## Chullin Daf 73a

###### Chullin 73a:1
[Chullin 73a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:1)

כְּחָתוּךְ דָּמֵי.

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


###### Chullin 73a:2
[Chullin 73a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:2)

כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דִּתְנַן: כָּל יְדוֹת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁהֵן אֲרוּכּוֹת וְעָתִיד לְקׇצְצָן – מַטְבִּיל עַד מָקוֹם מִדָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 73a:3
[Chullin 73a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:3)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּטְבִּיל אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

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


###### Chullin 73a:4
[Chullin 73a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:4)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, חִבּוּרֵי אֳכָלִין כְּמַאן דְּמִפַּרְתִי דָּמֵי, וּנְגִיעִי בַּהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 73a:5
[Chullin 73a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״חֲתָכָהּ״, אֶלָּא לְרָבִינָא, מַאי ״חֲתָכָהּ״? אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״חֲתָכָהּ״, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״חֲתָכָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 73a:6
[Chullin 73a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:6)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מַגַּע טְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה. טְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה מִי מְטַמְּיָא? אִין, כְּדַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **And the Rabbis say:** The flesh of a fetus that extended its foreleg outside the mother’s womb and whose mother was subsequently slaughtered has ritual impurity due to having been in **contact with a *tereifa* that was slaughtered.** The Gemara asks: **Does a slaughtered *tereifa* impart impurity?** The Gemara answers: **Yes,** and this is **in accordance** with the statement **of Shmuel’s father, as Shmuel’s father says:** The Sages decreed that **a *tereifa* that one slaughtered imparts impurity to sacrificial** animals, i.e., it will disqualify them if it comes in contact with them.


###### Chullin 73a:7
[Chullin 73a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:7)

מָה מָצִינוּ בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna cites the Rabbis’ rationale for 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., it 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 it is prohibited for consumption.


###### Chullin 73a:8
[Chullin 73a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:8)

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מִי טִיהֲרוֹ לְאֵבֶר זֶה מִידֵי נְבֵלָה? שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ! אִם כֵּן, תַּתִּירֶנּוּ בַּאֲכִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna itself proceeds to cite Rabbi’s Meir’s response to this claim. The Gemara here cites a different version of his response based on that which **is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Meir said to** the Rabbis: **But what renders this limb pure from** the impurity of **a carcass?** You might say it is **the slaughter of its mother,** but **if so,** the act of slaughter **should** also **permit** it even **for consumption.**


###### Chullin 73a:9
[Chullin 73a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:9)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַרְבֵּה מַצֶּלֶת עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁנִינוּ: חוֹתֵךְ מִן הָעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him:** The slaughter of an animal has **a greater effect in shielding that which is not** part of **its body** from having the ritual impurity of a carcass **than that which is** part of **its body, as** is apparent from that **which we learned** in the mishna (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one **severs** pieces **from a fetus that is in** its **womb,** leaving those pieces in the womb, their **consumption is permitted** by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. By contrast, if one severs pieces **of the spleen or of the kidneys** of an animal and then slaughtered it, then even if those pieces were left inside the animal, their **consumption is prohibited.**


###### Chullin 73a:10
[Chullin 73a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:10)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי, אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מִי טִהֲרוֹ לְאֵבֶר זֶה מִידֵּי נְבֵלָה? שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ, אִם כֵּן תַּתִּירֶנּוּ בַּאֲכִילָה! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: טְרֵפָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה וְאֵינָהּ מַתִּירָתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the response of the Rabbis: **What are** the Rabbis **saying? Rava said, and some say it unattributed [*kedi*]** to any particular Sage, that the *baraita* **is incomplete, and this** is what **it is teaching: Rabbi Meir said to** the Rabbis: **But what renders this limb pure from** the impurity of **a carcass?** You might say it is **the slaughter of its mother,** but **if so, it should** also **permit it** even **for consumption.** In response the Rabbis **said to him: Let** the *halakha* of **a *tereifa* prove** the point, **as its slaughter renders it pure from** the impurity of **a carcass but it does not permit it for consumption.** Similarly, the slaughter of the mother animal should render pure even the foreleg of its fetus, even if it does not permit it for consumption.


###### Chullin 73a:11
[Chullin 73a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:11)

אָמַר לָהֶן: לֹא, אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ, דָּבָר שֶׁהִיא גּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבֶר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַרְבֵּה מַצֶּלֶת עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁנִינוּ: חוֹתֵךְ מִן הָעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir **said to them: No,** even **if the slaughter of a *tereifa* renders** the animal itself **pure** from having the impurity of a carcass, that is true with regard to **something that is** part **of its own body.** Does it necessarily follow that **it should** also **render pure the limb** of its fetus, which is **something that is not** part of **its own body?** The Rabbis **said to him:** The slaughter of an animal **has a greater effect in shielding that which is not** part of **its body** from having the impurity of a carcass **than that which is** part of **its body, as** is apparent from that **which we learned** in the mishna at the beginning of the chapter: If one **severs** pieces **from a fetus that is in** an animal’s **womb** and then slaughters the mother animal, their **consumption is permitted.** By contrast, if one severs pieces **of the spleen or of the kidneys** of an animal and then slaughters it, their **consumption is prohibited.**


###### Chullin 73a:12
[Chullin 73a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:12)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וְכִי מִי טִיהֲרוֹ לְאֵבֶר זֶה מִידֵּי נְבֵלָה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ. אִם כֵּן, תַּתִּירֶנּוּ בַּאֲכִילָה! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: טְרֵפָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה וְאֵינָהּ מַתִּירָתָהּ בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this** clarification of Rava **is also taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Meir said to** the Rabbis: **But what renders this limb pure from** the impurity of **a carcass?** The Rabbis **said to him:** It is **the slaughter of its mother.** Rabbi Meir responded: But **if so, it should** also **permit it** even **for consumption.** In response the Rabbis **said to him: Let** the *halakha* of **a *tereifa* prove** the point, **as its slaughter renders it pure from** the impurity of **a carcass but it does not permit it for consumption.** Similarly, the slaughter of the mother animal should render pure even the foreleg of its fetus, even if it does not permit it for consumption.


###### Chullin 73a:13
[Chullin 73a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:13)

אָמַר לָהֶן: אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הָאֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בָּהּ, דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir **said to them:** Even **if the slaughter of a *tereifa* renders** the animal itself **pure, and** likewise the slaughter of any animal renders **the limb that** was partially cut from it but still **hangs from it** pure from imparting the impurity of a carcass despite being prohibited for consumption, that is the *halakha* with regard to **something that is** part of **its own body.** Does it necessarily follow that **it should** also **render pure the limb** of its fetus, which is **something that is not** part of **its own body?**


###### Chullin 73a:14
[Chullin 73a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:14)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַרְבֵּה מַצֶּלֶת עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׁנִינוּ: חוֹתֵךְ מִן הָעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him:** The slaughter of an animal **has a greater effect in shielding that which is not** part of **its body** from imparting the ritual impurity of a carcass **than that which is** part of **its body, as** is apparent from that **which we have learned** in the mishna above: If one **severed** pieces **from a fetus that was in** an animal’s **womb** and then slaughtered the mother animal, their **consumption is permitted.** But if one severed pieces **of the spleen or of the kidneys** of an animal and then slaughtered it, their **consumption is prohibited.**


###### Chullin 73a:15
[Chullin 73a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּעוּבָּרִין, כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּאֵיבָרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as** there is **a dispute** between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **with regard to fetuses,** concerning whether the slaughter of the mother prevents a limb that emerged from the womb from having the impurity of a carcass, **so** too, they have a parallel **dispute with regard to limbs** of an animal that were partially cut from it but still hanging from it, whether the slaughter of the animal prevents such limbs from having the impurity of a carcass.


###### Chullin 73a:16
[Chullin 73a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:16)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּאֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר, אֲבָל בְּאֵבֶר דִּבְהֵמָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Their **dispute** is only **with regard to a limb of a fetus** that emerged from the womb, **but with regard to a limb** hanging **from an animal, everyone agrees** that the **slaughter** of the animal **renders** such a limb as though it had already **fallen** off prior to the slaughter, and the slaughter does not prevent the limb from having the impurity of a carcass.


###### Chullin 73a:17
[Chullin 73a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן? הַאי אִית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בַּחֲזָרָה, וְהָא לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בַּחֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason** for the distinction made **by Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning** the opinion **of the Rabbis** that the slaughter of an animal renders pure the limb of its fetus, but does not render pure a limb hanging from the animal itself? The reason is that **this** limb of the fetus that emerged from its womb **has** a means of **rectification by returning back** inside the womb, in accordance with the opinion that it will then be permitted for consumption by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. **But this** hanging limb **does not have** a means of **rectification by returning,** as it cannot be reattached to the animal’s body.


###### Chullin 73a:18
[Chullin 73a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73a:18)

מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לֹא, אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הָאֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בָּהּ – דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion from the *baraita* cited above: **Rabbi Meir said to them: No,** even **if the slaughter of a *tereifa* renders pure** the animal itself **and** similarly the slaughter of any animal renders pure **the limb that is hanging from it** from having the impurity of a carcass, this is true with regard to **something that is** part of **its own body.** Does it necessarily follow that **it should** also **render pure the limb** of its fetus, which is **something that is not** part of **its own body?**