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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 3, 2019 | 讻状讝 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 127

Which types of mice are included in the category of creeping animals? Which are not? The deals with a case of meat or a limb dangling from an animal – if one intended to feed it to a non Jew, it can contract food impurity if it comes in contact with water. If the animal dies or is slaughtered, what is its status?


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

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛砖专抓 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖讜专抓

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat creep,鈥 indicating that creeping animals impart impurity anywhere that they creep, including the sea, as these animals can float in the sea. Consequently, the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 is understood as indicating that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讛砖专抓 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛诪砖专讬抓 讬讟诪讗 砖讗讬谉 诪砖专讬抓 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讜爪讬讗 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛 砖讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜专讘讛

The baraita raises an alternative interpretation: Or perhaps the term 鈥渢hat creep [hashoretz]鈥 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 halfflesh half-earth, i.e., that generates spontaneously from the earth, as it does not breed and therefore does not impart impurity.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 讘注讻讘专 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讻诇 砖砖诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讗祝 注讻讘专 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 讗讘讬讗 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛

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 鈥渨easel鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, 鈥渕ouse鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is mouse, even a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讗祝 注讻讘专 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专抓

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛 讛砖专抓 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖讜专抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讻讘专 砖讘讬诐 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 注诇 讛讗专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓 讬讟诪讗 讬专讚 诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

One of the Sages said to Rava: Say the interpretation of the verse differently. The term 鈥渁mong the creeping animals鈥 serves to include a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth among those that impart impurity. The term 鈥渢hat creep鈥 teaches that any animal that creeps imparts impurity, and even a sea mouse. And if one should reject this interpretation due to the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讞专 讚砖讜讬转讬讛 诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗

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?

讜讛讗讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 爪驻讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 诇讛讜爪讬讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 爪驻讛

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita interpret the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 as teaching that a sea mouse does not impart impurity? Isn鈥檛 this phrase: 鈥淯pon the earth,鈥 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 Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said: The phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity.

转专转讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara answers: The phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讛注专讜讚 讜讻谉 讛谞驻讬诇讬诐 讜住诇诪谞讚专讗

搂With regard to the topic of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淭he great lizard after its kinds鈥 (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].

讜讻砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讙讬注 诇驻住讜拽 讝讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛 专讘讜 诪注砖讬讱 讛壮 讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讬讘砖讛 砖讘讬诐 讗讬诇诪诇讬 注讜诇讜转 讘讬讘砖讛 诪讬讚 诪转讜转 砖讘讬讘砖讛 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讬讜专讚讜转 诇讬诐 诪讬讚 诪转讜转

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: 鈥淗ow great are Your works, O Lord鈥 (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.

讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讗讜专 讜讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讗讜讬专 砖讘讗讜专 讗讬诇诪诇讬 注讜诇讜转 诇讗讜讬专 诪讬讚 诪转讜转 砖讘讗讜讬专 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讬讜专讚讜转 诇讗讜专 诪讬讚 诪转讜转 诪讛 专讘讜 诪注砖讬讱 讛壮

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, 鈥渉ow great are Your works, O Lord.鈥

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讬讘砖讛 讬砖 讘讬诐 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讛讗讝讬谞讜 讻诇 讬砖讘讬 讞诇讚

搂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: 鈥淟isten all you inhabitants of the world [岣led]鈥 (Psalms 49:2). Dry land is called 岣led because it is the sole habitat for the weasel [岣lda].

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬讘专讬 讚谞专砖 讗讬谞谉 诪谉 讛讬砖讜讘

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: 鈥淎nd every creeping animal that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41).

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诪转讗 谞专砖 转专讘讬讛 诪砖讻讬讛 讜讗诇讬转讬讛 讗专抓 讗专抓 讗专抓 砖诪注讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗讘讛 谞专砖 砖诪讜注 讚讘专 讛壮

搂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: 鈥淥h land, land, land hear the word of the Lord鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞专砖讗讛 谞砖拽讬讱 诪谞讬 讻讻讬讱 谞讛专 驻拽讜讚讗讛 诇讜讬讬讱 诪讙诇讬诪讗 砖驻讬专讗 讚讞讝讬 注诇讱 驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗讛 诇讜讬讬讱 讗砖谞讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讜专转讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讻转讬 诇讜讜注讚 讜专讗讬转讬 谞讞砖 砖讛讜讗 讻专讜讱 注诇 讛爪讘 诇讬诪讬诐 讬爪讗 注专讜讚 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐

搂The Gemara returns to discussing different types of creatures. Rav Huna bar Torta said: Once I went to the city of Va鈥檃d 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.

讜讻砖讘讗转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讞住讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讛诐 讛讘讬讗讜 讘专讬讛 砖诇讗 讘专讗转讬 讘注讜诇诪讬 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 注诇讬讛诐 讘专讬讛 砖诇讗 讘专讗转讬 讘注讜诇诪讬

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鈥檃d 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.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖谉 讜注讬讘讜专谉 砖讜讛 讬讜诇讚讬谉 讜诪讙讚诇讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 转砖诪讬砖谉 讜注讬讘讜专谉 砖讜讛 讗讬谉 讬讜诇讚讬谉 讜诪讙讚诇讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛

The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住 讛讗讬 驻讜专注谞讜转讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住 诇驻讜专注谞讜转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讜爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专

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.

谞砖讞讟讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讚诪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

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鈥檚 own blood; they are rendered susceptible only once they have been wet with another liquid.

诪转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讘砖专 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讛讗讘专 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 谞讘诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

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.

讙诪壮 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 诇讗

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪注诇讬谉 讗专讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜 讜讗讬 讚讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讗专讜讻讛 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limb can heal and reattach to the animal鈥檚 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讗专讜讻讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 讬驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇

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: 鈥淎nd if any of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of an animal is not considered a carcass until it completely falls from the animal.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诪注讜专讬谉 讘讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讗讜 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讬讟诪讜

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: 鈥淎nd if any of the carcass fall,鈥 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.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讗谞讬诐 砖爪诪拽讜 讘讗讬讘讬讛谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛转讜诇砖 诪讛谉 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

This explanation supports the opinion of Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, as Rav 岣yya 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讬专拽讜转 砖爪诪拽讜 讘讗讬讘讬讛谉 讻讙讜谉 讛讻专讜讘 讜讛讚诇注转 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽爪爪谉 讜讬讘砖谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

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.

拽爪爪谉 讜讬讘砖谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘注诇 诪谞转 诇讬讘砖谉

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 Yitz岣k 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.

讟注诪讗 讚讻专讜讘 讜讚诇注转 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讘砖谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 砖讗专 驻讬专讜转 诪讟诪讗讬

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讘砖谉 讛谉 讜注讜拽爪讬讛谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘诇讗 注讜拽爪讬讛谉

The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: What are the circumstances? If one dried both the produce itself and its stems, isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讛谉 讜注讜拽爪讬讛谉 讜拽爪爪谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬讘砖谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诇谉 砖谞驻砖讞 讜讘讜 驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讻转诇讜砖讬谉 讬讘砖讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讻诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 转诇讜砖讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讗祝 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉

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鈥檛 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?

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

谞砖讞讟讛 讛讘讛诪讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂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鈥檚 own blood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讘讛诪讛 谞注砖讬转 讬讚 诇讗讘专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讛诪讛 谞注砖讬转 讬讚 诇讗讘专 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 谞注砖讬转 讬讚 诇讗讘专

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鈥檌m 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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鈥檌m 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.

诪专 住讘专 讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讜 讻诪讜讛讜

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.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds in accordance with the explanation of Abaye that the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专诪讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜

As Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讜讻诇 砖谞驻专住 讜诪注讜专讛 讘诪拽爪转

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.

  • 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 127

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 127

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛砖专抓 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖讜专抓

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat creep,鈥 indicating that creeping animals impart impurity anywhere that they creep, including the sea, as these animals can float in the sea. Consequently, the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 is understood as indicating that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讛砖专抓 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛诪砖专讬抓 讬讟诪讗 砖讗讬谉 诪砖专讬抓 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讜爪讬讗 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛 砖讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜专讘讛

The baraita raises an alternative interpretation: Or perhaps the term 鈥渢hat creep [hashoretz]鈥 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 halfflesh half-earth, i.e., that generates spontaneously from the earth, as it does not breed and therefore does not impart impurity.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 讘注讻讘专 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讻诇 砖砖诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讗祝 注讻讘专 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 讗讘讬讗 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛

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 鈥渨easel鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, 鈥渕ouse鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is mouse, even a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讗祝 注讻讘专 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖专抓

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讘砖专抓 诇讗转讜讬讬 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛 讛砖专抓 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖讜专抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讻讘专 砖讘讬诐 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 注诇 讛讗专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓 讬讟诪讗 讬专讚 诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

One of the Sages said to Rava: Say the interpretation of the verse differently. The term 鈥渁mong the creeping animals鈥 serves to include a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth among those that impart impurity. The term 鈥渢hat creep鈥 teaches that any animal that creeps imparts impurity, and even a sea mouse. And if one should reject this interpretation due to the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讞专 讚砖讜讬转讬讛 诇讬诐 诪拽讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗 诪讛 诇讬 讛讻讗

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?

讜讛讗讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 爪驻讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 诇讛讜爪讬讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 爪驻讛

The Gemara asks: How can the baraita interpret the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 as teaching that a sea mouse does not impart impurity? Isn鈥檛 this phrase: 鈥淯pon the earth,鈥 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 Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said: The phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity.

转专转讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara answers: The phrase 鈥渦pon the earth鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讘 诇诪讬谞讛讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讛注专讜讚 讜讻谉 讛谞驻讬诇讬诐 讜住诇诪谞讚专讗

搂With regard to the topic of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淭he great lizard after its kinds鈥 (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].

讜讻砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讙讬注 诇驻住讜拽 讝讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛 专讘讜 诪注砖讬讱 讛壮 讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讬诐 讜讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讬讘砖讛 砖讘讬诐 讗讬诇诪诇讬 注讜诇讜转 讘讬讘砖讛 诪讬讚 诪转讜转 砖讘讬讘砖讛 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讬讜专讚讜转 诇讬诐 诪讬讚 诪转讜转

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: 鈥淗ow great are Your works, O Lord鈥 (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.

讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讗讜专 讜讬砖 诇讱 讘专讬讜转 讙讚诇讜转 讘讗讜讬专 砖讘讗讜专 讗讬诇诪诇讬 注讜诇讜转 诇讗讜讬专 诪讬讚 诪转讜转 砖讘讗讜讬专 讗讬诇诪诇讬 讬讜专讚讜转 诇讗讜专 诪讬讚 诪转讜转 诪讛 专讘讜 诪注砖讬讱 讛壮

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, 鈥渉ow great are Your works, O Lord.鈥

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讬讘砖讛 讬砖 讘讬诐 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讛讗讝讬谞讜 讻诇 讬砖讘讬 讞诇讚

搂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: 鈥淟isten all you inhabitants of the world [岣led]鈥 (Psalms 49:2). Dry land is called 岣led because it is the sole habitat for the weasel [岣lda].

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬讘专讬 讚谞专砖 讗讬谞谉 诪谉 讛讬砖讜讘

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: 鈥淎nd every creeping animal that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41).

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诪转讗 谞专砖 转专讘讬讛 诪砖讻讬讛 讜讗诇讬转讬讛 讗专抓 讗专抓 讗专抓 砖诪注讬 讚讘专 讛壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗讘讛 谞专砖 砖诪讜注 讚讘专 讛壮

搂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: 鈥淥h land, land, land hear the word of the Lord鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 谞专砖讗讛 谞砖拽讬讱 诪谞讬 讻讻讬讱 谞讛专 驻拽讜讚讗讛 诇讜讬讬讱 诪讙诇讬诪讗 砖驻讬专讗 讚讞讝讬 注诇讱 驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗讛 诇讜讬讬讱 讗砖谞讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讱

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讜专转讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讻转讬 诇讜讜注讚 讜专讗讬转讬 谞讞砖 砖讛讜讗 讻专讜讱 注诇 讛爪讘 诇讬诪讬诐 讬爪讗 注专讜讚 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐

搂The Gemara returns to discussing different types of creatures. Rav Huna bar Torta said: Once I went to the city of Va鈥檃d 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.

讜讻砖讘讗转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讞住讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讛诐 讛讘讬讗讜 讘专讬讛 砖诇讗 讘专讗转讬 讘注讜诇诪讬 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 注诇讬讛诐 讘专讬讛 砖诇讗 讘专讗转讬 讘注讜诇诪讬

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鈥檃d 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.

讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 砖转砖诪讬砖谉 讜注讬讘讜专谉 砖讜讛 讬讜诇讚讬谉 讜诪讙讚诇讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 转砖诪讬砖谉 讜注讬讘讜专谉 砖讜讛 讗讬谉 讬讜诇讚讬谉 讜诪讙讚诇讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛

The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住 讛讗讬 驻讜专注谞讜转讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 谞住 讘转讜讱 谞住 诇驻讜专注谞讜转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讜爪专讬讻讬谉 讛讻砖专

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.

谞砖讞讟讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讚诪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

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鈥檚 own blood; they are rendered susceptible only once they have been wet with another liquid.

诪转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讘砖专 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讛讗讘专 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 谞讘诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

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.

讙诪壮 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 诇讗

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪注诇讬谉 讗专讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讟诪讜 讜讗讬 讚讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讗专讜讻讛 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讟诪讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limb can heal and reattach to the animal鈥檚 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讗专讜讻讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻讬 讬驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇

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: 鈥淎nd if any of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of an animal is not considered a carcass until it completely falls from the animal.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜诪注讜专讬谉 讘讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讗讜 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬驻诇 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讬讟诪讜

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: 鈥淎nd if any of the carcass fall,鈥 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.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讗谞讬诐 砖爪诪拽讜 讘讗讬讘讬讛谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛转讜诇砖 诪讛谉 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

This explanation supports the opinion of Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, as Rav 岣yya 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讬专拽讜转 砖爪诪拽讜 讘讗讬讘讬讛谉 讻讙讜谉 讛讻专讜讘 讜讛讚诇注转 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽爪爪谉 讜讬讘砖谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

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.

拽爪爪谉 讜讬讘砖谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注抓 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘注诇 诪谞转 诇讬讘砖谉

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 Yitz岣k 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.

讟注诪讗 讚讻专讜讘 讜讚诇注转 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讘砖谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讗 砖讗专 驻讬专讜转 诪讟诪讗讬

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讘砖谉 讛谉 讜注讜拽爪讬讛谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘诇讗 注讜拽爪讬讛谉

The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: What are the circumstances? If one dried both the produce itself and its stems, isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讛谉 讜注讜拽爪讬讛谉 讜拽爪爪谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬讘砖谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诇谉 砖谞驻砖讞 讜讘讜 驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讛谉 讻转诇讜砖讬谉 讬讘砖讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讻诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讛 转诇讜砖讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讗祝 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉

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鈥檛 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?

诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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.

谞砖讞讟讛 讛讘讛诪讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂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鈥檚 own blood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讘讛诪讛 谞注砖讬转 讬讚 诇讗讘专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讛诪讛 谞注砖讬转 讬讚 诇讗讘专 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讛诪讛 谞注砖讬转 讬讚 诇讗讘专

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鈥檌m 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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鈥檌m 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.

诪专 住讘专 讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讜 讻诪讜讛讜

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.

讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 讘讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

And Rabbi Yo岣nan also holds in accordance with the explanation of Abaye that the tanna鈥檌m 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.

讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专诪讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜讞讝 讘拽讟谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讚讜诇 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讜讛讜

As Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讜讻诇 砖谞驻专住 讜诪注讜专讛 讘诪拽爪转

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.

Scroll To Top