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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 7, 2019 | 讘壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 72

What is Rabba adding that wasn’t already said in other mishnayot聽regarding impurity that is inside? If a limb of an animal comes out during labor and is cut off, does it pass on impurity of a dead carcass of an animal to the rest of the fetus? And if so, what type of impurity?


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

讜讛讗 注讜讘专 讜讞讬讛 讚讻砖转讬 讟讘注讜转 讚诪讜 讜拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 注讜讘专 诇讞讬讛

The Gemara objects: But what about the mishna鈥檚 case of a dead fetus in its mother鈥檚 womb, and a midwife who touched it there, which is similar to the case of two swallowed rings, and yet the mishna rules that the fetus renders the midwife impure.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讗谞讬 注讜讘专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讜讘专 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 讟讘注转 讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗讬 讬讚注讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讬讜住祝

Rabba said: A fetus is different from a ring in this regard, since it will ultimately leave the womb. Rava said in puzzlement: Is that to say that a fetus will ultimately leave the womb, but a ring that someone swallowed will not ultimately leave his body? A ring will certainly be expelled eventually as well. Rather, Rava said: The scholars of Pumbedita know the reason for this matter, and who is the Sage referred to as the scholars of Pumbedita? It is Rav Yosef.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专 讙讝专讜 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚专讘谞谉

As Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This impurity of the midwife in the mishna鈥檚 case is not in effect by Torah law; rather, it was decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: What was Shmuel鈥檚 intention in emphasizing: It is not in effect by Torah law; rather, it was decreed by rabbinic law? It should have sufficed for him to say simply the impurity is decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: He said this so that you should not say that the ruling of the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is impure by Torah law, and that is why the midwife was rendered impure. Rather, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is pure by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a midwife who touches it is impure by rabbinic law.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this decree? Rav Hoshaya said: It is a rabbinic decree lest the fetus extend its head out of the concealed opening of its mother鈥檚 womb. If it did, it would be regarded as having been born, and it would then be ritually impure by Torah law. The Sages were concerned that the fetus extended its head and then the head returned inside but the midwife did not notice. Consequently, when she touched the fetus she mistakenly assumed she remained ritually pure. To safeguard against this, the Sages decreed that in any case where she touches the dead fetus, she is ritually impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 讗砖讛 诪专讙砖转 讘注爪诪讛 讜转讬诪讗 诇讛 诇讞讬讛 讟专讬讚讗

The Gemara objects: If so, the Sages should also decree that the woman herself, who is carrying the fetus, is impure, since she also might not notice that the fetus鈥檚 head emerged. The Gemara explains: A woman accurately senses with regard to her own body whether the head of the fetus had emerged. The Gemara asks: But then she would have said this to the midwife. Why is there a need for a decree? The Gemara answers: Since the mother is distracted by the pain of childbirth, she does not have the presence of mind to warn the midwife.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽

The Gemara cited a dispute as to whether one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is ritually impure. It now elucidates that dispute: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by the sword, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:16). The phrase 鈥渋n the open field鈥 indicates that one is rendered impure only in a case where he touches an exposed corpse. This serves to exclude one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb from being rendered impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This phrase serves to include the grave cover and the grave walls, upon which the cover rests, as sources of impurity that render impure anyone who touches them.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讟诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讙注 讘诪转 讘谞驻砖 讗讬讝讛讜 诪转 砖讘谞驻砖 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬 讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that the grave cover and the grave walls render one who touches them impure? He learned this halakha through tradition, not from a verse. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is impure by Torah law? Rabbi Oshaya said he derives it from the verse that states: 鈥淲hoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died, he will be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:13). The term 鈥渙f the life鈥 can also be interpreted as: Inside the life. What is the case of a corpse that is inside the life of a person? You must say that this is a dead fetus inside a woman鈥檚 womb.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖诪讟诪讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讙注 讘诪转 讘谞驻砖 讛讗讚诐 讗讬讝讛讜 谞驻砖 砖诇 讗讚诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse to teach about a quarter-log of blood that comes from a corpse, meaning that even it imparts impurity like a corpse, as it is stated: 鈥淲hoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died鈥 (Numbers 19:13). What is the case of a life of a person that imparts impurity? You must say this is referring to a quarterlog of blood, as blood is regarded as the life force of a person, as the verse states: 鈥淔or the blood is the life鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23), and a person requires a minimum of a quarter-log of blood to survive.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗讛 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva does not accept this derivation. He conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says even a quarterlog of blood that comes from two corpses imparts ritual impurity in a tent to people and other items that are under the same roof. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that a quarter-log of blood that came out of two separate corpses also imparts ritual impurity in a tent?

砖谞讗诪专 讜注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 砖转讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜砖讬注讜专 讗讞讚

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the prohibition against priests coming in contact with a dead body: 鈥淗e shall not come upon any people that are a corpse [nafshot met]鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). The use of the plural form 鈥減eople [nafshot]鈥 indicates that the blood imparts impurity even if it comes from two people, as blood is referred to as 鈥nefesh鈥 (see Deuteronomy 12:23), and the use of the singular form 鈥渃orpse [met]鈥 indicates that this blood combines to complete one measure, i.e., the minimum amount of a quarter-log required to impart impurity.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 讛诪拽砖讛 诇讬诇讚 讜讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讗转 讬讚讜 讜讞转讻讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讗诪讜 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 砖讞讟 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讻讛 讛讘砖专 诪讙注 谞讘诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: If an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and as a result the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother鈥檚 womb, and someone severed it and afterward slaughtered the mother animal, the flesh of the fetus is ritually pure. If one first slaughtered the mother animal and afterward severed the foreleg, the flesh of both the mother animal and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in contact with a carcass. Since the foreleg was not permitted to be consumed through the act of slaughtering, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted to be consumed by the slaughter, was in contact with it and so was rendered ritually impure from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙注 讟专驻讛 砖讞讜讟讛

And the Rabbis say: The flesh has the ritual impurity of having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered, as the limb is regarded as a tereifa that was slaughtered. By Torah law, although it is prohibited to consume it, it does not impart ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a tereifa that was slaughtered, as well as anything that comes in contact with it, is regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it disqualifies sacrificial foods that come in contact with it.

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讗祝 砖讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛讗讘专

The Rabbis explain the rationale behind their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., ritual slaughter prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that its consumption is prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛讗讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: No, if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the body of the animal ritually pure, it is because the slaughter is performed on something that is part of its body, i.e., its throat. Does it necessarily follow that you should also render the limb that left the womb pure, given that it is something that is not part of the mother鈥檚 body? Certainly not.

诪谞讬谉 诇讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 讟专驻讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讗祝 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讟讛专谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The mishna asks: From where is it derived with regard to a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure, i.e., prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass? The mishna notes there is a reason to say the slaughter should not render it pure, as one can compare a tereifa with a non-kosher animal: A non-kosher animal is prohibited for consumption; so too, a tereifa is prohibited for consumption. Therefore, conclude: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, its slaughter does not render it ritually pure, so too with regard to a tereifa, its slaughter should not render it ritually pure.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 转讗诪专 讘讟专驻讛 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

The mishna questions the comparison: No, if you said that slaughtering cannot prevent an animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass in the case of a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that it did not have a period of potential fitness when slaughtering it could have rendered its consumption permitted, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this in the case of a tereifa, which did have a period of potential fitness? Perhaps, since the animal had a period of potential fitness its slaughter remains effective in preventing it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass.

讟讜诇 诇讱 诪讛 砖讛讘讗转 讛专讬 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讟专驻讛 诪谉 讛讘讟谉 诪谞讬谉

The mishna rejects this distinction: Take back to yourself this claim that you brought, as it is insufficient. What about a case where an animal was born as a tereifa from the womb, and so it never had a period of potential fitness? For such a case, from where is it derived that its slaughter renders it ritually pure?

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 转讗诪专 讘讟专驻讛 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The mishna reformulates the distinction: No, if you say that slaughtering cannot prevent a prohibited animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, as the Torah states the concept of slaughtering only with regard to kosher animals, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this with regard to a tereifa kosher animal, given that there are other animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, i.e., kosher animals that are not tereifa? Perhaps, since the concept of slaughtering is relevant to that kind of animal it can serve to prevent the animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass even if the slaughter cannot render it permitted for consumption.

讘谉 砖诪谞讛 讞讬 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 砖讞讬讟讛

The mishna notes: Based on this reasoning, one must conclude that with regard to an eight-month-old fetus that was born alive, slaughter does not render it ritually pure, as there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering. The Torah applies the concept of slaughter only with regard to animals that were born full term.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Meir, if a foreleg of a fetus emerges from the womb and is severed after the slaughter of the mother, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. Furthermore, the rest of the fetus from which it was cut is thereby rendered ritually impure through its contact with the foreleg. The Gemara asks: Why should the rest of the fetus be impure? This is a case of impurity imparted within a concealed area, as the point of contact between the foreleg and the fetus existed when they were still naturally connected to each other. And the halakha is that an impure item within a concealed area does not impart impurity. If the two items were in contact in a concealed area and not on an external surface, impurity cannot be imparted from one item to the other. Shall we say that Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as he holds that an impure item within a concealed area does impart impurity?

讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讞诇拽 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛诪讚专住

This is as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 27:10) concerning ritual impurity imparted by treading: If a person who is ritually impure due to having experienced a bodily emission, such as a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], sits or leans upon an item that was designated for that purpose, the item is rendered ritually impure due to ritual impurity imparted by treading. The item will then impart impurity to people or utensils that come in contact with it. In the case of a garment that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading that was three by three handbreadths in size, i.e., the minimum size to impart such impurity, that was split into smaller pieces, each part is ritually pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading and will no longer impart impurity to people and utensils that come in contact with it.

讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The mishna continues: But each piece will still have the ritual impurity of having been in contact with an item that imparts ritual impurity imparted by treading. Before the garment was split, when it still imparted ritual impurity imparted by treading, each piece of the garment was in contact with another part of it. Through that connection, each piece was rendered ritually impure with the impurity of having been in contact with ritual impurity imparted by treading. When the garment was subsequently split, although the pieces were no longer able to impart ritual impurity imparted by treading, they retained the ritual impurity they acquired through their contact with the other pieces before the garment was split. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, the contact between the pieces occurred within a concealed area, as the connection between parts of the same item has the status of a connection within a concealed area. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that impurity can be imparted within a concealed area.

讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讚专住 谞讙注 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讘讜 讝讘 砖讬讛讗 讟诪讗 诪讙注 讝讘

And it is taught in that mishna that Rabbi Yosei says, disagreeing with Rabbi Meir: But what source of impurity imparted by treading did these pieces touch? Rabbi Yosei disregards the contact between the pieces that occurred before the garment was split, as that contact has the status of a connection within a concealed area. Rather, the only way the pieces could still be ritually impure is if a zav had touched the garment directly, e.g., when he sat on the garment he also touched it with his skin. In that case the garment would have also been rendered ritually impure due to contact with a zav, and that impurity would remain even after the garment was split. It would appear, then, that the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna here can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna in Kelim, but not with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讞诇拽

The Gemara responds: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna in Kelim that Ulla said: They taught that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Meir only in the case of a garment of three by three handbreadths that was split into smaller pieces, as once it is split, there is no piece large enough to impart to the other pieces impurity imparted through treading.

讗讘诇 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讛讘讗讜转 诪讘讙讚 讙讚讜诇 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转谉 诪讗讘讬讛谉 诪拽讘诇讜转 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讘讬讛谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转谉 诪讗讘专 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讘专

But with regard to pieces of three by three fingerbreadths that come, i.e., are cut, from a large garment, everyone agrees that at the time of their separation from their original garment, before they are fully detached from it, they are rendered impure through their contact with the original garment, despite the fact that the contact occurs within a concealed area. In this case of the mishna here also, one can say that at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, i.e., the foreleg, it is rendered impure through its contact with the limb. According to Ulla, then, the mishna can be reconciled also with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘讙讚 诇讗讜 诇讞转讬讻讛 拽讗讬 注讜讘专 诇讞转讬讻讛 拽讗讬 讜讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讞转讜讱

Ravina said there is a different explanation of how the mishna can be reconciled with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: A garment does not stand, i.e., is not intended, to be cut. On the contrary, it is better for it to remain whole. Therefore, the connections between its pieces are regarded as being within a concealed area that cannot impart impurity. By contrast, with regard to a fetus that extends its foreleg, the foreleg does stand to be cut, as it is prohibited for consumption while the rest of the fetus is permitted, and the halakhic principle is that any item that stands to be cut

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 72

讜讛讗 注讜讘专 讜讞讬讛 讚讻砖转讬 讟讘注讜转 讚诪讜 讜拽讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 注讜讘专 诇讞讬讛

The Gemara objects: But what about the mishna鈥檚 case of a dead fetus in its mother鈥檚 womb, and a midwife who touched it there, which is similar to the case of two swallowed rings, and yet the mishna rules that the fetus renders the midwife impure.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讗谞讬 注讜讘专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讜讘专 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 讟讘注转 讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗讬 讬讚注讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讬讜住祝

Rabba said: A fetus is different from a ring in this regard, since it will ultimately leave the womb. Rava said in puzzlement: Is that to say that a fetus will ultimately leave the womb, but a ring that someone swallowed will not ultimately leave his body? A ring will certainly be expelled eventually as well. Rather, Rava said: The scholars of Pumbedita know the reason for this matter, and who is the Sage referred to as the scholars of Pumbedita? It is Rav Yosef.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讚诇讗 转讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讟讛讜专 讙讝专讜 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讚专讘谞谉

As Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This impurity of the midwife in the mishna鈥檚 case is not in effect by Torah law; rather, it was decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: What was Shmuel鈥檚 intention in emphasizing: It is not in effect by Torah law; rather, it was decreed by rabbinic law? It should have sufficed for him to say simply the impurity is decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: He said this so that you should not say that the ruling of the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is impure by Torah law, and that is why the midwife was rendered impure. Rather, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is pure by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a midwife who touches it is impure by rabbinic law.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜诇讚 专讗砖讜 讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讝讚讜专

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this decree? Rav Hoshaya said: It is a rabbinic decree lest the fetus extend its head out of the concealed opening of its mother鈥檚 womb. If it did, it would be regarded as having been born, and it would then be ritually impure by Torah law. The Sages were concerned that the fetus extended its head and then the head returned inside but the midwife did not notice. Consequently, when she touched the fetus she mistakenly assumed she remained ritually pure. To safeguard against this, the Sages decreed that in any case where she touches the dead fetus, she is ritually impure.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 讗砖讛 诪专讙砖转 讘注爪诪讛 讜转讬诪讗 诇讛 诇讞讬讛 讟专讬讚讗

The Gemara objects: If so, the Sages should also decree that the woman herself, who is carrying the fetus, is impure, since she also might not notice that the fetus鈥檚 head emerged. The Gemara explains: A woman accurately senses with regard to her own body whether the head of the fetus had emerged. The Gemara asks: But then she would have said this to the midwife. Why is there a need for a decree? The Gemara answers: Since the mother is distracted by the pain of childbirth, she does not have the presence of mind to warn the midwife.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽

The Gemara cited a dispute as to whether one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is ritually impure. It now elucidates that dispute: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by the sword, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:16). The phrase 鈥渋n the open field鈥 indicates that one is rendered impure only in a case where he touches an exposed corpse. This serves to exclude one who touches a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb from being rendered impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This phrase serves to include the grave cover and the grave walls, upon which the cover rests, as sources of impurity that render impure anyone who touches them.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讟诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讙注 讘诪转 讘谞驻砖 讗讬讝讛讜 诪转 砖讘谞驻砖 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬 讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that the grave cover and the grave walls render one who touches them impure? He learned this halakha through tradition, not from a verse. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a dead fetus in a woman鈥檚 womb is impure by Torah law? Rabbi Oshaya said he derives it from the verse that states: 鈥淲hoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died, he will be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:13). The term 鈥渙f the life鈥 can also be interpreted as: Inside the life. What is the case of a corpse that is inside the life of a person? You must say that this is a dead fetus inside a woman鈥檚 womb.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖诪讟诪讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛谞讙注 讘诪转 讘谞驻砖 讛讗讚诐 讗讬讝讛讜 谞驻砖 砖诇 讗讚诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse to teach about a quarter-log of blood that comes from a corpse, meaning that even it imparts impurity like a corpse, as it is stated: 鈥淲hoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died鈥 (Numbers 19:13). What is the case of a life of a person that imparts impurity? You must say this is referring to a quarterlog of blood, as blood is regarded as the life force of a person, as the verse states: 鈥淔or the blood is the life鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23), and a person requires a minimum of a quarter-log of blood to survive.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗讛 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva does not accept this derivation. He conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says even a quarterlog of blood that comes from two corpses imparts ritual impurity in a tent to people and other items that are under the same roof. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that a quarter-log of blood that came out of two separate corpses also imparts ritual impurity in a tent?

砖谞讗诪专 讜注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 砖转讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜砖讬注讜专 讗讞讚

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the prohibition against priests coming in contact with a dead body: 鈥淗e shall not come upon any people that are a corpse [nafshot met]鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). The use of the plural form 鈥減eople [nafshot]鈥 indicates that the blood imparts impurity even if it comes from two people, as blood is referred to as 鈥nefesh鈥 (see Deuteronomy 12:23), and the use of the singular form 鈥渃orpse [met]鈥 indicates that this blood combines to complete one measure, i.e., the minimum amount of a quarter-log required to impart impurity.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 讛诪拽砖讛 诇讬诇讚 讜讛讜爪讬讗 注讜讘专 讗转 讬讚讜 讜讞转讻讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讗诪讜 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 砖讞讟 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讻讛 讛讘砖专 诪讙注 谞讘诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: If an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and as a result the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother鈥檚 womb, and someone severed it and afterward slaughtered the mother animal, the flesh of the fetus is ritually pure. If one first slaughtered the mother animal and afterward severed the foreleg, the flesh of both the mother animal and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in contact with a carcass. Since the foreleg was not permitted to be consumed through the act of slaughtering, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted to be consumed by the slaughter, was in contact with it and so was rendered ritually impure from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙注 讟专驻讛 砖讞讜讟讛

And the Rabbis say: The flesh has the ritual impurity of having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered, as the limb is regarded as a tereifa that was slaughtered. By Torah law, although it is prohibited to consume it, it does not impart ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a tereifa that was slaughtered, as well as anything that comes in contact with it, is regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it disqualifies sacrificial foods that come in contact with it.

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讗祝 砖讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛讗讘专

The Rabbis explain the rationale behind their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., ritual slaughter prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that its consumption is prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛讗讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: No, if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the body of the animal ritually pure, it is because the slaughter is performed on something that is part of its body, i.e., its throat. Does it necessarily follow that you should also render the limb that left the womb pure, given that it is something that is not part of the mother鈥檚 body? Certainly not.

诪谞讬谉 诇讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 讟专驻讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讗祝 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讟讛专谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The mishna asks: From where is it derived with regard to a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure, i.e., prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass? The mishna notes there is a reason to say the slaughter should not render it pure, as one can compare a tereifa with a non-kosher animal: A non-kosher animal is prohibited for consumption; so too, a tereifa is prohibited for consumption. Therefore, conclude: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, its slaughter does not render it ritually pure, so too with regard to a tereifa, its slaughter should not render it ritually pure.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 转讗诪专 讘讟专驻讛 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

The mishna questions the comparison: No, if you said that slaughtering cannot prevent an animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass in the case of a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that it did not have a period of potential fitness when slaughtering it could have rendered its consumption permitted, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this in the case of a tereifa, which did have a period of potential fitness? Perhaps, since the animal had a period of potential fitness its slaughter remains effective in preventing it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass.

讟讜诇 诇讱 诪讛 砖讛讘讗转 讛专讬 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讟专驻讛 诪谉 讛讘讟谉 诪谞讬谉

The mishna rejects this distinction: Take back to yourself this claim that you brought, as it is insufficient. What about a case where an animal was born as a tereifa from the womb, and so it never had a period of potential fitness? For such a case, from where is it derived that its slaughter renders it ritually pure?

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 转讗诪专 讘讟专驻讛 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛

The mishna reformulates the distinction: No, if you say that slaughtering cannot prevent a prohibited animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, as the Torah states the concept of slaughtering only with regard to kosher animals, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this with regard to a tereifa kosher animal, given that there are other animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, i.e., kosher animals that are not tereifa? Perhaps, since the concept of slaughtering is relevant to that kind of animal it can serve to prevent the animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass even if the slaughter cannot render it permitted for consumption.

讘谉 砖诪谞讛 讞讬 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 砖讞讬讟讛

The mishna notes: Based on this reasoning, one must conclude that with regard to an eight-month-old fetus that was born alive, slaughter does not render it ritually pure, as there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering. The Torah applies the concept of slaughter only with regard to animals that were born full term.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Meir, if a foreleg of a fetus emerges from the womb and is severed after the slaughter of the mother, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. Furthermore, the rest of the fetus from which it was cut is thereby rendered ritually impure through its contact with the foreleg. The Gemara asks: Why should the rest of the fetus be impure? This is a case of impurity imparted within a concealed area, as the point of contact between the foreleg and the fetus existed when they were still naturally connected to each other. And the halakha is that an impure item within a concealed area does not impart impurity. If the two items were in contact in a concealed area and not on an external surface, impurity cannot be imparted from one item to the other. Shall we say that Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as he holds that an impure item within a concealed area does impart impurity?

讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讞诇拽 讟讛讜专 诪谉 讛诪讚专住

This is as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 27:10) concerning ritual impurity imparted by treading: If a person who is ritually impure due to having experienced a bodily emission, such as a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], sits or leans upon an item that was designated for that purpose, the item is rendered ritually impure due to ritual impurity imparted by treading. The item will then impart impurity to people or utensils that come in contact with it. In the case of a garment that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading that was three by three handbreadths in size, i.e., the minimum size to impart such impurity, that was split into smaller pieces, each part is ritually pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading and will no longer impart impurity to people and utensils that come in contact with it.

讗讘诇 讟诪讗 诪讙注 诪讚专住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The mishna continues: But each piece will still have the ritual impurity of having been in contact with an item that imparts ritual impurity imparted by treading. Before the garment was split, when it still imparted ritual impurity imparted by treading, each piece of the garment was in contact with another part of it. Through that connection, each piece was rendered ritually impure with the impurity of having been in contact with ritual impurity imparted by treading. When the garment was subsequently split, although the pieces were no longer able to impart ritual impurity imparted by treading, they retained the ritual impurity they acquired through their contact with the other pieces before the garment was split. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, the contact between the pieces occurred within a concealed area, as the connection between parts of the same item has the status of a connection within a concealed area. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that impurity can be imparted within a concealed area.

讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讚专住 谞讙注 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 谞讙注 讘讜 讝讘 砖讬讛讗 讟诪讗 诪讙注 讝讘

And it is taught in that mishna that Rabbi Yosei says, disagreeing with Rabbi Meir: But what source of impurity imparted by treading did these pieces touch? Rabbi Yosei disregards the contact between the pieces that occurred before the garment was split, as that contact has the status of a connection within a concealed area. Rather, the only way the pieces could still be ritually impure is if a zav had touched the garment directly, e.g., when he sat on the garment he also touched it with his skin. In that case the garment would have also been rendered ritually impure due to contact with a zav, and that impurity would remain even after the garment was split. It would appear, then, that the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna here can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna in Kelim, but not with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讞诇拽

The Gemara responds: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna in Kelim that Ulla said: They taught that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Meir only in the case of a garment of three by three handbreadths that was split into smaller pieces, as once it is split, there is no piece large enough to impart to the other pieces impurity imparted through treading.

讗讘诇 砖诇砖 注诇 砖诇砖 讛讘讗讜转 诪讘讙讚 讙讚讜诇 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转谉 诪讗讘讬讛谉 诪拽讘诇讜转 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讘讬讛谉 讛讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转谉 诪讗讘专 诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讘专

But with regard to pieces of three by three fingerbreadths that come, i.e., are cut, from a large garment, everyone agrees that at the time of their separation from their original garment, before they are fully detached from it, they are rendered impure through their contact with the original garment, despite the fact that the contact occurs within a concealed area. In this case of the mishna here also, one can say that at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, i.e., the foreleg, it is rendered impure through its contact with the limb. According to Ulla, then, the mishna can be reconciled also with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘讙讚 诇讗讜 诇讞转讬讻讛 拽讗讬 注讜讘专 诇讞转讬讻讛 拽讗讬 讜讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讞转讜讱

Ravina said there is a different explanation of how the mishna can be reconciled with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: A garment does not stand, i.e., is not intended, to be cut. On the contrary, it is better for it to remain whole. Therefore, the connections between its pieces are regarded as being within a concealed area that cannot impart impurity. By contrast, with regard to a fetus that extends its foreleg, the foreleg does stand to be cut, as it is prohibited for consumption while the rest of the fetus is permitted, and the halakhic principle is that any item that stands to be cut

Scroll To Top