Chulin 72
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* begins in מסכת חולין דף ע"א עמוד ב' at אמר רבה and builds the rules of *tumah belu’ah* and *taharah belu’ah* into a broader sugya about when concealed *tumah* and concealed *taharah* matter, how a משנה in מסכת מקואות frames the baseline law, why a midwife becomes *tamei* when touching a dead fetus in utero only מדרבנן according to the פומבדיתאי, and how רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא argue from pesukim about *tumah belu’ah* and related laws like גולל ודופק and רביעית דם. The text then moves into the next משנה and sugya about שחיטה being מטהרת a טרפה from טומאת נבלה, the dispute between רבי מאיר and חכמים about an עובר’s limb that protruded and was cut relative to the mother’s שחיטה, and the question of how *tumah* can transfer in what seems like *tum’at beit hassetarim*, resolved by comparing the case to separation of cloth pieces and defining the transfer as happening בשעת פרישתן.
- Today’s *shiur* is מסכת חולין דף ע"ב and begins on דף ע"א עמוד ב' nine lines from the bottom, אמר רבה. Raba says both טהרה בלועה and טומאה בלועה are not factors in הלכות טומאה, so *tumah* inside the body does not transmit further and concealed *taharah* inside the body does not become *tamei*. Rava challenges Rabbah and brings a משנה in מסכת מקואות that already teaches these halachot, and some ראשונים say the question targets only טהרה בלועה because טומאה בלועה is already evident from the local משנה about a woman carrying a dead fetus.
- Some מפרשים say the גמרא should not have mentioned טומאה בלועה from מסכת מקואות at all because the local משנה already establishes it, and it is cited only as a vehicle to cite טהרה בלועה. Other מפרשים say it is deliberate because the local case is an עובר that always belonged inside the womb, while the משנה in מקואות proves the rule even for an external object like a ring. The text frames the ring case as a broader proof that *tumah belu’ah* applies beyond “natural” internal cases.
- The גמרא cites: בלע טבעת טמאה, טבל ואכל תרומה, showing that after immersion he may eat *terumah* even though the ring remains inside. The ring is explained as *tamei* through contact with a מת, invoking חרב הרי הוא כחלל for metal. The ראשונים dispute whether טבל implies immersion only after הזאה שלישי ושביעי or whether the ring’s *tumah* level requires only a מקוה without sprinkling. When he expels the ring, the ring remains טמאה because it was not exposed to the mikveh while inside the body, and as it exits he becomes *tamei* again.
- The גמרא cites: בלע טבעת טהורה ונכנס לאהל המת, והזה ושנה וטבל, וקיא, הרי היא כמות שהייתה. The ring remains *tahor* despite the person’s exposure to *tumah* and full purification process. The reasoning is that if it had become *tamei* while inside, immersion would not have purified it, so its remaining *tahor* shows טהרה בלועה does not become *tamei*.
- The גמרא answers that Raba’s statement is needed for a case of two swallowed rings, אחת טמאה ואחת טהורה. The *chidush* is that even when the rings touch inside the body, לא מטמא טמאה לטהורה because of טומאה בלועה. Rashi asks why the person is not *tamei* via טומאת משא for carrying the impure ring, and answers that משא applies only to something inherently *tamei*, while a ring is not inherently *tamei* and became *tamei* only via contact with a מת.
- The מפרשים ask where Raba stated the specific rule about a swallowed *tumah* item touching a swallowed *taharah* item. The text offers a pshat from a case of eating a נבילה, immersing, and then after הערב שמש a כהן may eat תרומה even though the נבילה remains whole inside. The תרומה then touches the נבילה inside the body, yet the Torah allows it, showing that *tumah belu’ah* and *taharah belu’ah* do not affect one another. The word כשם is explained as referring to the person’s status with both concealed elements, not the objects themselves.
- The גמרא challenges the rule from the local משנה where the חיה becomes *tamei* by touching the dead עובר in the womb. Raba answers that an עובר is different because סופו לצאת, so it is not treated as a regular case of טומאה בלועה. The גמרא objects that a טבעת also can exit, and the אחרונים suggest Raba’s initial distinction might be that pregnancy is normal while a ring inside a body is not, or that a fetus may be removed after death while removing a ring may be ניבול המת, but the challenge remains that both can leave.
- Raba says פומבדיתאי ידעי טעמא דהא מילתא, and Rav Yosef cites Rav Yehuda בשם שמואל that טומאה זו אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים. The גמרא explains that the intent is not to attribute the משנה to רבי עקיבא as a דאורייתא rule, but to say that even according to רבי ישמעאל who holds עובר במעי אשה טהור, חז״ל still decree *tumah* here. Rashi’s frame makes רבי עקיבא hold that עובר במעי אשה טמא while רבי ישמעאל holds it is *tahor*, yet the text also records alternate ראשונים: תוספות limits the dispute to a case where the fetus protruded a hand, the בעל המאור makes it a dispute about two rings, the ר״ש and ראש tie it to opening of the womb, and the רמב״ן makes the issue whether an עובר qualifies as טומאה בלועה at all.
- Rabbi Oshaya gives the reason: גזירה שמא יוציא הולד ראשו חוץ לפרוזדור, since a head that emerged makes the fetus considered born and then contact would be *tumah* from a full-fledged מת. The גמרא asks why the mother would not also be included, and answers that the mother knows whether the head emerged. The גמרא asks why she does not tell the חיה, and answers that the mother is טריד during labor and lacks presence of mind to warn her, so חז״ל impose *tumah* on the midwife.
- The text contrasts the case with a משנה about a רועה putting his hand into a pregnant animal’s womb when the animal is dead and becoming טמא נבילה. The explanation is that by an animal there is no birth canal, so if the fetus emerged it would be obvious, while by a person it is not obvious and thus the decree is needed. The difference rests on the concern about hidden emergence of the head in human labor.
- The sugya asks for the basis of רבי ישמעאל and רבי עקיבא. Rabbi Yishmael derives exclusion of a fetus from “וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה,” reading *tumah* as requiring exposure, and he treats גולל ודופק as הלכתא גמירי. Rabbi Akiva says the same pasuk teaches גולל ודופק, and the text records a מחלוקת ראשונים on their meaning: Rashi identifies them as the coffin cover and sides, with defenses that coffins were visible above ground, while תוספות defines them as the מצבה stone and supporting stones at head and foot. The text ties this to practical questions of סתימת הגולל and onset of אבילות, explaining that temporary closing before burial is not called סתימת הגולל.
- The text presents competing views that the Torah creates a new תמידית *tumah* on gollal and dofek, or that the *chidush* begins only after the מת is removed, while others deny *tumah* after removal. The possibility is raised that material matters because פשוטי כלי עץ are not *mekabel tumah*, so disassembled wooden components might avoid *tumah*. The sugya keeps these positions as recorded disputes.
- The גמרא asks how רבי עקיבא finds a דאורייתא source against the surface-reading of “על פני השדה.” Rav Oshaya says רבי עקיבא relies on “הנוגע במת בנפש,” interpreting “בנפש שבנפש של אדם” as a מת בתוך אדם, namely an עובר במעי אמו, establishing that it still spreads *tumah*. רבי עקיבא then assigns “על פני השדה” to גולל ודופק.
- Rabbi Yishmael uses “הנוגע במת בנפש” for רביעית דם הבא מן המת. The text explains that “נפש” is identified with blood via “כי הדם הוא הנפש,” and records that some ראשונים connect the שיעור to minimal blood needed for survival or the blood content of a newborn. The text cites רב אלחנן that the identification of blood as “נפש” comes from pesukim while the measurement of רביעית is הלכה למשה מסיני, and the pesukim serve to explain that tradition.
- Rabbi Akiva holds אף רביעית דם הבא משני מתים is מטמא באהל. He derives it from “ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא,” reading it as שתי נפשות ושיעור אחד. The text links this to the Sanhedrin sugya about יש אם למקרא versus יש אם למסורת, stating that רבי ישמעאל follows the reading that treats נפשת as singular and limits the דין to one מת, while רבי עקיבא reads it as plural and extends it to two מתים contributing to one *revi’it*.
- The text introduces that an animal dying without שחיטה is טומאת נבלה as an אב הטומאה that is מטמא אדם וכלים and makes them a ראשון לטומאה. The text states that מדאורייתא foods and liquids that contact נבלה do not transmit *tumah* further. The text states that שחיטה is מטהרת even a טרפה from טומאת נבלה though the טרפה remains forbidden to eat. The text distinguishes אבר מן החי, where a limb separated while alive with meat, bones, and sinews has טומאת נבלה, while mere meat separated from a live animal is not מטמא מדאורייתא. The text reiterates that an עובר in the womb is included in the mother’s שחיטה.
- The משנה states: בהמה המקשה לילד והוציא עובר ידו וחתכה, ואחר שחט את אמו, הבשר טהור. The משנה then states: שחט את אמו ואחר כך חתכה, הבשר מגע נבלה דברי רבי מאיר. The חכמים say the limb is treated like טרפה, since it was connected at the time of שחיטה and the mother’s שחיטה is effective enough to remove טומאת נבלה from it, and they argue from the model that שחיטה מטהרת טרפה.
- Rabbi Meir argues that שחיטה is effective on a טרפה only when the טרפה is the גוף being slaughtered, and not to purify an אבר דבר שאינו גופה. The text notes a halachic question whether one makes a ברכה when slaughtering a טרפה, frames it as depending on whether the berachah is ברכת השבח or ברכת המצוה, and states the הלכה is not to make a ברכה on שחיטת טרפה. The text cites an אור זרוע brought by the רמ״א that when the animal may be a טרפה one begins slaughter without a berachah and, if later clarified not a טרפה, makes the berachah afterwards.
- The משנה asks: מנין לטרפה ששחיטה מטהרתה, and rejects a comparison to בהמה טמאה where שחיטה never works because it never had שעת הכושר. The גמרא addresses a טרפה born that way and resolves it by saying the distinction is that by בהמה טמאה אין במינה שחיטה, while by טרפה יש במינה שחיטה. The text then introduces בן שמונה חי and states אין שחיטה מטהרתה לפי שאין במינה שחיטה, with Rashi explaining it is not in the family of animals that could ever be eaten.
- The גמרא asks why the severed limb would convey *tumah* to the rest of the fetus since it seems like *tum’at beit hassetarim* which does not transmit. The text proposes tying the issue to רבי מאיר’s view from a משנה about a cloth that had טומאת מדרס and was split, where רבי מאיר says the pieces remain טמא מגע מדרס because they touched even in a concealed way, while רבי יוסי rejects that and limits residual *tumah* to a case where the cloth had טומאת מגע זב independently. The גמרא cites Ulla’s clarification that even רבי יוסי agrees in a case where a small piece is detached from a larger piece that still has the requisite size, because בשעת פרישתן מאביהן מקבלת טומאה מאביהן.
- The גמרא resolves that the fetus case is not about concealed contact while attached, but about transmission at the moment the limb is severed. The דין is framed as בשעת פרישתן מאבר מקבל טומאה מאבר, paralleling the cloth piece that receives *tumah* from the parent piece at detachment. The text concludes by stating that the remaining dispute is whether the *tumah* involved is טומאת נבלה or טומאת טרפה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions