Parallel
חולין 71:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
unclean cattle under ‘unclean wild animals’, and clean cattle under ‘clean wild animals’. He then said to me these very words: Alas for Ben ‘Azzai, that he did not attend upon R. Ishmael. 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. How is this to be explained? It must be that wild animals are included under the term ‘cattle’. 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. How is this to be explained? It must be that cattle are included under the term ‘wild animals’. Now, clean wild animals come under ‘cattle’ with regard to the characteristics [of cleanness]. Unclean wild animals come under ‘unclean cattle’ with regard to the prohibition of ‘interbreeding’. unclean cattle come under ‘unclean wild animals’ with regard to the following teaching of Rabbi. For it was taught: Rabbi says: It is sufficient when I read in the verse, [the carcass of an unclean] beast, why then are cattle also stated? To deduce the following: It says here unclean cattle, and there also unclean cattle; 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. Clean cattle come under ‘clean wild animals’ with regard to ‘formation’. 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 [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. So R. Meir. The Sages say: Whatsoever has not the human form is not considered a child. According to the Rabbis what need is there for that verse? — It serves entirely for Rabbi's exposition. MISHNAH. 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. GEMARA. Rabbah said: Just as an unclean object that has been swallowed cannot render unclean, so a clean object that has been swallowed cannot be rendered unclean. 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. Does this not hold good even though he ate of it a short while before sunset? And yet the Torah says that he becomes clean. Perhaps there it is different, for the reason is that it is no longer fit for a stranger! Now according to R. Johanan it is well, for he says: For either purpose [it is nebelah] until it becomes unfit for a dog. 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! — 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. 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. 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, (for a Master has stated, uncleanness that is closed up breaks through upwards to the sky), nevertheless protects any clean matter that is within it from becoming unclean,
—