Which hides are exceptions to the rule and are treated like flesh for impurities?
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on the occasion of their 44th anniversary.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on the occasion of their 44th anniversary.
Chullin 122
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן?
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it.
אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הָאָמַר לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר. וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – פְּשִׁיטָא, הָאָמַר מְבַטֵּל עוֹר.
If one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didn’t Rabbi Yishmael say that the hide does not nullify the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? And if one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didn’t Rabbi Akiva say that the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?
לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ חָיָה, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בָּטֵיל.
The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yishmael said that the hide does not nullify the flesh, that statement applies to a case where an animal severed the hide. But in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the attached flesh.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to this explanation of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna: 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. And Rav Huna says in explanation of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: 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.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי לָא בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. Therefore, the Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, even in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh, accordingly, Rav Huna said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and therefore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected the pieces.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן?
But if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna say that the hide does not nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart the impurity of a carcass?
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!
The Gemara responds: Rather, it is necessary to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael differently. Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael even a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the attached flesh. And Rav Huna said his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of flesh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָנֵי מִילֵּי פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה – לָא בָּטֵיל.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna’s statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement is necessary lest you say: When Rabbi Akiva said that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of flesh, that statement applies only to a case where a person used a knife to flay the animal. But if an animal severed the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh.
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן, לָא שְׁנָא (פלט) [פְּלָטַתּוּ] חַיָּה, וְלָא שְׁנָא (פלט) [פְּלָטַתּוּ] סַכִּין, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַהֵר בְּעוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.
Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is because the hide nullifies the flesh, and there is no difference whether an animal severed the hide, and there is no difference whether a person used a knife to flay the hide. This statement of Rav Huna is therefore in accordance with that which the latter clause of that mishna teaches: For what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן: עוֹר הָאָדָם, וָעוֹר חֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עוֹר חֲזִיר הַבָּר.
MISHNA: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh: The skin of a dead person, which imparts impurity like his flesh; and the skin of a domesticated pig, which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the skin of a wild boar has the same status.
וָעוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וָעוֹר הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת, וָעוֹר הַשְּׁלִיל, וְעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחוֹמֶט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַלְּטָאָה כְּחוּלְדָּה.
And the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is also like that of their flesh: The skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen; and the skin of the head of a young calf; and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin of an animal fetus in the womb of a slaughtered animal; and the skin beneath the tail of a ewe; and the skin of the gecko [anaka], and the desert monitor [ko’aḥ], and the lizard [leta’a], and the skink [ḥomet], four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death. Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic status of the skin of the lizard is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן, אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה – טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאָדָם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת.
And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: All eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah have skins whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that the skin of a dead person imparts impurity like his flesh. With regard to this, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר אָדָם. אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם שֶׁעִבְּדוֹ טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.
And there are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. With regard to that clause, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
The Gemara comments: The one who teaches the statement of Ulla that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not tanned, all the more so would teach it with regard to the latter clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that only the tanned skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, but does not teach it with regard to the first clause of the mishna because he holds that the impurity of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is by Torah law.
וְעוֹר חֲזִיר [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: הַאי אַשּׁוּן וְהַאי רַכִּיךְ, וּמָר סָבַר: הַאי נָמֵי רַכִּיךְ.
§The mishna teaches that according to the first tanna, the skin of a domesticated pig imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that this skin of a wild boar is tough and therefore its status is not that of flesh, but that skin of a domesticated pig is soft and therefore its status is that of flesh. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this skin of a wild boar is also soft and therefore its status is that of flesh.
עוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְכַמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה.
§The mishna teaches that the skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a camel considered young and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? Ulla says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as the camel has not carried a burden.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְלֹא טָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְטָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time, i.e., age, to carry a burden has arrived, but it has not yet carried one? Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time to carry a burden has not arrived, but it has nevertheless carried one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּיב לְקִבְלִי.
Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored him and said to him: Sit opposite me.
יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. הֲוָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא הָוְיָא לָךְ אֲמַרְתְּ.
Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Ravin bar Ḥinnana said to him: This is what Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. Ravin bar Ḥinnana then repeated his answer to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do you have only one halakha to say, and that is why you are repeating it?
תָּא חֲזִי, מָה בֵּין תַּקִּיפֵי אַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לַחֲסִידֵי דְבָבֶל.
The Gemara points out: Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael, such as Reish Lakish, and the saintly ones of Babylonia, such as Rabbi Zeira. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira responded sharply to the one who taught him this halakha.
וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ וְכוּ׳. וְכַמָּה עֵגֶל הָרַךְ? עוּלָּא אָמַר: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר עוּלָּא? בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק,
§The mishna teaches: And the skin of the head of a young calf has the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a calf considered young? Ulla says: It is considered young in its first year of age. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: For as long as the calf is suckling. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is Ulla speaking? Is he referring to a calf that is in its first year of age and is still suckling,
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק.
and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with Ulla and said to him: A calf is considered young as long as it is suckling, even after its first year of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.
אוֹ דִלְמָא, עוּלָּא בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ קָאָמַר, בֵּין יוֹנֵק וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹנֵק, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק?
Or perhaps, does Ulla say that a calf is considered young if it is in its first year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no longer suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The calf must be in its first year of age and it must also be suckling in order to be considered young?
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק, וְאִם אִיתַהּ – ״וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yoḥanan should have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an additional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yoḥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year, and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and suckling to be young.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא.
§The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether the skin of the head of a young calf that is still fit to be eaten imparts impurity? Is the status of the skin like that of flesh or not? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It does not impart impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לִימַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.
Reish Lakish said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, that it says in the mishna: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf is included among them? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Do not provoke me by asking such a question. I teach that mishna in the singular, i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the halakha is not in accordance with it.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹלָה לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת; חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. Since this particular area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.
אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ אֶבְלַיִם אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עִיכּוּם אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶחָד עוֹר פְּרָסוֹת, וְאֶחָד עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וְאֶחָד עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וְכׇל שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, לְהָבִיא עוֹר שֶׁל בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת.
Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha applies both to the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all of the entities that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity that the halakhic status of their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.
חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins outside its designated area renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. Therefore, the mishna is in accordance with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not in accordance with the Rabbis’ opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.
וְעוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת. מַאי בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת? רַב אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רְכוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ.
§The mishna teaches: And the hide of the hooves has the status of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To what is the term hooves referring? Rav says: It is literally referring to the hooves. Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is referring to the skin of the section of the knee at the top of the lower bone, which is sold with the head. This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it, has the status of flesh.
וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לְרַבּוֹת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן.
§The mishna teaches: And the halakhic status of the skin of the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: “And these are they which are impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds. And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon. These are they which are impure for you among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:29–32). The term “they which are” in the expression “they which are impure” seems superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as having the same halakhic status as their flesh.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״.
One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states: “These,” indicating that this halakha applies only to these animals mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the lizard, and the skink.
וְהָא ״אֵלֶּה״ אַכּוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיבִי! אָמַר רַב: ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the term “these” written with regard to all eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? Rav says: After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the verse states: “After its kinds.” Therefore, the verse interrupted the previous matter and taught that the status of the skin is like that of the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the latter part of the verse.
וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: רַב תְּנָא הוּא, וְתָנֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת.
The Gemara objects: But since the chameleon is listed in the latter part of the verse, let the chameleon also be counted among the animals whose skin has the status of flesh. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: Rav, who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of a tanna, and unlike the mishna, he teaches that the skin of the chameleon has the status of flesh.
וְהָא תַּנָּא דִּידַן לָא תָּנֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת?
The Gemara asks: But the tanna of our mishna does not teach this halakha with regard to the chameleon. According to his opinion, why doesn’t the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: תַּנָּא דִּידַן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר גִּישְׁתָּא.
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The tanna of our mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the halakhic status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: “They which are impure.” Rather, he follows the texture of the skin of each creeping animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that of its flesh.
וּבְגִישְׁתָּא דְּהַלְּטָאָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
The first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the texture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh; and they disagree with regard to the texture of the skin of the lizard. Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first tanna of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן [וְכוּ׳]. הִילֵּךְ אִין, לֹא הִילֵּךְ לָא? וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אוֹזֶן חֲמוֹר שֶׁטְּלָאָהּ לְקוּפָּתוֹ טְהוֹרָה, טְלָאָהּ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הִילֵּךְ!
§The mishna teaches: And all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara objects: The mishna indicates that if one trod upon them they are no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon them they do not cease being classified as flesh. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classified as flesh once it is sewed into a basket, so too skin that is spread on the ground, even if one did not tread upon it, should no longer be classified as flesh.
לֹא: טְלָאָהּ, הִילֵּךְ – אִין, לֹא הִילֵּךְ – לָא.
The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an action that nullifies the ear’s classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin’s classification as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one trod upon the skin it is no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon it, it does not cease being classified as flesh.
כַּמָּה כְּדֵי עִבּוּד? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין.
The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: How long is the period required for tanning? Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yannai says: The time which it takes one to walk four mil.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְגַבָּל.
§Since the period of time it takes to walk four mil was mentioned, the Gemara lists halakhot that employ this period of time. Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to a professional kneader who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four mil in order to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him pays for him to do so.
וְלִתְפִלָּה וְלִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם – אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין.
And similarly, with regard to prayer, one who is traveling may not pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four mil ahead of him, but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. And similarly, with regard to washing one’s hands before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within four mil ahead of him.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:
With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Chullin Daf 105-110-Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
August 19, 2026 | ו׳ באלול תשפ״ו
Hullin 102: The Noahides and a Limb from a Live Animal
August 10, 2026 | כ״ז באב תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Shoshana Bazini
Long Island, United States
Chullin 122
ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ?
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨.
If one maintains that Rav Hunaβs statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didnβt Rabbi Yishmael say that the hide does not nullify the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? And if one maintains that Rav Hunaβs statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didnβt Rabbi Akiva say that the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yishmael said that the hide does not nullify the flesh, that statement applies to a case where an animal severed the hide. But in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the attached flesh.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to this explanation of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna: 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. And Rav Huna says in explanation of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: 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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ.
Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. Therefore, the Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, even in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh, accordingly, Rav Huna said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and therefore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected the pieces.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ?
But if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna say that the hide does not nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart the impurity of a carcass?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara responds: Rather, it is necessary to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael differently. Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael even a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the attached flesh. And Rav Huna said his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of flesh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ.
The Gemara asks: Isnβt it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Hunaβs statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Hunaβs statement is necessary lest you say: When Rabbi Akiva said that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of flesh, that statement applies only to a case where a person used a knife to flay the animal. But if an animal severed the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh.
Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ (Χ€ΧΧ) [Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ] ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ (Χ€ΧΧ) [Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ] Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨? ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is because the hide nullifies the flesh, and there is no difference whether an animal severed the hide, and there is no difference whether a person used a knife to flay the hide. This statement of Rav Huna is therefore in accordance with that which the latter clause of that mishna teaches: For what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨.
MISHNA: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh: The skin of a dead person, which imparts impurity like his flesh; and the skin of a domesticated pig, which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the skin of a wild boar has the same status.
ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ, ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
And the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is also like that of their flesh: The skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen; and the skin of the head of a young calf; and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin of an animal fetus in the womb of a slaughtered animal; and the skin beneath the tail of a ewe; and the skin of the gecko [anaka], and the desert monitor [koβaαΈ₯], and the lizard [letaβa], and the skink [αΈ₯omet], four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death. Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic status of the skin of the lizard is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh.
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ.
And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Nuri says: All eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah have skins whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that the skin of a dead person imparts impurity like his flesh. With regard to this, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And there are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. With regard to that clause, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ.
The Gemara comments: The one who teaches the statement of Ulla that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not tanned, all the more so would teach it with regard to the latter clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that only the tanned skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, but does not teach it with regard to the first clause of the mishna because he holds that the impurity of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is by Torah law.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ [ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³]. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°.
Β§The mishna teaches that according to the first tanna, the skin of a domesticated pig imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that this skin of a wild boar is tough and therefore its status is not that of flesh, but that skin of a domesticated pig is soft and therefore its status is that of flesh. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this skin of a wild boar is also soft and therefore its status is that of flesh.
Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ.
Β§The mishna teaches that the skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a camel considered young and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? Ulla says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as the camel has not carried a burden.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ΧΦΌ.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time, i.e., age, to carry a burden has arrived, but it has not yet carried one? Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time to carry a burden has not arrived, but it has nevertheless carried one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ.
Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored him and said to him: Sit opposite me.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ.
Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Ravin bar αΈ€innana said to him: This is what Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. Ravin bar αΈ€innana then repeated his answer to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do you have only one halakha to say, and that is why you are repeating it?
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ.
The Gemara points out: Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael, such as Reish Lakish, and the saintly ones of Babylonia, such as Rabbi Zeira. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira responded sharply to the one who taught him this halakha.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°? Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§. ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§,
Β§The mishna teaches: And the skin of the head of a young calf has the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a calf considered young? Ulla says: It is considered young in its first year of age. Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: For as long as the calf is suckling. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is Ulla speaking? Is he referring to a calf that is in its first year of age and is still suckling,
ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§.
and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan disagreed with Ulla and said to him: A calf is considered young as long as it is suckling, even after its first year of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§?
Or perhaps, does Ulla say that a calf is considered young if it is in its first year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no longer suckling, and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to him: The calf must be in its first year of age and it must also be suckling in order to be considered young?
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦΌ β Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ§Χ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan should have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an additional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year, and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and suckling to be young.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ.
Β§The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: What is the halakha with regard to whether the skin of the head of a young calf that is still fit to be eaten imparts impurity? Is the status of the skin like that of flesh or not? Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to him: It does not impart impurity.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
Reish Lakish said to him: But didnβt you teach us, our teacher, that it says in the mishna: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf is included among them? Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to Reish Lakish: Do not provoke me by asking such a question. I teach that mishna in the singular, i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the halakha is not in accordance with it.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ; ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ β Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.
As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. Since this particular area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.
ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€Φ·Χ¨ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ.
Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Yaβakov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha applies both to the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all of the entities that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity that the halakhic status of their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.
ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ. ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ β Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.
Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins outside its designated area renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. Therefore, the mishna is in accordance with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not in accordance with the Rabbisβ opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ? Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ.
Β§The mishna teaches: And the hide of the hooves has the status of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To what is the term hooves referring? Rav says: It is literally referring to the hooves. Rabbi αΈ€anina says: It is referring to the skin of the section of the knee at the top of the lower bone, which is sold with the head. This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it, has the status of flesh.
ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Β§The mishna teaches: And the halakhic status of the skin of the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: βAnd these are they which are impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds. And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon. These are they which are impure for you among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be impure until the eveningβ (Leviticus 11:29β32). The term βthey which areβ in the expression βthey which are impureβ seems superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as having the same halakhic status as their flesh.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄.
One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states: βThese,β indicating that this halakha applies only to these animals mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the lizard, and the skink.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ§ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: But isnβt the term βtheseβ written with regard to all eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? Rav says: After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the verse states: βAfter its kinds.β Therefore, the verse interrupted the previous matter and taught that the status of the skin is like that of the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the latter part of the verse.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§: Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ.
The Gemara objects: But since the chameleon is listed in the latter part of the verse, let the chameleon also be counted among the animals whose skin has the status of flesh. Rav Shmuel bar YitzαΈ₯ak said: Rav, who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of a tanna, and unlike the mishna, he teaches that the skin of the chameleon has the status of flesh.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ?
The Gemara asks: But the tanna of our mishna does not teach this halakha with regard to the chameleon. According to his opinion, why doesnβt the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ.
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The tanna of our mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the halakhic status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: βThey which are impure.β Rather, he follows the texture of the skin of each creeping animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that of its flesh.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ.
The first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the texture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh; and they disagree with regard to the texture of the skin of the lizard. Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first tanna of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.
ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ [ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³]. ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ°!
Β§The mishna teaches: And all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara objects: The mishna indicates that if one trod upon them they are no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon them they do not cease being classified as flesh. But doesnβt Rabbi αΈ€iyya teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classified as flesh once it is sewed into a basket, so too skin that is spread on the ground, even if one did not tread upon it, should no longer be classified as flesh.
ΧΦΉΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° β ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an action that nullifies the earβs classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skinβs classification as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one trod upon the skin it is no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon it, it does not cease being classified as flesh.
ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: How long is the period required for tanning? Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yannai says: The time which it takes one to walk four mil.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
Β§Since the period of time it takes to walk four mil was mentioned, the Gemara lists halakhot that employ this period of time. Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to a professional kneader who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four mil in order to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him pays for him to do so.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
And similarly, with regard to prayer, one who is traveling may not pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four mil ahead of him, but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. And similarly, with regard to washing oneβs hands before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within four mil ahead of him.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§:
With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak said:
Follow
