חולין 72:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:This is the conclusion arrived at by the Rabbis from the interpretation of Lev. XI, 26. V. Sifra on this verse.
^ᵇnote:I.e., before it was rendered trefah.
^ᶜnote:According to the argument that has been submitted it would follow that an animal that was born trefah is not rendered clean by slaughtering, but this is not the case; hence that argument fails.
^ᵈnote:An eight months’ birth is not a viable animal and therefore slaughtering does not apply to it, for it is not within the category of cattle or sheep.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘uncleanness in secret parts’. The only contact made by the foetus with the unclean limb is at the point where the two are joined but where subsequently they will be cut away from each other, and that contact is covert and not exposed.
^ᶠnote:That covert contact with uncleanness does convey the uncleanness. The author of our anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir, hence the introduction of R. Meir into this argument; cf. Sanh. 86a.
^ᵍnote:Kel. XXVII, 20.
^ʰnote:I.e., a person suffering with a discharge from his body had put his full weight upon this cloth, e.g., by sitting or standing upon it or by leaning against it. Cf. Lev. xv, 4. And whatever has been thus rendered unclean by xrsn ‘pressure’, provided it was not less than three handbreadths square, will render unclean men and vessels.
^ⁱnote:Being less than three handbreadths square it can no longer render men or vessels unclean, but it can render foodstuffs or liquids unclean provided it was not reduced in size to less than three finger-breadths square.
^ʲnote:The only contact is at the line in the undivided cloth along which it was subsequently cut, but there the contact was not exposed.
^ᵏnote:The words ‘So R. Meir’ are not found in the Mishnah cited; cf. Kel. ibid.
^ˡnote:So MS.M. What follows is the continuation of the cited Mishnah; cur. edd. ‘it was taught’.
^ᵐnote:If a person that had an issue stood upon it with his bare feet, this cloth would have contracted uncleanness on two grounds’, viz., because of the pressure and also by reason of direct contact. Now when the cloth is divided and is thereby reduced to less than the minimum size required for midras uncleanness this uncleanness will have disappeared and the cloth will no longer render men and vessels unclean; it will, however, be capable of rendering foodstuffs and liquids unclean by reason of the additional uncleanness brought about by the contact which still remains, provided, of course, it was not reduced to less than three finger-breadths square.
^ⁿnote:Sc. R. Meir and R. Jose.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘from its father’, i.e., from the stock or rest of the material. The cloth, all agree, is unclean by reason of contact with midras uncleanness; for contact there was inasmuch as it is almost impossible to cut away a portion of cloth from the garment without the two coming into contact if only at the moment that they are being severed; and moreover the contact was exposed contact.
^ᵖnote:I.e., the same reasoning applies to the severing of the foetus from the limb so that even R. Jose would agree that it is unclean by reason of the said contact.