חולין 72 — parallel

72:1

But is not the case of the foetus and the midwife [of our Mishnah] similar to two rings, nevertheless the foetus renders the midwife unclean? — Rabbah replied, It is different in the case of the foetus because it must eventually come out! Raba retorted: The foetus, [you say] must eventually come out; and must not the ring also eventually come out? — Raba therefore replied: The ‘Pumbedithans’ (by which R. Joseph is meant) know the reason for it. For R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah who said it in the name of Samuel: This uncleanness [of the midwife] was not imposed by Biblical law but by decree of the Scribes. Why is it said ‘was not imposed by Biblical law but by decree of the Scribes’? — So that you should not say that our Mishnah agrees [only] with R. Akiba who holds that a [dead] foetus whilst yet in the womb of its mother is unclean; for indeed it is even in accordance with R. Ishmael who holds that the [dead] foetus whilst yet in the womb of its mother is clean, yet here the uncleanness [to the midwife] was imposed by Rabbinic decree. Why? — R. Hoshaia said: As a precaution lest the foetus protrude its head beyond the ante-chamber. Then this should apply to the mother too! — The mother would feel it. Then she might tell the midwife of it? — She is too distraught. Where do we find the respective views of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba? — It was taught: The verse: And whosoever toucheth in the open field . . . [a dead body], excludes the dead foetus whilst yet in the womb of its mother: so R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says: It includes the stone that covers the grave and the stones that support it. And R. Ishmael? — The [uncleanness of the] covering stone and supporting stones is established by tradition. And R. Akiba? — He maintains that the [dead] foetus whilst yet in the womb of its mother is unclean. Whence does he [R. Akiba] derive this from the Torah? — R. Oshaia answered: It is written: Whosoever toucheth a dead body in a human body. Now what can a dead body in a human body refer to? You must say it refers to a [dead] foetus in the womb of its mother. And R. Ishmael? — He requires this verse to establish the law that a quarter log of blood that issued from a dead body conveys uncleanness. For it is written: Whosoever toucheth a dead body [or] the life element of man. Now what is the life element of a man that renders unclean? You must say, it is a quarter log of blood. R. Akiba, on the other hand, adheres to his view that a quarter log of blood that issued from two corpses will render unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent. For it was taught: R. Akiba says: Whence do I know that a quarter log of blood that issued from two corpses renders unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent? From the verse: He shall not go in to any dead bodies, which suggests one quantity [of blood] from two corpses. MISHNAH. IF AN ANIMAL WAS IN DIFFICULT LABOUR AND THE FOETUS PUT FORTH ITS FORE-LIMB AND A PERSON IMMEDIATELY CUT IF OFF AND THEN SLAUGHTERED THE DAM, THE FLESH [OF THE FOETUS] IS CLEAN. IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE DAM FIRST AND THEN CUT IF OFF, THE FLESH IS UNCLEAN LIKE THAT WHICH HAD TOUCHED NEBELAH: SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS UNCLEAN LIKE THAT WHICH HAD TOUCHED A SLAUGHTERED TREFAH [ANIMAL];24

—

72:2

FOR JUST AS WE FIND THAT THE SLAUGHTERING OF A TREFAH ANIMAL RENDERS IT CLEAN, SO THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE ANIMAL SHOULD RENDER THE [PROTRUDING] LIMB CLEAN. R. MEIR REPLIED TO THEM, NO, FOR WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE SLAUGHTERING OF A TREFAH [ANIMAL] RENDERS IT CLEAN YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH [THE ANIMAL] ITSELF, BUT CAN YOU SAY THAT IT WILL RENDER CLEAN THE LIMB WHICH IS NOT PART OF [THE ANIMAL] ITSELF? [BUT] WHENCE DO WE LEARN THAT THE SLAUGHTERING OF A TREFAH ANIMAL RENDERS IT CLEAN? [OUGHT WE NOT RATHER TO ARGUE THUS,] AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL MAY NOT BE EATEN, AND TREFAH ALSO MAY NOT BE EATEN; THEN JUST AS SLAUGHTERING DOES NOT RENDER AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL CLEAN SO SLAUGHTERING SHOULD NOT RENDER A TREFAH ANIMAL CLEAN? NO. YOU MAY STATE THIS OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL FOR AT NO TIME WAS IT FIT [FOR SLAUGHTERING]; CAN YOU ALSO STATE THIS OF A TREFAH ANIMAL WHICH HAD A TIME WHEN IT WAS FIT [FOR SLAUGHTERING]? AWAY WITH THIS ARGUMENT THAT YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD! FOR WHENCE WOULD WE KNOW THIS OF AN ANIMAL THAT WAS BORN TREFAH FROM THE WOMB? [SUBSTITUTE THEREFORE THIS ARGUMENT]: NO. YOU MAY STATE THIS OF AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL SINCE IT BELONGS TO THE CLASS TO WHICH SLAUGHTERING DOES NOT APPLY; CAN YOU ALSO STATE THIS OF A TREFAH ANIMAL WHICH BELONGS TO THE CLASS TO WHICH SLAUGHTERING DOES APPLY? [ACCORDINGLY], THE SLAUGHTERING OF A LIVE EIGHT MONTHS’ BIRTH DOES NOT RENDER IT CLEAN, SINCE TO ITS KIND SLAUGHTERING DOES NOT APPLY. GEMARA. Wherefore [is the foetus rendered unclean]? It has made covert contact with uncleanness and covert contact with uncleanness does not render [that which was clean] unclean. Shall we then say that R. Meir here too asserts his view? For we have learnt: ‘If a piece of cloth three handbreadths square [that had contracted midras uncleanness] was divided, it is free from midras uncleanness but is unclean by reason of its contact with midras uncleanness. So R. Meir. And we have learnt further: R. Jose said: What midras uncleanness has it touched? But, [it is admitted,] if one that had an issue touched it, it would now be unclean by reason of its contact with one that had an issue’! Surely there has been reported in connection with the above the following statement of Ulla viz., They stated their views only in respect of a cloth three handbreadths square that was divided, but if a piece of cloth three finger-breadths square was cut away from a large garment [that had contracted midras uncleanness], [all agree that] it is rendered unclean [by virtue of contact] with the rest [of the garment] at the moment that it was severed from the rest. Here too, it will be said that it [sc. the foetus] is rendered unclean [by virtue of contact] with the limb at the moment that it is severed from the limb! Rabina said: A garment is not intended for cutting up but a foetus is, and whatsoever is intended for cutting up

—