מפת הסוגיא — חולין ע״בSugya map — Chullin 72

משנה: בהמה המתקשה בלידה, והוציא העובר את ידו (רגלו הקדמית) החוצה. אם חתכו את האבר ואחר כך שחטו את האם — בשר האבר טהור. שחטו את האם תחילה ואחר כך חתכו את האבר — הבשר טמא במגע נבלה (האבר חשוב כנבלה, שאינו ניתר בשחיטה), דברי ר׳ מאיר.

MISHNA: If an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and as a result the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother’s womb, and someone severed it and afterward slaughtered the mother animal, the flesh of the fetus is ritually pure. If one first slaughtered the mother animal and afterward severed the foreleg, the flesh of both the mother animal and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in contact with a carcass. Since the foreleg was not permitted to be consumed through the act of slaughtering, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted to be consumed by the slaughter, was in contact with it and so was rendered ritually impure from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים: הבשר טמא רק במגע טריפה שחוטה (ולא במגע נבלה). ומוסיפים נימוק: כשם שמצאנו בטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה מטומאת נבלה, אף שחיטת האם תטהר את האבר.

And the Rabbis say: The flesh has the ritual impurity of having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered, as the limb is regarded as a tereifa that was slaughtered. By Torah law, although it is prohibited to consume it, it does not impart ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a tereifa that was slaughtered, as well as anything that comes in contact with it, is regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it disqualifies sacrificial foods that come in contact with it.

המשך דברי חכמים: מה מצינו בטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרת אותה מטומאת נבלה — אף ששחיטה אינה מתירתה באכילה — כך שחיטת האם תטהר את האבר שיצא, אף שאינו ניתר באכילה.

The Rabbis explain the rationale behind their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., ritual slaughter prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that its consumption is prohibited.

השיב להם ר׳ מאיר: לא! אם שחיטת הטריפה טיהרה את הטריפה עצמה — שהיא דבר שהוא מגוף הבהמה (הצוואר נשחט בגופה) — וכי מכאן שתטהר את האבר, שהוא דבר שאינו מגוף האם?

Rabbi Meir said to them: No, if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the body of the animal ritually pure, it is because the slaughter is performed on something that is part of its body, i.e., its throat. Does it necessarily follow that you should also render the limb that left the womb pure, given that it is something that is not part of the mother’s body? Certainly not.

מקור הדין שבמחלוקת: מניין שטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה? מצד הסברה היה מקום לומר ההפך — בהמה טמאה אסורה באכילה, אף טריפה אסורה באכילה; מה בהמה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה, אף טריפה לא תטהרנה שחיטה!

The mishna asks: From where is it derived with regard to a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure, i.e., prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass? The mishna notes there is a reason to say the slaughter should not render it pure, as one can compare a tereifa with a non-kosher animal: A non-kosher animal is prohibited for consumption; so too, a tereifa is prohibited for consumption. Therefore, conclude: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, its slaughter does not render it ritually pure, so too with regard to a tereifa, its slaughter should not render it ritually pure.

דחיית ההשוואה: לא! מה שאמרת בבהמה טמאה — אינו דומה לטריפה. בהמה טמאה מעולם לא הייתה לה שעת כושר שבה שחיטה תתירנה; וכי תאמר כן בטריפה, שהייתה לה שעת כושר (בעודה בריאה) שבה שחיטה התירתה?

The mishna questions the comparison: No, if you said that slaughtering cannot prevent an animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass in the case of a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that it did not have a period of potential fitness when slaughtering it could have rendered its consumption permitted, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this in the case of a tereifa, which did have a period of potential fitness? Perhaps, since the animal had a period of potential fitness its slaughter remains effective in preventing it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass.

טול לך את החילוק שהבאת, שאינו עומד: והרי בהמה שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מעולם לא הייתה לה שעת כושר — ובכל זאת שחיטתה מטהרתה; אם כן מניין הדין? בעל כורחנו צריך מקור אחר.

The mishna rejects this distinction: Take back to yourself this claim that you brought, as it is insufficient. What about a case where an animal was born as a tereifa from the womb, and so it never had a period of potential fitness? For such a case, from where is it derived that its slaughter renders it ritually pure?

נוסח חילוק אחר: לא! בהמה טמאה אין במינה שחיטה כלל (התורה לא נתנה שחיטה במין טמא); וכי תאמר כן בטריפה, שיש במינה שחיטה (שהרי מין כשר הוא, ובהמות כשרות נשחטות)?

The mishna reformulates the distinction: No, if you say that slaughtering cannot prevent a prohibited animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, as the Torah states the concept of slaughtering only with regard to kosher animals, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this with regard to a tereifa kosher animal, given that there are other animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, i.e., kosher animals that are not tereifa? Perhaps, since the concept of slaughtering is relevant to that kind of animal it can serve to prevent the animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass even if the slaughter cannot render it permitted for consumption.

מסקנת ההיגיון: לפי חילוק זה, בן שמונה חודשים שנולד חי — אין שחיטתו מטהרתו, לפי שאין במינו שחיטה (שאינו בר־קיימא, והתורה נתנה שחיטה רק בנולד לתשעה חודשים).

The mishna notes: Based on this reasoning, one must conclude that with regard to an eight-month-old fetus that was born alive, slaughter does not render it ritually pure, as there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering. The Torah applies the concept of slaughter only with regard to animals that were born full term.

גמרא: לדעת ר׳ מאיר במשנה, שאר העובר נטמא במגע האבר. הגמרא תמהה: למה? הרי מקום החיבור שבין האבר לעובר הוא ״בית הסתרים״ (מקום מוסתר), וטומאת בית הסתרים אינה מטמאה! נאמר שר׳ מאיר לשיטתו, שטומאת בית הסתרים מטמאה?

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Meir, if a foreleg of a fetus emerges from the womb and is severed after the slaughter of the mother, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. Furthermore, the rest of the fetus from which it was cut is thereby rendered ritually impure through its contact with the foreleg. The Gemara asks: Why should the rest of the fetus be impure? This is a case of impurity imparted within a concealed area, as the point of contact between the foreleg and the fetus existed when they were still naturally connected to each other. And the halakha is that an impure item within a concealed area does not impart impurity. If the two items were in contact in a concealed area and not on an external surface, impurity cannot be imparted from one item to the other. Shall we say that Rabbi Meir conforms to his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as he holds that an impure item within a concealed area does impart impurity?

ראיה שר׳ מאיר סובר טומאת בית הסתרים מטמאה: דתנן (כלים) — בגד שלושה טפחים על שלושה שנחלק לחתיכות, טהור מטומאת מדרס (שוב אינו מטמא במדרס) —

This is as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 27:10) concerning ritual impurity imparted by treading: If a person who is ritually impure due to having experienced a bodily emission, such as a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], sits or leans upon an item that was designated for that purpose, the item is rendered ritually impure due to ritual impurity imparted by treading. The item will then impart impurity to people or utensils that come in contact with it. In the case of a garment that is impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading that was three by three handbreadths in size, i.e., the minimum size to impart such impurity, that was split into smaller pieces, each part is ritually pure with regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading and will no longer impart impurity to people and utensils that come in contact with it.

— אבל טמא במגע מדרס: כל חתיכה נשארת טמאה מחמת מגעה בשאר חלקי הבגד קודם שנחלק; ומגע זה היה בבית הסתרים (חיבור פנימי) — ובכל זאת מטמא. דברי ר׳ מאיר, שטומאת בית הסתרים מטמאה.

The mishna continues: But each piece will still have the ritual impurity of having been in contact with an item that imparts ritual impurity imparted by treading. Before the garment was split, when it still imparted ritual impurity imparted by treading, each piece of the garment was in contact with another part of it. Through that connection, each piece was rendered ritually impure with the impurity of having been in contact with ritual impurity imparted by treading. When the garment was subsequently split, although the pieces were no longer able to impart ritual impurity imparted by treading, they retained the ritual impurity they acquired through their contact with the other pieces before the garment was split. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. In this case, the contact between the pieces occurred within a concealed area, as the connection between parts of the same item has the status of a connection within a concealed area. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that impurity can be imparted within a concealed area.

ותניא, ר׳ יוסי חולק: וכי באיזה מדרס נגע זה? (מתעלם ממגע החתיכות שבבית הסתרים) — אלא טומאת החתיכות אינה אלא אם נגע בבגד זב עצמו במישרין, שאז יהא טמא מגע זב. נמצא שדברי ר׳ מאיר שבמשנתנו עולים רק לשיטת ר׳ מאיר שם.

And it is taught in that mishna that Rabbi Yosei says, disagreeing with Rabbi Meir: But what source of impurity imparted by treading did these pieces touch? Rabbi Yosei disregards the contact between the pieces that occurred before the garment was split, as that contact has the status of a connection within a concealed area. Rather, the only way the pieces could still be ritually impure is if a zav had touched the garment directly, e.g., when he sat on the garment he also touched it with his skin. In that case the garment would have also been rendered ritually impure due to contact with a zav, and that impurity would remain even after the garment was split. It would appear, then, that the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna here can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna in Kelim, but not with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

תירוץ עולא (שאף ר׳ יוסי יודה במשנתנו): והרי נאמר על אותה משנה, אמר עולא — לא נחלק ר׳ יוסי על ר׳ מאיר אלא בשלושה על שלושה שנחלק, שאז שוב אין חתיכה גדולה דייה לטמא את האחרות.

The Gemara responds: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna in Kelim that Ulla said: They taught that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Meir only in the case of a garment of three by three handbreadths that was split into smaller pieces, as once it is split, there is no piece large enough to impart to the other pieces impurity imparted through treading.

המשך עולא: אבל חתיכות שלוש אצבעות על שלוש הנחתכות מבגד גדול (שעדיין מטמא מדרס) — בשעת פרישתן מ״אביהן״ (הבגד הגדול) הן מקבלות ממנו טומאה. אף כאן: בשעת פרישת בשר העובר מן האבר, הוא מקבל טומאה מן האבר; ובזה אף ר׳ יוסי יודה.

But with regard to pieces of three by three fingerbreadths that come, i.e., are cut, from a large garment, everyone agrees that at the time of their separation from their original garment, before they are fully detached from it, they are rendered impure through their contact with the original garment, despite the fact that the contact occurs within a concealed area. In this case of the mishna here also, one can say that at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, i.e., the foreleg, it is rendered impure through its contact with the limb. According to Ulla, then, the mishna can be reconciled also with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

תירוץ רבינא: בגד אינו עומד להיחתך — אדרבה, מוטב שיישאר שלם, ולכן החיבור שבין חלקיו נחשב בית הסתרים שאינו מטמא. אבל עובר שהוציא ידו — האבר עומד להיחתך (שהרי אסור באכילה ושאר העובר מותר); וכל העומד להיחתך —

Ravina said there is a different explanation of how the mishna can be reconciled with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: A garment does not stand, i.e., is not intended, to be cut. On the contrary, it is better for it to remain whole. Therefore, the connections between its pieces are regarded as being within a concealed area that cannot impart impurity. By contrast, with regard to a fetus that extends its foreleg, the foreleg does stand to be cut, as it is prohibited for consumption while the rest of the fetus is permitted, and the halakhic principle is that any item that stands to be cut

— כחתוך דמי: כל הראוי והעומד להיחתך נחשב כאילו כבר נחתך. נמצא שהאבר חשוב כחתוך, והחיבור עמו אינו בית הסתרים אלא מגע גלוי — ולכן מטמא את שאר העובר.

is regarded as though it were cut. Therefore, it is regarded as though the foreleg had already been severed from the body of the fetus, and the point of contact between them is not considered to be a concealed area. Rather, it is regarded as if the foreleg and fetus were two separate items that came into contact with each other. Consequently, the former can impart impurity to the latter.

כמאן (כדעת מי) עיקרון זה? כר׳ מאיר, דתנן (מקואות): כל ידות הכלים הארוכות שעתיד לקצצן — מטביל את הכלי רק עד מקום המידה (עד היכן שיישאר אחר הקציצה), והכלי טהור אף שלא טבל כל היד. דברי ר׳ מאיר — כל העומד להיקצץ כקצוץ דמי.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakhic principle that Ravina cites? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 10:5): When a vessel is immersed in a ritual bath, it is purified only if all parts of the vessel are submerged at the same time. But with regard to any handles of vessels that are too long and therefore will ultimately be cut off, one must immerse them only until the point of their eventual size. Even though the part of the handle that will be cut off is not submerged, the vessel is nevertheless purified; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that even though the handle is still physically attached, since that part of the handle stands to be cut off, it is already regarded as though it were cut off. Consequently, immersing the handle up until that point is regarded as immersing the entire vessel.

וחכמים אומרים: אין הכלי טהור עד שיטביל את כולו, ובכלל זה כל היד. נמצא שחכמים אינם סוברים ״כל העומד לחתוך כחתוך דמי״, ולכאורה תירוץ רבינא עולה רק לר׳ מאיר.

And the Rabbis say that the vessel is not purified until he immerses all of it, including the handle. Apparently, the Rabbis do not hold that an item that stands to be cut is regarded as though it was already cut, and Ravina’s explanation is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

יישוב: אפילו תאמר כדעת חכמים — בכלים בלבד נחלקו, אבל חיבורי אוכלין כמאן דמפרתי דמי (כאילו כבר נפרדו) ונוגעים זה בזה. והעובר והאבר חשובים כאוכל, ולכן נחשבים כנפרדים ונוגעים — והאבר מטמא את העובר. ובכך מיושב גם לחכמים.

The Gemara responds: You may even say that Ravina’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir concerns utensils, but even the Rabbis agree that the connections between two pieces of food are disregarded, and the item is considered as though it is already separated into two pieces that are touching one another, and so ritual impurity can be imparted from one piece to another. Similarly, the fetus and the foreleg are considered like food in this regard. Therefore, it is considered as if they have already been separated and are touching, allowing the foreleg to impart impurity to the fetus.

מסקנת הלשון: בשלמא לעולא, שהטומאה בשעת הפרישה — מובן שהמשנה נקטה ״חתכה״. אלא לרבינא, שאף בלא חיתוך מטמא — למה נקטה ״חתכה״? תירוץ: איידי דתנא ברישא ״חתכה״, תנא נמי בסיפא ״חתכה״ — לשם אחידות הלשון בלבד.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the explanation of Ulla that the fetus was rendered impure at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches, that the foreleg was severed from the body of the fetus. But according to the explanation of Ravina, the connection between the foreleg and fetus is like that of food, and even if the foreleg was never severed from the fetus it would still impart impurity to the fetus. What, then, is the reason the mishna states it was severed? The Gemara answers: Since the mishna needed to teach in the first clause that the foreleg was severed, it also taught in the latter clause that it was severed, for stylistic consistency, even though the halakha would apply even were it not severed.