The Eddie B. Sit Edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on Masechet Chullin. This edition has been dedicated by our esteemed friend, Mr. Joey Jamal, and his wife, in honor of their son Jack's engagement to Shirley Sutton. Bezrat Hashem, may they marry b'sha'ah tovah u'mutzlachat, and through the merit of the study we will engage in over the next several months in Masechet Chullin, may they experience abundant nachat, peace in their home, prosperity, and all the brachot. Amen.
Today, we begin with Daf Ayin Bet. We dedicate this learning L'ilui nishmat for Avraham ben Esther and Rabbi Moshe ben Nuna, may their souls find rest in Gan Eden. Amen. We will start on Ayin Aleph Amud Bet, beginning with the words of Amar Rava, which appear nine lines from the bottom. We are discussing the concept of tumah beluah, referring to when the impurity is inside a person.
What is the case of tumah beluah? We previously discussed an example: someone who ate a neveilah, which is considered tamei. After consuming it, the Torah requires him to immerse in a mikvah. Once he does so, he is deemed tahor. We do not consider the neveilah to still be in contact with him internally, and thus it does not add further tumah. We also mentioned the case of tahorah beluah, where a person swallows a ring. If he enters a house of tumah, and later the ring comes out, it remains tahor because, while inside him, it does not receive tumah.
Rabbah provided proofs for this concept in yesterday's daf. Now, Rava challenges the need for these proofs, stating that the cases of tumah beluah are already explicitly mentioned in the Mishnah. He asserts that both cases of tumah beluah and tahorah beluah are indeed taught in the Mishnah. In the case of tumah beluah, it states that if one swallows a taba'at that is tameiah, he immerses and can eat terumah at night, even if the ring is still in his stomach.
If he subsequently spits it out, it remains tameiah and metamei him as well, since it touches him on the way out. This teaches us that as long as the taba'at is inside him, it does not metamei the individual. Regarding tahorah beluah, we see that if one swallows a taba'at that is tehorah and then enters a tent where there is a met, he must undergo the sprinkling ceremony on the third and seventh days, as the halacha dictates.
Even after immersing in the mikvah, if he spits out the ring, it remains as it was, kemo shehayetah. This indicates that as long as the taba'at is beluah within him, it does not become tamei. So, what was the need for Rabbah to teach this? The Gemara explains that the novelty chidush presented by Rabbah is in a case where one swallows two rings, one tameiah and one tehorah. I might have thought that the tameiah could metamei the tehorah while they are both inside, but Rabbah teaches us that even in this case, tumah beluah does not affect either.
The Gemara cites Rashi, who clarifies that if the Mishnah states that swallowing a taba'at that is tameiah does not affect the person, one might mistakenly think that the reason is not due to beluah, but rather because the contact is internal. However, the principle of tumah only applies to external contact.
Furthermore, there is the law of tumah massa, which applies to carrying certain impurities. However, Rashi explains that tumah massa only applies to the original source of tumah, like a met, but not to something that has become tamei, such as a ring that is tamei but does not carry tumah massa. Therefore, I would have thought that the reason the person does not become tamei is due to the internal nature of the contact. However, Rabbah clarifies that even if two rings are touching each other inside, they cannot metamei each other because they are still considered beluah.
The Gemara raises a question from the Mishnah regarding a case where a pregnant woman’s baby dies inside her. The midwife reaches in to retrieve the baby, and it is stated that she becomes tameiah from the dead ubar. This situation is also tumah beluah, as the ubar is inside, yet it seems contradictory to Rabbah's teaching. The Gemara answers that the ubar is different because it is destined to come out, and thus does not retain the status of being inside.
However, the Gemara counters that the taba'at will eventually come out as well. The explanation is given that the sages of Pumpedisa will clarify the logic of our Mishnah, asserting that tumah beluah does not apply in this case. The source of the dispute lies in the teachings of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva regarding whether a dead ubar in the womb is tamei or not.
Rabbi Yishmael holds that the ubar does not impart tumah because it is enclosed, while Rabbi Akiva contends that it does impart tumah. The Gemara presents a verse that suggests that anything that touches a dead body becomes tamei, yet Rabbi Yishmael interprets this differently, using it to discuss the status of blood from a dead body rather than the ubar.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the discussion of tumah beluah is indeed a matter of rabbinic decree, and while Rabbi Akiva maintains that the ubar is tamei, the sages instituted a precautionary measure to prevent inadvertent contact with terumah.
As we transition to a new case, we examine a scenario where an animal is giving birth, and the ubar extends its hand. If the hand is severed and the mother is subsequently slaughtered, the Gemara teaches that the flesh of the ubar remains tahor. This is a significant teaching, as it indicates that even though the hand, which is considered tamei, was once attached, it does not render the ubar itself impure.
Thus, we learn that the severed limb, while tamei, does not transfer its impurity to the ubar because the mother was alive at the time of the severance. The principles of tumah and taharah continue to unfold as we explore the ramifications of these teachings, emphasizing the intricate nature of halachic rulings regarding purity and impurity.