CHULIN 71 (1 Adar) - dedicated in memory of Mordecai (Marcus) ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld, who perished in the Holocaust along with most of his family. His Yahrzeit is observed on 1 Adar. May his death and the deaths of the other Kedoshim of the Holocaust atone for us like Korbanos.



תוספות ד"ה ולרבנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites two different texts and explanations of our Gemara.)

כן גירסת הקונטרס ופירש דאדרבנן דרבי יוסי הגלילי בעי האי קרא דרב נחמן למה לי


Text #1: This is the text of Rashi. The Gemara means that there is a question on the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili: What do they do with the Pasuk quoted by Rav Nachman?

וקשה לפירושו למה המתין עד כאן


Question #1: There is a difficulty with Rashi's explanation. Why did the Gemara wait until now to ask this question?

ועוד ה"ל למבעי נמי לרבנן קרא דרבי יצחק למה להו


Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara should have also asked what the Rabbanan do with the Pasuk quoted by Rav Yitzchak!

לכן נראה כגירסת הספרים דגרסי הניחא לר"מ אלא לרבנן מא"ל


Text #2: It therefore appears that the correct text is like that of the Sefarim who have the following text. This is understandable according to Rebbi Meir, but what is there to say according to the Rabbanan?

כלומר אמאי איצטריך כללא דבהמה טהורה בכלל חיה טהורה דלדידהו ליכא למימר ליצירה


Text #2 (cont.): In other words, why is the rule of a kosher Beheimah being included in that of a kosher Chayah necessary? According to them, it cannot be to teach that their creation is akin to that of a person (see Rashi DH "Beheimah Tehorah").



תוספות ד"ה והאשה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when a child starts to become impure when he is born.)

כשלא העגיל הראש כפיקה מיירי דאי העגיל הוי טמא עד שלא יצא הולד משנפתח הקבר


Explanation #1: The case is where the head did not crown (start coming out) the size of a spindle (for how this size of a spindle is measured, see Bechoros 22a). However, if it did crown the size of a spindle she is impure even before the child came out as the womb is considered to have opened.

דתניא באהלות (פ"ז מ"ד) ומייתי לה בהלוקח בהמה (בכורות כב.) אין לנפלים פתיחת הקבר עד שיעגילו הראש כפיקה


Explanation #1 (cont.): This is as the Mishnah states in Ohalos (7:4) as quoted by the Gemara in Bechoros (22a) that it is not considered that a Neifel has opened the womb until his head has crowned the size of a spindle.

א"נ סבר ליה כתנא דתוספתא דאהלות (ספ"ח) דאמר אין לולד טומאה עד שיצא לאויר העולם


Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is possible the Tana of our Mishnah holds like the Tana in the Tosefta in Ohalos (8:8) who says that a child does not become impure until he enters the air of the world.



תוספות ד"ה מי לא עסקינן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara did not make a deduction from a Beraisa in Nidah, and why the deduction it makes is valid.)

וא"ת אמאי לא מדקדק מדאמעט בברייתא בפרק יוצא דופן (נדה מב:) נבלה דלא מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה מדכתיב בנבלת עוף טהור לטמאה בה ולא באחרת ומשם מדקדק אביי דמקום נבלת עוף טהור בלועה הויא


Question: Why doesn't the Gemara deduce this law from the Beraisa in Nidah (42b) that excludes Neveilah from making clothes impure when swallowed because the Pasuk only says regarding the Neveilah of a kosher bird "to make it impure with it," excluding any other kind of Neveilah (presumably because it is swallowed up)? Abaye indeed deduces there that the place where the Neveilah of the kosher bird is located is considered swallowed up.

וי"ל דודאי אליבא דאביי היה יכול לדקדק משם אבל לרבא דסבר דבית הסתרים הוי היכי מתרץ לברייתא ע"כ כשתחב לו חבירו בבית הבליעה וחזר והוציאו ובית הבליעה היה רחב ולא הסיטה כלל התם ממעט קרא דווקא נבלת בהמה


Answer: Indeed, according to Abaye this could have been derived from the Beraisa in Nidah (42b). However, according to Rava there who holds the reason is because it is considered a hidden place, how can the Beraisa be understood? It must be where his friend inserted the Neveilah into his throat and then took it out, and his throat was wide enough that the piece was not on his throat at all. In that case the Pasuk excludes the Neveilah of a kosher animal.

ומיהו היינו יכולין לפרש אע"ג דלא חזר והוציאו דכי קאמר רבא דבית הסתרים הוי היינו תחלת הבליעה אבל לסופו מודה דבלוע הויא


Implied Question: However, we could explain that the case is even if he did not retract it. When Rava said this is considered hidden, this was in the beginning of it being swallowed. However, at the end he admits that it is considered swallowed. (Why isn't this correct?)

אבל לפי זה היה יכול לדקדק משם אף לרבא דטומאה בלועה לא מטמאה


Answer: However, according to this the Gemara in Nidah (ibid.) should have deduced that even Rava holds that swallowed impurity does not cause impurity.

ואם תאמר והיכי מדקדק הכא מהאי קרא דהאוכל מנבלתה והא האי קרא בנבלת בהמה כתיב דלא מטמאה בבית הבליעה ובמגע איירי ולא באכילה ולא כתיב אוכל אלא ליתן שיעור אכילה דהיינו כזית לנוגע ונושא כדמפרש התם בנדה


Question: How can there be a deduction from this Pasuk, "ha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah?" This Pasuk is teaching regarding the Neveilah of an animal that it does not cause impurity when swallowed. However, it is referring to impurity through touching not eating. The only reason eating is stated is to say that the amount is one of eating, namely a Kzayis, for touching and carrying as explained in Nidah (ibid.).

ואי איצטריך לדרשא דהכא אם כן היכי מדקדק מינייהו דשיעור נוגע ונושא באוכל


Question (cont.): If our Gemara requires this Pasuk for its teaching, how can we also derive from it that the amount of touching and carrying is one of food, namely a Kzayis?

ויש לומר דלא מסתבר לאוקומי כוליה לדרשא דהכא לטהר טומאה בלועה


Answer: It is possible to answer that it is not logical to establish the entire Pasuk as being for this teaching that swallowed impurity does not cause impurity.

דהא משמע דאתא למימר טומאה דכתיב והאוכל יכבס בגדיו ומ"מ אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו דמשמע דטיהר הכתוב את האוכל כשטבל והעריב שמשו


Answer (cont.): The Gemara implies that it is discussing impurity, as the Pasuk says, "And the one who eats should wash his clothes etc." However, the Pasuk does not go away from its simple context which is saying that the food is pure if he immersed in a Mikvah and the sun set.




תוספות ד"ה אטו אנן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Kal v'Chomer thoroughly, and explains why impurity due to being carried by a Zav is inapplicable in our case.)

תימה מה נפשך מ"מ פריך שפיר דאיך תעבור הטומאה כיון דגבו טהור


Question: This is difficult. In any event, the question is a good question. How can the impurity go through the Kli Cheres if it does not contract impurity from something that is on the back (or the cover) of the vessel?

ויש לומר דאדם נמי תוכו טהור מציל ואיכא למיעבד ק"ו הכי ומה כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל שאין גבו מציל לחוץ בפני הטומאה שבתוכו מלטמא מציל (תוכו) על טהרה שבתוכו מליטמא תוכו של אדם שמציל וחוצץ בפני הטומאה שבתוכו מלטמא אינו דין שיציל תוכו על טהרה שבתוכו מליטמא


Answer: A person also saves impurity by something being inside of him. Accordingly, one can make the following Kal v'Chomer. If a Kli Cheres that is covered by a tight cover can stop impurity from spreading from an impure object inside of it, but it can save something pure that is inside of it from becoming impure from what is outside of it, certainly the inside of a person that stops impurity that is inside of him from making anything impure should guard an object inside of him from becoming impure!

וא"ת כיון דהא דהאדם מציל על טהרה שבתוכו היינו מקל וחומר דכלי חרס א"כ נימא דיו ולא יציל על טהרה שבתוכו מליטמא בהיסט הזב כמו כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל דמיטמא בהיסט הזב כדאמרינן בסוף הנזקין (גיטין סא:) וליחוש שמא הסיטה אשתו נדה


Question: Being that the fact that a person's body protects an object inside it from becoming impure is based on a Kal v'Chomer from Kli Cheres, we should invoke the principle of Dayo to say it should not protect this object from becoming impure if a Zav carries it. This is similar to the law regarding a Kli Cheres with a tight cover that a Zav carries. This is as stated in Gitin (61b), let us suspect that his wife who is a Nidah carried it!

ואילו בתוספת' דאהלו' (פט"ו) תני בהדיא דאדם מציל על טהרה שבתוכו מליטמא בהיסט הזב דאמרו להם בית הלל אי אתם מודים בבליעת טבעת ונכנס לאהל המת כו' אמרו להם בית שמאי לא אם אמרת בטבעת שהיא טהורה בהיסט


Question (cont.): However, the Tosefta in Ohalos (ch. 15) explicitly states that a person saves pure items that are inside of him from becoming impure if they are carried by a Zav. Beis Hillel told them, "Don't you admit that if a person swallows a ring and goes into the tent of a dead person etc." Beis Shamai said, "No. If you say this by a ring that is pure if a Zav carries it etc."

וי"ל דעבדי ק"ו מפכים קטנים המוקף צמיד פתיל דאפילו בלא היקף טהורים במשא הזב לפי שאין באים לכלל מגע לפי שאין סופן להפתח ואת שאינו בא לכלל מגע אינו בא לכלל משא כדאמר בהעור והרוטב (לקמן דף קכד:)


Answer: A Kal v'Chomer is made from small containers that have a tight cover, as even if they do not have a tight cover they are pure. This is because the Zav does not end up touching them, as they do not end up being opened. Whatever is not going to be touched does not end up being carried, as stated later (124b). (Accordingly, both a person and a vessel that are not supposed to end up being opened protect from the impurity of being carried by a Zav, as opposed to containers that are supposed to be opened that do not, as is the case in Gitin 61b.)



תוספות ד"ה דלמטה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara assumes that something absorbed in the lower parts of the body is protected from impurity.)

דבלוע דלמטה נמי טהור כדמוכח מתניתין דעובר וחיה נמי דטמאה היינו מדרבנן כדלקמן


Explanation: It is clear that when something is absorbed through the lower parts of one's body it is also considered pure, as is apparent from our Mishnah regarding a fetus. The law that the midwife is deemed impure is a Rabbinic law, as is apparent later.

ועוד דהשתא ס"ד דרבה מודה בשתי טבעות וחיה היא כשתי טבעות


Explanation (cont.): Additionally, the Gemara currently thinks that Rabah admits that if a person swallowed two rings (one pure and one impure) the pure one becomes impure. The case of a midwife becoming impure is like the case of two rings.



תוספות ד"ה בלוע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that a live animal does not become impure.)

דבהמה לא מטמא כדמוכח ההוא כלב דאכל בשר המת לקמן בהעור והרוטב (דף קכו.)


Explanation: A live animal does not become impure, as is apparent from the case of a dog who eats flesh of a dead person stated later (126a).



תוספות ד"ה למאי

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why animal clothing is different than human clothing when it comes to impurity.)

וא"ת דלמא אפי' בכלים שהיא לבושה דשייך בהו מלבוש כדאשכחן גבי הוצאת שבת בפרק במה בהמה יוצאה (שבת נג.) בדברים שחשובים לה למלבוש


Question #1: Perhaps this even applies to vessels the animal wears (as opposed to the Gemara's understanding that it applies to clothing that it is carrying) that can be called "(animal) clothing," as we find in Shabbos (53a) that certain things are considered "(animal) clothing?"

ועוד הקשה רבינו אפרים דבתורת כהנים ממעט בהמה וכותי דלא בעו שהייה בכלים שהן לבושים


Question #2: Additionally, Rabeinu Efraim asks that the Toras Kohanim excludes an animal and Nochri from needing to stay for a certain amount of time in a house with leprosy in order to make the clothing they are wearing impure.

מוכבס בגדיו המטמא בגדים מציל בבית המנוגע כותי ובהמה שאינם מטמאים בגדים אינם מצילים בבית המנוגע משמע דבת מלבוש היא אלא דמעטיה קרא דומיא דכותי דשייך ביה מלבוש


Question #2 (cont.): This is derived from the Pasuk, "And he will wash his clothes." The Pasuk implies that only one who causes clothes to be impure saves them from becoming immediately impure in a house that has leprosy. Being that a Nochri and an animal do not cause clothing to become impure, they do not save clothing from a house with leprosy. This indicates that an animal can wear clothing, but the Torah excluded its clothing, similar to a Nochri who wears clothing.

וי"ל דבהמה אפילו כלים שהיא לבושה חשיבי כעל גבה כיון דאין מטמא מכחה דלאו בת טומאה היא


Answer: Even the clothing that an animal is wearing are considered as if they are being carried by it, being that they do not become impure because of the animal which does not cause impurity.

וגבי אדם נמי כה"ג כשאין מטמאין מכחו כגון בגדים שעל גביו לא בעי שהייה אבל בגדים שהוא לבוש בטלים אגביה ומכחו בא להם הטומאה וגזרת הכתוב היא שאין לו כח לטמאם עד שישהה


Answer (cont.): Regarding a person in a similar situation, meaning where he is carrying the clothing, waiting is not required. However, clothing that he is wearing are considered part of his body, and they become impure because of him. It is a Torah derivation that they only become impure because of him if he stays in the house for a certain amount of time.

ולפירוש זה דטומאת בגדים שהוא לבוש מחמת האדם הם באים אם כולו בפנים וידו מבחוץ וטבעת באצבע טמאה הטבעת ואם הוא מבחוץ וידו בפנים וטבעת באצבע הטבעת טהורה דבטלה אגביה והוא טהור דרובו לחוץ


Answer (cont.): According to this explanation that the clothing a person wears becomes impure because the person makes them impure, if he is totally inside the house that has leprosy and his hand with the ring on his finger is outside the house, the ring is impure. If he is outside the house and his hand with the ring on it is inside the house the ring is pure, as it is nullified to the person who is pure because he is mostly outside of the house.

וקשה דבתורת כהנים ובמסכת נגעים פרק שלשה עשר דתנא היה עומד בפנים ופשט ידו לחוץ וטבעותיו בידו ושהה כדי אכילת פרס טמאות היה עומד בחוץ ופשט ידו בפנים וטבעותיו בידו רבי יהודה מטמא מיד וחכ"א בכדי אכילת פרס


Question: This is difficult, as in Toras Kohanim and Negaim (ch. 13) it says that if the person was standing inside the house and he stuck his hand with the rings outside the house, and he stayed K'dei Achilas Peras in the house, the rings are impure. If he was standing outside the house and he stuck his hand with the rings inside the house, Rebbi Yehudah says they become impure immediately. The Chachamim say they become impure if he stays K'dei Achilas Peras. (According to the answer above, how can the second case be ruled impure?)

ושמא התם מדרבנן הוא ולא מדאורייתא ומחמיר רבי יהודה לטמא מיד משום דאין הטומאה באה להם מכח האדם


Answer: Perhaps the Toras Kohanim and Mishnah in Negaim is referring to a Rabbinic law as opposed to a Torah law. Rebbi Yehudah is stringent that the rings should be considered impure immediately because he understands the impurity comes from the rings themselves, not from the person wearing them.



תוספות ד"ה אמר רבא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rava's question.)

לאו מטומאה בלועה פריך דרבה נמי כשם קאמר משמע שגם לרבה היה פשוט מתוך המשנה


Observation: Rava is not asking his question from absorbed impurity, as Rabah says (71a) "Just as etc." This indicates that Rabah also understood that it was obvious from the Mishnah that absorbed impurity does not cause anything to become impure.

אלא מטהרה בלועה פריך דטהרה נמי תנן כמו טומאה ולמה פשוט לו זה יותר מזה


Observation (cont.): Rather, the question is from an absorbed item that is pure. There is a Mishnah about this as well, just as there is a Mishnah regarding an impure item! If so, why is the law regarding the impure item more obvious than the law regarding the pure item?



תוספות ד"ה בלע

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the ring became impure through contact with a dead person, not a Sheretz.)

בטמא טומאת מת איירי דחרב הרי הוא כחלל ואי לאו דטומאה בלועה לא מטמאה לא היה מועיל לו טבילה דנהי דמגע בית הסתרים לא מטמא במגע במשא מטמא


Explanation: This is referring to someone who is impure from contact with a dead person. The Torah teaches that a sword is like a dead person. Were it not for the fact that absorbed impurity does not cause impurity, such a person could not become pure through immersing in a Mikvah. Even though contact from a hidden place does not cause impurity through touching, it does cause impurity through being carried (and therefore the person who is constantly carrying this inside of him would always be considered impure).

וא"ת ודלמא בטבעת שנטמא בשרץ איירי


Question: Perhaps the case is regarding a ring that became impure by touching a dead Sheretz? (This could be why it does not cause impurity, not because it is absorbed impurity!)

וי"ל דבתר דההיא דטבעת טהורה מיתניא במסכת מקואות (פ"י מ"ח)


Answer #1: It is stated after the case of the pure ring in Mikvaos (10:8 which is discussing impurity through a dead person).

ועוד אי בטומאת שרץ אם כן לא הויא אלא ראשון והיכי קתני דמטמא את האדם והא אין אדם וכלים מקבלים טומאה אלא מאב הטומאה.


Answer #2: If it is referring to the impurity of a Sheretz it would only be a Rishon. How could the Mishnah say it causes impurity to a person? A person or vessel does not become impure from anything less than an Av ha'Tumah! (It therefore must not have become impure from a Sheretz.)



תוספות ד"ה כי קאמר

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rabah's position.)

פירש בקונטרס דאי ממתניתין ה"א הא דטבעת לא מטמאה האדם לא משום בליעה הוא אלא משום דמגע בית הסתרים לאו מגע הוא לענין טומאה כדאמר בנדה (דף מב:)


Explanation: Rashi explains that if we would only know our Mishnah, one might think that the reason that the ring does not cause a person to become impure is not because it is absorbed, but rather because contact from a hidden place is not deemed contact regarding impurity, as stated in Nidah (42b).

וליכא למימר דנטמא במשא


Implied Question: One cannot say that the person would become impure through carrying the ring. (Why not?)

שאין משא אלא במי שהטומאה באה ממנו כגון מת ונבלה ומעיינות הזב


Answer: Carrying only applies to the person or item emitting the impurity such as a dead person, an animal that was not slaughtered properly, and the springs (i.e. source of impurity in the body) of a Zav.