Chullin 141

בהמה טמאה בכלל חיה טמאה בהמה טהורה בכלל חיה טהורה

unclean cattle under 'unclean wild animals', and clean cattle under 'clean wild animals'.

ובלשון הזה אמר לי

He then said to me these very words: Alas for Ben 'Azzai, that he did not attend upon R'Ishmael.

חבל על בן עזאי שלא שימש את רבי ישמעאל

Whence do we infer that wild animals are included under the term 'cattle'? - For it is written: These are the cattle which we may eat: the ox, the sheep [and the goat,] the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 4, 5, under the heading 'cattle', , are specified the ox and the sheep and also the hart and the gazelle and the latter two are of vhj the class , 'wild animals'. vhj');">¹</span>

חיה בכלל בהמה מנלן

How is this to be explained?

דכתיב

It must be that wild animals are included under the term 'cattle'.

(דברים יד, ד) זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו שור שה כשבים וגו' איל וצבי ויחמור וגו' הא כיצד

Whence do we infer that cattle are included under the term 'wild animals'? - For it is written: These are the wild animals which ye may eat; among all the cattle that are on the earth, whatsoever parteth the hoof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 2,3. A literal translation of the verse. The term at the head of the verse signifies the class of animals spoken of, and among that class, forming a section thereof, are mentioned cattle to which these rules apply. Hence it is apparent that cattle are included under the term 'wild animals'.');">²</span>

חיה בכלל בהמה

How is this to be explained?

בהמה בכלל חיה מנלן

It must be that cattle are included under the term 'wild animals'.

דכתיב

Now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is established that the term 'cattle' includes wild animals and the term 'wild animals' includes cattle, the Gemara proceeds to apply these rules and to derive practical results therefrom.');">³</span>

(ויקרא יא, ב) זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ כל מפרסת פרסה הא כיצד

clean wild animals come under 'cattle' with regard to the characteristics [of cleanness].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 59a. The characteristics of cleanness of animals are expressed in the Torah only in connection with 'cattle'.');">⁴</span>

בהמה בכלל חיה

Unclean wild animals come under 'unclean cattle' with regard to the prohibition of 'interbreeding'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of breeding diverse kinds (Lev. XIX, 19) applies to all animals, whether clean or unclean; nevertheless in the Torah it is expressly stated only in connection with 'cattle'.');">⁵</span>

חיה טהורה בכלל בהמה טהורה לסימנים חיה טמאה בכלל בהמה טמאה להרבעה בהמה טמאה בכלל חיה טמאה לכדרבי

unclean cattle come under 'unclean wild animals' with regard to the following teaching of Rabbi.

דתניא רבי אומר

For it was taught: Rabbi says: It is sufficient when I read in the verse, [the carcass of an unclean] beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2: If anyone touch any unclean thing whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle . . and be guilty. In atonement for the guilt committed Scripture prescribes the bringing of a sin-offering, the nature of which varies according to the means of the sinner.');">⁶</span>

אקרא אני חיה בהמה למה נאמרה

why then are cattle also stated?

נאמרה כאן בהמה טמאה ונאמר להלן בהמה טמאה מה להלן טומאת קדש

To deduce the following: It says here unclean cattle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2: If anyone touch any unclean thing whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle . . and be guilty. In atonement for the guilt committed Scripture prescribes the bringing of a sin-offering, the nature of which varies according to the means of the sinner.');">⁶</span>

אף כאן טומאת קדש בהמה טהורה בכלל חיה טהורה ליצירה דתנן

and there also unclean cattle;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 21: And when any one shall touch any unclean thing . . or unclean cattle . . and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice . . that soul shall be cut off from his people.');">⁷</span>

המפלת מין בהמה חיה ועוף בין טמאין בין טהורין אם זכר תשב לזכר אם נקבה תשב לנקבה אינו ידוע תשב לזכר ולנקבה דברי רבי מאיר

just as there it refers to the eating of holy food while unclean, so here it refers to the eating of holy food while unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is established by Rabbi that the guilt implied in the verse is that of a person who, forgetting his uncleanness, partakes of sacrificial meat or enters the Sanctuary. This argument of Rabbi is based on the assumption that the term 'cattle' is superfluous, but this is so only if it is held that cattle are included under the term 'wild animals'; v. Sheb. 7a.');">⁸</span>

וחכמים אומרים

Clean cattle come under 'clean wild animals' with regard to 'formation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the story of the Creation the expression 'formed' is used both in the creation of man (Gen. II, 7) and in the creation of wild animals (ibid. 19) , but not in the creation of cattle. From the similarity of expression is derived a similarity of law, namely, that if a woman miscarried, bringing forth a human form or something resembling an animal, she is unclean as after a childbirth. Now this law should not have applied to cattle (i.e., an abortion resembling cattle) were it not for the principle that the term 'wild animals' includes cattle.');">⁹</span>

כל שאינו מצורת אדם אינו ולד

For we have learnt: If a woman miscarried [and brought forth] something resembling cattle or a wild animal or a bird, whether it be a clean or unclean species, if it was a male she must observe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XII. On the birth of a male the mother must observe seven days of uncleanness and thirty-three days of purification, and on the birth of a female fourteen days of uncleanness and sixty-six days of purification.');">¹⁰</span>

ולרבנן האי קרא למה לי

[the periods prescribed] for a male, and if it was a female she must observe [the periods prescribed] for a female; if its sex was not known she must observe [the periods prescribed] both for a male and for a female.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stricter aspect of each is applied to the mother, viz., fourteen days of uncleanness (as if it were a female) and only twenty-six days of purification (as if it were a male, and the total of days must not exceed forty) .');">¹¹</span>

כוליה לכדרבי הוא דאתא:

So R'Meir.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האשה שמת ולדה בתוך מעיה ופשטה חיה את ידה ונגעה בו החיה טמאה טומאת שבעה והאשה טהורה עד שיצא הולד:

The Sages say: Whatsoever has not the human form is not considered a child.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the mother is not obliged to observe the laws of uncleanness as after the birth of a human child. V. Nid. 21a.');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבה

According to the Rabbis what need is there for that verse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis of our Mishnah who maintain that the dead foetus within the womb, either of a clean or unclean animal, is clean, must apply to some other purpose that verse which R. Nahman b. Isaac adduced (Lev. V, 2: If anyone touch any unclean thing, etc. supra p. 386) in support of the view of R. Jose the Galilean, that the dead foetus within the womb of an unclean animal is unclean.');">¹³</span>

כשם שטומאה בלועה אינה מטמאה כך טהרה בלועה אינה מיטמאה

- It serves entirely for Rabbi's exposition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression 'unclean' as stated of cattle is required for Rabbi's exposition, this same expression is also stated of wild animals for the sake of uniformity. The text, however, of this last question is doubtful. The MS.M. and Tosaf. a.l. have the following reading: rnhnk tfht htn ibcrk tkt rhtn 'rk tjhbv . And the interpretation is this: It is well according to R. Meir (for he has introduced a specific rule in the law of childbirth on the basis of the principle that the term 'wild animals' includes cattle) . But what can be said from the point of view of the Rabbis who differ from R. Meir? (In which case is this principle applied?)');">¹⁴</span>

טומאה בלועה מנלן

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE FOETUS OF A WOMAN DIED WITHIN THE WOMB OF ITS MOTHER AND THE MIDWIFE PUT IN HER HAND AND TOUCHED IT, THE Mldwlfe IS RENDERED UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS, BUT THE MOTHER IS CLEAN UNTIL THE FOETUS COMES OUT.

דכתיב

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rabbah said: Just as an unclean object that has been swallowed cannot render unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the dead foetus (that is 'swallowed' or enclosed) in the womb of its mother does not render the mother unclean; v. our MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span>

(ויקרא יא, מ) והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו

so a clean object that has been swallowed cannot be rendered unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if a person swallowed a clean ring and subsequently entered a room where_ a corpse lay, the ring would not become unclean though he himself is rendered unclean; v. infra.');">¹⁶</span>

מי לא עסקינן דאכל סמוך לשקיעת החמה

Whence do I learn that an unclean object that has been swallowed cannot render unclean? - For it is written: And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 40; the verse adds: And be unclean until the even, i.e., until sunset.');">¹⁷</span>

וקאמר רחמנא טהור

Does this not hold good even though he ate of it a short while before sunset?

ודלמא שאני התם דלא חזיא לגר

And yet the Torah says that he becomes clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is not rendered unclean again immediately after sunset by reason of the unclean nebelah food that is still undigested within him, because of the rule that unclean food that has been swallowed cannot render unclean.');">¹⁸</span>

הניחא לרבי יוחנן דאמר

Perhaps there it is different, for the reason is that it is no lon fit for a stranger!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Deut. XIV, 21: Ye shall not eat nebelah, thou mayest give it to the stranger, is derived the rule that only that is deemed nebelah which is in the condition fit to be eaten by a stranger. Since this food has been swallowed, even if vomited out, it is no more fit for a stranger, hence it is not deemed nebelah and therefore does not render him unclean after sunset.');">¹⁹</span>

אחת זו ואחת זו עד לכלב שפיר

Now according to R'Johanan it is well,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the principle that an unclean object that has been swallowed cannot render unclean is indeed to be derived from the above quoted verse.');">²⁰</span>

אלא לבר פדא דאמר

for he says: For either purpose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether to convey the graver uncleanness, i.e., to render men and vessels unclean or to convey the lesser uncleanness, i.e., only to render foodstuffs unclean.');">²¹</span>

טומאה חמורה לגר וטומאה קלה עד לכלב משום דלא חזיא לגר הוא

[it is nebelah] until it becomes unfit for a dog.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the undigested food if vomited out would be fit for a dog it should, according to R. Johanan, render the eater unclean immediately after sunset, nevertheless the Divine Law declares him clean obviously because unclean matter that has been swallowed cannot render unclean.');">²²</span>

נהי דלא חזיא בפניו שלא בפניו מיחזיא חזיא ליה

But according to Bar Padda who says, [It is nebelah] for conveying the graver uncleanness until [it becomes unfit] for a stranger, and for conveying the lighter uncleanness until [it becomes unfit] for a dog, the reason might well be that it is no longer fit for a stranger!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that what this man has eaten is no longer accounted as nebelah and that is the reason why he is not rendered unclean immediately after sunset, but not because it is unclean matter that has been swallowed.');">²³</span>

אשכחן טומאה בלועה טהרה בלועה מנלן

- Even so, granted that it is not fit for a stranger if it was swallowed in his presence, it is, however, fit for a stranger if swallowed not in his presence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So where a person swallowed whole a morsel of nebelah without chewing it a moment before sunset and yet he is declared clean immediately after sunset, although the morsel if ejected again is fit to be eaten by a stranger who has not seen it in the mouth of another, the reason can only be that it is swallowed uncleanness and so cannot render unclean.');">²⁴</span>

קל וחומר

We have thus learnt that an unclean object that has been swallowed [cannot render unclean]; whence do we learn that a clean object that has been swallowed [cannot be rendered unclean]? - By an a fortiori argument.

ומה כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל שאינו מציל על טומאה שבתוכו מלטמא דאמר מר

If an earthenware vessel that is covered with a closely fitting lid, which cannot prevent the unclean matter that is in it from conveying uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if within an earthenware vessel that was covered with a tightly fastened lid there was an olive's bulk of a corpse, whosoever comes under the same roof as this vessel is rendered unclean, for the unclean matter being compressed in a close space bursts, as it were, the sides of the vessel and the uncleanness breaks through upwards and downwards. Cf. Ohol. VII, 1, XIV, 6.');">²⁵</span>

טומאה רצוצה בוקעת ועולה עד לרקיע מציל על טהרה שבתוכו מלטמא

²⁶ breaks through upwards to the sky"&gt; , nevertheless protects any clean matter that is within it from becoming unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XIX, 15; and V. supra 25a.');">²⁷</span>