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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 29, 2019 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 122

Which hides are exceptions to the rule and are treated like flesh for impurities?


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

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉

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.

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 注讜专 讜讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗诪专 诪讘讟诇 注讜专

If one maintains that Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva say that the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?

诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 注讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘讟讬诇

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.

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

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讟讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉

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?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna鈥檚 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.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 驻诇讟 讞讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 驻诇讟 住讻讬谉 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟讛专 讘注讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜注讜专 讞讝讬专 砖诇 讬砖讜讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注讜专 讞讝讬专 讛讘专

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.

讜注讜专 讞讟专转 砖诇 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讜注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜注讜专 讛驻专住讜转 讜注讜专 讘讬转 讛讘讜砖转 讜注讜专 讛砖诇讬诇 讜注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜注讜专 讛讗谞拽讛 讜讛讻讞 讜讛诇讟讗讛 讜讛讞讜诪讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诇讟讗讛 讻讞讜诇讚讛

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鈥檃岣], and the lizard [leta鈥檃], and the skink [岣met], 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.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讛讗讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: All eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah have skins whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讬讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讗讚诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 砖注讘讚讜 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉

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.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜注讜专 讞讝讬专 [讜讻讜壮] 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛讗讬 讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗讬 专讻讬讱 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 专讻讬讱

搂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.

注讜专 讞讟专转 砖诇 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讜讻诪讛 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 讟注谞讛

搂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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讗 讟注谞讛 诪讛讜 讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇讟注讜谉 讜讟注谞讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

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.

讬转讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 讟注谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬讘 诇拽讘诇讬

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 讟注谞讛 讛讜讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讱 讗诪专转

Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Ravin bar 岣nnana 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 岣nnana 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?

转讗 讞讝讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 转拽讬驻讬 讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讞住讬讚讬 讚讘讘诇

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.

讜注讜专 讛专讗砖 讜讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 注讙诇 讛专讱 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘谉 砖谞转讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜谞拽 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘谉 砖谞转讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讜谞拽

搂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 Yo岣nan 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,

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜谞拽

and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注讜诇讗 讘谉 砖谞转讜 拽讗诪专 讘讬谉 讬讜谞拽 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜谞拽 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 砖谞转讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讜谞拽

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 Yo岣nan 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?

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜谞拽 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讜谞拽 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so that Rabbi Yo岣nan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yo岣nan should have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an additional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗

搂The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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 Yo岣nan said to him: It does not impart impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 讜注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

Reish Lakish said to him: But didn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

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.

讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讗讘诇讜诐 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讬讻讜诐 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讞讚 注讜专 驻专住讜转 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专 砖诇 讘讬转 讛讘讜砖转

Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

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鈥 opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.

讜注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 专讘 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 诪诪砖 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讻讜讘讛 讛谞诪讻专转 注诐 讛专讗砖

搂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 岣nina 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.

讜注讜专 讛讗谞拽讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇专讘讜转 注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉

搂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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:29鈥32). The term 鈥渢hey which are鈥 in the expression 鈥渢hey which are impure鈥 seems superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as having the same halakhic status as their flesh.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇讛

One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hese,鈥 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.

讜讛讗 讗诇讛 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讻转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the term 鈥渢hese鈥 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: 鈥淎fter its kinds.鈥 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.

讜诇讬讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 转谞砖诪转 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜转谞讬 转谞砖诪转

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 Yitz岣k 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.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诇讗 转谞讬 转谞砖诪转

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鈥檛 the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讙讬砖转讗

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: 鈥淭hey which are impure.鈥 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.

讜讘讙讬砖转讗 讚讛诇讟讗讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讬讘讚谉 [讜讻讜壮] 讛讬诇讱 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讬诇讱 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜讝谉 讞诪讜专 砖讟诇讗讛 诇拽讜驻转讜 讟讛讜专讛 讟诇讗讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讬诇讱

搂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鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya 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.

诇讗 讟诇讗讛 讛讬诇讱 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讬诇讱 诇讗

The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an action that nullifies the ear鈥檚 classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin鈥檚 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.

讻诪讛 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗专讘注转 诪讬诇讬谉

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.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讙讘诇

搂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.

讜诇转驻诇讛 讜诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讗专讘注转 诪讬诇讬谉

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鈥檚 hands before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within four mil ahead of him.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽

With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 122

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 122

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉

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.

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 注讜专 讜讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讗诪专 诪讘讟诇 注讜专

If one maintains that Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didn鈥檛 Rabbi Akiva say that the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?

诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 诪讘讟诇 注讜专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘讟讬诇

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.

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

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讟讬诇 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉

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?

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna鈥檚 statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna鈥檚 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.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 驻诇讟 讞讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 驻诇讟 住讻讬谉 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟讛专 讘注讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜注讜专 讞讝讬专 砖诇 讬砖讜讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注讜专 讞讝讬专 讛讘专

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.

讜注讜专 讞讟专转 砖诇 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讜注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜注讜专 讛驻专住讜转 讜注讜专 讘讬转 讛讘讜砖转 讜注讜专 讛砖诇讬诇 讜注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜注讜专 讛讗谞拽讛 讜讛讻讞 讜讛诇讟讗讛 讜讛讞讜诪讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诇讟讗讛 讻讞讜诇讚讛

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鈥檃岣], and the lizard [leta鈥檃], and the skink [岣met], 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.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讛讗讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: All eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah have skins whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讬讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讗讚诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 注讜专 讗讚诐 砖注讘讚讜 讟讛讜专 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讟诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 注讜专讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 砖讟讬讞讬谉

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.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜注讜专 讞讝讬专 [讜讻讜壮] 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛讗讬 讗砖讜谉 讜讛讗讬 专讻讬讱 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 专讻讬讱

搂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.

注讜专 讞讟专转 砖诇 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讜讻诪讛 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 讟注谞讛

搂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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讗 讟注谞讛 诪讛讜 讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讛 诇讟注讜谉 讜讟注谞讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

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.

讬转讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 讟注谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬讘 诇拽讘诇讬

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻诪讛 讙诪诇 讛专讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诇讗 讟注谞讛 讛讜讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讱 讗诪专转

Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Ravin bar 岣nnana 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 岣nnana 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?

转讗 讞讝讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 转拽讬驻讬 讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 诇讞住讬讚讬 讚讘讘诇

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.

讜注讜专 讛专讗砖 讜讻讜壮 讜讻诪讛 注讙诇 讛专讱 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘谉 砖谞转讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜谞拽 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘谉 砖谞转讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讜谞拽

搂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 Yo岣nan 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,

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜谞拽

and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 注讜诇讗 讘谉 砖谞转讜 拽讗诪专 讘讬谉 讬讜谞拽 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜谞拽 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 砖谞转讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讜谞拽

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 Yo岣nan 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?

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜谞拽 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讬讜谞拽 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so that Rabbi Yo岣nan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yo岣nan should have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an additional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗

搂The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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 Yo岣nan said to him: It does not impart impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 讜注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

Reish Lakish said to him: But didn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

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.

讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讗讘诇讜诐 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讬讻讜诐 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讞讚 注讜专 驻专住讜转 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专 砖诇 讘讬转 讛讘讜砖转

Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

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鈥 opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.

讜注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 专讘 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 诪诪砖 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讻讜讘讛 讛谞诪讻专转 注诐 讛专讗砖

搂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 岣nina 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.

讜注讜专 讛讗谞拽讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇专讘讜转 注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉

搂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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:29鈥32). The term 鈥渢hey which are鈥 in the expression 鈥渢hey which are impure鈥 seems superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as having the same halakhic status as their flesh.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇讛

One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hese,鈥 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.

讜讛讗 讗诇讛 讗讻讜诇讛讜 讻转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the term 鈥渢hese鈥 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: 鈥淎fter its kinds.鈥 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.

讜诇讬讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 转谞砖诪转 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜转谞讬 转谞砖诪转

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 Yitz岣k 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.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诇讗 转谞讬 转谞砖诪转

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鈥檛 the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讙讬砖转讗

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: 鈥淭hey which are impure.鈥 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.

讜讘讙讬砖转讗 讚讛诇讟讗讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讬讘讚谉 [讜讻讜壮] 讛讬诇讱 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讬诇讱 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讜讝谉 讞诪讜专 砖讟诇讗讛 诇拽讜驻转讜 讟讛讜专讛 讟诇讗讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讬诇讱

搂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鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya 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.

诇讗 讟诇讗讛 讛讬诇讱 讗讬谉 诇讗 讛讬诇讱 诇讗

The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an action that nullifies the ear鈥檚 classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin鈥檚 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.

讻诪讛 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗专讘注转 诪讬诇讬谉

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.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讙讘诇

搂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.

讜诇转驻诇讛 讜诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讗专讘注转 诪讬诇讬谉

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鈥檚 hands before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within four mil ahead of him.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽

With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said:

Scroll To Top