Chullin 127

תלמוד לומר השרץ כל מקום ששורץ

Therefore, the verse states: “That creep,” indicating that creeping animals impart impurity anywhere that they creep, including the sea, as these animals can float in the sea. Consequently, the phrase “upon the earth” is understood as indicating that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

או אינו אלא השרץ יכול כל המשריץ יטמא שאין משריץ לא יטמא אוציא עכבר שחציו בשר וחציו אדמה שאין פרה ורבה

The baraita raises an alternative interpretation: Or perhaps the term “that creep [hashoretz]” should not be interpreted in this manner, as it could rather be interpreted to mean that any creeping animal that breeds [hammashritz] imparts impurity, but a creeping animal that does not breed does not impart impurity. I shall therefore exclude a mouse that is half–flesh half-earth, i.e., that generates spontaneously from the earth, as it does not breed and therefore does not impart impurity.

ודין הוא טימא בחולדה וטימא בעכבר מה חולדה כל ששמה חולדה אף עכבר כל ששמו עכבר אביא עכבר שחציו בשר וחציו אדמה

But ostensibly, the halakha of a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth is subject to logical inference: Since the verse deems a weasel impure and deems a mouse impure, then just as “weasel” is referring to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, “mouse” is referring to any animal whose name is mouse, even a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth.

או כלך לדרך זו מה חולדה פרה ורבה אף עכבר פרה ורבה תלמוד לומר בשרץ

Or perhaps go this way: One might think that just as a weasel breeds, so too, “mouse” is referring to a mouse that breeds, excluding one that generates from the earth, which does not impart impurity. Therefore, the verse states: “And these are they which are impure to you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth.” The term “among the creeping animals” is interpreted as including a spontaneously generated mouse. Therefore, the term “that creep” is interpreted as indicating that creeping animals impart impurity on land and in the sea, and the phrase “upon the earth” teaches that a sea mouse is not included in the category of mouse and does not impart impurity.

אמר ליה ההוא מדרבנן לרבא אימא בשרץ לאתויי עכבר שחציו בשר וחציו אדמה השרץ כל שהוא שורץ ואפילו עכבר שבים ואי משום על הארץ על הארץ יטמא ירד לים לא יטמא

One of the Sages said to Rava: Say the interpretation of the verse differently. The term “among the creeping animals” serves to include a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth among those that impart impurity. The term “that creep” teaches that any animal that creeps imparts impurity, and even a sea mouse. And if one should reject this interpretation due to the phrase “upon the earth,” which seems to indicate that a sea mouse does not impart impurity, that phrase teaches that a creeping animal imparts impurity only when it is on land, but if it descended to the sea it does not impart impurity.

אמר ליה ומאחר דשויתיה לים מקום טומאה מה לי הכא מה לי הכא

Rava said to him: Your suggestion is not logical. According to your opinion, a sea mouse, which is in the sea, imparts impurity. And since you consider the sea a location of impurity, it is impossible to suggest that a mouse does not impart impurity when it is located in the sea. Since both land and sea are places of impurity, what difference does it make for me if the mouse is located here on land, and what difference does it make for me if it is located there in the sea?

והאי על הארץ מיבעי ליה להוציא ספק טומאה צפה דאמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי על הארץ להוציא ספק טומאה צפה

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita interpret the phrase “upon the earth” as teaching that a sea mouse does not impart impurity? Isn’t this phrase: “Upon the earth,” necessary to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity? If a person is uncertain whether he touched a source of impurity that is floating in the water, he remains pure even if the incident took place in a private domain, where a case of uncertain impurity is generally deemed impure. As Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: The phrase “upon the earth” is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity.

תרתי על הארץ כתיבי

The Gemara answers: The phrase “upon the earth” is written two times in the passage. One instance is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a source of impurity that is floating, and the other instance teaches that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

תנו רבנן הצב למינהו להביא הערוד וכן הנפילים וסלמנדרא

§With regard to the topic of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: “The great lizard after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:29) includes in the category of creeping animals the arvad, a type of snake, and also the creeping animals called nefilim and salamander [salamandera].

וכשהיה רבי עקיבא מגיע לפסוק זה אומר מה רבו מעשיך ה׳ יש לך בריות גדלות בים ויש לך בריות גדלות ביבשה שבים אילמלי עולות ביבשה מיד מתות שביבשה אילמלי יורדות לים מיד מתות

Apropos the salamander, which was thought to generate from fire, the baraita continues: When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse in Leviticus, he would say in exclamation: “How great are Your works, O Lord” (Psalms 104:24). You have creatures that grow in the sea and you have creatures that grow on land. If those in the sea would ascend to the land they would immediately die. If those that are on land would descend to the sea they would immediately die.

יש לך בריות גדלות באור ויש לך בריות גדלות באויר שבאור אילמלי עולות לאויר מיד מתות שבאויר אילמלי יורדות לאור מיד מתות מה רבו מעשיך ה׳

Similarly, you have creatures that grow in the fire and you have creatures that grow in the air. If those in the fire would ascend to the air they would immediately die. If those in the air would descend to the fire they would immediately die. Therefore, “how great are Your works, O Lord.”

תנו רבנן כל שיש ביבשה יש בים חוץ מן החולדה אמר רבי זירא מאי קראה האזינו כל ישבי חלד

§The Gemara continues to discuss creatures living in a particular environment. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kilayim 5:10): For every animal that exists on land there is an equivalent animal in the sea, except for the weasel, which exists only on land. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse from which it is derived? It is written: “Listen all you inhabitants of the world [ḥeled]” (Psalms 49:2). Dry land is called ḥeled because it is the sole habitat for the weasel [ḥulda].

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ביברי דנרש אינן מן הישוב

In continuation of the discussion of creatures living in a particular environment, Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: The beavers of the region of Neresh are not from the settled area, because they live only in the water and not on dry land. Consequently, one who eats their meat is not liable to receive lashes for violating the prohibition: “And every creeping animal that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).

אמר רב פפא בשמתא נרש תרביה משכיה ואליתיה ארץ ארץ ארץ שמעי דבר ה׳ אמר רב פפא לא אבה נרש שמוע דבר ה׳

§Apropos the region surrounding Neresh, Rav Pappa said: The people of the city of Neresh shall be placed under excommunication, as they are all wicked, including its fat, its hide, and its tail, i.e., all types of people, both old and young. The Gemara continues to discuss Neresh. The verse states: “Oh land, land, land hear the word of the Lord” (Jeremiah 22:29). Rav Pappa said: This verse is appropriate with regard to the inhabitants of Neresh, as Neresh does not want to listen to the word of the Lord.

אמר רב גידל אמר רב נרשאה נשקיך מני ככיך נהר פקודאה לוייך מגלימא שפירא דחזי עלך פומבדיתאה לוייך אשני אושפיזך

Furthermore, Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If a resident of Neresh kisses you, count your teeth to make sure he did not steal one. And if a resident of the city of Nehar Pekod accompanies you on a journey, it is because of the beautiful jacket that he sees on you and wants to steal from you. If a resident of Pumbedita accompanies you on a journey, change your lodging place because there is a concern that he will rob you.

אמר רב הונא בר תורתא פעם אחת הלכתי לוועד וראיתי נחש שהוא כרוך על הצב לימים יצא ערוד מביניהם

§The Gemara returns to discussing different types of creatures. Rav Huna bar Torta said: Once I went to the city of Va’ad and I saw that the locals were in the practice of placing a snake wrapped around a great lizard in order to breed the two. After a period of time, an arvad, a snake that bites and kills people, emerged from between them.

וכשבאתי לפני רבי שמעון החסיד אמר לי אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא הם הביאו בריה שלא בראתי בעולמי אף אני אביא עליהם בריה שלא בראתי בעולמי

And when I came before Rabbi Shimon the Righteous, he explained why this crossbreeding created an arvad and said to me: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: These residents of Va’ad caused the emergence of a creature that I did not create in My world by crossbreeding a snake and a great lizard; so too, I will bring upon them a punishment, the hazard of this uniquely dangerous creature that I did not create in My world, i.e., an arvad.

והאמר מר כל שתשמישן ועיבורן שוה יולדין ומגדלין זה מזה וכל שאין תשמישן ועיבורן שוה אין יולדין ומגדלין זה מזה

The Gemara objects: But didn’t the Master say: All different animals whose method of procreation and period of gestation are the same are able to reproduce and raise offspring together. But all animals whose method of procreation and period of gestation are not the same cannot reproduce and raise offspring together. And the gestation period for a great lizard and a snake are not equal.

אמר רב נס בתוך נס האי פורענותא הוא מאי נס בתוך נס לפורענות

Rav says: It was a miracle within a miracle that they were able to reproduce and a new creature was born. The Gemara asks: Why is this considered a miracle? It was a calamity because an arvad was born. The Gemara answers: What is meant by a miracle within a miracle? It was a miraculous calamity for the wicked people, to punish them for their actions.

מתני׳ האבר והבשר המדולדלין בבהמה מטמאין טומאת אוכלין במקומן וצריכין הכשר

MISHNA: The limb of an animal, with flesh, sinews, and bones, and the flesh of an animal, that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal do not have the halakhic status of a limb severed from a living animal, which imparts impurity like an unslaughtered carcass, or of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure, respectively. If one had intent to eat the limb or the flesh, the limb or flesh becomes impure if it comes in contact with a source of impurity, and they impart impurity as food to other foods and liquids, although they remain in their place attached to the animal. But in order for them to become impure, they need to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with one of the seven liquids that facilitate susceptibility.

נשחטה הבהמה הוכשרו בדמיה דברי רבי מאיר רבי שמעון אומר לא הוכשרו

If the animal was slaughtered, although this act of slaughter does not render it permitted for consumption by a Jew (see 73b), the limb and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with the blood of the slaughtered animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible to impurity through the animal’s own blood; they are rendered susceptible only once they have been wet with another liquid.

מתה הבהמה הבשר צריך הכשר האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואינו מטמא משום אבר נבלה דברי רבי מאיר ורבי שמעון מטהר

If the animal died without slaughter, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass. The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal but does not impart impurity as the limb of an unslaughtered carcass; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the limb ritually pure.

גמ׳ טומאת אוכלין אין טומאת נבלה לא

GEMARA: The mishna states that the limb of an animal that was partially severed and remains hanging from the animal imparts impurity as food if one had intent to eat it. The Gemara infers: It imparts impurity as food, yes, but it does not impart the impurity of a carcass, which can be transmitted to people and utensils in addition to food.

היכי דמי אי דמעלין ארוכה אפילו טומאת אוכלין נמי לא ליטמו ואי דאין מעלין ארוכה טומאת נבלה נמי ליטמו

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limb can heal and reattach to the animal’s body then it should not be susceptible even to impurity as food. And if it cannot heal, it should impart the impurity of a carcass as well.

לעולם דאין מעלין ארוכה ושאני טומאת נבלה דרחמנא אמר כי יפל עד שיפול

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is discussing a case where the limb will not heal, and the reason that the limb does not impart impurity of a carcass is that the impurity of a carcass is different and unique, as the Merciful One states with regard to the impurity of a carcass: “And if any of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of an animal is not considered a carcass until it completely falls from the animal.

תניא נמי הכי האבר והבשר המדולדלין בבהמה ומעורין בחוט השערה יכול יטמאו טומאת נבלה תלמוד לומר יפל עד שיפול ואפילו הכי טומאת אוכלין מיטמו

This explanation is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the limb and the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal and are connected to the animal by a connector the size of a strand of hair, one might have thought that they impart the impurity of a carcass. Therefore, the verse states: “And if any of the carcass fall,” indicating that a severed limb does not impart the impurity of a carcass until it completely falls from the animal. And nevertheless, despite the fact that it is not considered severed with regard to the impurity of a carcass, such a limb is considered severed with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food.

מסייע ליה לרב חייא בר אשי דאמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל תאנים שצמקו באיביהן מטמאות טומאת אוכלין והתולש מהן בשבת חייב חטאת

This explanation supports the opinion of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Shmuel said: With regard to figs that dried while still attached to their tree, despite the fact that they are still attached, they are considered as if they have been picked and are susceptible to impurity as food. But with regard to one who picks them on Shabbat they are considered attached, and he is liable to bring a sin offering. Just as a partially severed limb of an animal is considered both attached and severed with regard to different halakhot, so too this dried fruit is considered both attached and detached with regard to different halakhot.

לימא מסייע ליה ירקות שצמקו באיביהן כגון הכרוב והדלעת אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין קצצן ויבשן מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 2:11) supports the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that dried figs still attached to the tree are considered as if they are detached with regard to susceptibility to impurity as food: Vegetables that dried while they are attached to their plant, such as cabbage and gourd, which become hard as wood and inedible when dried, are not susceptible to impurity as food. But if one cut them when they were still moist and then dried them in order to use them for fuel, or, in the case of gourds, to make utensils out of them, they are susceptible to impurity as food.

קצצן ויבשן סלקא דעתך עץ בעלמא הוא ואמר רבי יצחק בעל מנת ליבשן

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that if one cut them and dried them they are susceptible to impurity as food? Such a vegetable is merely wood, and it is inedible. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The baraita is discussing a case where one cut the vegetables when they were still moist in order to dry them. The novelty of the baraita is that even though one intends to dry the vegetables and render them inedible, as long as they are still moist they are susceptible to impurity as food.

טעמא דכרוב ודלעת הוא כיון דיבשן לאו בני אכילה נינהו הא שאר פירות מטמאי

The Gemara infers: The reason for this halakha in the baraita is that it is discussing cabbage and gourd: Since one dried them, they are inedible and consequently are not susceptible to impurity as food. But other types of produce, which are edible when dried, are susceptible to impurity.

היכי דמי אי דיבשן הן ועוקציהן פשיטא אלא לאו בלא עוקציהן

The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: What are the circumstances? If one dried both the produce itself and its stems, isn’t it obvious that the produce is no longer considered attached to the plant and is susceptible to impurity? If so, it would be unnecessary for the baraita to teach this. Rather, isn’t the baraita discussing a case where one dried the produce without drying its stems? Accordingly, in such a case the produce is considered detached with regard to impurity even though it is considered attached with regard to Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel.

לעולם הן ועוקציהן וקצצן על מנת ליבשן איצטריכא ליה

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: The baraita is not necessarily discussing that case. Actually, the baraita is discussing a case where both the produce itself and its stems were dried. And although it appears that the halakha is obvious in such a case, it was necessary for the baraita to mention it in order to teach the latter clause of the baraita: In a case where one cut the cabbage and gourd when they were still moist in order to dry them, they are susceptible to impurity as long as they are still moist.

תא שמע אילן שנפשח ובו פירות הרי הן כתלושין יבשו הרי הן כמחוברין מאי לאו מה תלושין לכל דבריהן אף מחוברין לכל דבריהן

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: In the case of a tree from which a branch broke off, and the branch has fruit attached to it, even if the fruit is still moist it is considered detached from the tree. But if the branch did not break off, and the fruit dried on the tree, it is considered attached. What, isn’t the ruling of the baraita that just as in the first clause the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters, the halakhot of both Shabbat and impurity, so too in the latter clause the fruit that dried on the tree is considered attached to the tree with regard to all matters, even the transmission of impurity, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel?

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

The Gemara rejects this challenge: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. In the first clause of the baraita, the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters. In the latter clause of the baraita, the dried fruit on the tree is considered attached with regard to Shabbat but detached with regard to impurity.

נשחטה הבהמה [וכו׳] במאי קא מיפלגי

§The mishna teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that with the blood of the slaughtered animal the limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that they were not rendered susceptible with the animal’s own blood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

אמר רבה בבהמה נעשית יד לאבר קמיפלגי מר סבר אין בהמה נעשית יד לאבר ומר סבר בהמה נעשית יד לאבר

Rabba said: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb. The tanna’im agree that if an appendage that constitutes a handle is rendered susceptible to impurity, the food to which it is attached is also rendered susceptible. But they disagree with regard to whether an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb, and therefore the limb is not rendered susceptible to contract impurity along with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb, and therefore the limb is rendered susceptible along with the body of the animal.

אביי אמר באוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו קמיפלגי

Abaye said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tanna’im agree that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb. But they also agree that if the liquid comes into contact with only part of the food it renders the entire item susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if the partially severed limb is considered part of the animal it is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the animal. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the limb is considered part of the animal, and generally speaking, with regard to any case where a small part of an item is hanging off the larger part such that if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does not ascend with it.

מר סבר אוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו הרי הוא כמוהו ומר סבר אינו כמוהו

One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that although if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does not ascend with it, the small part is still considered one and the same with the large part. Therefore, a partially severed limb is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the small part is not considered one and the same with the large part in such a case, and therefore the partially severed limb is not rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר באוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו קא מיפלגי

And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds in accordance with the explanation of Abaye that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the status of a small part of an item that is hanging off the larger part such that one grasps the small part and the large part does not ascend with it.

דרבי יוחנן רמי דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר מי אמר רבי מאיר אוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו הרי הוא כמוהו

As Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and another statement of Rabbi Meir: Did Rabbi Meir actually say that even in a case where one grasps the small part of an item and the large part does not ascend with it, the small part is still considered one and the same with the large part?

ורמינהו אוכל שנפרס ומעורה במקצת

One can raise a contradiction to this statement from a mishna (Tevul Yom 3:1): With regard to a piece of food that was sliced from a larger piece of food and remains partially connected to the larger piece, the entire item is considered one and the same with regard to impurity. If one who was previously ritually impure and immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched either piece of the item, the entire item becomes impure.