Chullin 140

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בהמה שמת עוברה בתוך מעיה והושיט הרועה את ידו ונגע בו בין בבהמה טמאה בין בבהמה טהורה טהור

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A FOETUS HAD DIED WITHIN THE WOMB OF ITS DAM AND THE SHEPHERD PUT IN HIS HAND AND TOUCHED IT, HE IS CLEAN, WHETHER IT WAS A CLEAN OR UNCLEAN ANIMAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terms 'clean' and 'unclean' referring to animals mean such species as are permitted or forbidden to be eaten respectively.');">¹</span>

ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר

R'JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS, IF IT WAS AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL HE WOULD BE UNCLEAN, AND IF IT WAS A CLEAN ANIMAL HE WOULD BE CLEAN.

בטמאה טמא ובטהורה טהור:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the reason of the first Tanna's view? - R'Hisda said: It is an a fortiori argument; for if the dam [when slaughtered] has the effect of rendering [the foetus] permitted to be eaten then surely [whilst alive] it will at least have the effect of rendering it clean so that it be not nebelah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the basis of this a fortiori argument v. supra p. 374, end of n. 1.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא דתנא קמא

We find that this is so of clean animals; whence do we know it of unclean animals? - From the verse: And if any beast die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39.');">³</span>

אמר רב חסדא

that is, an unclean animal, of which ye may eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39.');">³</span>

קל וחומר אם הועילה אמו להתירו באכילה לא תועיל לו לטהוריה מידי נבלה

that is, a clean animal.

אשכחן בהמה טהורה בהמה טמאה מנלן

The unclean animal is equated with the clean: as the foetus within a clean animal is clean so the foetus within an unclean animal is also clean.

אמר קרא

And what is the reason for the view of R'Jose the Galilean? - R'Isaac said: It is written: And whatsoever goeth upon its paws among all beasts that go on all fours, [.

(ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה זו בהמה טמאה אשר היא לכם לאכלה זו בהמה טהורה איתקש בהמה טמאה לבהמה טהורה מה בהמה טהורה עוברה טהור אף בהמה טמאה עוברה טהור

whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27. The term 'goeth upon its paws' is interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to an animal that has single or undivided hoofs; and 'among all beasts' is interpreted literally 'in the living beast', thus referring to the unclean foetus in the womb of the living beast.');">⁴</span>

ור' יוסי הגלילי מאי טעמא

that is, whatsoever goeth upon unparted hoofs within the living beast I have declared to be unclean unto you.

אמר ר' יצחק

This being so, even an animal with unparted hoofs [found dead] in the womb of a [living] cow should also be unclean, for it is of those that go upon unparted hoofs within the beast! - [The verse refers to those] that go upon unparted hoofs within the beasts that go on four [hoofs], but this is a case of on that goes upon unparted hoofs within a beast that goes on eight<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., four parted hoofs.');">⁵</span>

דאמר קרא (ויקרא יא, כז) וכל הולך על כפיו בכל החיה ההולכת וגו' מהלכי כפים בחיה טמאתי לך

[hoofs].

אלא מעתה קלוט במעי פרה ליטמא דמהלכי כפים בחיה הוא

Then a cow found in the womb of a camel should not be unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should not render him that touches it unclean. But R. Jose holds that in all cases the foetus within the womb of an unclean animal is unclean.');">⁶</span>

מהלכי כפים במהלכי ארבע והאי מהלכי ארבע במהלכי שמנה הוא

for it is a case of one that goes upon eight [hoofs] within a beast that goes on four! - 'Goeth' [might have been written, but there is actually written], whatsoever goeth, thus including the case of a cow found in the womb of a camel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is unclean.');">⁷</span>

פרה במעי גמל לא תטמא דמהלכי שמנה במהלכי ארבע הוא

Then an animal with unparted hoofs found in the womb of an animal also with unparted hoofs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dam, however, wag a permitted animal as it was born of a clean animal.');">⁸</span>

הולך וכל הולך לרבות פרה במעי גמל

should be unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., should render unclean.');">⁹</span>

קלוט במעי קלוטה ליטמא דמהלכי ארבע במהלכי ארבע הוא

for it is a case of one that goes upon four [hoofs] within a beast that goes on four! - For this purpose R'Hisda's a fortiori argument might be applied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra; if the slaughtering of the dam renders the foetus permitted to be eaten it surely renders it clean!');">¹⁰</span>

להכי אהני ק"ו דרב חסדא

To this R'Ahadboi B'Ammi demurred: Then the pig within the womb of a sow should not be unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nor render one unclean.');">¹¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב אחדבוי בר אמי

for it is a case of one that goes upon eight hoofs within a beast that also goes upon eight! - R'Nahman B'Isaac therefore said, [R'Jose's view is derived] from the following verse: If anyone touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2.');">¹²</span>

חזיר במעי חזירתא לא ליטמא דמהלכי שמנה במהלכי שמנה הוא

[Now it will be asked:] Does the carcass of unclean cattle alone render unclean but not that of clean cattle?

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מהכא

What is it then?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which there is implied a distinction between the carcass of clean cattle and that of unclean cattle.');">¹³</span>

(ויקרא ה, א) נפש כי תגע בכל טמא או בנבלת חיה טמאה או בנבלת בהמה טמאה או בנבלת שרץ טמא וכי נבלת בהמה טמאה מטמאה ובטהורה לא מטמאה

It is the young [within the womb]; in unclean animals it is unclean, and in clean animals clean.

אלא איזה זה זה עובר שבטמאה טמא ובטהורה טהור

But since this has been derived from the verse adduced by R'Nahman B'Isaac, to what purpose do I put the verse stated by R'Isaac? - Were it not for the verse stated by R'Isaac, I might have said that the entire verse [adduced by R'Nahman B'Isaac] is employed for the purpose of Rabbi's teaching;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 72a. Since the verse Lev. V. 2, adduced by R. Nahman b. Isaac, is required for Rabbi's exposition, the only guiding rule in the law of uncleanness of beasts is that contained in Lev. XI, 39, where by reason of the analogy implied in that verse clean and unclean cattle are placed on the same footing.');">¹⁴</span>

ומאחר דנפקא ליה מדרב נחמן בר יצחק דרבי יצחק ל"ל

he therefore teaches us otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since R. Isaac has dealt with Lev. XI, 27, whereby he has drawn a distinction between clean and unclean cattle, R. Nahman b. Isaac is now free to employ Lev. V, 2, in order to draw a further distinction between them as regards the foetus, so therefore only a portion of this latter verse is employed for Rabbi's exposition.');">¹⁵</span>

אי לאו דר' יצחק הוה אמינא

It was taught: R'Jonathan said: I said to Ben 'Azzai: We have learnt that the carcass of clean cattle conve uncleanness, that the carcass of unclean cattle conveys uncleanness, and that the carcass of unclean wild animals conveys uncleanness; but we have not learnt it about the carcass of clean wild animals.

כוליה לכדרבי הוא דאתא קמ"ל

Whence do we know it?

תניא אמר ר' יונתן

Said he to me: It is written: Whatsoever goeth upon its paws among all beasts that go on all fours.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 27. The verse continues: whose toucheth their carcass shall be unclean; hence all beasts even clean beasts convey uncleanness. vhj vnvc Throughout this passage the Heb. terms and are translated literally and according to their strict meaning, the former connoting undomesticated animals and is translated 'wild animals' or 'beasts', the latter connoting domesticated animals and is translated 'cattle'.');">¹⁶</span>

נמתי לו לבן עזאי למדנו נבלת בהמה טהורה שמטמאה ונבלת בהמה טמאה שמטמאה נבלת חיה טמאה שמטמאה

Said I to him: The verse does not say: 'all beasts', it says 'among all beasts', and this clearly deals with the rule concerning animals that go upon unparted hoofs found within the beasts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, the exposition of R. Isaac.');">¹⁷</span>

נבלת חיה טהורה לא למדנו מנין

Said he to me: And what does Ishmael say in this matter?

נם לי

Said I to him: It is written: And if any cattle die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39.');">¹⁸</span>

כל הולך על כפיו בכל החיה ההולכת

that is unclean cattle 'of which ye may eat', that is clean cattle.

נמתי לו

And we have learnt that wild animals are included under the term 'cattle', and cattle are included under the term 'wild animals'.

וכי נאמר וכל חיה

Hence clean wild animals would come under 'clean cattle', unclean wild animals under 'unclean cattle',

והלא לא נאמר אלא

בכל החיה למהלכי כפים בחיה הוא דאתא

נם לי

ומה ישמעאל אומר בדבר הזה

נמתי לו

(ויקרא יא, לט) וכי ימות מן הבהמה זו בהמה טמאה אשר היא לכם לאכלה זו בהמה טהורה

למדנו

חיה בכלל בהמה ובהמה בכלל חיה

חיה טהורה בכלל בהמה טהורה חיה טמאה בכלל בהמה טמאה