חולין 71 — Soncino English Talmud

¹unclean 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,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XIV, 4, 5, under the heading ‘cattle’, vnvc, are specified the ox and the sheep and also the hart and the gazelle and the latter two are of the class vhj, ‘wild animals’.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XI, 2,3. A literal translation of the verse. The term vhj 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’.
^ᶜnote: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.
^ᵈnote:V. supra 59a. The characteristics of cleanness of animals are expressed in the Torah only in connection with ‘cattle’.
^ᵉnote: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’.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote: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.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote: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).
^ˡnote:And the mother is not obliged to observe the laws of uncleanness as after the birth of a human child. V. Nid. 21a.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote: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?)
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote: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.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XI, 40; the verse adds: And be unclean until the even, i.e., until sunset.
^ʳnote: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.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote:And the principle that an unclean object that has been swallowed cannot render unclean is indeed to be derived from the above quoted verse.
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote: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.
^ʷnote: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.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote: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.
^ᶻnote:Compressed in a grave or shut up in a box. Provided in all these cases that there was no space to the extent of a cubic handbreadth above the unclean matter.
^ᵃᵃnote:Cf. Num. XIX, 15; and V. supra 25a.

²how 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; will you then say that it is so also in the case of a man who can convey uncleanness from the outside? — Are we dealing with the outside? 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. We have thus learnt the law regarding uncleanness swallowed from above, but whence do we know that it is so even when the uncleanness was swallowed’ from below? — From the following a fortiori argument. 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. 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. 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; will you then say that it is so also with regard to animals which need not tarry a prescribed period in a house stricken with leprosy? — In respect of what things, do you say, that an animal need not tarry the prescribed period in a house stricken with leprosy? It is [obviously] in respect of those things that are laden upon it. But for such things man too need not tarry within! 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. 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 of wheaten bread, but not barley bread, reclining and eating it with a condiment. Raba said: But we have learnt both these rules. We have learnt the rule concerning swallowed unclean matter, and we have learnt the rule concerning swallowed clean matter. Concerning swallowed unclean matter we have learnt the following Mishnah: If a person swallowed an unclean ring, he must immerse himself and thereafter may eat terumah; if he vomited it forth [after this immersion], it is still unclean and has rendered him unclean. And concerning swallowed clean matter we have learnt the following Mishnah: 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, immersed himself, and then vomited it forth, it remains as it was before! — 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. 19^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃᵇnote: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.
^ᵃᶜnote: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!
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., through the mouth.
^ᵃᵉnote: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.
^ᵃᶠnote:In the argument; so that the a fortiori reasoning holds good.
^ᵃᵍnote: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.
^ᵃʰnote: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.
^ᵃⁱnote:For articles laden upon a person as a burden and not worn as clothes are also rendered unclean forthwith.
^ᵃʲnote: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.
^ᵃᵏnote:Neg. XIII, 9. Accordingly the a fortiori argument is valid to prove that an unclean object swallowed by an animal cannot convey uncleanness.
^ᵃˡnote:What then is the point of Rabbah's teaching?
^ᵃᵐnote:Mik. X, 8.
^ᵃⁿnote: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.
^ᵃᵒnote:Because he was rendered unclean by contact with the ring before swallowing it.
^ᵃᵖnote: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.
^ᵃᵠnote:For it must have touched his person as it was vomited forth.
^ᵃʳnote:On the third and seventh day of his uncleanness respectively. Cf. Num. XIX, 19.
^ᵃˢnote: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.
^ᵃᵗnote: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 cannot contract or convey uncleanness. V. Tosaf. s.v. hf.