Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 28, 2019 | 讻状讗 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 121

Are liquids that come out of fruits (other than grapes and olives) that were already designated to be teruma聽still sanctified with the holiness of teruma? What are all the different items that are listed in the mishna聽as items that can join meat to get to a requisite amount but are not impure on their own, nor can they become impure as a neveila. The gemara聽deals with the second part of the mishna聽that related to another difference between impurity for food and for neviela regarding an animal that was slughtered by a non Jew for a Jew or a non kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew for a non Jew but hasn’t yet died (still flailing) – what is its status for impurity of food, neveila and for eating a limb off a live animal?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讛讚专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇注专诇讛 驻专讬 驻专讬 诪讘讻讜专讬诐

And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the word fruit and another instance of the word fruit. With regard to orla the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden鈥 (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.

讜讛讗诇诇 诪讗讬 讗诇诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪专讟拽讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉

搂The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is referring to the nuchal ligament [marteka]. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗讜诇诐 讗转诐 讟驻诇讬 砖拽专 专驻讗讬 讗诇诇 讻诇讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪专讟拽讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗讜 讘专 专驻讜讗讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘专 专驻讜讗讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish from that which is written: 鈥淏ut you are plasterers of lies, you are all physicians of no value [elil]鈥 (Job 13:4). The term 鈥渘o value [elil]鈥 stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, that is why Job accused his companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging from the hide is able to be healed.

讘讗诇诇 讚拽专讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗诇诇 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉

The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse, everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇诇 讛诪讻讜谞住 讗诐 讬砖 讻讝讬转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讻谞住讜

Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but not if the alal was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专专 诪专讟拽讗 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who collected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪专讟拽讗 谞诪讬 诪爪讟专祝 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讚讜拽讗 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讗讘诇 诪专讟拽讗 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Rabbis maintain that the nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament does not join together.

讛讗讬 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗谞驻讬 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 讘讟讜诇讬讛 讘讟诇讬讛

What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna, that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but even by itself, like any other food. And if it is a case where one does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be susceptible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status as food.

专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 诪讬讬砖讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽爪转讜 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讜

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said: It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not susceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽爪转讜 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉

And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讞专讟讜诐 讜讛爪驻专谞讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讞专讟讜诐 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

搂The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a bird that come into contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讞专讟讜诐 转讞转讜谉 转讞转讜谉 谞诪讬 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转讞转讜谉 砖诇 注诇讬讜谉

Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is referring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.

爪驻专谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪拽讜诐 讛诪讜讘诇注讬诐 讘讘砖专

Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons themselves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed within the flesh.

拽专谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜转讻讬谉 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讚诐

Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛

搂The mishna teaches: Similarly, in the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, it imparts impurity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 砖讜谞讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讘讟诪讗讛 讜讙讜讬 讘讟讛讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And furthermore, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impurity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.

讛讻砖专 诇诪讛 诇讬 住讜驻讜 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讻诇 砖住讜驻讜 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讛讻砖专

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food? The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 诪讛 讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专

The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: 鈥淏ut if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 诪驻谞讬

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a kosher bird to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason is because

砖住讜驻讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

eventually the carcass of the bird will impart a more severe impurity when it is in the throat of the person who consumes it. Therefore, it is not necessary for the carcass of a kosher bird to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be susceptible to impurity.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专讛 讜诇讛注诪讬讚讛 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转

岣zkiyya says in response: The reason for the opinion of the Sages stated by Rabbi Asi is since the slaughterer is able to chop the animal into small pieces and thereby establish the volume of every piece of the animal as less than an olive-bulk. In such a scenario, the animal would not be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, it is not certain that the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪驻专讻住转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And did 岣zkiyya actually say such a statement? But wasn鈥檛 it stated: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal in a valid manner by cutting the two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, 岣zkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating the limbs from such a twitching animal. Therefore, a gentile, who is prohibited from consuming a limb from a living animal, may consume this animal. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal.

讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 诪转讛 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 诇讗讜 诪转讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains the opinions: 岣zkiyya says that there is no prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it was slaughtered in a valid manner it is considered dead. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that there is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it is twitching it is not yet dead. Therefore, since 岣zkiyya maintains that a twitching animal is considered dead, it should have the impurity of a carcass, contrary to the opinion of the Sages cited by Rabbi Asi, as well as the mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬爪转讛 诪讻诇诇 讞讬讛 讜诇讻诇诇 诪转讛 诇讗 讘讗转

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: 岣zkiyya maintains that such an animal has left the category of a living animal, but has not entered the category of a dead animal. Therefore, it is not prohibited for a gentile to consume such an animal, but the animal does not have the impurity of a carcass.

讙讜驻讗 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪驻专讻住转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞拽讜讟 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讚讱 讚转谞讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

搂The Gemara discusses the matter itself of the dispute between 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal by cutting the two simanim, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, 岣zkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Elazar said: Take that opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan in your hand and accept it, as Rav Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜诪驻专讻住转 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

As Rav Oshaya teaches (Tosefta, Oholot 2:1): In the case of a Jew who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for the consumption of a gentile, if he slaughtered it by cutting two simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts impurity of food; but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of animal carcasses.

讗讘专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛

A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart impurity. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs. This ruling of Rav Oshaya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

砖讞讟 讘讛 讗讞讚 讗讜 专讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讞专讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara cites the continuation of the Tosefta: In the case where a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile鈥檚 consumption, if he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart the impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid. Similarly, if he did not perform a valid slaughter but rather stabbed the animal, the animal has no impurity whatsoever while it is still twitching.

讜讙讜讬 砖砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诪驻专讻住转 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛

And similarly, in the case of a gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for the consumption of a Jew, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts the impurity of food because it is considered to be food, but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of an animal carcass.

讗讘专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛

A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart the impurity of food. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs.

砖讞讟 讘讛 讗讞讚 讗讜 专讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讞专讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇 讻诇讜诐

If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart impurity of food because the slaughter was not valid. Similarly, if he stabbed the animal rather than slaughtering it properly, it has no impurity whatsoever.

砖讞讟 讙讜讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讟专驻讛 讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙诪专讛 讻砖专讛

If a gentile partially slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, i.e., unfit for consumption due to a mortal wound, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then a Jew came and completed the slaughter, the animal is fit for consumption.

砖讞讟 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讟专驻讛 讜讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讟专驻讛 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讙诪专 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

But if a Jew slaughtered the animal, either in a place that renders the animal a tereifa, e.g., he cut the majority of the windpipe, or in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., he only partially cut the windpipe, and then a gentile came and completed the slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.

讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讗讻诇 诪讘讛诪讛 拽讜讚诐 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讞讜转讱 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讬转 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜诪讜诇讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讚讬讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讜

The baraita continues: One who wishes to eat from the meat of a slaughtered animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of its slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and blood, and then wait until the animal鈥檚 soul departs, and then eat it. Both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it because the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is not applicable in such a case.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讬谉 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讘专讬讗 讞讜转讱 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讬转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讜诇讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讚讬讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讬诐 讘讜

The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: One who wants to be healthy should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, and salt it very well and rinse it very well, and then wait until the animal鈥檚 soul departs, and then both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讛讛 讘讛 讚专住 讘讛 诪讛讜

搂It was previously taught in the baraita that if a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile鈥檚 consumption, or a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for a Jew鈥檚 consumption, that animal imparts impurity of food when it is twitching after the slaughter. With regard to that halakha, Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case if one interrupted the slaughter or pressed on the knife during the slaughter? Do these acts, which normally invalidate slaughter, also invalidate this slaughter, or does the slaughter in this case not have to fulfill all of the halakhic requirements of valid slaughter in order to render the slaughtered animal as food with regard to imparting the impurity of food?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 砖讞讬讟讛 讻讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻砖专 诇诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘讚讬拽转 住讻讬谉

A certain elder resolved this dilemma and said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said as follows: This case requires a valid slaughter in every detail, just like a Jew slaughtering a kosher animal. The Gemara clarifies: To what requirement does valid slaughter just like a kosher animal refer? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: It is referring to the requirement of examining the knife before the slaughter.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讛讜 砖转爪讬诇 注诇 讛讘诇讜注讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讛

Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: If a non-kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew is twitching under the same roof as a corpse, and the animal swallowed items before being slaughtered, what is the halakha with regard to those swallowed items that are inside the animal? Is the animal considered to be living and therefore it should save these items that are swallowed inside it from the impurity transmitted by the corpse to all items under the same roof? Or is the animal considered to be dead and therefore the items become impure?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪爪诇转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 讜诇讗 转爪讬诇

Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is established that such an animal is considered to be dead and imparts impurity of food, is it possible that it saves those items inside it from impurity? Certainly it does not. Rabbi Zeira said to him in response: It is also established that such an animal does not impart impurity of carcasses and is considered to be a living animal in that regard. How is it possible that the animal does not save those items inside it from impurity?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谞讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 讛讘诇讜注讬诐 砖讘转讜讻讛 讚讛讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛专讜讘注讛 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛

Abaye resolved the dilemma and said: It is proper to treat this case stringently. Therefore, such an animal does not save the items that are swallowed inside it because it imparts impurity of food. But one who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liable because the animal does not impart impurity of a carcass and is considered to be living in that regard.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇诇 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讻谞住讜

搂The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. Rav Huna says in explanation: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注讜专 讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

And Rav Huna says: In a case of two pieces of flesh of an animal carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the hide, the hide nullifies them, as the hide does not impart the impurity of a carcass. Consequently, these pieces do not impart impurity either.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 121

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 121

讜讛讚专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇注专诇讛 驻专讬 驻专讬 诪讘讻讜专讬诐

And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the word fruit and another instance of the word fruit. With regard to orla the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden鈥 (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.

讜讛讗诇诇 诪讗讬 讗诇诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪专讟拽讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉

搂The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is referring to the nuchal ligament [marteka]. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讗讜诇诐 讗转诐 讟驻诇讬 砖拽专 专驻讗讬 讗诇诇 讻诇讻诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪专讟拽讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗讜 讘专 专驻讜讗讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘专 专驻讜讗讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish from that which is written: 鈥淏ut you are plasterers of lies, you are all physicians of no value [elil]鈥 (Job 13:4). The term 鈥渘o value [elil]鈥 stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, that is why Job accused his companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging from the hide is able to be healed.

讘讗诇诇 讚拽专讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讗诇诇 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉

The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse, everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇诇 讛诪讻讜谞住 讗诐 讬砖 讻讝讬转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讻谞住讜

Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but not if the alal was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专专 诪专讟拽讗 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who collected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪专讟拽讗 谞诪讬 诪爪讟专祝 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讚讜拽讗 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讗讘诇 诪专讟拽讗 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Rabbis maintain that the nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament does not join together.

讛讗讬 讘砖专 砖驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗谞驻讬 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 讘讟讜诇讬讛 讘讟诇讬讛

What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna, that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but even by itself, like any other food. And if it is a case where one does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be susceptible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status as food.

专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 诪讬讬砖讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽爪转讜 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讜

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said: It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not susceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.

讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪拽爪转讜 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉

And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛讞专讟讜诐 讜讛爪驻专谞讬诐 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讞专讟讜诐 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

搂The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a bird that come into contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讞专讟讜诐 转讞转讜谉 转讞转讜谉 谞诪讬 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转讞转讜谉 砖诇 注诇讬讜谉

Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is referring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.

爪驻专谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪拽讜诐 讛诪讜讘诇注讬诐 讘讘砖专

Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons themselves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed within the flesh.

拽专谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讞讜转讻讬谉 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讚诐

Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛

搂The mishna teaches: Similarly, in the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, it imparts impurity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 砖讜谞讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 讘讟诪讗讛 讜讙讜讬 讘讟讛讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛讻砖专 诪讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专

Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And furthermore, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impurity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.

讛讻砖专 诇诪讛 诇讬 住讜驻讜 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讜讻诇 砖住讜驻讜 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讛讻砖专

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food? The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 诪讛 讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻讜 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专

The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: 鈥淏ut if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟讛讜专 爪专讬讻讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 诪驻谞讬

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a kosher bird to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason is because

砖住讜驻讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

eventually the carcass of the bird will impart a more severe impurity when it is in the throat of the person who consumes it. Therefore, it is not necessary for the carcass of a kosher bird to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be susceptible to impurity.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专讛 讜诇讛注诪讬讚讛 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转

岣zkiyya says in response: The reason for the opinion of the Sages stated by Rabbi Asi is since the slaughterer is able to chop the animal into small pieces and thereby establish the volume of every piece of the animal as less than an olive-bulk. In such a scenario, the animal would not be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, it is not certain that the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪驻专讻住转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And did 岣zkiyya actually say such a statement? But wasn鈥檛 it stated: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal in a valid manner by cutting the two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, 岣zkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating the limbs from such a twitching animal. Therefore, a gentile, who is prohibited from consuming a limb from a living animal, may consume this animal. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal.

讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 诪转讛 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 诇讗讜 诪转讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains the opinions: 岣zkiyya says that there is no prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it was slaughtered in a valid manner it is considered dead. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that there is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it is twitching it is not yet dead. Therefore, since 岣zkiyya maintains that a twitching animal is considered dead, it should have the impurity of a carcass, contrary to the opinion of the Sages cited by Rabbi Asi, as well as the mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬爪转讛 诪讻诇诇 讞讬讛 讜诇讻诇诇 诪转讛 诇讗 讘讗转

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: 岣zkiyya maintains that such an animal has left the category of a living animal, but has not entered the category of a dead animal. Therefore, it is not prohibited for a gentile to consume such an animal, but the animal does not have the impurity of a carcass.

讙讜驻讗 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪驻专讻住转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞拽讜讟 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讚讱 讚转谞讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

搂The Gemara discusses the matter itself of the dispute between 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal by cutting the two simanim, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, 岣zkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Elazar said: Take that opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan in your hand and accept it, as Rav Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with his opinion.

讚转谞讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讞讟 讘讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讜 专讜讘 砖谞讬诐 讜诪驻专讻住转 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

As Rav Oshaya teaches (Tosefta, Oholot 2:1): In the case of a Jew who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for the consumption of a gentile, if he slaughtered it by cutting two simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts impurity of food; but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of animal carcasses.

讗讘专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛

A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart impurity. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs. This ruling of Rav Oshaya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

砖讞讟 讘讛 讗讞讚 讗讜 专讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讞专讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara cites the continuation of the Tosefta: In the case where a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile鈥檚 consumption, if he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart the impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid. Similarly, if he did not perform a valid slaughter but rather stabbed the animal, the animal has no impurity whatsoever while it is still twitching.

讜讙讜讬 砖砖讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜诪驻专讻住转 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛

And similarly, in the case of a gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for the consumption of a Jew, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts the impurity of food because it is considered to be food, but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of an animal carcass.

讗讘专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讛 讻驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛

A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart the impurity of food. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs.

砖讞讟 讘讛 讗讞讚 讗讜 专讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讞专讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 讟讜诪讗讛 砖诇 讻诇讜诐

If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart impurity of food because the slaughter was not valid. Similarly, if he stabbed the animal rather than slaughtering it properly, it has no impurity whatsoever.

砖讞讟 讙讜讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讟专驻讛 讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙诪专讛 讻砖专讛

If a gentile partially slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, i.e., unfit for consumption due to a mortal wound, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then a Jew came and completed the slaughter, the animal is fit for consumption.

砖讞讟 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讟专驻讛 讜讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讛 讟专驻讛 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讙诪专 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

But if a Jew slaughtered the animal, either in a place that renders the animal a tereifa, e.g., he cut the majority of the windpipe, or in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., he only partially cut the windpipe, and then a gentile came and completed the slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.

讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讗讻诇 诪讘讛诪讛 拽讜讚诐 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讞讜转讱 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讬转 砖讞讬讟转讛 讜诪讜诇讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讚讬讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讜

The baraita continues: One who wishes to eat from the meat of a slaughtered animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of its slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and blood, and then wait until the animal鈥檚 soul departs, and then eat it. Both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it because the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is not applicable in such a case.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讬谉 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讘专讬讗 讞讜转讱 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讬转 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讜诇讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪讚讬讞讜 讬驻讛 讬驻讛 讜诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讛 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜转专讬诐 讘讜

The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitz岣k bar Ashyan said: One who wants to be healthy should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, and salt it very well and rinse it very well, and then wait until the animal鈥檚 soul departs, and then both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讛讛 讘讛 讚专住 讘讛 诪讛讜

搂It was previously taught in the baraita that if a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile鈥檚 consumption, or a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for a Jew鈥檚 consumption, that animal imparts impurity of food when it is twitching after the slaughter. With regard to that halakha, Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case if one interrupted the slaughter or pressed on the knife during the slaughter? Do these acts, which normally invalidate slaughter, also invalidate this slaughter, or does the slaughter in this case not have to fulfill all of the halakhic requirements of valid slaughter in order to render the slaughtered animal as food with regard to imparting the impurity of food?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讻砖专 砖讞讬讟讛 讻讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻砖专 诇诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘讚讬拽转 住讻讬谉

A certain elder resolved this dilemma and said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said as follows: This case requires a valid slaughter in every detail, just like a Jew slaughtering a kosher animal. The Gemara clarifies: To what requirement does valid slaughter just like a kosher animal refer? Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: It is referring to the requirement of examining the knife before the slaughter.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 诪讛讜 砖转爪讬诇 注诇 讛讘诇讜注讬谉 砖讘转讜讻讛

Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: If a non-kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew is twitching under the same roof as a corpse, and the animal swallowed items before being slaughtered, what is the halakha with regard to those swallowed items that are inside the animal? Is the animal considered to be living and therefore it should save these items that are swallowed inside it from the impurity transmitted by the corpse to all items under the same roof? Or is the animal considered to be dead and therefore the items become impure?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪爪诇转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 讜诇讗 转爪讬诇

Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is established that such an animal is considered to be dead and imparts impurity of food, is it possible that it saves those items inside it from impurity? Certainly it does not. Rabbi Zeira said to him in response: It is also established that such an animal does not impart impurity of carcasses and is considered to be a living animal in that regard. How is it possible that the animal does not save those items inside it from impurity?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谞讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 讛讘诇讜注讬诐 砖讘转讜讻讛 讚讛讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛专讜讘注讛 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛

Abaye resolved the dilemma and said: It is proper to treat this case stringently. Therefore, such an animal does not save the items that are swallowed inside it because it imparts impurity of food. But one who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liable because the animal does not impart impurity of a carcass and is considered to be living in that regard.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇诇 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讻谞住讜

搂The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. Rav Huna says in explanation: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛注讜专 讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

And Rav Huna says: In a case of two pieces of flesh of an animal carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the hide, the hide nullifies them, as the hide does not impart the impurity of a carcass. Consequently, these pieces do not impart impurity either.

Scroll To Top