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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 4, 2019 | ื›ืดื— ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Chullin 128

Six explanations are brought to explain the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon regarding a limb or meat that was hanging off an animal – if the animal was subsequently slaughtered, does the blood from the slaughter consider it having come in contact with a liquid in order to enable it to become impure? Several questions are asked regarding items that are not able to be impure but are loosely connected to items that can – can they function as a handle to pass on impurities? What is the difference between the impurity of a dead animal and a limb that is severed? What is the source for a limb of a live animal being a source of impurity?


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

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื•ื—ื– ื‘ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืขื•ืœื” ืขืžื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ื ื• ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

Rabbi Meir says: If when one grasps the small piece, the large piece ascends with it, it is considered one and the same; but if it does not ascend with it, it is not considered one and the same. This statement of Rabbi Meir is not in accordance with his statement in the mishna that a partially severed limb is part of the body of the animal and is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body even if one lifts the partially severed limb and the body of the animal does not ascend with it.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืคืช ื”ืฉื™ื˜ื”

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolves the contradiction and says: The attribution of the opinions in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed. Indeed, Rabbi Meir holds that even if when one lifts the smaller piece, the larger piece does not ascend with it, it is still the same item. Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan explains the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.

ื•ืžืื™ ืงื•ืฉื™ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ืœืฉืืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื•ืช

With regard to the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, the Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir distinguishes between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity. The impurity of one who immersed that day is a more lenient type of impurity, because he has already immersed and need only wait until the end of the day in order to consume sacrificial offerings. Therefore, there is reason to be more lenient when he touches a partially severed piece of food and to rule that the entire food item does not become impure.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื•ืช

The Gemara answers: One cannot make such a distinction between different types of impurity because it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to both the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, the halakhot of contact are the same; whatever is considered contact that transmits impurity with regard to one type of impurity transmits impurity for all types of impurity.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: But perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity and Rabbi Meir does distinguish in such a manner. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Meir.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื•ื—ืœืคืช ื”ืฉื™ื˜ื”

Rabbi Yoshiya said: This is what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan meant to say: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, and the attribution of the opinions in the mishna in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืฉ ื™ื“ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉืจ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rava said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood from the slaughter came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tannaโ€™im agree that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. They disagree with regard to the principle that there is a status of a handle, i.e., a handle is considered part of the item itself, with regard to transmitting impurity to the attached food, but there is no status of a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity, as in that regard the handle is considered a separate item.

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื™ื“ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื™ื“ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืœื”ื›ืฉืจ

One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that there is a status of a handle with regard to transmitting impurity, but there is no status of a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, although the body of the animal constitutes a handle vis-ร -vis the limb, it does not render the limb susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that there is a status of a handle both with regard to transmitting impurity and with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the body of the animal renders the limb susceptible to impurity.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ื ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rav Pappa said a different explanation of the dispute: Both tannaโ€™im hold that a handle renders the attached food susceptible to impurity. Yet, the mishna is discussing a case where the slaughter took place before the owner of the animal designated its meat for the consumption of a gentile. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether an item can be rendered susceptible to impurity before intention, i.e., before one intends to use it as food. Rabbi Shimon holds that since the animal came in contact with the blood of the slaughter before the owner intended to use it as food, it is not rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir holds that the susceptibility to impurity takes effect such that when the owner considers it as food it will be susceptible to impurity.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉื•ื ื” ื—ืœื‘ ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื‘ื›ืคืจื™ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

This dispute is also found in that which we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva would teach this halakha: Fat forbidden in consumption for a Jew from an animal slaughtered in the villages requires intention, i.e., designation, for consumption, for it to become susceptible to impurity. This is because the population in such places is small and there is an abundance of meat, so people do not generally consume the fat. Consequently, unless the Jewish owner intends for a gentile to consume it, it is not considered food. But the fat does not require contact with a liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as it was already rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter even though it came into contact with the blood before the Jew designated it for consumption.

ืืžืจืชื™ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืœืžื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืขื•ืœืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื”ื“ื™ื—ืŸ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื ืžืœืš ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื•ื ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

Rabbi Yehuda continues: I said before him: You taught us, our teacher, that in a case of endives that one picked and rinsed in water for the consumption of an animal, and one later reconsidered and decided to designate them for human consumption, the endives need to come into contact with liquid a second time in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as food designated for animal consumption does not contract impurity. Evidently, for a food item to become susceptible to impurity, its contact with liquid must occur after one designated it as food. And Rabbi Akiva then retracted his previous statement and taught the halakha in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ื—ื–ืจื”

Rav Pappa concludes: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the same manner. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught originally, and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught after his retraction of his original statement.

ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ืืžืจ ื‘ื ืชืงื ื— ื”ื“ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืœืกื™ืžืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Ika, said another explanation of the dispute: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of slaughter came into contact with a partially severed limb, and the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But slaughter is valid only if one cuts the two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the tannaโ€™im disagree with regard to a case where the blood in question was wiped off between the cutting of the first siman and the second siman.

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ืœืกื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ื ืžื›ื” ื”ื•ื

One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the limb is considered blood of slaughter. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this blood from the first siman is considered the blood of a wound and does not render the limb susceptible to impurity.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื›ืฉืจืช ื•ืœื ื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rav Ashi said another explanation of the dispute: The case is where the blood of slaughter came in contact with the partially severed limb, but Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the principle that the slaughter itself renders the limb susceptible to impurity, and not the blood of slaughter. Rabbi Shimon holds that the blood of slaughter is not one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But the slaughter itself renders the meat of the animal susceptible to impurity, because it prepares the meat for consumption. Therefore, since a partially severed limb is not prepared for consumption by the slaughter, as it remains forbidden, the slaughter does not render it susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir maintains that the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, and therefore, the limb is rendered susceptible.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœืื‘ืจ ืชื™ืงื•

ยงEarlier (127b), Rabba explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the body of an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that it does constitute a handle, Rabba raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if an animal with a partially severed limb came into contact with a source of impurity during its lifetime? In such a case, where the animal is not susceptible to contract impurity because it is alive but the partially severed limb is susceptible to contract impurity as food, does the animal constitute a handle for its limb and transmit the impurity to the limb? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืงื™ืฉื•ืช ืฉื ื˜ืขื” ื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื” ื•ื™ืฆืืช ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืขืฆื™ืฅ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara introduces a similar dilemma. Abaye says: The Sages said in the mishna (Okatzin 2:9): In the case of an impure cucumber that one planted in an unperforated flowerpot, such that the cucumber is considered detached from the ground and susceptible to impurity as food, and the cucumber grew and went out beyond the edge of the flowerpot such that part of the cucumber is overlying the ground, the entire cucumber is considered attached to the ground and therefore becomes pure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืžื” ื˜ื™ื‘ื” ืœื˜ื”ืจ ืืœื ื”ื˜ืžื ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื˜ื”ืจืชื•

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the nature of the impurity of the cucumber that it is rendered pure in such a case? Rather, the part of the cucumber that is inside the flowerpot and impure remains in its state of impurity, and the part of the cucumber that is outside the flowerpot and pure remains in its state of purity.

ื‘ืขื™ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืชื™ืงื•

Based on this mishna, Abaye raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: What is the halakha if the part of the cucumber outside of the flowerpot comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the part of the cucumber outside the flowerpot constitute a handle for its counterpart inside the flowerpot and transmit impurity to it to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ืžืฉืชื—ื•ื” ืœื—ืฆื™ ื“ืœืขืช ืืกืจื” ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื”

The Gemara relates another dilemma based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yirmeya says: The Sages said that one who bows down to a half of a gourd, worshipping it as a divinity, renders that half of the gourd forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, because it was worshipped as an idol. The other half, though, is not forbidden. Based on this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:

ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืชื™ืงื•

According to Rabbi Shimon, an item that is forbidden due to idol worship is not susceptible to impurity as food (see 129a). What is the halakha if the forbidden part of the gourd comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the forbidden part constitute a handle for its permitted counterpart and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื™ื—ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืชืื ื” ืฉื ืคืฉื— ื•ืžืขื•ืจื” ื‘ืงืœื™ืคืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื˜ื”ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื™ื•ืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ืžื

The Gemara discusses a similar dilemma. Rav Pappa says: The Sages said in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): In the case of a branch of a fig tree that was mainly detached from the tree and which remains attached only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the figs on the branch are considered as if they are still attached to the tree. Therefore, he deems them not susceptible to impurity. And the Rabbis say: If one is able to reattach the branch to the tree such that the branch can continue to live and produce fruit, then it is considered as if it is attached to the tree and the fruit on it is not susceptible to impurity. But if not, then the fruit is susceptible to impurity.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืชื™ืงื•

With regard to this mishna, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: According to the Rabbis, who distinguish between a branch that can be reattached and one that cannot, what is the halakha in the case of a branch that is mainly detached from a tree but can be reattached, and a second branch grows out from that branch, and is mainly detached from it and cannot be reattached? In such a case, the branch that can be reattached to the tree is not susceptible to contracting impurity, but the branch attached to it is. If the branch that is not susceptible to contract impurity comes into contact with a source of impurity, does it constitute a handle for the other branch and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื‘ื–ื•ื™ืช ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืืช ื›ื•ืœื” ื•ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืฅ ื ื•ืชืฅ ืืช ืฉืœื• ื•ืžื ื™ื— ืืช ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•

The Gemara discusses another similar dilemma. Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages said in a mishna (Negaโ€™im 13:2): In the case of a large stone that is situated in the corner of a wall shared by two houses, where the stone is visible from inside both houses, if a leprous mark appears in one of the houses on the stone, when one extracts the stone he must extract the entire stone, even the part of the stone that is part of the neighborโ€™s wall. But when one destroys his house, after a reappearance of the leprous mark, he must destroy only the part of a stone that is in his house, and leaves the part of a stone that belongs to his neighbor.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืชื™ืงื•

With regard to this mishna Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case with regard to the transmission of impurity from the leprous house to the adjacent house? Does half of the stone in the adjacent house constitute a handle for the other half and impart impurity such that one who enters the neighborโ€™s house becomes impure just as one who enters the leprous house? Or perhaps there is no halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a leprous house. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื” ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืœืื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื ื‘ืœื”

ยงThe mishna teaches: If the animal died, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity via contact with a liquid 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. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the impurity of a limb from a living animal and the impurity of a limb from a carcass?

ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžืื‘ืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื‘ืœื” ืžื˜ืžื

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to flesh that separates from the limb of an animal, as flesh that separates from a limb severed from the living does not impart impurity, just like flesh that separates directly from a living animal. By contrast, an olive-bulk of flesh that separates from the limb of a carcass imparts impurity like the flesh of a carcass.

ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื“ืžื˜ืžื ืžืื™ ืงืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื”

The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which it is derived that a limb severed from the living imparts impurity? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to the impurity of a carcass it is written: โ€œAnd if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until eveningโ€ (Leviticus 11:39). The phrase โ€œsome animal [min habehema],โ€ which also means: From an animal, is interpreted as indicating that a limb torn from an animal is included in the impurity discussed in the verse.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ืื™ื“ืš ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืงืฆืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื•ืžืงืฆืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื–ื• ื–ื• ื˜ืจืคื” ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: How can Rav interpret this verse in such a manner? This verse is necessary for another halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: In the verse: โ€œAnd if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening,โ€ the phrase โ€œsome animal [min habehema]โ€ indicates that some dead animals impart impurity as a carcass, and some dead animals do not impart impurity as a carcass. And which is that animal that does not impart impurity as a carcass? That is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] that one slaughtered. Even though slaughter does not render the animal permitted to be eaten, it removes the animal from the category of a carcass with regard to impurity.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse teaches only one of the two halakhot, let the Merciful One write mibehema, in one Hebrew word. What is the verse teaching when it states: โ€œMin habehema,โ€ with two Hebrew words? It is teaching that one should conclude two conclusions from it.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื” ืžื™ืชื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™

The Gemara challenges: If so, if this verse teaches that a limb from a living animal imparts impurity, one can also derive from it that even flesh from a living animal imparts impurity. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind to derive this, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a living animal is impure like a carcass. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd if some animal of which you may eat dies.โ€ Just as death does not generate a replacement, i.e., life is not regenerated from the dead, so too any element of an animal that dies and does not generate a replacement assumes the impurity of a carcass. An animal does not replace a severed limb but it does replace severed flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช

Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the word โ€œanimalโ€ in the verse. Just as an animal contains sinews and bones, so too, any element of an animal that contains sinews and bones imparts impurity. Therefore, a limb, which contains sinews and bones, imparts impurity, but flesh, which does not contain sinews and bones, does not impart impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can derive this halakha from the word โ€œanimalโ€ in the verse. Just as an animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any element of an animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts impurity.

ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืจื›ื•ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it does not impart impurity when it separates from a living animal, but according to Rabbi Akiva it does.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื›ื•ืœื™ื ื•ื ื™ื‘ ืฉืคืชื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip that separate from a living animal. According to Rabbi Yosei these parts of the animal impart impurity because the animal does not generate a replacement for them; according to Rabbi Akiva they do not impart impurity, because they do not contain bones.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉืจืฆื™ื ื›ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืจืฆื™ื ื™ื”ื ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžืชื ืžื” ืžื™ืชื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™

The Gemara states a different halakha where these three tannaโ€™im express the same opinions. So too, it is taught in a baraita with regard to creeping animals like this case: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a creeping animal during its lifetime should be impure like a creeping animal carcass. Therefore, the verse states with regard to creeping animal carcasses: โ€œAnd upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impureโ€ (Leviticus 11:32). The word โ€œdeadโ€ teaches that just as death does not generate a replacement, so too any element of a creeping animal that dies and does not generate a replacement imparts the impurity of a creeping animal carcass, excluding flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืจืฅ ืžื” ืฉืจืฅ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืจืฅ ืžื” ืฉืจืฅ ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช

Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the term โ€œcreeping animal.โ€ Just as a creeping animal contains sinews and bones, so too any element of a creeping animal that contains sinews and bones imparts impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can derive this halakha from the term โ€œcreeping animal.โ€ Just as a creeping animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any element of a creeping animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts impurity.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื›ื•ืœื™ื ื•ื ื™ื‘ ืฉืคืชื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip, which contain no bones and which are not regenerated by the creeping animal.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืขื“ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉืจืฅ ื“ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืขื“ืฉื” ืื™ืžื ืœื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื

And it is necessary to teach this halakha both with regard to flesh that separates from a living animal and with regard to flesh that separates from a creeping animal. As if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to an animal, one might have said that this is the reason that flesh that separates from a living animal does not impart impurity: It is because an animal carcass does not impart impurity in the measure of a lentil-bulk, but rather only in the measure of an olive-bulk. But with regard to a creeping animal, which imparts impurity even in the measure of a lentil-bulk, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart impurity.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉืจืฅ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ืžืฉื ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ืžืฉื ืื™ืžื ืชื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to a creeping animal, one might have said that flesh that separates from a creeping animal does not impart impurity because a creeping animal does not impart impurity via carrying, and therefore flesh that separates from it while it is living does not impart impurity. But with regard to an animal, which imparts impurity via carrying, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart impurity. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this halakha in both cases.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืชืš ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื—ืชื›ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื—ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

ยงThe Gemara continues to discuss flesh that separates from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who severs an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb severed from the living, the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass but it does impart impurity as food if one designated it as food before it came into contact with a source of impurity. Therefore, if one severed the flesh from the limb and afterward intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile, the flesh remains pure because at the time he designated the flesh as food it was not in contact with a source of impurity.

ื—ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื—ืชื›ื• ื˜ืžื

But if he intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile and afterward severed the flesh, the flesh is impure, because it came into contact with a source of impurity, i.e., the limb, after it was designated as food.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืœื ืขืœ ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื™ืฉื‘ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื—ืชื›ื• ื˜ืžื

One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira, and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: What matter is difficult for you that you think may have been discussed in the study hall? Rabbi Asi said to him: I find difficult that which is taught in a baraita: If one intended flesh from a limb that was severed from a living animal to be used for the consumption of a gentile, and afterward he severed the flesh from the limb, the flesh is impure.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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 128

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 128

ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื•ื—ื– ื‘ืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืขื•ืœื” ืขืžื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ื•ืื ืœืื• ืื™ื ื• ื›ืžื•ื”ื•

Rabbi Meir says: If when one grasps the small piece, the large piece ascends with it, it is considered one and the same; but if it does not ascend with it, it is not considered one and the same. This statement of Rabbi Meir is not in accordance with his statement in the mishna that a partially severed limb is part of the body of the animal and is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body even if one lifts the partially severed limb and the body of the animal does not ascend with it.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืคืช ื”ืฉื™ื˜ื”

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolves the contradiction and says: The attribution of the opinions in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed. Indeed, Rabbi Meir holds that even if when one lifts the smaller piece, the larger piece does not ascend with it, it is still the same item. Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan explains the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.

ื•ืžืื™ ืงื•ืฉื™ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ืœืฉืืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื•ืช

With regard to the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, the Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir distinguishes between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity. The impurity of one who immersed that day is a more lenient type of impurity, because he has already immersed and need only wait until the end of the day in order to consume sacrificial offerings. Therefore, there is reason to be more lenient when he touches a partially severed piece of food and to rule that the entire food item does not become impure.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื•ืช

The Gemara answers: One cannot make such a distinction between different types of impurity because it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to both the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, the halakhot of contact are the same; whatever is considered contact that transmits impurity with regard to one type of impurity transmits impurity for all types of impurity.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: But perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity and Rabbi Meir does distinguish in such a manner. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Meir.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžื•ื—ืœืคืช ื”ืฉื™ื˜ื”

Rabbi Yoshiya said: This is what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan meant to say: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, and the attribution of the opinions in the mishna in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืฉ ื™ื“ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉืจ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rava said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood from the slaughter came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tannaโ€™im agree that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. They disagree with regard to the principle that there is a status of a handle, i.e., a handle is considered part of the item itself, with regard to transmitting impurity to the attached food, but there is no status of a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity, as in that regard the handle is considered a separate item.

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื™ื“ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ ืœื”ื›ืฉืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื™ื“ ืœื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืœื”ื›ืฉืจ

One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that there is a status of a handle with regard to transmitting impurity, but there is no status of a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, although the body of the animal constitutes a handle vis-ร -vis the limb, it does not render the limb susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that there is a status of a handle both with regard to transmitting impurity and with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the body of the animal renders the limb susceptible to impurity.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ื ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rav Pappa said a different explanation of the dispute: Both tannaโ€™im hold that a handle renders the attached food susceptible to impurity. Yet, the mishna is discussing a case where the slaughter took place before the owner of the animal designated its meat for the consumption of a gentile. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether an item can be rendered susceptible to impurity before intention, i.e., before one intends to use it as food. Rabbi Shimon holds that since the animal came in contact with the blood of the slaughter before the owner intended to use it as food, it is not rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir holds that the susceptibility to impurity takes effect such that when the owner considers it as food it will be susceptible to impurity.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉื•ื ื” ื—ืœื‘ ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื‘ื›ืคืจื™ื ืฆืจื™ืš ืžื—ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

This dispute is also found in that which we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva would teach this halakha: Fat forbidden in consumption for a Jew from an animal slaughtered in the villages requires intention, i.e., designation, for consumption, for it to become susceptible to impurity. This is because the population in such places is small and there is an abundance of meat, so people do not generally consume the fat. Consequently, unless the Jewish owner intends for a gentile to consume it, it is not considered food. But the fat does not require contact with a liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as it was already rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter even though it came into contact with the blood before the Jew designated it for consumption.

ืืžืจืชื™ ืœืคื ื™ื• ืœืžื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืขื•ืœืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืœืงื˜ืŸ ื•ื”ื“ื™ื—ืŸ ืœื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื ืžืœืš ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ื›ืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื•ื ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

Rabbi Yehuda continues: I said before him: You taught us, our teacher, that in a case of endives that one picked and rinsed in water for the consumption of an animal, and one later reconsidered and decided to designate them for human consumption, the endives need to come into contact with liquid a second time in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as food designated for animal consumption does not contract impurity. Evidently, for a food item to become susceptible to impurity, its contact with liquid must occur after one designated it as food. And Rabbi Akiva then retracted his previous statement and taught the halakha in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ื—ื–ืจื”

Rav Pappa concludes: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the same manner. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught originally, and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught after his retraction of his original statement.

ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ืืžืจ ื‘ื ืชืงื ื— ื”ื“ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื™ืžืŸ ืœืกื™ืžืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Ika, said another explanation of the dispute: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of slaughter came into contact with a partially severed limb, and the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But slaughter is valid only if one cuts the two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the tannaโ€™im disagree with regard to a case where the blood in question was wiped off between the cutting of the first siman and the second siman.

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชื—ืœื” ื•ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ื ื” ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืืœื ืœืกื•ืฃ ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ื ืžื›ื” ื”ื•ื

One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the limb is considered blood of slaughter. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this blood from the first siman is considered the blood of a wound and does not render the limb susceptible to impurity.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžื›ืฉืจืช ื•ืœื ื“ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rav Ashi said another explanation of the dispute: The case is where the blood of slaughter came in contact with the partially severed limb, but Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the principle that the slaughter itself renders the limb susceptible to impurity, and not the blood of slaughter. Rabbi Shimon holds that the blood of slaughter is not one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But the slaughter itself renders the meat of the animal susceptible to impurity, because it prepares the meat for consumption. Therefore, since a partially severed limb is not prepared for consumption by the slaughter, as it remains forbidden, the slaughter does not render it susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir maintains that the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, and therefore, the limb is rendered susceptible.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื” ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœืื‘ืจ ืชื™ืงื•

ยงEarlier (127b), Rabba explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the body of an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that it does constitute a handle, Rabba raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if an animal with a partially severed limb came into contact with a source of impurity during its lifetime? In such a case, where the animal is not susceptible to contract impurity because it is alive but the partially severed limb is susceptible to contract impurity as food, does the animal constitute a handle for its limb and transmit the impurity to the limb? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืงื™ืฉื•ืช ืฉื ื˜ืขื” ื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื” ื•ื™ืฆืืช ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืขืฆื™ืฅ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื”

The Gemara introduces a similar dilemma. Abaye says: The Sages said in the mishna (Okatzin 2:9): In the case of an impure cucumber that one planted in an unperforated flowerpot, such that the cucumber is considered detached from the ground and susceptible to impurity as food, and the cucumber grew and went out beyond the edge of the flowerpot such that part of the cucumber is overlying the ground, the entire cucumber is considered attached to the ground and therefore becomes pure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื›ื™ ืžื” ื˜ื™ื‘ื” ืœื˜ื”ืจ ืืœื ื”ื˜ืžื ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ื•ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื˜ื”ืจืชื•

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the nature of the impurity of the cucumber that it is rendered pure in such a case? Rather, the part of the cucumber that is inside the flowerpot and impure remains in its state of impurity, and the part of the cucumber that is outside the flowerpot and pure remains in its state of purity.

ื‘ืขื™ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืชื™ืงื•

Based on this mishna, Abaye raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: What is the halakha if the part of the cucumber outside of the flowerpot comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the part of the cucumber outside the flowerpot constitute a handle for its counterpart inside the flowerpot and transmit impurity to it to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื”ืžืฉืชื—ื•ื” ืœื—ืฆื™ ื“ืœืขืช ืืกืจื” ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื”

The Gemara relates another dilemma based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yirmeya says: The Sages said that one who bows down to a half of a gourd, worshipping it as a divinity, renders that half of the gourd forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, because it was worshipped as an idol. The other half, though, is not forbidden. Based on this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:

ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืชื™ืงื•

According to Rabbi Shimon, an item that is forbidden due to idol worship is not susceptible to impurity as food (see 129a). What is the halakha if the forbidden part of the gourd comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the forbidden part constitute a handle for its permitted counterpart and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ื™ื—ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ืชืื ื” ืฉื ืคืฉื— ื•ืžืขื•ืจื” ื‘ืงืœื™ืคืชื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื˜ื”ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื™ื•ืช ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืœืื• ื˜ืžื

The Gemara discusses a similar dilemma. Rav Pappa says: The Sages said in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): In the case of a branch of a fig tree that was mainly detached from the tree and which remains attached only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the figs on the branch are considered as if they are still attached to the tree. Therefore, he deems them not susceptible to impurity. And the Rabbis say: If one is able to reattach the branch to the tree such that the branch can continue to live and produce fruit, then it is considered as if it is attached to the tree and the fruit on it is not susceptible to impurity. But if not, then the fruit is susceptible to impurity.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืชื™ืงื•

With regard to this mishna, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: According to the Rabbis, who distinguish between a branch that can be reattached and one that cannot, what is the halakha in the case of a branch that is mainly detached from a tree but can be reattached, and a second branch grows out from that branch, and is mainly detached from it and cannot be reattached? In such a case, the branch that can be reattached to the tree is not susceptible to contracting impurity, but the branch attached to it is. If the branch that is not susceptible to contract impurity comes into contact with a source of impurity, does it constitute a handle for the other branch and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื‘ื–ื•ื™ืช ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื•ืœืฅ ื—ื•ืœืฅ ืืช ื›ื•ืœื” ื•ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืฅ ื ื•ืชืฅ ืืช ืฉืœื• ื•ืžื ื™ื— ืืช ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื•

The Gemara discusses another similar dilemma. Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages said in a mishna (Negaโ€™im 13:2): In the case of a large stone that is situated in the corner of a wall shared by two houses, where the stone is visible from inside both houses, if a leprous mark appears in one of the houses on the stone, when one extracts the stone he must extract the entire stone, even the part of the stone that is part of the neighborโ€™s wall. But when one destroys his house, after a reappearance of the leprous mark, he must destroy only the part of a stone that is in his house, and leaves the part of a stone that belongs to his neighbor.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžื”ื• ืฉืชืขืฉื” ื™ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืชื™ืงื•

With regard to this mishna Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case with regard to the transmission of impurity from the leprous house to the adjacent house? Does half of the stone in the adjacent house constitute a handle for the other half and impart impurity such that one who enters the neighborโ€™s house becomes impure just as one who enters the leprous house? Or perhaps there is no halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a leprous house. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื” ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืœืื‘ืจ ืฉืœ ื”ื ื‘ืœื”

ยงThe mishna teaches: If the animal died, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity via contact with a liquid 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. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the impurity of a limb from a living animal and the impurity of a limb from a carcass?

ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžืื‘ืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื‘ืœื” ืžื˜ืžื

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to flesh that separates from the limb of an animal, as flesh that separates from a limb severed from the living does not impart impurity, just like flesh that separates directly from a living animal. By contrast, an olive-bulk of flesh that separates from the limb of a carcass imparts impurity like the flesh of a carcass.

ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื“ืžื˜ืžื ืžืื™ ืงืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื”

The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which it is derived that a limb severed from the living imparts impurity? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to the impurity of a carcass it is written: โ€œAnd if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until eveningโ€ (Leviticus 11:39). The phrase โ€œsome animal [min habehema],โ€ which also means: From an animal, is interpreted as indicating that a limb torn from an animal is included in the impurity discussed in the verse.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ืื™ื“ืš ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืงืฆืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื•ืžืงืฆืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื–ื• ื–ื• ื˜ืจืคื” ืฉืฉื—ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: How can Rav interpret this verse in such a manner? This verse is necessary for another halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: In the verse: โ€œAnd if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening,โ€ the phrase โ€œsome animal [min habehema]โ€ indicates that some dead animals impart impurity as a carcass, and some dead animals do not impart impurity as a carcass. And which is that animal that does not impart impurity as a carcass? That is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] that one slaughtered. Even though slaughter does not render the animal permitted to be eaten, it removes the animal from the category of a carcass with regard to impurity.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืื™ ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse teaches only one of the two halakhot, let the Merciful One write mibehema, in one Hebrew word. What is the verse teaching when it states: โ€œMin habehema,โ€ with two Hebrew words? It is teaching that one should conclude two conclusions from it.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื” ืžื™ืชื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™

The Gemara challenges: If so, if this verse teaches that a limb from a living animal imparts impurity, one can also derive from it that even flesh from a living animal imparts impurity. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind to derive this, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a living animal is impure like a carcass. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd if some animal of which you may eat dies.โ€ Just as death does not generate a replacement, i.e., life is not regenerated from the dead, so too any element of an animal that dies and does not generate a replacement assumes the impurity of a carcass. An animal does not replace a severed limb but it does replace severed flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช

Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the word โ€œanimalโ€ in the verse. Just as an animal contains sinews and bones, so too, any element of an animal that contains sinews and bones imparts impurity. Therefore, a limb, which contains sinews and bones, imparts impurity, but flesh, which does not contain sinews and bones, does not impart impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can derive this halakha from the word โ€œanimalโ€ in the verse. Just as an animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any element of an animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts impurity.

ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืจื›ื•ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it does not impart impurity when it separates from a living animal, but according to Rabbi Akiva it does.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื›ื•ืœื™ื ื•ื ื™ื‘ ืฉืคืชื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip that separate from a living animal. According to Rabbi Yosei these parts of the animal impart impurity because the animal does not generate a replacement for them; according to Rabbi Akiva they do not impart impurity, because they do not contain bones.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉืจืฆื™ื ื›ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืจืฆื™ื ื™ื”ื ื˜ืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžืชื ืžื” ืžื™ืชื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™

The Gemara states a different halakha where these three tannaโ€™im express the same opinions. So too, it is taught in a baraita with regard to creeping animals like this case: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a creeping animal during its lifetime should be impure like a creeping animal carcass. Therefore, the verse states with regard to creeping animal carcasses: โ€œAnd upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impureโ€ (Leviticus 11:32). The word โ€œdeadโ€ teaches that just as death does not generate a replacement, so too any element of a creeping animal that dies and does not generate a replacement imparts the impurity of a creeping animal carcass, excluding flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืจืฅ ืžื” ืฉืจืฅ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืจืฅ ืžื” ืฉืจืฅ ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื’ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืขืฆืžื•ืช

Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the term โ€œcreeping animal.โ€ Just as a creeping animal contains sinews and bones, so too any element of a creeping animal that contains sinews and bones imparts impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can derive this halakha from the term โ€œcreeping animal.โ€ Just as a creeping animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any element of a creeping animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts impurity.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืจื›ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื›ื•ืœื™ื ื•ื ื™ื‘ ืฉืคืชื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•

The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip, which contain no bones and which are not regenerated by the creeping animal.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืขื“ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉืจืฅ ื“ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ื›ืขื“ืฉื” ืื™ืžื ืœื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื

And it is necessary to teach this halakha both with regard to flesh that separates from a living animal and with regard to flesh that separates from a creeping animal. As if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to an animal, one might have said that this is the reason that flesh that separates from a living animal does not impart impurity: It is because an animal carcass does not impart impurity in the measure of a lentil-bulk, but rather only in the measure of an olive-bulk. But with regard to a creeping animal, which imparts impurity even in the measure of a lentil-bulk, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart impurity.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉืจืฅ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ืžืฉื ืœื ืžื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื“ืžื˜ืžื ื‘ืžืฉื ืื™ืžื ืชื˜ืžื ืžื—ื™ื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to a creeping animal, one might have said that flesh that separates from a creeping animal does not impart impurity because a creeping animal does not impart impurity via carrying, and therefore flesh that separates from it while it is living does not impart impurity. But with regard to an animal, which imparts impurity via carrying, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart impurity. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this halakha in both cases.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืชืš ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืžืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื—ืชื›ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื—ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื˜ื”ื•ืจ

ยงThe Gemara continues to discuss flesh that separates from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who severs an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb severed from the living, the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass but it does impart impurity as food if one designated it as food before it came into contact with a source of impurity. Therefore, if one severed the flesh from the limb and afterward intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile, the flesh remains pure because at the time he designated the flesh as food it was not in contact with a source of impurity.

ื—ื™ืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื—ืชื›ื• ื˜ืžื

But if he intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile and afterward severed the flesh, the flesh is impure, because it came into contact with a source of impurity, i.e., the limb, after it was designated as food.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืœื ืขืœ ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื™ืฉื‘ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื—ืชื›ื• ื˜ืžื

One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira, and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: What matter is difficult for you that you think may have been discussed in the study hall? Rabbi Asi said to him: I find difficult that which is taught in a baraita: If one intended flesh from a limb that was severed from a living animal to be used for the consumption of a gentile, and afterward he severed the flesh from the limb, the flesh is impure.

Scroll To Top