 驻专讜抓 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讜讬爪讗 讚专讱 注讜诪讚 诪讗讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the walls of the opening of the womb were thinned [nigmemu] by removing the inner layer, what is the halakha? If the fetus then emerges through them is it consecrated? Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have touched upon a dilemma that was already raised before us, and that discussion provides the answer to your dilemma. As Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma, and some say Rabbi Zeira raised that dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If a section of the opening of the womb was cut away, but the standing section, i.e., the part remaining, is greater in size than the breached, removed, section, and the offspring emerged through the breached section; or if the breached section is greater in size than the standing section and the offspring emerged through the standing section, what is the halakha?

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诪讚 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 谞讙诪诪讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi Zeira explains how this dilemma can resolve Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 dilemma: That dilemma was raised only with regard to a case where the breached section is greater than the standing section, as there is at least some part of the womb still standing and therefore one can consider the possibility that it could consecrate the fetus. But a dilemma was not raised with regard to case where the walls were thinned, because in that case it is obvious that the fetus is not consecrated, as there is nothing left to consecrate it.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 砖诪转 注讜讘专讛 讘转讜讱 诪注讬讛 讜讛讜砖讬讟 讛专讜注讛 讗转 讬讚讜 讜谞讙注 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讘讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗 讜讘讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专

MISHNA: With regard to an animal whose fetus died in its womb and the shepherd reached his hand into the womb and touched the fetus, both in the case of a non-kosher animal and in the case of a kosher animal the fetus does not have the status of an animal carcass that imparts ritual impurity, and the shepherd remains ritually pure. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: In the case of a non-kosher animal it is impure, and in the case of a kosher animal it is pure.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诐 讛讜注讬诇讛 讗诪讜 诇讛转讬专讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 转讜注讬诇 诇讜 诇讟讛讜专讬讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the first tanna? Rav 岣sda said: It is apparent through an a fortiori inference: If being inside its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through the slaughter of its mother even if the fetus was found dead inside the womb, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass?

讗砖讻讞谉 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬转拽砖 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 注讜讘专讛 讟讛讜专 讗祝 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 注讜讘专讛 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: We found a rationale for this halakha with regard to a kosher animal; from where do we derive that the same applies to a non-kosher animal? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The Gemara interprets the verse as follows: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies,鈥 this is referring to a non-kosher animal; 鈥渙f those that you eat,鈥 this is referring to a kosher animal. The verse thereby juxtaposes a non-kosher animal to a kosher animal with regard to imparting impurity of a carcass, and teaches that just as with regard to a kosher animal, its fetus that died in its womb is pure, as derived above through an a fortiori inference, so too, with regard to a non-kosher animal, its dead fetus is pure.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讛讜诇讱 注诇 讻驻讬讜 讘讻诇 讛讞讬讛 讛讛诇讻转 讜讙讜壮 诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘讞讬讛 讟诪讗转讬 诇讱

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Yitz岣k said that the verse states with regard to non-kosher animals that do not have cloven hooves: 鈥淎nd whatever walks on its paws, among any [bekhol] undomesticated animal [岣yya] that walks on all fours, they are impure for you; whoever touches their carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:27). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds this verse as follows: Those animals that walk on their paws, i.e., that do not have cloven hooves, which are inside the body of an animal, I rendered impure for you. Rabbi Yitz岣k interprets the term bekhol as meaning: Inside the body of, and the word 岣yya as meaning: A live animal. Accordingly, he understands the verse to be referring to a dead fetus found inside a living animal.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 拽诇讜讟 讘诪注讬 驻专讛 诇讬讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘讞讬讛 讛讜讗 诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讜讛讗讬 诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讘诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then a dead fetus with non-cloven hooves found inside a cow should be impure, despite the fact that it is from a kosher species, as it is an animal that walks on its paws that is inside the body of a kosher animal. The Gemara explains: The verse renders impure an animal that walks upon its four paws that is inside an animal that walks on four paws. But this is a case of an animal that walks on four inside an animal that walks on eight. Since the mother cow鈥檚 hooves are entirely split into two parts, it actually walks on eight parts and is not the animal referred to by the verse.

驻专讛 讘诪注讬 讙诪诇 诇讗 转讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讘诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讛讜讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讻诇 讛讜诇讱 诇专讘讜转 驻专讛 讘诪注讬 讙诪诇

The Gemara raises another objection: If that is so, then a dead fetus in the form of a cow, which has eight parts to its legs, inside the womb of a camel, a non-kosher animal with non-cloven hooves, should not be impure, as it is an animal that walks on eight inside an animal that walks on four, and the verse is not referring to it. The Gemara responds that the verse could have stated: Walks upon, but instead states: 鈥淎nd whatever walks upon,鈥 i.e., the addition of the word 鈥渨hatever鈥 serves to include a dead cow fetus in the womb of a camel, teaching that it is impure.

拽诇讜讟 讘诪注讬 拽诇讜讟讛 诇讬讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讘诪讛诇讻讬 讗专讘注 讛讜讗 诇讛讻讬 讗讛谞讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then a dead fetus with non-cloven hooves inside the womb of a cow with non-cloven hooves should be impure, as it is an animal that walks on four inside an animal that walks on four, but the halakha is that since the mother is a kosher species, it is pure. The Gemara explains: It is to that end that the a fortiori inference of Rav 岣sda is effective, as it renders pure the fetuses of all kosher animals, even if their hooves are not fully cloven.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讞讝讬专 讘诪注讬 讞讝讬专转讗 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讗 讚诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讘诪讛诇讻讬 砖诪谞讛 讛讜讗

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami objects to this explanation that the verse renders impure only animals that walk on four inside animals that walk on four: If that is so, a dead pig fetus inside the womb of a female pig should not be impure, as a pig has cloven hooves, and so it is an animal that walks on eight inside an animal that walks on eight, and so the verse is not referring to it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讛讻讗 谞驻砖 讻讬 转讙注 讘讻诇 讟诪讗 讗讜 讘谞讘诇转 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讜 讘谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讜 讘谞讘诇转 砖专抓 讟诪讗

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the sliding-scale offering brought by one who was unaware that he was impure when he ate consecrated food or entered the Temple: 鈥淎 person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of an impure creeping animal, and is guilty, it having being hidden from him that he is impure鈥 (Leviticus 5:2).

讜讻讬 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讜讘讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛 讝讛 讝讛 注讜讘专 砖讘讟诪讗讛 讟诪讗 讜讘讟讛讜专讛 讟讛讜专

The verse presents a difficulty: Does only a carcass of a non-kosher animal impart impurity, and that of a kosher animal not impart impurity? The halakha is that both do. Rather, what is this animal to which the verse is referring? This is a fetus, which if inside a non-kosher animal is impure, and if inside a kosher animal is pure.

讜诪讗讞专 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And since this halakha is derived from the statement of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, why do I need the proof of Rabbi Yitz岣k from the verse: 鈥淎nd whatever walks on its paws, among any undomesticated animal that walks on all fours鈥 (Leviticus 11:27)? The Gemara explains: Were it not for the derivation of Rabbi Yitz岣k, I would say that the entire verse expounded by Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k comes to teach only that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derived from it, as cited by the Gemara later on. Rabbi Yitz岣k鈥檚 statement teaches us that the verse is also to be expounded as Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explained.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 谞诪转讬 诇讜 诇讘谉 注讝讗讬 诇诪讚谞讜 谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讜谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛 谞讘诇转 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诪讟诪讗讛

搂 It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan, a student of Rabbi Yishmael, says: I said [namti] to ben Azzai: We learned that a carcass of a kosher domesticated animal imparts impurity from the verse: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). And we learned that a carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal imparts impurity, and that a carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal imparts impurity, from the verse: 鈥淎 person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal鈥 (Leviticus 5:2).

谞讘诇转 讞讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪谞讬谉 谞诐 诇讬 讻诇 讛讜诇讱 注诇 讻驻讬讜 讘讻诇 讛讞讬讛 讛讛诇讻转

But we did not yet learn about a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal. From where is it derived that it imparts impurity? Ben Azzai said to me that this is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd whatever walks on its paws, among any undomesticated animal that walks on all fours鈥 (Leviticus 11:27). The inclusive term 鈥渁mong any鈥 serves to include even a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal among those that impart impurity.

谞诪转讬 诇讜 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讞讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讻诇 讛讞讬讛 诇诪讛诇讻讬 讻驻讬诐 讘讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 谞诐 诇讬 讜诪讛 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 讛讝讛

Rabbi Yonatan continues. I said to ben Azzai: But does it state: And any undomesticated animal? Isn鈥檛 it stated only: 鈥淎mong any undomesticated animal鈥? And as explained earlier, this comes to teach that a dead fetus in the form of any of the animals that walk on their paws inside an undomesticated animal imparts impurity. He said to me: And what does Rabbi Yishmael, your teacher, say about this matter?

谞诪转讬 诇讜 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 讝讜 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇诪讚谞讜 讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讘讛诪讛 讘讻诇诇 讞讬讛

I said to him that Rabbi Yishmael derives all these halakhot from the verse: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39), as follows: 鈥淎nd when a domesticated animal [habehema] dies,鈥 this is referring to a non-kosher animal; 鈥渙f those that you eat,鈥 this is referring to a kosher animal. And we learned that a 岣yya is included in the category of a behema, i.e., the term behema can also refer collectively to both domesticated and undomesticated animals. And likewise, a behema is included in the category of a 岣yya.

讞讬讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讞讬讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛

Furthermore, a kosher 岣yya is included when the Torah makes reference to a kosher behema, and a non-kosher 岣yya is included when the Torah makes reference to a non-kosher behema.

Scroll To Top