## Chullin Daf 72a

###### Chullin 72a:1
[Chullin 72a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:1)

וְהָא עוּבָּר וְחַיָּה, דְּכִשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעוֹת דָּמוּ, וְקָא מְטַמֵּא לַהּ עוּבָּר לְחַיָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** what about the mishna’s case of a dead **fetus** in its mother’s womb, **and a midwife** who touched it there, **which is similar** to the case of **two** swallowed **rings, and** yet the mishna rules that the **fetus renders** the midwife **impure.**


###### Chullin 72a:2
[Chullin 72a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:2)

אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁאנֵי עוּבָּר, הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת. אָמַר רָבָא: עוּבָּר סוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת, טַבַּעַת אֵין סוֹפָהּ לָצֵאת? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאֵי יָדְעִי טַעְמָא דְּהָא מִילְּתָא, וּמַנּוּ? רַב יוֹסֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: A fetus is different** from a ring in this regard, **since it will ultimately leave** the womb. **Rava said** in puzzlement: Is that to say that **a fetus will ultimately leave** the womb, but **a ring** that someone swallowed **will not ultimately leave** his body? A ring will certainly be expelled eventually as well. **Rather, Rava said:** The scholars **of Pumbedita know the reason for this matter, and who** is the Sage referred to as the scholars of Pumbedita? It is **Rav Yosef.**


###### Chullin 72a:3
[Chullin 72a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:3)

דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: טוּמְאָה זוֹ אֵינָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. מַאי אֵינָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים? דְּלָא תֵּימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: ״עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה טָמֵא״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר: ״עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה טָהוֹר״, גְּזַרוּ בַּהּ טוּמְאָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Yosef says** that **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: This impurity** of the midwife in the mishna’s case **is not** in effect **by Torah law; rather,** it was decreed **by rabbinic law.** The Gemara asks: **What** was Shmuel’s intention in emphasizing: **It is not** in effect **by Torah law; rather,** it was decreed **by rabbinic law?** It should have sufficed for him to say simply the impurity is decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: He said this so **that you should not say** that the ruling of the mishna is only **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who says** that one who touches a dead **fetus in a woman’s womb is impure** by Torah law, and that is why the midwife was rendered impure. **Rather, even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that one who touches a dead **fetus in a woman’s womb is pure** by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages **decreed** that a midwife who touches it is **impure by rabbinic law.**


###### Chullin 72a:4
[Chullin 72a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:4)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יוֹצִיא וָלָד רֹאשׁוֹ חוּץ לַפְּרוֹזְדוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this decree? **Rav Hoshaya said:** It is a rabbinic **decree lest** the **fetus extend its head out of the concealed opening** of its mother’s womb. If it did, it would be regarded as having been born, and it would then be ritually impure by Torah law. The Sages were concerned that the fetus extended its head and then the head returned inside but the midwife did not notice. Consequently, when she touched the fetus she mistakenly assumed she remained ritually pure. To safeguard against this, the Sages decreed that in any case where she touches the dead fetus, she is ritually impure.


###### Chullin 72a:5
[Chullin 72a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:5)

אִי הָכִי, אִשָּׁה נָמֵי? אִשָּׁה מַרְגֶּשֶׁת בְּעַצְמָהּ. וְתֵימָא לַהּ לְחַיָּה! טְרִידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so,** the Sages should **also** decree that the **woman** herself, who is carrying the fetus, is impure, since she also might not notice that the fetus’s head emerged. The Gemara explains: **A woman** accurately **senses with regard to her own** body whether the head of the fetus had emerged. The Gemara asks: **But** then **she would have said** this **to the midwife.** Why is there a need for a decree? The Gemara answers: Since the mother is **distracted** by the pain of childbirth, she does not have the presence of mind to warn the midwife.


###### Chullin 72a:6
[Chullin 72a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:6)

מַאי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וּמַאי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה״ – לְהוֹצִיא עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת גּוֹלֵל וְדוֹפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cited a dispute as to whether one who touches a dead fetus in a woman’s womb is ritually impure. It now elucidates that dispute: **What** is the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, and what** is the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“And whoever in the open field touches** one who is slain by the sword, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The phrase “in the open field” indicates that one is rendered impure only in a case where he touches an exposed corpse. This serves **to exclude** one who touches a dead **fetus in a woman’s womb** from being rendered impure; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** This phrase serves **to include the grave cover and the grave walls,** upon which the cover rests, as sources of impurity that render impure anyone who touches them.


###### Chullin 72a:7
[Chullin 72a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:7)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, גּוֹלֵל וְדוֹפֵק – הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, עוּבָּר בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה טָמֵא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מְנָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ״, אֵיזֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁבְּנֶפֶשׁ שֶׁל אָדָם? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה עוּבָּר שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi Yishmael** derive that **the grave cover and the grave walls** render one who touches them impure? He **learned this *halakha* through tradition,** not from a verse. The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Akiva, from where** does **he** derive that a dead **fetus in a woman’s womb is impure by Torah law? Rabbi Oshaya said** he derives it from **the verse** that **states: “Whoever touches of a corpse, of the life** of a person that died, he will be impure” (Numbers 19:13). The term “of the life” can also be interpreted as: Inside the life. **What is** the case of **a corpse that is inside the life of a person? You must say** that **this is** a dead **fetus inside a woman’s womb.**


###### Chullin 72a:8
[Chullin 72a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:8)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִרְבִיעִית דָּם הַבָּאָה מִן הַמֵּת, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם״, אֵיזֶהוּ נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁל אָדָם שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ רְבִיעִית דָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Yishmael requires** that verse **to** teach about **a quarter-***log* **of blood that comes from a corpse,** meaning **that** even **it imparts impurity** like a corpse, **as it is stated: “Whoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person** that died” (Numbers 19:13). **What is** the case of **a life of a person that imparts impurity? You must say this** is referring to **a quarter**-*log* **of blood,** as blood is regarded as the life force of a person, as the verse states: “For the blood is the life” (Deuteronomy 12:23), and a person requires a minimum of a quarter-*log* of blood to survive.


###### Chullin 72a:9
[Chullin 72a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:9)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַף רְבִיעִית דָּם הַבָּאָה מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לִרְבִיעִית דָּם הַבָּאָה מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Akiva** does not accept this derivation. He conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as he says even a quarter**-*log* **of blood that comes from two corpses imparts ritual impurity in a tent** to people and other items that are under the same roof. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that a quarter-***log* **of blood that came out of two** separate **corpses** also **imparts ritual impurity in a tent?**


###### Chullin 72a:10
[Chullin 72a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:10)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַל כׇּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״, שְׁתֵּי נְפָשׁוֹת וְשִׁיעוּר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated** with regard to the prohibition against priests coming in contact with a dead body: **“He shall not come upon any people that are a corpse [*nafshot met*]”** (Leviticus 21:11). The use of the plural form “people [*nafshot*]” indicates that the blood imparts impurity even if it comes from **two people,** as blood is referred to as “*nefesh*” (see Deuteronomy 12:23), and the use of the singular form “corpse [*met*]” indicates that this blood combines to complete **one measure,** i.e., the minimum amount of a quarter-*log* required to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 72a:11
[Chullin 72a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּהֵמָה הַמְקַשָּׁה לֵילֵד, וְהוֹצִיא עוּבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ, וַחֲתָכָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ – הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר. שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכָהּ – הַבָּשָׂר מַגַּע נְבֵלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

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


###### Chullin 72a:12
[Chullin 72a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/72a:12)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַגַּע טְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה,

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