Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A braita rules that if one cuts an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb attached to a living animal, designating it for food only after cutting renders it pure, whereas designating it prior to cutting renders it susceptible to food impurity, as it touches the limb (which has high level impurity) as it is being cut. The Gemara presents Rav Asi’s challenge to Rabbi Zeira as to why prior designation causes impurity, given that the cut site is a concealed place (tumat beit ha-satarim) and concealed impurity does not transmit impurity. Rava clarifies that the case involves a situation where liquids (hechsher) came upon it and Rabba bar Rav Chanan questions that, noting that it should not even require hechsher under the rule of an item destined to transmit severe impurity does not need hechsher, since here it came from a limb with a high level of impurity. Rava responds with a fundamental principle that when food functions as a connection or for a purpose other than food, it is considered “when used, it functioned like wood” and thus the rule of “destined to transmit severe impurity” does not apply. The Gemara presents five challenges that are resolved by applying this same explanation – “when used, it functioned like wood.”
Returning to the Mishna dealing with a dangling limb and flesh on an animal, the Gemara asks for the rationale of Rabbi Shimon, who rules them pure in the case of the animal’s death, challenging his view as completely illogical. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the reisha (opening clause) of the Mishna when the animal is still alive, based on Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation that Rabbi Shimon derives from scripture “מכל אשר יאכל” that food is defined as such only if you can feed it to others; since a dangling limb or flesh from a living animal is forbidden to consume even for non-Jews, it cannot transmit food impurity. However, Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty, explaining that if Rabbi Shimon disagrees with that case, it is because the flesh and limb are still somewhat attached, as learned from a Mishna in Uktzin (3:8). Thus, Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation of Rabbi Shimon’s view must apply to another case. The Gemara suggests it might apply to the metzi’ata (middle clause) where the animal was slaughtered, but this resolution is also difficult. In light of these difficulties, the Gemara returns to understand Rabbi Shimon’s statement and Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation, concluding that they actually refer to the seifa (final clause), not regarding the dangling limb (from which the difficulty was raised), but rather regarding the dangling flesh.
The Mishna discusses a dangling limb and flesh on a living human, ruling that they are pure during the person’s lifetime. Upon the person’s death, the flesh is pure from food impurity, while the dangling limb transmits impurity as a limb from a living person, but not as a limb from a corpse, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon considers it pure.
The Gemara again challenges Rabbi Shimon’s view in the same manner as before. As a first resolution, it explains that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with a general underlying premise of Rabbi Meir’s view. Subsequently, however, the Gemara successfully understands Rabbi Shimon’s position in a different manner, based on a Mishna in Eduyot 6:3.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Chullin 129
טוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הִיא, וְטוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים לָא מְטַמְּיָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, וּשְׁאֵילְתֵּיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל, וְאָמַר לִי: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: טוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים מְטַמְּיָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין אַמְרַהּ קַמַּאי, וַאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין טוּמְאָה דְּבָעֲיָא הֶכְשֵׁר וּבֵין טוּמְאָה דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא הֶכְשֵׁר.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא בְּשֶׁהוּכְשַׁר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן לְרָבָא: לְמָה לִי הֶכְשֵׁר, הֲרֵי מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה אַגַּב אָבִיו?
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ כּוֹפֶת שְׂאוֹר שֶׁיִּחֲדָהּ לִישִׁיבָה – בָּטְלָה.
§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.
טוּמְאָתָהּ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מָצִינוּ לָאֳכָלִין שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל אֳכָלִין מְטַמְּאִין בְּאוֹהֶל, טוּמְאָתָהּ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מָצִינוּ לָאֳכָלִין שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה! כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חִבּוּרֵי אֳכָלִין כְּכֵלִים דָּמוּ, טוּמְאָתָן לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מָצִינוּ לְאוֹכֶל שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה! כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: הָא דְּתַנְיָא, חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה בַּכְּפָרִים צָרִיךְ מַחְשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר, טוּמְאָתוֹ אַגַּב כּוּלְיָא לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מָצִינוּ לְאוֹכֶל שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה!
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.
כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ בַּיִת שֶׁסִּכְּכוֹ בִּזְרָעִים – טָהֵרוּ. טוּמְאָתוֹ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מָצִינוּ לִזְרָעִים שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה! כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
§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.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, אִי אֵין מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַנְּבֵלָה!
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?
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין בִּמְקוֹמָן, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ
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
לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵין קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, which are forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: דִּילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם, הוֹאִיל וּמְעוֹרֶה – מְעוֹרֶה.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: יִחוּר שֶׁל תְּאֵנָה שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּמְעוֹרֶה בַּקְּלִיפָּה – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת – טָהוֹר, וְאִם לָאו – טָמֵא. וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וְאָמְרַתְּ לַן: הוֹאִיל וּמְעוֹרֶה – מְעוֹרֶה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אַמְּצִיעֲתָא: נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה, הוּכְשְׁרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
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.
(אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי) אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ – אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵין קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
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.
וְדִילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּהָהִיא
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.
אִי כִּדְרָבָא, אִי כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?
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).
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם אַסֵּיפָא, וְלָאו אַאֵבֶר, אֶלָּא אַבָּשָׂר. מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵין קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בְּאָדָם – טְהוֹרִים. מֵת הָאָדָם – הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר. הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאִי אֵין מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת!
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעָלְמָא קָאֵי, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וְאֵין מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת, אַלְמָא אֵבֶר הַמֵּת בְּעָלְמָא מְטַמֵּא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵבֶר הַמֵּת בְּעָלְמָא לֹא מְטַמֵּא.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מְטַמֵּא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִן הַחַי וְלֹא מִן הַמֵּת? וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר – וּמָה חַי שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ טָמֵא; מֵת שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
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?
כָּתוּב בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית: ״פִּסְחָא זְעִירָא דְּלָא לְמִסְפַּד״, הָא רַבָּה לְמִסְפַּד?! אֶלָּא כָּל דְּכֵן! הָכָא נָמֵי, כׇּל דְּכֵן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי.
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.
וּמַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לְאֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת? כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וְעֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
§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.
דִּתְנַן: כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַהֲרִין. עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא מְטַמֵּא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַהֲרִין.
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.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וְעֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
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.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָעוֹר וְהָרוֹטֶב.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Chullin Daf 125-131-Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Bronx, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Chullin 129
טוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים הִיא, וְטוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים לָא מְטַמְּיָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, וּשְׁאֵילְתֵּיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל, וְאָמַר לִי: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: טוּמְאַת בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים מְטַמְּיָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָאו זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין אַמְרַהּ קַמַּאי, וַאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין טוּמְאָה דְּבָעֲיָא הֶכְשֵׁר וּבֵין טוּמְאָה דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא הֶכְשֵׁר.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא בְּשֶׁהוּכְשַׁר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן לְרָבָא: לְמָה לִי הֶכְשֵׁר, הֲרֵי מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה אַגַּב אָבִיו?
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ, מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ כּוֹפֶת שְׂאוֹר שֶׁיִּחֲדָהּ לִישִׁיבָה – בָּטְלָה.
§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.
טוּמְאָתָהּ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מָצִינוּ לָאֳכָלִין שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל אֳכָלִין מְטַמְּאִין בְּאוֹהֶל, טוּמְאָתָהּ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מָצִינוּ לָאֳכָלִין שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה! כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חִבּוּרֵי אֳכָלִין כְּכֵלִים דָּמוּ, טוּמְאָתָן לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מָצִינוּ לְאוֹכֶל שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה! כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: הָא דְּתַנְיָא, חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה בַּכְּפָרִים צָרִיךְ מַחְשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר, טוּמְאָתוֹ אַגַּב כּוּלְיָא לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מָצִינוּ לְאוֹכֶל שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה!
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.
כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ בַּיִת שֶׁסִּכְּכוֹ בִּזְרָעִים – טָהֵרוּ. טוּמְאָתוֹ לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מָצִינוּ לִזְרָעִים שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה! כְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ – מַעֲשֵׂה עֵץ שִׁימֵּשׁ.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
§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.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, אִי אֵין מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַנְּבֵלָה!
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?
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין בִּמְקוֹמָן, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ
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
לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵין קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, which are forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: דִּילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם, הוֹאִיל וּמְעוֹרֶה – מְעוֹרֶה.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: יִחוּר שֶׁל תְּאֵנָה שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּמְעוֹרֶה בַּקְּלִיפָּה – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת – טָהוֹר, וְאִם לָאו – טָמֵא. וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וְאָמְרַתְּ לַן: הוֹאִיל וּמְעוֹרֶה – מְעוֹרֶה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אַמְּצִיעֲתָא: נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה, הוּכְשְׁרָה בְּדָמֶיהָ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
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.
(אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי) אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ – אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵין קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
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.
וְדִילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּהָהִיא
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.
אִי כִּדְרָבָא, אִי כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?
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).
אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם אַסֵּיפָא, וְלָאו אַאֵבֶר, אֶלָּא אַבָּשָׂר. מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכׇּל הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – קָרוּי אוֹכֶל, אוֹכֶל שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים – אֵין קָרוּי אוֹכֶל.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בְּאָדָם – טְהוֹרִים. מֵת הָאָדָם – הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר. הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאִי אֵין מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל – לִיטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת!
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעָלְמָא קָאֵי, דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא: הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וְאֵין מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת, אַלְמָא אֵבֶר הַמֵּת בְּעָלְמָא מְטַמֵּא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵבֶר הַמֵּת בְּעָלְמָא לֹא מְטַמֵּא.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מְטַמֵּא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִן הַחַי וְלֹא מִן הַמֵּת? וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר – וּמָה חַי שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ טָמֵא; מֵת שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
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?
כָּתוּב בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית: ״פִּסְחָא זְעִירָא דְּלָא לְמִסְפַּד״, הָא רַבָּה לְמִסְפַּד?! אֶלָּא כָּל דְּכֵן! הָכָא נָמֵי, כׇּל דְּכֵן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי.
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.
וּמַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לְאֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת? כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וְעֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
§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.
דִּתְנַן: כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַהֲרִין. עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא מְטַמֵּא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַהֲרִין.
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.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, בֵּין תַּנָּא קַמָּא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וְעֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
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.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הָעוֹר וְהָרוֹטֶב.
