Chullin 129

טומאת בית הסתרים היא וטומאת בית הסתרים לא מטמא

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.

אמר ליה אף לדידי קשיא לי ושאילתיה לרבי אבא בר ממל ואמר לי הא מני רבי מאיר היא דאמר טומאת בית הסתרים מטמא

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.

אמר ליה ולאו זימנין סגיאין אמרה קמאי ואמרי ליה שני ליה לרבי מאיר בין טומאה דבעיא הכשר ובין טומאה דלא בעיא הכשר

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: But hasn’t 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.

אמר רבא ומאי קושיא דלמא בשהוכשר

Rava was surprised by Rabbi Asi’s 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.

אמר ליה רבה בר רב חנן לרבא למה לי הכשר הרי מטמא טומאה חמורה אגב אביו

Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan 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.

אמר ליה כששימש מעשה עץ שימש

Rava said to Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan: 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.

אמר אביי הרי אמרו כופת שאור שיחדה לישיבה בטלה

§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.

טומאתה לאו דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא מצינו לאוכלין שמטמאין טומאה חמורה כששימש מעשה עץ שימש

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’s 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.

אמר אביי הרי אמרו תקרובת עבודה זרה של אוכלין מטמאין באוהל טומאתה לאו דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא מצינו לאוכלין שמטמאין טומאה חמורה כששימש מעשה עץ שימש

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.

אמר אביי הרי אמרו חבורי אוכלין ככלים דמו טומאתן לאו דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא מצינו לאוכל שמטמא טומאה חמורה כששימש מעשה עץ שימש

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.

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא הא דתניא חלב נבלה בכפרים צריך מחשבה והכשר טומאתו אגב כוליא לאו דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא מצינו לאוכל שמטמא טומאה חמורה

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.

כששימש מעשה עץ שימש

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.

אמר רב מתנה הרי אמרו בית שסככו בזרעים טהרו טומאתו לאו דאורייתא דאי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא מצינו לזרעים שמטמא טומאה חמורה כששימש מעשה עץ שימש

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.

רבי שמעון מטהר

§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.

מה נפשך אי מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן החי אי אין מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן הנבלה

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?

רבי שמעון ארישא קאי האבר והבשר המדולדלין בבהמה מטמא טומאת אוכלין במקומן וצריכין הכשר ורבי שמעון מטהר

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is not responding to Rabbi Meir’s 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.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון אמר קרא מכל האכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to impurity as food: “From all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The repetitive phrase “food which may be eaten” 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

לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל

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

אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אסי דילמא טעמא דרבי שמעון התם הואיל ומעורה מעורה

Rabbi Zeira questioned the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

דתניא יחור של תאנה שנפשח ומעורה בקליפה רבי יהודה מטהר וחכמים אומרים אם יכול לחיות טהור ואם לאו טמא ואמרינן לך מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה ואמרת לן הואיל ומעורה מעורה

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.

אמר ליה אמצעיתא נשחטה הבהמה הוכשרה בדמיה דברי רבי מאיר רבי שמעון אומר לא הוכשרו

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yoḥanan is explaining the reasoning for Rabbi Shimon’s 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.

(אמר רבי אסי) אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון אמר קרא מכל האכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאין אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity as food: “From all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase “food which may be eaten” 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.

ודילמא טעמא דרבי שמעון בההיא

Rabbi Zeira questioned this explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan as well, and said to Rabbi Asi: If it is with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s 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.

אי כדרבא אי כדרבי יוחנן

Rather, it is either in accordance with the explanation of Rava or in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan cited earlier (127b–128a). According to both explanations of Rabbi Shimon’s 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’s 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 Yoḥanan, 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).

אלא לעולם אסיפא ולאו אאבר אלא אבשר מתה הבהמה הבשר צריך הכשר ורבי שמעון מטהר

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.

אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון אמר קרא מכל האכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity as food: “From all food which may be eaten, that on which water comes shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase “food which may be eaten” 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.

מתני׳ האבר והבשר המדולדלין באדם טהורים מת האדם הבשר טהור האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואינו מטמא משום אבר מן המת דברי רבי מאיר ורבי שמעון מטהר

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.

גמ׳ ורבי שמעון מה נפשך אי מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן החי ואי אין מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן המת

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.

רבי שמעון בעלמא קאי דקאמר תנא קמא האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואין מטמא משום אבר מן המת אלמא אבר המת בעלמא מטמא ואמר ליה רבי שמעון אבר המת בעלמא לא מטמא

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.

דתניא אמר רבי אליעזר שמעתי שאבר מן החי מטמא אמר לו רבי יהושע מן החי ולא מן המת וקל וחומר ומה חי שהוא טהור אבר הפורש ממנו טמא מת שהוא טמא לא כל שכן

Another pair of tanna’im 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?

כתוב במגילת תענית פסחא זעירא דלא למספד הא רבה למספד אלא כל דכן הכא נמי כל דכן אמר ליה כך שמעתי

Furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua adds that it is written in Megillat Ta’anit: 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.

ומאי איכא בין אבר מן החי לאבר מן המת כזית בשר ועצם כשעורה הפורש מאבר מן החי איכא בינייהו

§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.

דתנן כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי רבי אליעזר מטמא ורבי נחוניא בן הקנה ורבי יהושע מטהרין עצם כשעורה הפורש מאבר מן החי רבי נחוניא מטמא רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע מטהרין

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 Neḥunya 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 Neḥunya deems it impure, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure.

השתא דאתית להכי בין תנא קמא לרבי שמעון נמי כזית בשר ועצם כשעורה איכא בינייהו

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this dispute between tanna’im, 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 Neḥunya 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.

הדרן עלך העור והרוטב