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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A braita discusses whether a sea-mouse transmits impurity—that is, whether the word “mouse” includes a sea-mouse. Within that discussion, it also addresses a mouse that is half flesh and half earth, deriving from scripture that it transmits impurity like a standard mouse. The braita concludes that a sea-mouse does not transmit impurity. The Gemara raises two challenges against the braita, but resolves both.
Following the discussion on the verse regarding the mouse, the Gemara turns to expound the words “ha-tzav le-minehu” from that same verse, which includes other unique creatures—the arod, ben nefilim), and the salamander—and notes Rabbi Akiva’s marveling at the diversity of creation (“Mah rabu ma’asecha Hashem”). Another braita asserts that every creature found on land has a counterpart in the sea except for the chulda (weasel), derived from “kol yoshvei chaled”. The Gemara digresses to an aggadic discussion regarding the questionable character of the inhabitants of Naresh (after mentioning a law regarding the beavers of Naresh), and presents an account where Rav Huna bar Torta witnessed a snake mating with a tzav to produce an arod, which Rava characterizes as a “miracle within a miracle” sent as a punishment.
The Mishna rules that a dangling limb or flesh attached to a live animal is susceptible to food impurity (tumat ochlin) in its place (if one thought to give it to a non-Jew to eat), provided a liquid came upon it rendering it susceptible to impurity, but it does not impart impurity as a limb from a living animal (ever min hachai).
If the animal is slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that the slaughtering blood creates susceptibility to food impurity, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that it does not; neither holds that there is impurity of a limb from a live animal.
If the animal dies, Rabbi Meir holds that the flesh requires a liquid to render it susceptible to food impurity, while the dangling limb transmits impurity as a limb from a living animal, though not as a carcass (neveila). Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, considers it pure from the impurity of a limb from a live animal.
Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara asks why dangling flesh/limbs transmit food impurity but not impurity of a limb from a live animal, in the case where the animal is alive. It resolves that even if the flesh cannot heal (ein ma’alin arucha), impurity as a limb from a living animal requires the limb to completely detach from the verse “ki yipol”. A braita supports this, ruling that even if attached by only a hair’s breadth, it does not transmit impurity until it falls off, yet it remains susceptible to food impurity. The Gemara compares this to produce withered on the tree, such as dried figs, which transmit food impurity while still considered attached regarding the prohibition of picking on Shabbat.
Regarding the case in the Mishna where the animal was slaughtered, the Gemara asks what constitutes the core point of dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, ultimately offering six different explanations. Rabba explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree on whether the main body of the animal acts as a “handle” (yad) to transmit hechsher to the dangling limb. Abaye and Rabbi Yochanan explain the debate differently: they disagree on the status of a handle where lifting the smaller dangling part does not carry the larger body (as it detaches), with Rabbi Meir considering it attached and Rabbi Shimon disagreeing.
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.”
Chullin 127
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹרֵץ.
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.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הַמַּשְׁרִיץ יְטַמֵּא, שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁרִיץ לֹא יְטַמֵּא? אוֹצִיא עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה, שֶׁאֵין פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה.
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.
וְדִין הוּא: טִימֵּא בְּחוּלְדָּה וְטִימֵּא בְּעַכְבָּר, מָה חוּלְדָּה – כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמָהּ חוּלְדָּה, אַף עַכְבָּר – כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ עַכְבָּר, אָבִיא עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: מָה חוּלְדָּה פָּרָה וְרָבָה, אַף עַכְבָּר פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁרֶץ״.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֵימָא ״בַּשֶּׁרֶץ״, לְאֵתוֹיֵי עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה, ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – כֹּל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹרֵץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ עַכְבָּר שֶׁבַּיָּם, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – עַל הָאָרֶץ יְטַמֵּא, יָרַד לַיָּם – לֹא יְטַמֵּא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמֵאַחַר דְּשַׁוִּיתֵיהּ לְיָם מְקוֹם טוּמְאָה, מָה לִי הָכָא, מָה לִי הָכָא.
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?
וְהַאי ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהוֹצִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְהוֹצִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה!
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.
תַּרְתֵּי ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ כְּתִיבִי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ״ – לְהָבִיא הֶעָרוֹד, וְכֵן הַנְּפִילִים וְסָלָמַנְדְּרָא.
§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].
וּכְשֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַגִּיעַ לְפָסוּק זֶה, אוֹמֵר: ״מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה׳״! יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בַּיָּם, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. שֶׁבַּיָּם – אִילְמָלֵי עוֹלוֹת (בַּיַּבָּשָׁה) [לַיַּבָּשָׁה] מִיָּד מֵתוֹת, שֶׁבַּיַּבָּשָׁה – אִילְמָלֵי יוֹרְדוֹת לַיָּם מִיָּד מֵתוֹת.
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.
יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בָּאוּר, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בָּאֲוִיר. שֶׁבָּאוּר – אִילְמָלֵי עוֹלוֹת לָאֲוִיר מִיָּד מֵתוֹת, שֶׁבָּאֲוִיר – אִילְמָלֵי יוֹרְדוֹת לָאוּר מִיָּד מֵתוֹת. ״מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ 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.”
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּיַּבָּשָׁה יֵשׁ בַּיָּם, חוּץ מִן הַחוּלְדָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״הַאֲזִינוּ כׇּל יֹשְׁבֵי חָלֶד״.
§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].
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בִּיבְרֵי דְּנָרֶשׁ אֵינָן מִן הַיִּשּׁוּב.
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).
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּשַׁמְתָּא נָרֶשׁ, תַּרְבֵּיהּ מַשְׁכֵּיהּ וְאַלְיְתֵיהּ. ״אֶרֶץ אֶרֶץ אָרֶץ שִׁמְעִי דְּבַר ה׳״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא אָבָה נָרֶשׁ שְׁמוֹעַ דְּבַר 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.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: נַרְשָׁאָה נַשְּׁקָיךְ – מָנֵי כַּכָּיךְ; נְהַר פְּקוֹדָאָה לַוְיָיךְ – מִגְּלִימָא שַׁפִּירָא דְּחָזֵי עֲלָךְ; פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאָה לַוְיָיךְ – אַשְׁנִי אוּשְׁפִּיזָךְ.
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.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר תּוֹרְתָּא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לַוַּועַד, וְרָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ שֶׁהוּא כָּרוּךְ עַל הַצָּב, לְיָמִים יָצָא עַרְוָד מִבֵּינֵיהֶם.
§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.
וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֶחָסִיד, אָמַר לִי: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הֵם הֵבִיאוּ בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי.
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.
וְהָאָמַר מָר: כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה – יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין תַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה – אֵין יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה.
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.
אָמַר רַב: נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס! הַאי פּוּרְעֲנוּתָא הוּא? מַאי נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס – לְפוּרְעָנוּת.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה, מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין בִּמְקוֹמָן, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר.
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.
נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
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.
מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר נְבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – אִין, טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה – לָא.
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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין נָמֵי לָא לִיטַּמּוּ, וְאִי דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!
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.
לְעוֹלָם, דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה, וְשָׁאנֵי טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״כִּי יִפּוֹל״, עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּמְעוֹרִין בְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה, יָכוֹל יְטַמְּאוּ טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִפּוֹל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין מְטַמּוּ.
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.
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּאֵנִים שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן – מְטַמְּאוֹת טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
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.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יְרָקוֹת שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכְּרוּב וְהַדַּלַּעַת – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
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.
קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּעַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן.
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.
טַעְמָא דִּכְרוּב וְדַלַּעַת הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּיִבְּשָׁן לָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ, הָא שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְטַמְּאִי.
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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיִבְּשָׁן הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּלֹא עוּקְצֵיהֶן.
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.
לְעוֹלָם הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן, וּקְצָצָן עַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּבוֹ פֵּירוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין, יָבְשׁוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְחוּבָּרִין. מַאי לָאו: מָה תְּלוּשִׁין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, אַף מְחוּבָּרִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן?
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?
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.
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.
נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
§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?
אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר, וּמָר סָבַר בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר.
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.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
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.
מָר סָבַר: אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ.
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.
וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
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.
דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?
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?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּפְרַס וּמְעוֹרֶה בְּמִקְצָת,
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.
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 125-131-Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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 started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
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.
London, United Kingdom
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
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.
Virginia, United States
Ontario, Canada
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Chullin 127
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹרֵץ.
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.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הַמַּשְׁרִיץ יְטַמֵּא, שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁרִיץ לֹא יְטַמֵּא? אוֹצִיא עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה, שֶׁאֵין פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה.
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.
וְדִין הוּא: טִימֵּא בְּחוּלְדָּה וְטִימֵּא בְּעַכְבָּר, מָה חוּלְדָּה – כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמָהּ חוּלְדָּה, אַף עַכְבָּר – כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ עַכְבָּר, אָבִיא עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה.
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.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: מָה חוּלְדָּה פָּרָה וְרָבָה, אַף עַכְבָּר פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁרֶץ״.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֵימָא ״בַּשֶּׁרֶץ״, לְאֵתוֹיֵי עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה, ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – כֹּל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹרֵץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ עַכְבָּר שֶׁבַּיָּם, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – עַל הָאָרֶץ יְטַמֵּא, יָרַד לַיָּם – לֹא יְטַמֵּא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמֵאַחַר דְּשַׁוִּיתֵיהּ לְיָם מְקוֹם טוּמְאָה, מָה לִי הָכָא, מָה לִי הָכָא.
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?
וְהַאי ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהוֹצִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְהוֹצִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה!
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.
תַּרְתֵּי ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ כְּתִיבִי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ״ – לְהָבִיא הֶעָרוֹד, וְכֵן הַנְּפִילִים וְסָלָמַנְדְּרָא.
§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].
וּכְשֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַגִּיעַ לְפָסוּק זֶה, אוֹמֵר: ״מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה׳״! יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בַּיָּם, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. שֶׁבַּיָּם – אִילְמָלֵי עוֹלוֹת (בַּיַּבָּשָׁה) [לַיַּבָּשָׁה] מִיָּד מֵתוֹת, שֶׁבַּיַּבָּשָׁה – אִילְמָלֵי יוֹרְדוֹת לַיָּם מִיָּד מֵתוֹת.
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.
יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בָּאוּר, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בָּאֲוִיר. שֶׁבָּאוּר – אִילְמָלֵי עוֹלוֹת לָאֲוִיר מִיָּד מֵתוֹת, שֶׁבָּאֲוִיר – אִילְמָלֵי יוֹרְדוֹת לָאוּר מִיָּד מֵתוֹת. ״מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ 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.”
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּיַּבָּשָׁה יֵשׁ בַּיָּם, חוּץ מִן הַחוּלְדָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״הַאֲזִינוּ כׇּל יֹשְׁבֵי חָלֶד״.
§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].
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בִּיבְרֵי דְּנָרֶשׁ אֵינָן מִן הַיִּשּׁוּב.
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).
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּשַׁמְתָּא נָרֶשׁ, תַּרְבֵּיהּ מַשְׁכֵּיהּ וְאַלְיְתֵיהּ. ״אֶרֶץ אֶרֶץ אָרֶץ שִׁמְעִי דְּבַר ה׳״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא אָבָה נָרֶשׁ שְׁמוֹעַ דְּבַר 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.
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: נַרְשָׁאָה נַשְּׁקָיךְ – מָנֵי כַּכָּיךְ; נְהַר פְּקוֹדָאָה לַוְיָיךְ – מִגְּלִימָא שַׁפִּירָא דְּחָזֵי עֲלָךְ; פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאָה לַוְיָיךְ – אַשְׁנִי אוּשְׁפִּיזָךְ.
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.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר תּוֹרְתָּא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לַוַּועַד, וְרָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ שֶׁהוּא כָּרוּךְ עַל הַצָּב, לְיָמִים יָצָא עַרְוָד מִבֵּינֵיהֶם.
§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.
וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֶחָסִיד, אָמַר לִי: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הֵם הֵבִיאוּ בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי.
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.
וְהָאָמַר מָר: כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה – יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין תַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה – אֵין יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה.
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.
אָמַר רַב: נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס! הַאי פּוּרְעֲנוּתָא הוּא? מַאי נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס – לְפוּרְעָנוּת.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה, מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין בִּמְקוֹמָן, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר.
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.
נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
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.
מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר נְבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – אִין, טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה – לָא.
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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין נָמֵי לָא לִיטַּמּוּ, וְאִי דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!
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.
לְעוֹלָם, דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה, וְשָׁאנֵי טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״כִּי יִפּוֹל״, עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּמְעוֹרִין בְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה, יָכוֹל יְטַמְּאוּ טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִפּוֹל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין מְטַמּוּ.
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.
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּאֵנִים שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן – מְטַמְּאוֹת טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
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.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יְרָקוֹת שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכְּרוּב וְהַדַּלַּעַת – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
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.
קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּעַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן.
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.
טַעְמָא דִּכְרוּב וְדַלַּעַת הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּיִבְּשָׁן לָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ, הָא שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְטַמְּאִי.
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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיִבְּשָׁן הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּלֹא עוּקְצֵיהֶן.
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.
לְעוֹלָם הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן, וּקְצָצָן עַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּבוֹ פֵּירוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין, יָבְשׁוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְחוּבָּרִין. מַאי לָאו: מָה תְּלוּשִׁין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, אַף מְחוּבָּרִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן?
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?
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.
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.
נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
§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?
אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר, וּמָר סָבַר בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר.
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.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
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.
מָר סָבַר: אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ.
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.
וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
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.
דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?
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?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּפְרַס וּמְעוֹרֶה בְּמִקְצָת,
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.
