Chullin

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.1 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.2 How is this to be explained? It must be that cattle are included under the term ‘wild animals’. Now,3 clean wild animals come under ‘cattle’ with regard to the characteristics [of cleanness].4 Unclean wild animals come under ‘unclean cattle’ with regard to the prohibition of ‘interbreeding’.5 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,6 why then are cattle also stated? To deduce the following: It says here unclean cattle,6 and there also unclean cattle;7 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.8 Clean cattle come under ‘clean wild animals’ with regard to ‘formation’.9 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 observe10 [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.11 So R. Meir. The Sages say: Whatsoever has not the human form is not considered a child.12 According to the Rabbis what need is there for that verse?13 — It serves entirely for Rabbi's exposition.14 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,15 so a clean object that has been swallowed cannot be rendered unclean.16 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.17 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.18 Perhaps there it is different, for the reason is that it is no longer fit for a stranger!19 Now according to R. Johanan it is well,20 for he says: For either purpose21 [it is nebelah] until it becomes unfit for a dog.22 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!23 — 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.24 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,25 (for a Master has stated, uncleanness that is closed up26 breaks through upwards to the sky), nevertheless protects any clean matter that is within it from becoming unclean,27 gazelle and the latter two are of the class vhj, ‘wild 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’. Gemara proceeds to apply these rules and to derive practical results therefrom. nevertheless in the Torah it is expressly stated only in connection with ‘cattle’. 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. sacrifice . . . that soul shall be cut off from his people. 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. 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. purification, and on the birth of a female fourteen days of uncleanness and sixty-six days of purification. only twenty-six days of purification (as if it were a male, and the total of days must not exceed forty). 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. 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?) unclean; v. our Mishnah. become unclean though he himself is rendered unclean; v. infra. undigested within him, because of the rule that unclean food that has been swallowed cannot render unclean. 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. the above quoted verse. uncleanness, i.e., only to render foodstuffs unclean. unclean immediately after sunset, nevertheless the Divine Law declares him clean obviously because unclean matter that has been swallowed cannot render unclean. unclean immediately after sunset, but not because it is unclean matter that has been swallowed. 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. 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. cubic handbreadth above the unclean matter.