מפת הסוגיא — חולין ע׳Sugya map — Chullin 70

רבא שואל: לעניין יציאת העובר (להחשיבו כְּנולד), כשרק חלק מאבר בחוץ — האם ׳הולכים באיברים אחר הרוב׳, היינו דנים את כל האבר לפי רוֹבּוֹ, או לא?

§ Rava raises a dilemma: Does one follow the majority with regard to limbs or does one not follow the majority with regard to limbs?

היכי דמי? צד ראשון: יצא רוב העובר, ובכלל יציאה זו גם מיעוט של אבר אחד (שרוֹבּוֹ בפנים). האם את אותו מיעוט-אבר שבחוץ מצרפים אל רוב האבר שבפנים (וייחשב כמי שלא יצא רוב), או אל רוב העובר שכבר יצא?

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this dilemma; what exactly is Rava’s question? If we say it is referring to a case where the majority of the fetus emerged, but that majority includes the emergence of the minority part of one of its limbs, then Rava is raising the following dilemma: With regard to this minority part of a limb that is outside the womb, do we cast it, i.e., count it, together with the majority of that limb, which is still inside the womb, as if the entire limb was still inside the womb? If so, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has not yet emerged. Or perhaps we cast it and count it together with the majority of the fetus that has already emerged, and so it is regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged and it is duly consecrated.

דחיית הצד הזה: פשיטא! ודאי שאין מניחים את רוב העובר שכבר יצא והולכים אחר רוב האבר; אין כאן ספק, ולא על זה שאל רבא.

The Gemara rejects this possibility: In that case it is obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the fetus and go after the majority of the limb. Consequently, Rava would not have raised a dilemma about this.

אלא הספק הוא להיפך: יצא חצי העובר, ובכלל החצי הזה רוב של אבר אחד (שמיעוטו עדיין בפנים). האם את אותו מיעוט-אבר שבפנים מצרפים אל רוב האבר שיצא — ויֵחשב כאילו יצא רוב העובר?

Rather, the dilemma is referring to a case where half of the fetus emerged, but that half includes the majority of a certain limb, and Rava raises the following dilemma: With regard to this minority part of a limb that is inside the womb, what is the halakha as to whether one casts it and counts it together with the majority of that limb and considers it as if that entire limb has emerged? If it is counted, it would be regarded as though a majority of the fetus has emerged, and it is duly consecrated.

תא שמע מן המשנה (לעיל): ׳יצא רובו — הרי זה יקבר׳ (נחשב כנולד). ומדייקים: מהו ׳רובו׳? אם רובו ממש — מה חידש? והרי כבר למדנו בכל מקום שרובו ככולו.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a statement of the mishna: If a majority of the fetus had already emerged, it is considered to have been born and duly consecrated, and so if one cut it up it must be buried. The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by a majority of the fetus? If we say it means literally the majority of the fetus, then the following difficulty arises: Until now had we not learned the principle that the majority of an item is considered like all of it? This is a well-established principle and it is not necessary to teach it again in this context.

אלא לאו — על כרחך המשנה מדברת בחצי העובר שיצא עם רוב אבר, ומלמדת שמצרפים את מיעוט-האבר שבפנים, ונחשב כיוצא רובו; ובכך פותרת את בעיית רבא.

Rather, is the mishna not referring to a case where half of the fetus emerged, but that half includes the majority of a limb? If so, the mishna directly resolves Rava’s dilemma and teaches that the minority part of the limb inside the womb is regarded as though it had emerged.

דחייה ומסקנה: לא — אפשר שהמשנה מדברת ביצא רובו עם מיעוט אבר, ומחדשת שאין עוזבים את רוב העובר שכבר יצא והולכים אחר האבר. נמצא שהבעיה (חצי ברוב אבר) לא הוכרעה מכאן.

The Gemara responds: No, the mishna could be referring to a case where the majority of the fetus emerged, but that majority includes the emergence of the minority of a limb, and it teaches us that we do not disregard the majority of the fetus and go after the majority of the limb.

בכור מתקדש כשהוא ׳פוטר רחם׳ — נוגע בפתח הרחם ביציאתו. רבא שואל: אם כרכוהו בסיב (קליפת הדקל) או בטליתו עם יציאתו, כך שלא נגע ממש בפתח הרחם — האם נחשב פוטר רחם ומתקדש, או לא?

§ A firstborn animal is consecrated by virtue of the fact that its birth is the first in which the womb of the mother opens, as indicated by the verse: “Consecrate to Me every firstborn, that which opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2). Concerning this condition, Rava raises a dilemma: If one wrapped the fetus in the bast of a palm tree while it was still in the womb, and it therefore did not come in contact with the opening of the womb directly when it emerged, what is the halakha with regard to whether it is consecrated? Likewise, if one wrapped it in his robe when it emerged, what is the halakha?

ועוד: כרכוהו בשִׁליה (השליה שלו) — מהו? הגמרא דוחה: בשלייתו? הרי זו דרכו הטבעית ואינה חציצה! אלא הספק הוא בשִׁליה של בהמה אחרת — שאינה דרכו — מהו?

Rava adds: If it emerged wrapped in its afterbirth, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: How could one suggest that being wrapped in its afterbirth would pose a problem? That is its natural manner of birth, and the afterbirth is consequently not considered an interposition. Accordingly, it is considered as though it was in direct contact with the opening of the womb. Rather, Rava’s dilemma must be as follows: If it emerged wrapped in the afterbirth of a different animal, what is the halakha?

ועוד: חולדה כרכתו, אחזתו והוציאתו — מהו? הגמרא מבררת: באיזה אופן? אם יצא דרך ראשו — כבר נפטר הרחם (נחשב פוטר), ואין ספק. אלא הספק כשיצא דרך רגליו (מרגלותיו) ורובו עדיין בפנים.

Another dilemma: If one wrapped it in one’s hands and held it and brought it out in that fashion, such that the fetus did not come in direct contact with the opening of the womb, what is the halakha? With regard to all these dilemmas the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the fetus had already partially emerged headfirst and then one wrapped up the body, which was still inside the womb, the halakha in such a case is clear: Since its head emerged, it is already considered to have been born and to have opened up the womb, and it is duly consecrated. Rather, the dilemma is in a case where it partially emerged hind legs first, and the majority of the body, which was still in the womb, was wrapped before it emerged.

ועוד: בלעתו חולדה והוציאתו — מהו? הגמרא דוחה: הוציאתו? הרי החולדה היא שהוציאתו, וודאי אין זה ׳פוטר רחם׳! אלא הספק: בלעתו והוציאתו, ואז החזירתו לרחם והקיאתו בתוכו, ואחר כך יצא מאליו — מהו?

Rava raises additional dilemmas: If a weasel entered the womb and swallowed the fetus there, and then exited the womb, bringing the fetus out in its stomach, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: Is there any doubt about a case where the weasel brought the fetus out in its stomach? In such a case it is the weasel that brought it out, and it is certainly not regarded as though the fetus opened the womb. Rather, the dilemma concerns a case where the weasel swallowed the fetus and brought it out, and then brought it back into the womb and vomited it out while inside the womb, and the fetus subsequently emerged of its own accord. What is the halakha in this case?

ועוד: הדביק פתחי שני רחמים, ועובר יצא מרחם זה ונכנס לרחם השני (ואחר כך יצא ממנו) — האם פוטר את הרחם השני לבכורה? אולי רק עוברה־שלו פוטר, ולא של אחרת; או שגם של אחרת פוטר? תיקו — לא נפשט.

Another dilemma: If one pressed together the openings of two wombs of two animals giving birth to firstborns, and a fetus exited from the womb of this animal and entered the womb of that animal, and then emerged from the womb of the second animal, after which the second animal gave birth to its fetus, what is the halakha with regard to whether the fetus of the second animal is consecrated as a firstborn? Is the womb considered to have opened only when its own fetus emerges from inside, but a fetus that is not its own is not halakhically considered to have opened the womb? Or perhaps even a fetus that is not its own is also considered to have opened the womb? The Gemara does not provide a resolution for these dilemmas and concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

רב אחא שואל: נפתחו (התרחבו) כותלי בית הרחם עד שהעובר יצא בלי לגעת בהם — מהו? האם אויר הרחם הוא המקדש את הבכור, וזה קיים כאן; או שדווקא נגיעת פתח הרחם מקדשת, וזו חסרה כאן?

Rav Aḥa raises a dilemma: If the walls of the opening of the womb opened and widened to such an extent that when the fetus emerged it did not touch them, what is the halakha? Does the airspace of the opening of the womb consecrate the fetus as it is born, and this situation exists here in this case; or perhaps it is the contact with the opening of the womb that consecrates it, and this situation does not exist here in this case?

מר בר רב אשי שואל: נעקרו כותלי בית הרחם — מהו? הגמרא דוחה: נעקרו לגמרי — הרי אינם, ואין מה שיקדש! אלא: נעקרו ונתלו על צוארו של העובר ביציאתו. האם הם מקדשים רק במקומם, ושלא במקומם אינם מקדשים; או שגם שלא במקומם מקדשים?

Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the walls of the opening of the womb were removed, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: The halakha in this case is clear, since if they were removed they are not there to consecrate the fetus. Rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were removed from their original place, recessed inside the womb, and as the fetus emerged, the walls lay on its neck. In such a case, what is the halakha? Do the walls of the opening of the womb consecrate a fetus only when they are in their natural place, but when they are not in their natural place they cannot consecrate a fetus? Or perhaps when they are not in their natural place they also consecrate the fetus.

ר׳ ירמיה שאל את ר׳ זירא: נגממו (נחתכו) כותלי בית הרחם — מהו? השיב לו: נגעת בבעיה שכבר נשאלה לפנינו, שבעי ר׳ זירא (ויש אומרים שאל ר׳ זירא את ר׳ אסי): עומד (הנשאר) מרובה על הפרוץ והעובר יצא דרך הפרוץ, או פרוץ מרובה על העומד והעובר יצא דרך העומד — מהו?

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the walls of the opening of the womb were thinned [nigmemu] by removing the inner layer, what is the halakha? If the fetus then emerges through them is it consecrated? Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have touched upon a dilemma that was already raised before us, and that discussion provides the answer to your dilemma. As Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma, and some say Rabbi Zeira raised that dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If a section of the opening of the womb was cut away, but the standing section, i.e., the part remaining, is greater in size than the breached, removed, section, and the offspring emerged through the breached section; or if the breached section is greater in size than the standing section and the offspring emerged through the standing section, what is the halakha?

ר׳ זירא מבחין: הבעיה ההיא נשאלה רק בפרוץ מרובה על העומד — שעדיין יש עומד (כותל) כלשהו בעולם שאפשר לדון בו; אבל נגממו לגמרי, שאין שום עומד — בזה לא הסתפקו כלל, שפשיטא שאינו מתקדש.

Rabbi Zeira explains how this dilemma can resolve Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma: That dilemma was raised only with regard to a case where the breached section is greater than the standing section, as there is at least some part of the womb still standing and therefore one can consider the possibility that it could consecrate the fetus. But a dilemma was not raised with regard to case where the walls were thinned, because in that case it is obvious that the fetus is not consecrated, as there is nothing left to consecrate it.

משנה: בהמה שמת עוברה בתוך מעיה, והרועה הושיט ידו לרחם ונגע בעובר המת — בין בבהמה טמאה ובין בטהורה, הרי הוא טהור (אין העובר שבמעי אמו מטמא כנבלה). ר׳ יוסי הגלילי חולק: בבהמה טמאה — טמא, ובטהורה — טהור.

MISHNA: With regard to an animal whose fetus died in its womb and the shepherd reached his hand into the womb and touched the fetus, both in the case of a non-kosher animal and in the case of a kosher animal the fetus does not have the status of an animal carcass that imparts ritual impurity, and the shepherd remains ritually pure. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: In the case of a non-kosher animal it is impure, and in the case of a kosher animal it is pure.

גמרא: מהו טעמו של תנא־קמא (שעובר מת טהור)? רב חסדא: קל וחומר — אם היות העובר במעי אמו מועיל להתירו באכילה (בשחיטת אמו, אף שנמצא מת), כל שכן שיועיל לטהרו מטומאת נבלה.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the first tanna? Rav Ḥisda said: It is apparent through an a fortiori inference: If being inside its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through the slaughter of its mother even if the fetus was found dead inside the womb, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass?

הק״ו לימד על בהמה טהורה (הראויה לאכילה); מנין שגם בטמאה העובר טהור? אמר הכתוב ׳וכי ימות מן הבהמה׳ — זו טמאה, ׳אשר היא לכם לאכלה׳ — זו טהורה. הוקשה טמאה לטהורה: מה בטהורה עוברה טהור, אף בטמאה עוברה טהור.

The Gemara asks: We found a rationale for this halakha with regard to a kosher animal; from where do we derive that the same applies to a non-kosher animal? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The Gemara interprets the verse as follows: “And when a domesticated animal dies,” this is referring to a non-kosher animal; “of those that you eat,” this is referring to a kosher animal. The verse thereby juxtaposes a non-kosher animal to a kosher animal with regard to imparting impurity of a carcass, and teaches that just as with regard to a kosher animal, its fetus that died in its womb is pure, as derived above through an a fortiori inference, so too, with regard to a non-kosher animal, its dead fetus is pure.

ומהו טעמו של ר׳ יוסי הגלילי (שבטמאה העובר טמא)? ר׳ יצחק: הכתוב אומר ׳וכל הולך על כפיו בכל החיה ההֹלכת׳ — ׳מהלכי כפיים׳ (בעלי טלפים שאינם סדוקים) שהם ׳בְּחַיָּה׳ (בתוך בהמה חיה), טימאתי לך; היינו עובר מת שבמעי בהמה חיה.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Yitzḥak said that the verse states with regard to non-kosher animals that do not have cloven hooves: “And whatever walks on its paws, among any [bekhol] undomesticated animal [ḥayya] that walks on all fours, they are impure for you; whoever touches their carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:27). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds this verse as follows: Those animals that walk on their paws, i.e., that do not have cloven hooves, which are inside the body of an animal, I rendered impure for you. Rabbi Yitzḥak interprets the term bekhol as meaning: Inside the body of, and the word ḥayya as meaning: A live animal. Accordingly, he understands the verse to be referring to a dead fetus found inside a living animal.

קושיא: אם כן, עובר קלוט (שטלפיו אינם סדוקים) שבמעי פרה יְטמא, שהרי הוא ׳מהלכי כפיים בחיה׳? תירוץ: הכתוב מדבר ב׳מהלכי כפיים׳ שבתוך ׳מהלכי ארבע׳, וקלוט זה הוא ׳מהלכי ארבע׳ בתוך פרה שהיא ׳מהלכי שמונה׳ (טלפיה סדוקים לשניים).

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then a dead fetus with non-cloven hooves found inside a cow should be impure, despite the fact that it is from a kosher species, as it is an animal that walks on its paws that is inside the body of a kosher animal. The Gemara explains: The verse renders impure an animal that walks upon its four paws that is inside an animal that walks on four paws. But this is a case of an animal that walks on four inside an animal that walks on eight. Since the mother cow’s hooves are entirely split into two parts, it actually walks on eight parts and is not the animal referred to by the verse.

המשך הקושיא והיישוב: אם כן, עובר פרה (׳מהלכי שמונה׳) שבמעי גמל (׳מהלכי ארבע׳) לא יְטמא? הכתוב יכול היה לומר ׳הולך׳, וכתב ׳וכל הולך׳ — לרבות אף פרה במעי גמל, שמטמא.

The Gemara raises another objection: If that is so, then a dead fetus in the form of a cow, which has eight parts to its legs, inside the womb of a camel, a non-kosher animal with non-cloven hooves, should not be impure, as it is an animal that walks on eight inside an animal that walks on four, and the verse is not referring to it. The Gemara responds that the verse could have stated: Walks upon, but instead states: “And whatever walks upon,” i.e., the addition of the word “whatever” serves to include a dead cow fetus in the womb of a camel, teaching that it is impure.

קושיא נוספת: אם כן, קלוט (׳מהלכי ארבע׳) שבמעי בהמה כשרה קלוטה (׳מהלכי ארבע׳) יְטמא, שהרי הוא מהלכי ארבע בתוך מהלכי ארבע — אך הדין שטהור, מאחר שהאם ממין כשר! לכך מועיל הק״ו של רב חסדא, שמטהר עוברי כל הכשרות.

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then a dead fetus with non-cloven hooves inside the womb of a cow with non-cloven hooves should be impure, as it is an animal that walks on four inside an animal that walks on four, but the halakha is that since the mother is a kosher species, it is pure. The Gemara explains: It is to that end that the a fortiori inference of Rav Ḥisda is effective, as it renders pure the fetuses of all kosher animals, even if their hooves are not fully cloven.

רב אחדבוי בר אמי מקשה: לפי ההסבר שהכתוב מטמא רק ׳מהלכי ארבע בתוך מהלכי ארבע׳ — חזיר (שטלפיו סדוקים, ׳מהלכי שמונה׳) שבמעי חזירה (אף היא ׳מהלכי שמונה׳) לא יְטמא, שאינו בכלל הכתוב!

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami objects to this explanation that the verse renders impure only animals that walk on four inside animals that walk on four: If that is so, a dead pig fetus inside the womb of a female pig should not be impure, as a pig has cloven hooves, and so it is an animal that walks on eight inside an animal that walks on eight, and so the verse is not referring to it.

אלא — מאחר שנדחתה דרשת ר׳ יצחק — אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שדין ר׳ יוסי הגלילי נלמד מכאן: ׳נפש כי תגע בכל טמא או בנבלת חיה טמאה או בנבלת בהמה טמאה או בנבלת שרץ טמא׳.

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the sliding-scale offering brought by one who was unaware that he was impure when he ate consecrated food or entered the Temple: “A person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal, or the carcass of an impure creeping animal, and is guilty, it having being hidden from him that he is impure” (Leviticus 5:2).

דיוק הדרשה: וכי רק נבלת בהמה טמאה מטמאה, ושל טהורה לא? והרי שתיהן מטמאות! אלא מהו ה׳נבלת בהמה טמאה׳ המיוחד שבפסוק? זה עובר מת — שבבהמה טמאה טמא, ובטהורה טהור.

The verse presents a difficulty: Does only a carcass of a non-kosher animal impart impurity, and that of a kosher animal not impart impurity? The halakha is that both do. Rather, what is this animal to which the verse is referring? This is a fetus, which if inside a non-kosher animal is impure, and if inside a kosher animal is pure.

ומאחר שדין ר׳ יוסי הגלילי נלמד מדרשת רב נחמן בר יצחק, למה לי גם דרשת ר׳ יצחק? לולא דרשת ר׳ יצחק הייתי אומר שכל הפסוק (׳וכל הולך על כפיו׳) בא רק לדרשת רבי (לקמן); קא משמע לן ר׳ יצחק שנדרש גם כדרכו.

The Gemara asks: And since this halakha is derived from the statement of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, why do I need the proof of Rabbi Yitzḥak from the verse: “And whatever walks on its paws, among any undomesticated animal that walks on all fours” (Leviticus 11:27)? The Gemara explains: Were it not for the derivation of Rabbi Yitzḥak, I would say that the entire verse expounded by Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak comes to teach only that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derived from it, as cited by the Gemara later on. Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement teaches us that the verse is also to be expounded as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explained.

ברייתא — ר׳ יונתן (תלמיד ר׳ ישמעאל): אמרתי לבן עזאי — למדנו (מן המקראות) שנבלת בהמה טהורה מטמאה, ונבלת בהמה טמאה מטמאה, ונבלת חיה טמאה מטמאה.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan, a student of Rabbi Yishmael, says: I said [namti] to ben Azzai: We learned that a carcass of a kosher domesticated animal imparts impurity from the verse: “And when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). And we learned that a carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal imparts impurity, and that a carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal imparts impurity, from the verse: “A person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal” (Leviticus 5:2).

אבל נבלת חיה טהורה לא למדנו — מנין שמטמאה? אמר לי בן עזאי: מן הכתוב ׳כל הולך על כפיו בכל החיה ההֹלכת׳ — תיבת ׳בכל׳ מרבה אף נבלת חיה טהורה.

But we did not yet learn about a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal. From where is it derived that it imparts impurity? Ben Azzai said to me that this is derived from the verse: “And whatever walks on its paws, among any undomesticated animal that walks on all fours” (Leviticus 11:27). The inclusive term “among any” serves to include even a carcass of a kosher undomesticated animal among those that impart impurity.

השבתי לו (ר׳ יונתן): וכי נאמר ׳וכל חיה׳? והרי לא נאמר אלא ׳בכל החיה׳ — ולשון זו באה לדרשת ׳מהלכי כפיים שבחיה׳ (כדרשת ר׳ יצחק לעיל), ולא לרבות חיה טהורה. אמר לי בן עזאי: ומה אומר ר׳ ישמעאל רבך בדבר הזה?

Rabbi Yonatan continues. I said to ben Azzai: But does it state: And any undomesticated animal? Isn’t it stated only: “Among any undomesticated animal”? And as explained earlier, this comes to teach that a dead fetus in the form of any of the animals that walk on their paws inside an undomesticated animal imparts impurity. He said to me: And what does Rabbi Yishmael, your teacher, say about this matter?

השבתי לו: ר׳ ישמעאל דורש מ׳וכי ימות מן הבהמה׳ — זו טמאה, ׳אשר היא לכם לאכלה׳ — זו טהורה; ולמדנו ממנו את הכלל הגדול: חיה בכלל בהמה, ובהמה בכלל חיה (לשון אחת כוללת את חברתה).

I said to him that Rabbi Yishmael derives all these halakhot from the verse: “And when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39), as follows: “And when a domesticated animal [habehema] dies,” this is referring to a non-kosher animal; “of those that you eat,” this is referring to a kosher animal. And we learned that a ḥayya is included in the category of a behema, i.e., the term behema can also refer collectively to both domesticated and undomesticated animals. And likewise, a behema is included in the category of a ḥayya.

פירוט הכלל: חיה טהורה בכלל בהמה טהורה, חיה טמאה בכלל בהמה טמאה — כל לשון של בהמה כוללת אף את החיה שכמותה (טהורה או טמאה).

Furthermore, a kosher ḥayya is included when the Torah makes reference to a kosher behema, and a non-kosher ḥayya is included when the Torah makes reference to a non-kosher behema.

המשך הכלל: בהמה טמאה בכלל חיה טמאה, בהמה טהורה בכלל חיה טהורה. ובלשון הזה אמר לי בן עזאי: ׳חבל על בן עזאי שלא שימש את ר׳ ישמעאל׳ — שהפסיד תורה גדולה.

And likewise, a non-kosher behema is included in the category of a non-kosher ḥayya, and a kosher behema is included in the category of a kosher ḥayya. Accordingly, although the verse here is referring to a behema, it is understood to be referring collectively to both a behema and a ḥayya, and teaches that the carcasses of both types impart impurity. And upon hearing this, ben Azzai said to me in these words: Woe [ḥaval] unto ben Azzai, who did not serve Rabbi Yishmael.

הגמרא מבררת מקורות לכלל. חיה בכלל בהמה מנין? דכתיב ׳זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו… איל וצבי ויחמור׳ — ואיל וצבי הם חיות, ובכל זאת נקראו ׳בהמה׳; הא כיצד? אלא חיה בכלל בהמה.

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yishmael’s statement: From where do we derive that according to the Torah, a ḥayya is included in the category of a behema? As it is written: “These are the behema that you may eat: An ox, a sheep, and a goat, a deer, and a gazelle, and a fallow deer, and a wild goat, and an oryx, and an aurochs, and a wild sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:4–5). Despite employing the term “behema,” the verse also lists the deer and the gazelle, which are undomesticated animals. How is this possible? From here it is evident that a ḥayya is included by the Torah in the category of a behema.

בהמה בכלל חיה מנין? דכתיב ׳זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ כל מפרסת פרסה׳ — קראם ׳חיה׳ ומנה ׳בהמה׳; הא כיצד? אלא בהמה בכלל חיה.

From where do we derive that according to the Torah, a behema is included in the category of a ḥayya? As it is written: “These are the ḥayya that you may eat, among all the behema that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof” (Leviticus 11:2–3). How is this possible, that the verse mentions a ḥayya and then refers to a behema? This indicates that a domesticated animal is included in the category of a ḥayya by the Torah.

הצריכותות — להיכן נצרך כל צד: חיה טהורה בכלל בהמה טהורה — לעניין סימני הכשרות (מעלת גרה ומפריסת פרסה שנאמרו בבהמה, נוהגים אף בחיה).

The Gemara further clarifies: The principle that a kosher ḥayya is included by the Torah in the category of a kosher behema is relevant with regard to the distinguishing characteristics of kosher animals. The Torah states with regard to a domesticated animal that only a species that chews its cud and has cloven hooves is kosher. Nevertheless, this requirement is understood as a reference to both domesticated and undomesticated animals.

חיה טמאה בכלל בהמה טמאה — לעניין איסור הרבעה (כלאי בהמה); האיסור שנאמר ב׳בהמתך׳ נוהג אף בחיה.

The principle that a non-kosher ḥayya is included by the Torah in the category of a non-kosher behema is relevant with regard to the prohibition against mating one species with another. The Torah states the prohibition with regard to a behema: “You shall not let your animal [behema] mate with a diverse kind” (Leviticus 19:19). Nevertheless, this is understood as referring to both a behema and a ḥayya.

בהמה טמאה בכלל חיה טמאה — לדרשת רבי (כדלהלן), הלומד מן הכפילות שבפסוק קרבן עולה־ויורד גזירה־שווה לטומאת קודש.

The principle that a non-kosher behema is included by the Torah in the category of a non-kosher ḥayya is relevant with regard to that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse delineates a case in which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering as an atonement: “A person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal [ḥayya], or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal [behema], or the carcass of an impure creeping animal, and is guilty, it having being hidden from him that he is impure” (Leviticus 5:2). But the nature of the transgression for which the person requires atonement is not apparent from the verse.

דתניא — רבי אומר: הואיל ובהמה בכלל חיה, יכולתי לקרוא ׳חיה׳ בלבד (בפסוק עולה־ויורד) ולדעת שכל נבלת טמאה מחייבת; אם כן, ׳בהמה׳ למה נאמרה בנפרד?

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Since a domesticated animal is also referred to as a ḥayya, it would be sufficient if I would read, i.e., the verse would write, only the clause about a ḥayya, and I would have known that one who touches a carcass of any non-kosher animal is impure. Why, then, is an explicit clause about a behema stated? It serves as the basis for a verbal analogy.

גזירה־שווה: נאמר כאן (עולה־ויורד) ׳בהמה טמאה׳, ונאמר להלן (פרשת אכילת קודש בטומאה) ׳בהמה טמאה׳; מה להלן מדובר בטומאת קודש, אף כאן הקרבן בא על טומאת קודש.

It is stated here, with regard to one who is unaware that he touched an impure item: “Non-kosher behema,” and it is likewise stated below, with regard to one who was aware that he touched an impure item: “Non-kosher behema,” in the following verse: “And when any one shall touch any impure thing, whether it is the impurity of man, or a non-kosher behema, and then eats of the flesh of a peace offering to the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:21). Just as below, the verse is referring to the defiling of sacrificial foods, so too here, the reference is to the defiling of sacrificial foods, and therefore one must bring a sliding-scale offering as an atonement.

בהמה טהורה בכלל חיה טהורה — לעניין יצירה (טומאת לידה), דתנן (נדה): המפלת ולד שצורתו מין בהמה, חיה או עוף, בין טמאים בין טהורים — אם צורת זכר, תשב ימי טומאה וטהרה של זכר.

The Gemara clarifies the final statement: The principle that a kosher behema is included by the Torah in the category of a kosher ḥayya is relevant with regard to the formation of children. As we learned in a mishna (Nidda 21a): With regard to a woman who miscarries a fetus that appears to be in the form of a type of behema, ḥayya, or bird, whether it had the form of a non-kosher species or a kosher species, if the fetus is a male, then she observes the periods of impurity and purity required for giving birth to a male.

המשך המשנה: ואם צורת נקבה — תשב ימי טומאה וטהרה של נקבה.

The mishna continues: And if the fetus is a female, then she observes the periods required for giving birth to a female. After giving birth to a male, a woman is impure for seven days, during which it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse. During the next thirty-three days she may immerse in a ritual bath at any time, after which she is permitted to engage in intercourse even should she then experience a discharge of uterine blood. Nevertheless, during the entire forty-day period she may not enter the Temple or be in contact with consecrated foods. After giving birth to a girl, the length of each of these periods is doubled to fourteen days and sixty-six days, respectively (see Leviticus 12:2–5).

ואם אין צורתו ידועה אם זכר אם נקבה — תשב להחמיר כדין זכר וכדין נקבה יחד.

If the sex of the fetus is unknown, she observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. Accordingly, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse for the fourteen days after birth, after which she immerses in a ritual bath. After that she is permitted to engage in intercourse despite any discharge of uterine blood until the fortieth day after birth, i.e., for thirty-three days following the seven days she would have been prohibited from engaging in intercourse if the fetus was male. The prohibition against entering the Temple, however, continues until eighty days have passed from the birth.

— כל זה דברי ר׳ מאיר, הסובר שאף ולד שצורת בהמה/חיה לו נחשב ולד לעניין ימי טומאת וטהרת הלידה.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara elsewhere (Nidda 22b) explains that Rabbi Meir derives his opinion from the fact that the term “formation” is used to describe both the formation of man: “Then the Lord God formed man” (Genesis 2:7), and the formation of animals and birds: “The Lord God formed every animal [ḥayya] of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). Furthermore, he holds that the term “ḥayya” is referring to both domesticated and undomesticated animals, and concludes that a woman observes these periods of purity and impurity if the fetus has the form of any of these types of animals.

וחכמים חולקים: כל ולד שאין צורתו צורת אדם — אינו נחשב ולד כלל לעניין טומאת לידה, והאישה אינה יושבת עליו ימי טומאה וטהרה.

And the Rabbis say: Any fetus that is not of human form is not regarded as an offspring with regard to observance of these periods of purity and impurity, and she is permitted to engage in intercourse provided she does not experience a discharge of uterine blood.