Chullin

how 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;1 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.2 We have thus learnt the law regarding uncleanness swallowed from above,3 but whence do we know that it is so even when the uncleanness was swallowed’ from below?4 — 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.5 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;6 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?7 — 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!8 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 loaf9 of wheaten bread, but not barley bread, reclining and eating it with a condiment. 10 Raba said: But we have learnt both these rules.11 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:12 If a person swallowed an unclean ring,13 he must immerse himself14 and thereafter may eat terumah;15 if he vomited it forth [after this immersion], it is still unclean and has rendered him unclean.16 And concerning swallowed clean matter we have learnt the following Mishnah:12 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,17 immersed himself, and then vomited it forth, it remains as it was before!18 — 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 reasonable to hold that any clean matter that is ‘swallowed up’ or enclosed within an earthenware vessel is protected from uncleanness. 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! 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. 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. are immediately rendered unclean. in connection with ‘Erub. cannot convey uncleanness. being of metal, assumed the same degree, and not a lesser degree, of uncleanness as the corpse itself, v. supra 3a. matter cannot render unclean. 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. 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.