## Chullin Daf 74b

###### Chullin 74b:1
[Chullin 74b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:1)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְחוֹרֵשׁ בַּשָּׂדֶה – שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. קְרָעָהּ וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי – טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even** if the fetus emerged alive and **is** now **five years old and plowing in the field,** the earlier **slaughter of its mother rendered it permitted** and it does not require slaughter before it is eaten. But if **one tore** an animal, i.e., he killed it without slaughtering it, **and** inside **he found a live nine-**month**-old** fetus, everyone agrees that the fetus **requires** its own **slaughter because its mother was not slaughtered.**


###### Chullin 74b:2
[Chullin 74b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לֹא הִילְּכוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עַל עִסְקֵי שְׁחִיטָה בִּלְבַד. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי חֶלְבּוֹ וְגִידוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says:** The Sages **discussed** the permissibility of a live nine-month-old fetus found inside a slaughtered animal **only with regard to the matter of** whether it requires its own **slaughter.** The Gemara asks: **What does** Rav Oshaya’s statement serve **to exclude?** Rav Oshaya’s statement indicates that with regard to other matters all agree that it is considered an independent animal, with the associated prohibitions. The Gemara suggests: It serves **to exclude its fat,** i.e., the fats that are prohibited in a regular animal, such as the fat of the kidneys and innards, **and its** sciatic **nerve.**


###### Chullin 74b:3
[Chullin 74b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:3)

חֶלְבּוֹ דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא: חֶלְבּוֹ דִּשְׁלִיל, מִפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! דְּתַנְיָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל וְחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּבֶן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, וְהָלַךְ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְשִׁיטָתוֹ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְשִׁיטָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The **fat of which** part? **If we say** that this is referring to the **fat of** the **fetus,** that is difficult because the Sages **disagree** as to whether or not it is permitted, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The prohibition of **the sciatic nerve applies to a fetus and its fat is prohibited;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** The prohibition of the sciatic nerve **does not apply to a fetus, and its fat is permitted. And Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says:** This **dispute concerns a live nine-**month**-old** fetus, **and Rabbi Meir follows his** standard line of **reasoning,** which he expressed in the mishna, that such a fetus is considered an independent full-fledged animal; **and Rabbi Yehuda** follows **his** standard line of **reasoning,** as expressed by the Rabbis in the mishna, that such a fetus is considered a part of the mother.


###### Chullin 74b:4
[Chullin 74b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:4)

אֶלָּא, חֶלְבּוֹ דְּגִיד מִפְלָג פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה – מְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא, וְחוֹתֵךְ שַׁמְנוֹ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גּוֹמְמוֹ עִם הַשּׁוֹפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say that Rabbi Elazar is referring to the **fat of** the sciatic **nerve** of the fetus, which all agree is permitted. The Gemara rejects this as well: But the Sages also **disagree** with regard to that, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **the sciatic nerve, one scrapes around it** to remove it entirely **in any place that it is** found in the thigh, **and one cuts out its fat completely,** even those fats that are sunk into the flesh; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts out** the nerve and the fat that is **level with the flesh** of the thigh, but there is no obligation to remove all traces of the fat.


###### Chullin 74b:5
[Chullin 74b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:5)

אֶלָּא אִי אִתְּמַר – הָכִי אִתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לֹא הִילְּכוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עַל עִסְקֵי אֲכִילָה בִּלְבַד, לְמַעוֹטֵי רוֹבְעוֹ, וְחוֹרֵשׁ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** Rabbi Oshaya’s statement **was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says:** The Sages **discussed** the permissibility of the fetus **only with regard to matters of consumption,** i.e., whether or not it must be slaughtered in order to permit its flesh and whether or not the fat and the sciatic nerve are permitted. This statement serves **to exclude** only one who **copulates with** the animal, **or** one who **plows with it** together with an animal of a different species, as everyone agrees that these prohibitions apply to such a fetus just as they do to any other animal.


###### Chullin 74b:6
[Chullin 74b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר בְּחֶלְבּוֹ – מַתִּיר בְּדָמוֹ, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר בְּחֶלְבּוֹ – אוֹסֵר בְּדָמוֹ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר בְּחֶלְבּוֹ – אוֹסֵר בְּדָמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ A related amoraic dispute is cited concerning a live nine-month-old fetus found inside a slaughtered animal: **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: According to the statement of** Rabbi Yehuda, **who permits the fat,** he also **permits its blood; according to the statement of** Rabbi Meir, **who prohibits its fat,** he also **prohibits its blood. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even according to** Rabbi Yehuda, **who permits its fat,** he **prohibits its blood.**


###### Chullin 74b:7
[Chullin 74b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** from the mishna, which states with regard to an eight-month-old fetus, whether alive or dead, or a dead nine-month-old fetus, found inside a slaughtered animal, that since it is considered part of the mother its blood is prohibited. Therefore, one must **tear** the fetus **and remove its blood** before it may be consumed. The mishna prohibits the blood but apparently permits the rest of the fetus, including its fat, which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. In resolution of this difficulty, **Rabbi Zeira said:** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish meant **to say** only **that** the consumption of blood lost as the fetus died **is not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come** [***karet*],** whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that it is.


###### Chullin 74b:8
[Chullin 74b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:8)

לְמַאן קָאָמְרִי? לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דַּם הַתַּמְצִית, דְּתַנְיָא: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית בְּאַזְהָרָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּהִכָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **According to whom did** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish **state** that one who permits the fat of the fetus also holds that the consumption of its blood is not punishable by *karet*? Ostensibly, it is **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who permits its fat. But that is difficult, because this blood **should be regarded only as blood of exudate,** i.e., blood that exudes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of its slaughter concludes. This blood did not spurt out during the slaughter of the mother. Rabbi Yehuda holds that consumption of even this blood is punishable by *karet*, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The consumption of **blood of exudate** is prohibited **by** a regular **prohibition** and is punishable with lashes, unlike the initial spurt of blood, known as blood of the soul, whose consumption is punishable by *karet*. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Blood of exudate is also punishable **by *karet*.**


###### Chullin 74b:9
[Chullin 74b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:9)

תַּרְגְּמָא רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב סַלָּא חֲסִידָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״דָּם״ וְ״כׇל דָּם״, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמִיחַיַּיב אַדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ – מִיחַיַּיב אַדַּם הַתַּמְצִית, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מִחַיַּיב אַדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ – לָא מִחַיַּיב אַדַּם הַתַּמְצִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the Pious, interpreted** this matter **before Rav Pappa:** One of the verses prohibiting the consumption of blood states: “And whoever…eats any blood, and I will set My face against that soul that eats the blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Leviticus 17:10). **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that since it would have been sufficient for the verse to state: **Blood, but** instead it states: **“Any blood,”** it is interpreted as teaching that **wherever one is liable** for *karet* **for** the consumption of **blood of the soul,** i.e., the initial spurt from the slaughter, as is the *halakha* with regard to a regular animal, one **is** also **liable** for *karet* **for** the consumption of **blood of exudate,** i.e., the rest of the blood. **But wherever** one **is not liable** for *karet* **for** the consumption of **blood of the soul,** as is the *halakha* with regard to the blood of a fetus according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the fetus is not considered an independent life, one **is** also **not liable** for *karet* **for** the consumption of **blood of exudate;** rather, its blood is subject to a regular prohibition.


###### Chullin 74b:10
[Chullin 74b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִפְדּוֹת בְּבֶן פְּקוּעָה? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה – שֶׂה מְעַלְּיָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What is** the *halakha* **with regard to redeeming** a firstborn donkey **with a *ben pekua*?** Can one perform the mitzva, as stated in the Torah: “And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb” (Exodus 13:13), with this animal? The Gemara elaborates: **According to** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir do not raise the dilemma, as, since he says** a *ben pekua* **requires slaughter,** evidently **it is a full-fledged lamb,** and therefore it can certainly be used to redeem a donkey.


###### Chullin 74b:11
[Chullin 74b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:11)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרִי שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ – כְּבִשְׂרָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא הוּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּרָהֵיט וְאָזֵיל וְרָהֵיט וְאָתֵי – ״שֶׂה״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When should you raise the dilemma?** Raise it **according to** the opinion **of the Rabbis, as they say** that **the slaughter of its mother renders it permitted. What** is the *halakha* in this case? Does one say that **since** the Rabbis **say** that **the slaughter of its mother renders it permitted, it is** apparent that despite being physically alive, a *ben pekua* is halakhically regarded **like meat** placed **in a pot,** which cannot be used to redeem a donkey (see *Bekhorot* 12a)? **Or perhaps, since** the animal is **running back and forth,** i.e., it is alive, **we call it a lamb** and it can be used?


###### Chullin 74b:12
[Chullin 74b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:12)

מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: אֵין פּוֹדִין, וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: פּוֹדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra said: One cannot redeem** a donkey with this lamb, **and Rav Ashi said: One can redeem** it.


###### Chullin 74b:13
[Chullin 74b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ? דְּגָמְרַתְּ ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מִפְּסָחִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: What** is the reason for **your opinion?** Is it **because you derive** the *halakhot* of redeeming a firstborn donkey **from Paschal offerings** by means of a verbal analogy between the term **“lamb”** (Exodus 13:13) written concerning a firstborn donkey and **“lamb”** (Exodus 12:5) written concerning a Paschal offering, and a *ben pekua* is unfit for sacrifice as a Paschal offering?


###### Chullin 74b:14
[Chullin 74b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:14)

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן – זָכָר, תָּמִים, וּבֶן שָׁנָה, אַף כָּאן – זָכָר, תָּמִים, וּבֶן שָׁנָה! ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** so, **just as there,** with regard to the Paschal offering, it must be **male, unblemished, and in its** first **year, so too here,** the lamb must be **male, unblemished, and in its** first **year.** Yet the mishna in *Bekhorot* (9a) states explicitly that one may redeem with a female lamb, and even if it is blemished, and also with one that is past its first year. Mar Zutra responded: The repetition of the words **“You shall redeem,” “You shall** not **redeem”** written in the verse: “And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you shall not redeem it then you shall break its neck” (Exodus 13:13), **included** a lamb that does not fulfill these criteria.


###### Chullin 74b:15
[Chullin 74b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:15)

אִי ״תִּפְדֶּה״ ״תִּפְדֶּה״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן ״שֶׂה״ ״שֶׂה״ מַאי אַהֲנִי לָךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi responds: **If** the repetition of **“You shall redeem,” “You shall** not **redeem”** serves **to amplify,** then it should **even** amplify **all** other types of lambs, including a *ben pekua*, i.e., they should also be included in the category of those that are fit for redemption. Mar Zutra answers: **If** that was **so, what purpose would** the verbal analogy of **“lamb,” “lamb” serve?** Rather, the repetition of “You shall redeem” serves to include all types of lambs, but the verbal analogy still serves to exclude a *ben pekua*.


###### Chullin 74b:16
[Chullin 74b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:16)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִמְנוֹת בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: According to the Rabbis, a *ben pekua* is permitted for consumption and is therefore susceptible to ritual impurity. If the *ben pekua* was still inside the slaughtered mother and the body of the mother came in contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, **what is** the *halakha* **with regard to counting** the mother as having **first-**degree ritual impurity **and** the *ben pekua* as having **second-**degree ritual impurity? If the fetus is considered independent of the mother, it is rendered impure only through its contact with the mother and so would have second-degree impurity. But if it is considered part of the mother it would have the same first-degree impurity as the mother.


###### Chullin 74b:17
[Chullin 74b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:17)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, נַעֲשָׂה כֶּאֱגוֹז הַמִּתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ בִּקְלִיפָּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One counts** the mother as having **first-**degree impurity **and** the *ben pekua* as having **second**-degree impurity. **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: One does not count** the mother as having **first-**degree impurity **and** the *ben pekua* as having **second**-degree impurity. Rather, the fetus has first-degree impurity like its mother, as **it is considered like a nut rattling in its shell;** this is considered a single entity such that if impurity touches the shell, both the nut and the shell are rendered impure with the same degree of impurity.


###### Chullin 74b:18
[Chullin 74b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:18)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַבָּשָׂר מַגַּע נְבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan** from the mishna (72a): If a fetus extended its foreleg outside its mother’s womb and then the mother was slaughtered, and afterward the foreleg was severed, **the flesh** of both the mother and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in **contact with a carcass.** Since the foreleg was not permitted through an act of slaughter it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted, was in contact with it and was thereby rendered ritually impure; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Chullin 74b:19
[Chullin 74b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:19)

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.** The limb is regarded as a *tereifa* that was slaughtered, which by Torah law is prohibited for consumption but does not carry ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that if a *tereifa* was slaughtered and then came in contact with another item, the other item should be regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it will disqualify sacrificial foods that come in contact with it.


###### Chullin 74b:20
[Chullin 74b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:20)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא חַד גּוּפָא הוּא – הַיְינוּ דְּאִיתַּכְשַׁר בִּדְמָא דְּאִמֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, בְּמַאי אִיתַּכְשַׁר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains his objection: **Granted, according to my** opinion, **as I say** that the mother and fetus together **are one entity; that is** why the flesh of the fetus **is rendered susceptible** to ritual impurity **through the blood of its mother** that spilled onto the body of the mother. When the blood from the mother’s slaughter renders the mother susceptible to impurity, the fetus is also rendered susceptible to impurity, as it is considered part of the mother. **But according to your** opinion, that the fetus is an independent entity, **through what** means is **it rendered susceptible** to contracting impurity from its foreleg?


###### Chullin 74b:21
[Chullin 74b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וּכְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: It is rendered susceptible **through the slaughter** of its mother, which also permits the consumption of the fetus, **and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that the flesh of a slaughtered animal is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by virtue of the fact that it is permitted for consumption, even if it did not come in contact with blood or one of the other six liquids. Accordingly, the fetus will be susceptible to impurity even if it is not considered part of its mother.


###### Chullin 74b:22
[Chullin 74b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:22)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: עָבַר בְּנָהָר – הוּכְשַׁר, הָלַךְ לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת – נִטְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** from a *baraita*: If a *ben pekua* grew up and **passed through a river, it was** thereby **rendered susceptible** to impurity. Therefore, if it **went** from there **to a cemetery, it is rendered impure.**


###### Chullin 74b:23
[Chullin 74b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/74b:23)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא תְּרֵי גּוּפֵי נִינְהוּ, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי: הוּכְשַׁר – אִין, לֹא הוּכְשַׁר – לָא, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ חַד גּוּפָא הוּא, הָא אִיתַּכְשַׁר בִּדְמָא דְּאִמֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains his objection: **Granted, according to my** opinion, **as I say** that the mother and fetus **are two entities;** it is **due to that** reason that only if the *ben pekua* itself **has been rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming in contact with the water of the river, **yes,** it can be rendered impure upon entering a cemetery, whereas if **it has not been rendered susceptible** to impurity through these waters, **no,** it does not become impure when it enters a cemetery. **But according to your** opinion, in **which you said** that the mother and fetus together **are one entity,** why is it necessary for it to have passed through a river? **It was** already **rendered susceptible** to impurity **through the blood of its mother** that spilled onto the mother’s body when it was slaughtered.