Chullin 142
אדם שמציל על טומאה שבתוכו מלטמא אינו דין שמציל על טהרה שבתוכו מליטמא
how much more so in the case of a man, who prevents the unclean matter that is in him from rendering him unclean, that he should protect the clean matter that is in him from becoming unclean! But perhaps that is so only in the case of an earthenware vessel, since it cannot render unclean by its outside;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since with regard to earthenware vessels the laws of uncleanness have in certain respects been relaxed, it is also reasonable to hold that any clean matter that is 'swallowed up' or enclosed within an earthenware vessel is protected from uncleanness.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אטו אנן מגבו קאמרינן
No, on the contrary, we are dealing with the inside, and [with regard to the inside of] an earthenware vessel [the Jaw] is more strict, since it can convey uncleanness by its air-space.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not the case with man. So that the a fortiori argument is of even greater force, for if an earthenware vessel, which can be rendered unclean and also convey uncleanness through its air-space, has the power of protecting the clean object that is enclosed in it from becoming unclean, surely man ought to protect the clean object that he has swallowed from becoming unclean!');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אדרבה כלי חרס חמור שכן מטמא מאוירו
but whence do we know that it is so even when the uncleanness was swallowed' from below?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ie., the unclean matter was inserted into the body from below via the rectum. It must be, says Rashi, that it was inserted by a tube so that the unclean matter did not come into direct contact with the body of the person. It must further be explained that this action was performed a little before sunset as above.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
קל וחומר
If in the upper part of the body where no decomposition [of food] takes place [the fact that it is swallowed] prevents [the unclean matter from conveying uncleanness], how much more so In the lower part where the actual decomposition takes place! But decomposition takes place below only if the food comes from above! - Even so, the fact that decomposition takes place below is a stronger point.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the argument; so that the a fortiori reasoning holds good.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ומה למעלה שאינו עושה עיכול מציל למטה שעושה עיכול אינו דין שמציל
We have now learnt the law regarding uncleanness swallowed by man, but whence do we know it with regard to uncleanness swallowed by an animal? - From the following a fortiori argument.
כלום עושה עיכול למטה אלא על ידי מעלה
If in the case of man, who is capable of conveying uncleanness whilst alive, the fact that it is swallowed prevents [the unclean matter from conveying uncleanness], how much more so is it in the case of animals, which are incapable of conveying uncleanness whilst alive, that the fact that it is swallowed prevents [the unclean matter within from conveying uncleanness]! But perhaps that is so only with regard to man since he must tarry a prescribed period in a house stricken with leprosy;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that the clothes that he is wearing be also rendered unclean. This rule is derived from the fact that Lev. XIV, 46 states: He that goeth into the house . . shall be unclean until the even, whereas the next verse (Lev. XIV, 47) states: And he that lieth in the 'house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes. This presupposes that a longer stay in the house renders also the clothes worn by the person unclean. Since therefore the law of uncleanness in this respect with regard to man is not so severe, one would reasonably suppose that uncleanness emanating from a swallowed unclean object would not affect man.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אפי' הכי עיכול דלמטה רב
will you then say that it is so also with regard t animals which need not tarry a prescribed period in a house stricken with leprosy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case of an animal laden with goods that enters a house stricken with leprosy both the animal and the goods are immediately rendered unclean.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ומה אדם שמטמא מחיים מציל בבלוע בהמה שאינה מטמאה מחיים אינו דין שתציל בבלוע
But for such things man too need not tarry within!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For articles laden upon a person as a burden and not worn as clothes are also rendered unclean forthwith.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מה לאדם שכן צריך שהייה בבית המנוגע תאמר בבהמה שאינה צריכה שהייה בבית המנוגע
For we have learnt: If a person entered a house stricken with leprosy carrying his clothes over his shoulders and his sandals and rings in his hands,he and they become unclean forthwith.
בהמה דאינה צריכה שהייה בבית המנוגע למאי הלכתא לכלים שעל גבה
If he was clothed in his garments, his sandals on his feet, and his rings on his fingers, he becomes unclean forthwith but they remain clean until he tarries there the length of time required for eating half a loaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., one meal. A loaf equal in size to eight eggs (according to Maim. six eggs) is held to be sufficient for two meals in connection with 'Erub.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אדם נמי לא בעי דתנן
of wheaten bread, but not barley bread, reclining and eating it with a condiment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. XIII, 9. Accordingly the a fortiori argument is valid to prove that an unclean object swallowed by an animal cannot convey uncleanness.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אמר רבא
If a person swallowed an unclean ring,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was rendered unclean by reason of its having been brought into contact with a corpse in which case the ring, being of metal, assumed the same degree, and not a lesser degree, of uncleanness as the corpse itself, v. supra 3a.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טומאה בלועה דתנן
and thereafter may eat terumah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he is not rendered unclean by the unclean ring, that is, in his body, thus proving that a swallowed unclean matter cannot render unclean.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
בלע טבעת טמאה טובל ואוכל בתרומתו הקיאה טמאה וטמאתו
if he vomited it forth [after this immersion], it is still unclea and has rendered him unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it must have touched his person as it was vomited forth.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
בלע טבעת טהורה ונכנס לאהל המת והזה ושנה וטבל והקיאה הרי היא כמה שהיתה
If a person swallowed a clean ring, entered a tent wherein lay a corpse, was sprinkled [with purification waters] the first time and the second time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the third and seventh day of his uncleanness respectively. Cf. Num. XIX, 19.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כי קאמר רבה כגון שבלע שתי טבעות אחת טמאה ואחת טהורה דלא מטמיא לה מטמאה לטהורה
immersed himself, and then vomited it forth, it remains as it was before!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., clean; thus proving that a swallowed clean matter cannot contract uncleanness. For had the ring suffered uncleanness when the man entered under the same roof as the corpse, at which time the ring was swallowed within him, it would not now when vomited forth be clean, for the immersion and purification of the man could be of no avail in regard to the ring.');"><sup>18</sup></span> - Rabbah had in mind the case where a person swallowed two rings, one clean and the other unclean, [and he teaches that] the unclean ring will not render the clean ring unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a special case which could not so readily have been inferred from the cases stated in the above quoted Mishnahs. For it might have been suggested that the reason for the ruling in those two cases was that the contact between the ring and the person was made in the secret parts of the body, and such contact is not accounted as contact in order to contract or convey uncleanness. In the case, however, where two rings were swallowed and both now lie in the secret parts, the argument of secret contact cannot apply for it is as though they are together in a chest when one would certainly render the other unclean. Rabbah, however, by stating his view that even in the case of two rings one cannot render the other unclean, strikingly informs us that the ground for the rulings in the Mishnah is that the matter is swallowed and for that reason it hf cannot contract or convey uncleanness. V. Tosaf. s.v. .');"><sup>19</sup></span>