## Chullin Daf 71a

###### Chullin 71a:1
[Chullin 71a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:1)

בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה טְמֵאָה, בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה, וּבַלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה אָמַר לִי: חֲבָל עַל בֶּן עַזַּאי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימֵּשׁ אֶת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 71a:2
[Chullin 71a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:2)

חַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְגוֹ׳ אַיָּל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְגוֹ׳״, הָא כֵּיצַד? חַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Chullin 71a:3
[Chullin 71a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:3)

בְּהֵמָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכׇּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאָרֶץ כֹּל מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה״, הָא כֵּיצַד? בְּהֵמָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 71a:4
[Chullin 71a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:4)

חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – לְסִימָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 71a:5
[Chullin 71a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:5)

חַיָּה טְמֵאָה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה – לְהַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chullin 71a:6
[Chullin 71a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:6)

בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה טְמֵאָה – לְכִדְרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 71a:7
[Chullin 71a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:7)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֶקְרָא אֲנִי ״חַיָּה״, בְּהֵמָה לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 71a:8
[Chullin 71a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:8)

נֶאֶמְרָה כָּאן ״בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן טוּמְאַת קֹדֶשׁ – אַף כָּאן טוּמְאַת קֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 71a:9
[Chullin 71a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:9)

בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה, לִיצִירָה, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין, אִם זָכָר – תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 71a:10
[Chullin 71a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:10)

אִם נְקֵבָה – תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Chullin 71a:11
[Chullin 71a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:11)

אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ – תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 71a:12
[Chullin 71a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:12)

דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 71a:13
[Chullin 71a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:13)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם אֵינוֹ וָלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 71a:14
[Chullin 71a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:14)

וּלְרַבָּנַן, הַאי קְרָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to explaining the opinion of the Rabbis, cited in the mishna, who hold that a dead fetus found inside its mother’s womb does not impart impurity, irrespective of whether it is of a kosher or a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees and holds that a dead fetus inside a non-kosher animal imparts impurity. He derives this from the verse: “A person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher *ḥayya*, or the carcass of a non-kosher *behema*, or the carcass of an impure creeping animal, and is guilty” (Leviticus 5:2), which is referring only to non-kosher animals. The Gemara asks: **And according to the Rabbis, why do I** need **this verse?**


###### Chullin 71a:15
[Chullin 71a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:15)

כּוּלֵּיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The entire** verse **comes to** teach **that which Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi taught in the *baraita* cited earlier, that the verse obligates one to bring a sliding-scale offering only in cases where one partook of consecrated foods or entered the Temple while in a state of impurity of which one was unaware.


###### Chullin 71a:16
[Chullin 71a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּת וְלָדָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ, וּפָשְׁטָה חַיָּה אֶת יָדָהּ וְנָגְעָה בּוֹ – הַחַיָּה טְמֵאָה טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a woman whose fetus died in her womb and** the **midwife extended her hand** into the womb **and touched** the fetus, **the midwife is** thereby rendered **impure with the seven-**day **impurity** imparted by a corpse, **and the woman** remains **ritually pure until the offspring emerges** from the womb.


###### Chullin 71a:17
[Chullin 71a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבָּה: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁטּוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה, כָּךְ טׇהֳרָה בְּלוּעָה אֵינָהּ מִיטַּמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabba says: Just as** a ritually **impure** item that is **encapsulated** within a body **does not impart impurity** to an item that comes in contact with it, **so too,** a ritually **pure** item that is **encapsulated** within a body **cannot be rendered impure** if it comes in contact with an impure item. For example, if one swallowed a ring that was ritually pure and then entered a tent containing a corpse, the ring would not be rendered impure.


###### Chullin 71a:18
[Chullin 71a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:18)

טוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו״, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דַּאֲכַל סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that **an encapsulated impure** item does not impart impurity? **As it is written: “And one who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes,** and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:40), i.e., he must immerse his body and garments in a ritual bath, and he then becomes pure at sunset. **Are we not dealing** even with a case **where one ate** from the carcass **close to sunset** and then immersed? **And** yet **the Merciful One states** that he is **pure** once the sun sets, despite the fact that his stomach still contains pieces of the carcass that have not yet been digested. If so, it is apparent that an encapsulated impure item does not impart impurity.


###### Chullin 71a:19
[Chullin 71a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:19)

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְגֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But perhaps** it **is different there,** as with regard to the prohibition against eating a carcass the Torah states: “You shall not eat any carcass; you may give it to the gentile resident who is in your cities” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The juxtaposition of the two parts of the verse teaches that the prohibition is limited to a carcass that is fit to be given to a gentile resident, i.e., it is fit for human consumption. Accordingly, perhaps the carcass that the person ate does not impart impurity, **as it is no** longer **fit for a gentile resident,** i.e., it is now unsuitable for human consumption.


###### Chullin 71a:20
[Chullin 71a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:20)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ, עַד לְכֶלֶב – שַׁפִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that the effectiveness of the proof depends on whether a carcass can impart impurity to a person despite its not being fit for human consumption: **This** proof **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says:** A carcass imparts impurity to **both this,** a person, **and that,** food, even if it is unfit for human consumption, **until** it is no longer fit **for** consumption by **a dog.** According to this opinion the proof is understood **well,** as the carcass in the person’s stomach still has the ability to impart impurity to him because it is still fit for consumption by a dog. Therefore, it is apparent that the only reason it does not impart impurity is that it is encapsulated within his body.


###### Chullin 71a:21
[Chullin 71a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:21)

אֶלָּא לְבַר פְּדָא, דְּאָמַר: טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה לְגֵר, וְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה עַד לְכֶלֶב – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְגֵר הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **bar Padda, who says** a carcass has the **severe form of ritual impurity,** which can impart impurity to people only while it is still fit to be eaten **by a gentile resident and** it has **the light form of ritual impurity** even **until** the point that it is no longer fit for consumption **by a dog,** this proof is flawed. This is because it is possible the carcass in the person’s stomach does not render him impure simply because it is no longer fit for human consumption. Can one claim that the carcass cannot impart impurity **because it is no** longer **fit for a gentile resident?**


###### Chullin 71a:22
[Chullin 71a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:22)

נְהִי דְּלָא חַזְיָא בְּפָנָיו, שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו מִיחַזְיָא חַזְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted that** the carcass **is not fit** to be eaten by someone when it was eaten **in his presence,** as he is aware that it was swallowed and considers it disgusting to eat a swallowed item, but **it is** still sometimes **fit** for a person to eat when it was eaten **not in his presence** and he is unaware that it had been previously swallowed. This is possible where one consumed a small piece of food and did not chew it prior to swallowing. The Gemara concedes this point and therefore accepts the proof.


###### Chullin 71a:23
[Chullin 71a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:23)

אַשְׁכְּחַן טוּמְאָה בְּלוּעָה, טׇהֳרָה בְּלוּעָה מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that **an encapsulated impure** item does not impart impurity. **From where do we** derive that **a pure** item that is **encapsulated** within another body **cannot be rendered impure** if it comes in contact with an impure item?


###### Chullin 71a:24
[Chullin 71a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/71a:24)

קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּלִי חֶרֶס הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַצִּיל עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ מִלְּטַמֵּא, דְּאָמַר מָר: טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה עַד לָרָקִיעַ – מַצִּיל עַל טׇהֳרָה שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ מִלְּטַמֵּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is derived through **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If an earthenware vessel that is closed with a tightly sealed cover, which does not shield,** i.e., prevent, the **impure** piece of a corpse **contained within it from imparting impurity** to other items in the same tent as it; the Gemara interrupts the explication of the inference and clarifies: **As the Master said:** The **impure** piece of a corpse that is **in a tight space;** e.g., it is buried in the ground and there is not a handbreadth of hollow space above it, beneath the dirt, **breaks through** the earth above it **and ascends up to the heavens,** imparting impurity in that path. The Gemara resumes the explication of the inference: Although the tightly sealed earthenware vessel does not shield the impure item, it **does shield a pure** item **contained within it from being rendered impure** (see Numbers 19:15).