Chullin

MISHNAH. 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.1 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. GEMARA. 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.2 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,3 that is, an unclean animal, of which ye may eat,3 that is, a clean animal. 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. 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, [. . . whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean],4 that is, whatsoever goeth upon unparted hoofs within the living beast I have declared to be unclean unto you. 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 one that goes upon unparted hoofs within a beast that goes on eight5 [hoofs]. Then a cow found in the womb of a camel should not be unclean,6 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.7 Then an animal with unparted hoofs found in the womb of an animal also with unparted hoofs8 should be unclean,9 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.10 To this R. Ahadboi b. Ammi demurred: Then the pig within the womb of a sow should not be unclean,11 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.12 [Now it will be asked:] Does the carcass of unclean cattle alone render unclean but not that of clean cattle? What is it then?13 It is the young [within the womb]; in unclean animals it is unclean, and in clean animals clean. 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;14 he therefore teaches us otherwise.15 It was taught: R. Jonathan said: I said to Ben ‘Azzai: We have learnt that the carcass of clean cattle conveys 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. Whence do we know it? Said he to me: It is written: Whatsoever goeth upon its paws among all beasts that go on all fours.16 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.17 Said he to me: And what does Ishmael say in this matter? Said I to him: It is written: And if any cattle die,18 that is unclean cattle, ‘of which ye may eat’, that is clean cattle. And we have learnt that wild animals are included under the term ‘cattle’, and cattle are included under the term ‘wild animals’. Hence clean wild animals would come under ‘clean cattle’, unclean wild animals under ‘unclean cattle’, respectively. 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. an unclean animal is unclean. 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. 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. convey uncleanness. Throughout this passage the Heb. terms vhj and vnvc 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’.