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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 5, 2019 | 讻状讟 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 129

The gemara brings cases of food that either started as inedible and became edible or started as edible and became inedible and shows how they are subject to different laws than items that were food from beginning to end. Rabbi Shimon at the end of the mishna聽disagrees. On what part of the mishna does he disagree? The next mishna deals with a limb of a person hanging off of a live person – what is its status regarding impurity? Rabbi Shimon disagree – about what?


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

讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗

Why should the flesh be impure? Since the source of its impurity is the limb, and the location of the contact between the limb and the flesh is hidden and not visible, it constitutes contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the body, and the principle is that contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the body does not render an item impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗讬诇转讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诪讟诪讗

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: This matter is difficult for me as well, and I asked Rabbi Abba bar Memel, and he said to me: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the body renders an item impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讗诪专讛 拽诪讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讘注讬讗 讛讻砖专 讜讘讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 讛讻砖专

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: But hasn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba bar Memel said this answer in my presence many times? And I said to him that this answer does not explain the ruling of the baraita. The reason is that with regard to a concealed part of the body imparting impurity, Rabbi Meir differentiates between a type of impurity that requires an item to be rendered susceptible in order to take effect and a type of impurity that does not require an item to be rendered susceptible. The case in the baraita is one where the flesh was not yet rendered susceptible to impurity when it was severed from the limb, and Rabbi Meir concedes that in such a case impurity should not apply to a concealed part of the body.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘砖讛讜讻砖专

Rava was surprised by Rabbi Asi鈥檚 statement and said: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps the baraita is discussing a case where the flesh was rendered susceptible to impurity before it was severed from the limb.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讻砖专 讛专讬 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讙讘 讗讘讬讜

Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Rava: Why do I need the flesh severed from the limb to be rendered susceptible to impurity? Flesh that is upon a limb from a living animal imparts a severe form of impurity due to its original limb, as it is considered part of the limb that was severed from a living animal, which imparts the impurity of a carcass, a severe form of impurity that is transmitted even to people and vessels. Therefore, it is not necessary to render this flesh susceptible to impurity after its separation from the limb, because the halakha is that any food item that will eventually impart a severe form of impurity does not require contact with liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to imparting a lesser form of impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Rava said to Rabba bar Rav 岣nan: This principle applies only when the more severe and more lenient forms of impurity are both impurities of food. But in the case of the baraita, the flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity after it is severed from the limb, because when it initially served as part of the limb, it performed the role of wood, i.e., it had the status of flesh of the limb, which is necessary to give the limb the status of a limb severed from the living (see 128b), but it was not impure due to its status as food.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讻讜驻转 砖讗讜专 砖讬讞讚讛 诇讬砖讬讘讛 讘讟诇讛

搂Rava said that if a food item serves a function other than food, the principle that if it will eventually contract a severe form of impurity it does not require contact with liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to a lesser form of impurity does not apply. The Gemara now relates a number of matters that are explained with the same reasoning. Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: A mass of hardened leaven that one designated for the purpose of sitting upon it, not for consumption, is nullified. The item is no longer considered food and one may possess it in his house during Passover. But the item is now considered a chair, and it is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. It therefore is rendered impure if a zav sits on it.

讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Abaye explained: Its impurity in such a case is clearly not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. This cannot be true, because the category of food that requires contact with liquid to be susceptible to impurity is food that will not eventually impart a more severe type of impurity. Based on Rava鈥檚 reasoning, the Gemara responds: The seat imparts impurity by Torah law. When the leaven served as a chair it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讛诇 讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Similarly, Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: An idolatrous offering of food imparts impurity in a tent. Abaye explained: Its impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: The idolatrous offering imparts impurity by Torah law. When the food served as an idolatrous offering it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讻诇讬诐 讚诪讜 讟讜诪讗转谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Similarly, Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: Foods that are connected to vessels are considered like the vessels. For example, if dough is attached to a kneading bowl and the owner wishes for the dough to remain there, the dough is considered part of the bowl. Therefore, if an olive-bulk of a corpse touches that dough, it becomes impure with the more severe impurity of a vessel, which imparts impurity to people and other vessels. Abaye explained: Their impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: Food connected to vessels imparts impurity by Torah law. When the food served as a connection to the vessel it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讘讻驻专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛讻砖专 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗讙讘 讻讜诇讬讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

Similarly, Rav Pappa said to Rava in explanation of that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 3:3): Fat forbidden in consumption for a Jew from an animal carcass in the villages, requires designation as food in order for it to become susceptible to contract impurity as food, and it must be rendered susceptible via contact with liquid. Rav Pappa explained: Although the forbidden fat that covers the kidney of a carcass imparts the impurity of a carcass, its impurity due to the impurity of the kidney is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law. As if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can impart a severe type of impurity and subsequently become susceptible to impurity as food.

讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

The Gemara responds: The fat of a carcass imparts impurity by Torah law. When the fat served the kidney as protection and imparted the impurity of a carcass it did not serve as food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖住讻讻讜 讘讝专注讬诐 讟讛专讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讝专注讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Similarly, Rav Mattana said: The Sages said in a baraita: With regard to a house that one roofed with seeds, i.e., vegetation, if those seeds were impure, they are rendered pure when they are used as the roof of the house. The seeds are no longer considered food but rather part of the house. Therefore, if the house becomes leprous, the entire house becomes impure. Rav Mattana explained: Its impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that seeds can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: The seeds used for the roof of the house impart impurity by Torah law. When the seeds served as the roof of the house they were not considered food, but rather performed the role of wood.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

搂The mishna teaches with regard to a hanging limb or flesh of a living animal that if the animal died, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure. Rabbi Meir then states that the hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal, but not as an unslaughtered carcass. And Rabbi Shimon deems the limb pure.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛谞讘诇讛

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, the ruling of Rabbi Shimon is difficult. If death renders a hanging limb one that has fallen off, i.e., if when the animal died of its own accord the hanging limb is considered to have fallen off its body beforehand, the limb should become impure as a limb from a living animal. If death does not render a hanging limb one that has fallen off, the limb should become impure as a limb from a carcass. How is it possible for Rabbi Shimon to deem the limb pure?

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 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 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 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is not responding to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement in the final clause of the mishna. Rather, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: The limb and the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal impart impurity as food although they remain in their place attached to the animal. But in order for them to become impure, they need to be rendered susceptible through contact with a liquid. And Rabbi Shimon deems them not susceptible to impurity at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to impurity as food: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The repetitive phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that only food that you are able to feed to others, including gentiles, is called food with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food, but food that you are not able to feed

诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇

to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, which are forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪注讜专讛 诪注讜专讛

Rabbi Zeira questioned the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to Rabbi Asi: If Rabbi Shimon is discussing the first clause in the mishna, claiming that a hanging limb or flesh is pure during the lifetime of the animal, the reason for his statement is not necessarily that food that is forbidden to all people is not considered food. Perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon there is that since the flesh or limb is still attached to the animal, it is considered attached.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讞讜专 砖诇 转讗谞讛 砖谞驻砖讞 讜诪注讜专讛 讘拽诇讬驻讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讬讜转 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟诪讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专转 诇谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪注讜专讛 诪注讜专讛

As it is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to a branch of a fig tree that was detached from the tree and remains attached only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda deems the figs on the branch not susceptible to impurity, as they are considered attached to the tree. And the Rabbis say: If it is possible to reattach the branch to the tree and the branch can continue to live and produce fruit, then it is considered attached to the tree, and the fruit is not susceptible to impurity. But if not, the fruit is susceptible to impurity. And we said to you, Rabbi Asi: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? And you said to us: Since the branch is still attached to the bark of the tree, it is considered attached. Therefore, the same logic applies to the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪爪注讬转讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 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

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yo岣nan is explaining the reasoning for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion in the middle clause of the mishna, which teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, the limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity with the blood of the slaughtered animal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible with the blood of the slaughtered animal.

(讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity as food: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that only food that you can feed to others, including gentiles, is called food in this regard, but food that you cannot feed to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, is not called food.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讛讛讬讗

Rabbi Zeira questioned this explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan as well, and said to Rabbi Asi: If it is with regard to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion in the middle clause of the mishna, perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in that clause is not that food that is forbidden to all is not called food.

讗讬 讻讚专讘讗 讗讬 讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rather, it is either in accordance with the explanation of Rava or in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan cited earlier (127b鈥128a). According to both explanations of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the mishna is discussing a case where only the body of the animal, but not the partially severed limb, came into contact with the blood of slaughter. According to Rava, the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion is that the body of the animal serves the partially severed limb as a handle, and he holds that a handle of a food item transmits impurity to the attached food, but a handle that comes into contact with liquid does not render the attached food susceptible to impurity. And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, Rabbi Shimon holds that if one grasps a small part of a large item such that the large part does not ascend with the small part, the small part is not considered part of the item with regard to impurity (see 127b).

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜诇讗讜 讗讗讘专 讗诇讗 讗讘砖专 诪转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讘砖专 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

Rather, actually, one must explain the statement of Rabbi Shimon as it was explained originally, that he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna. And he is not referring to the case of a partially severed limb, but rather to the case of partially severed flesh. Therefore, the latter clause of the mishna teaches: If the animal died without slaughter, Rabbi Meir holds that the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to impart impurity as food, and Rabbi Shimon deems the limb not susceptible to impurity even if it came into contact with liquid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity as food: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that only food that you can feed to others, including gentiles, is called food with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food, but food that you cannot feed to others, such as flesh from a living animal, which is forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪转 讛讗讚诐 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 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 诪谉 讛诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

MISHNA: The limb and the flesh of a person that were partially severed and remain hanging from a person are ritually pure, although there is no potential for healing. If the person died, the hanging flesh is ritually pure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living person. The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from the living and does not impart impurity as a limb from a corpse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the flesh and the limb ritually pure.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转

GEMARA: The Gemara challenges the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the latter clause of the mishna: Whichever way you look at it, the ruling of Rabbi Shimon is difficult. If death renders a hanging limb fallen off, i.e., if after the person dies the hanging limb is considered to have fallen off his body beforehand, the limb should impart impurity as a limb severed from the living. And if death does not render a hanging limb fallen off, and the limb is considered attached to the body at the time of death, then the limb should impart impurity as a limb from a corpse.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讘专 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 讗诇诪讗 讗讘专 讛诪转 讘注诇诪讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘专 讛诪转 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara explains: This statement of Rabbi Shimon is not referring directly to the case in the mishna. Rather, the statement of Rabbi Shimon is referring to the matter of a limb that separates from a corpse in general. Rabbi Shimon inferred from that which the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, said: The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from the living and does not impart impurity as a limb from a corpse, that evidently, in general the limb of a corpse imparts impurity. And in reference to this Rabbi Shimon said to him: In general, the limb of a corpse does not impart impurity, if it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪注转讬 砖讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诪转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讞讬 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讗讘专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讜 讟诪讗 诪转 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Another pair of tanna鈥檌m had the same dispute as Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: I heard that a limb severed from the living imparts impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: May one infer from this statement that a limb from a living person imparts impurity but a limb from a corpse does not? But it can be inferred a fortiori that a limb from a corpse imparts impurity: If with regard to a living person, who is pure and does not impart impurity, nevertheless a limb that separates from him is impure, then with regard to a corpse, which is impure, all the more so is it not clear that the limb that separates from it is impure?

讻转讜讘 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 驻住讞讗 讝注讬专讗 讚诇讗 诇诪住驻讚 讛讗 专讘讛 诇诪住驻讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讚讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬

Furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua adds that it is written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: On Minor Passover, i.e., the fourteenth of Iyyar, one does not eulogize. Should one infer from here that on Major Passover, i.e., the fourteenth of Nisan, it is permitted to eulogize? Clearly that is not the case. Rather, if one may not eulogize on the fourteenth of Iyyar, all the more so one may not eulogize on the fourteenth of Nisan. Here too, if a limb from a living person is impure, all the more so a limb from a corpse is impure. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Despite this reasoning, such is the ruling I heard from my teachers.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诇讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛驻讜专砖 诪讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir holds that with regard to a partially severed limb of a person, after the person dies the limb imparts impurity as a limb from a living person but not as a limb from a corpse. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the impurity of a limb from a living person and the impurity of a limb from a corpse? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the case of an olive-bulk of flesh, or a bone the volume of a barley grain, that separates from the severed limb of a living person.

讚转谞谉 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讟讛专讬谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛驻讜专砖 诪讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 诪讟诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讟讛专讬谉

As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 6:3): In the case of an olive-bulk of flesh that separates from a limb severed from a living person, Rabbi Eliezer deems it impure, and Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure. In the case of a bone the volume of a barley-grain that separates from a limb severed from a living person, Rabbi Ne岣nya deems it impure, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this dispute between tanna鈥檌m, it is possible to say that the difference between the first tanna in the mishna, i.e., Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon is also with regard to the cases of an olive-bulk of flesh and a bone the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Meir states that the partially severed limb of a person imparts the impurity of a limb from a living person but not the impurity of a limb from a corpse. The difference between these two types of impurity is with regard to a case where either an olive-bulk of flesh or a bone the size of a barley grain was separated from the severed limb; Rabbi Ne岣nya holds that flesh that separated from a limb of a living person is pure, but a bone that separated from a limb of a living person is impure, and Rabbi Eliezer holds vice versa. Rabbi Meir consequently holds in accordance with one of these two opinions. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that both a bone and flesh that separated from a limb of a living person are pure.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘

 

  • 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 129

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 129

讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讗

Why should the flesh be impure? Since the source of its impurity is the limb, and the location of the contact between the limb and the flesh is hidden and not visible, it constitutes contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the body, and the principle is that contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the body does not render an item impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗讬诇转讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 讘讬转 讛住转专讬诐 诪讟诪讗

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: This matter is difficult for me as well, and I asked Rabbi Abba bar Memel, and he said to me: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the body renders an item impure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讗诪专讛 拽诪讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讘注讬讗 讛讻砖专 讜讘讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 讛讻砖专

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: But hasn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba bar Memel said this answer in my presence many times? And I said to him that this answer does not explain the ruling of the baraita. The reason is that with regard to a concealed part of the body imparting impurity, Rabbi Meir differentiates between a type of impurity that requires an item to be rendered susceptible in order to take effect and a type of impurity that does not require an item to be rendered susceptible. The case in the baraita is one where the flesh was not yet rendered susceptible to impurity when it was severed from the limb, and Rabbi Meir concedes that in such a case impurity should not apply to a concealed part of the body.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讘砖讛讜讻砖专

Rava was surprised by Rabbi Asi鈥檚 statement and said: But what is the difficulty? Perhaps the baraita is discussing a case where the flesh was rendered susceptible to impurity before it was severed from the limb.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇专讘讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讻砖专 讛专讬 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讙讘 讗讘讬讜

Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Rava: Why do I need the flesh severed from the limb to be rendered susceptible to impurity? Flesh that is upon a limb from a living animal imparts a severe form of impurity due to its original limb, as it is considered part of the limb that was severed from a living animal, which imparts the impurity of a carcass, a severe form of impurity that is transmitted even to people and vessels. Therefore, it is not necessary to render this flesh susceptible to impurity after its separation from the limb, because the halakha is that any food item that will eventually impart a severe form of impurity does not require contact with liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to imparting a lesser form of impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Rava said to Rabba bar Rav 岣nan: This principle applies only when the more severe and more lenient forms of impurity are both impurities of food. But in the case of the baraita, the flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity after it is severed from the limb, because when it initially served as part of the limb, it performed the role of wood, i.e., it had the status of flesh of the limb, which is necessary to give the limb the status of a limb severed from the living (see 128b), but it was not impure due to its status as food.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讻讜驻转 砖讗讜专 砖讬讞讚讛 诇讬砖讬讘讛 讘讟诇讛

搂Rava said that if a food item serves a function other than food, the principle that if it will eventually contract a severe form of impurity it does not require contact with liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to a lesser form of impurity does not apply. The Gemara now relates a number of matters that are explained with the same reasoning. Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: A mass of hardened leaven that one designated for the purpose of sitting upon it, not for consumption, is nullified. The item is no longer considered food and one may possess it in his house during Passover. But the item is now considered a chair, and it is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading. It therefore is rendered impure if a zav sits on it.

讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Abaye explained: Its impurity in such a case is clearly not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. This cannot be true, because the category of food that requires contact with liquid to be susceptible to impurity is food that will not eventually impart a more severe type of impurity. Based on Rava鈥檚 reasoning, the Gemara responds: The seat imparts impurity by Torah law. When the leaven served as a chair it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讜讛诇 讟讜诪讗转讛 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Similarly, Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: An idolatrous offering of food imparts impurity in a tent. Abaye explained: Its impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: The idolatrous offering imparts impurity by Torah law. When the food served as an idolatrous offering it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讻诇讬诐 讚诪讜 讟讜诪讗转谉 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Similarly, Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: Foods that are connected to vessels are considered like the vessels. For example, if dough is attached to a kneading bowl and the owner wishes for the dough to remain there, the dough is considered part of the bowl. Therefore, if an olive-bulk of a corpse touches that dough, it becomes impure with the more severe impurity of a vessel, which imparts impurity to people and other vessels. Abaye explained: Their impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: Food connected to vessels imparts impurity by Torah law. When the food served as a connection to the vessel it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诇讘 谞讘诇讛 讘讻驻专讬诐 爪专讬讱 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛讻砖专 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗讙讘 讻讜诇讬讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讗讜讻诇 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

Similarly, Rav Pappa said to Rava in explanation of that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 3:3): Fat forbidden in consumption for a Jew from an animal carcass in the villages, requires designation as food in order for it to become susceptible to contract impurity as food, and it must be rendered susceptible via contact with liquid. Rav Pappa explained: Although the forbidden fat that covers the kidney of a carcass imparts the impurity of a carcass, its impurity due to the impurity of the kidney is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law. As if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food can impart a severe type of impurity and subsequently become susceptible to impurity as food.

讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

The Gemara responds: The fat of a carcass imparts impurity by Torah law. When the fat served the kidney as protection and imparted the impurity of a carcass it did not serve as food, as it performed the role of wood.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讘讬转 砖住讻讻讜 讘讝专注讬诐 讟讛专讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讝专注讬诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讻砖砖讬诪砖 诪注砖讛 注抓 砖讬诪砖

Similarly, Rav Mattana said: The Sages said in a baraita: With regard to a house that one roofed with seeds, i.e., vegetation, if those seeds were impure, they are rendered pure when they are used as the roof of the house. The seeds are no longer considered food but rather part of the house. Therefore, if the house becomes leprous, the entire house becomes impure. Rav Mattana explained: Its impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that seeds can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: The seeds used for the roof of the house impart impurity by Torah law. When the seeds served as the roof of the house they were not considered food, but rather performed the role of wood.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

搂The mishna teaches with regard to a hanging limb or flesh of a living animal that if the animal died, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure. Rabbi Meir then states that the hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal, but not as an unslaughtered carcass. And Rabbi Shimon deems the limb pure.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛谞讘诇讛

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, the ruling of Rabbi Shimon is difficult. If death renders a hanging limb one that has fallen off, i.e., if when the animal died of its own accord the hanging limb is considered to have fallen off its body beforehand, the limb should become impure as a limb from a living animal. If death does not render a hanging limb one that has fallen off, the limb should become impure as a limb from a carcass. How is it possible for Rabbi Shimon to deem the limb pure?

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 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 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 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is not responding to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement in the final clause of the mishna. Rather, Rabbi Shimon is referring to the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: The limb and the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal impart impurity as food although they remain in their place attached to the animal. But in order for them to become impure, they need to be rendered susceptible through contact with a liquid. And Rabbi Shimon deems them not susceptible to impurity at all.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to impurity as food: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The repetitive phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that only food that you are able to feed to others, including gentiles, is called food with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food, but food that you are not able to feed

诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇

to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, which are forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪注讜专讛 诪注讜专讛

Rabbi Zeira questioned the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan and said to Rabbi Asi: If Rabbi Shimon is discussing the first clause in the mishna, claiming that a hanging limb or flesh is pure during the lifetime of the animal, the reason for his statement is not necessarily that food that is forbidden to all people is not considered food. Perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon there is that since the flesh or limb is still attached to the animal, it is considered attached.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讞讜专 砖诇 转讗谞讛 砖谞驻砖讞 讜诪注讜专讛 讘拽诇讬驻讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讬讜转 讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讟诪讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专转 诇谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪注讜专讛 诪注讜专讛

As it is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to a branch of a fig tree that was detached from the tree and remains attached only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda deems the figs on the branch not susceptible to impurity, as they are considered attached to the tree. And the Rabbis say: If it is possible to reattach the branch to the tree and the branch can continue to live and produce fruit, then it is considered attached to the tree, and the fruit is not susceptible to impurity. But if not, the fruit is susceptible to impurity. And we said to you, Rabbi Asi: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? And you said to us: Since the branch is still attached to the bark of the tree, it is considered attached. Therefore, the same logic applies to the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪爪注讬转讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 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

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yo岣nan is explaining the reasoning for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion in the middle clause of the mishna, which teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, the limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity with the blood of the slaughtered animal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible with the blood of the slaughtered animal.

(讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity as food: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that only food that you can feed to others, including gentiles, is called food in this regard, but food that you cannot feed to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, is not called food.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讛讛讬讗

Rabbi Zeira questioned this explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan as well, and said to Rabbi Asi: If it is with regard to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion in the middle clause of the mishna, perhaps the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in that clause is not that food that is forbidden to all is not called food.

讗讬 讻讚专讘讗 讗讬 讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rather, it is either in accordance with the explanation of Rava or in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan cited earlier (127b鈥128a). According to both explanations of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the mishna is discussing a case where only the body of the animal, but not the partially severed limb, came into contact with the blood of slaughter. According to Rava, the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion is that the body of the animal serves the partially severed limb as a handle, and he holds that a handle of a food item transmits impurity to the attached food, but a handle that comes into contact with liquid does not render the attached food susceptible to impurity. And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, Rabbi Shimon holds that if one grasps a small part of a large item such that the large part does not ascend with the small part, the small part is not considered part of the item with regard to impurity (see 127b).

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜诇讗讜 讗讗讘专 讗诇讗 讗讘砖专 诪转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讘砖专 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

Rather, actually, one must explain the statement of Rabbi Shimon as it was explained originally, that he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna. And he is not referring to the case of a partially severed limb, but rather to the case of partially severed flesh. Therefore, the latter clause of the mishna teaches: If the animal died without slaughter, Rabbi Meir holds that the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to impart impurity as food, and Rabbi Shimon deems the limb not susceptible to impurity even if it came into contact with liquid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity as food: 鈥淔rom all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that only food that you can feed to others, including gentiles, is called food with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food, but food that you cannot feed to others, such as flesh from a living animal, which is forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讗讚诐 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪转 讛讗讚诐 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 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 诪谉 讛诪转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专

MISHNA: The limb and the flesh of a person that were partially severed and remain hanging from a person are ritually pure, although there is no potential for healing. If the person died, the hanging flesh is ritually pure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living person. The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from the living and does not impart impurity as a limb from a corpse; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the flesh and the limb ritually pure.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 诇讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转

GEMARA: The Gemara challenges the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the latter clause of the mishna: Whichever way you look at it, the ruling of Rabbi Shimon is difficult. If death renders a hanging limb fallen off, i.e., if after the person dies the hanging limb is considered to have fallen off his body beforehand, the limb should impart impurity as a limb severed from the living. And if death does not render a hanging limb fallen off, and the limb is considered attached to the body at the time of death, then the limb should impart impurity as a limb from a corpse.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讘专 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 讗诇诪讗 讗讘专 讛诪转 讘注诇诪讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘专 讛诪转 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讟诪讗

The Gemara explains: This statement of Rabbi Shimon is not referring directly to the case in the mishna. Rather, the statement of Rabbi Shimon is referring to the matter of a limb that separates from a corpse in general. Rabbi Shimon inferred from that which the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, said: The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from the living and does not impart impurity as a limb from a corpse, that evidently, in general the limb of a corpse imparts impurity. And in reference to this Rabbi Shimon said to him: In general, the limb of a corpse does not impart impurity, if it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.

讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖诪注转讬 砖讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诪讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诪转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讞讬 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讗讘专 讛驻讜专砖 诪诪谞讜 讟诪讗 诪转 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Another pair of tanna鈥檌m had the same dispute as Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: I heard that a limb severed from the living imparts impurity. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: May one infer from this statement that a limb from a living person imparts impurity but a limb from a corpse does not? But it can be inferred a fortiori that a limb from a corpse imparts impurity: If with regard to a living person, who is pure and does not impart impurity, nevertheless a limb that separates from him is impure, then with regard to a corpse, which is impure, all the more so is it not clear that the limb that separates from it is impure?

讻转讜讘 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 驻住讞讗 讝注讬专讗 讚诇讗 诇诪住驻讚 讛讗 专讘讛 诇诪住驻讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻诇 讚讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬

Furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua adds that it is written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit: On Minor Passover, i.e., the fourteenth of Iyyar, one does not eulogize. Should one infer from here that on Major Passover, i.e., the fourteenth of Nisan, it is permitted to eulogize? Clearly that is not the case. Rather, if one may not eulogize on the fourteenth of Iyyar, all the more so one may not eulogize on the fourteenth of Nisan. Here too, if a limb from a living person is impure, all the more so a limb from a corpse is impure. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Despite this reasoning, such is the ruling I heard from my teachers.

讜诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诇讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛驻讜专砖 诪讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir holds that with regard to a partially severed limb of a person, after the person dies the limb imparts impurity as a limb from a living person but not as a limb from a corpse. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the impurity of a limb from a living person and the impurity of a limb from a corpse? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the case of an olive-bulk of flesh, or a bone the volume of a barley grain, that separates from the severed limb of a living person.

讚转谞谉 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讟讛专讬谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讛驻讜专砖 诪讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 诪讟诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讟讛专讬谉

As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 6:3): In the case of an olive-bulk of flesh that separates from a limb severed from a living person, Rabbi Eliezer deems it impure, and Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure. In the case of a bone the volume of a barley-grain that separates from a limb severed from a living person, Rabbi Ne岣nya deems it impure, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讘讬谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this dispute between tanna鈥檌m, it is possible to say that the difference between the first tanna in the mishna, i.e., Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon is also with regard to the cases of an olive-bulk of flesh and a bone the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Meir states that the partially severed limb of a person imparts the impurity of a limb from a living person but not the impurity of a limb from a corpse. The difference between these two types of impurity is with regard to a case where either an olive-bulk of flesh or a bone the size of a barley grain was separated from the severed limb; Rabbi Ne岣nya holds that flesh that separated from a limb of a living person is pure, but a bone that separated from a limb of a living person is impure, and Rabbi Eliezer holds vice versa. Rabbi Meir consequently holds in accordance with one of these two opinions. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that both a bone and flesh that separated from a limb of a living person are pure.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘

 

Scroll To Top