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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 8, 2019 | 讙壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 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 73

The opinions of Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the mishna regarding a limb of a fetus that left the body before the shechita and is cut off – are discussed. Would there disagreement also apply to a case of an animal that is slaughtered and has a limb hanging off.


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

讻讞转讜讱 讚诪讬

is regarded as though it were cut. Therefore, it is regarded as though the foreleg had already been severed from the body of the fetus, and the point of contact between them is not considered to be a concealed area. Rather, it is regarded as if the foreleg and fetus were two separate items that came into contact with each other. Consequently, the former can impart impurity to the latter.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讬讚讜转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讜讻讜转 讜注转讬讚 诇拽爪爪谉 诪讟讘讬诇 注讚 诪拽讜诐 诪讚讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakhic principle that Ravina cites? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 10:5): When a vessel is immersed in a ritual bath, it is purified only if all parts of the vessel are submerged at the same time. But with regard to any handles of vessels that are too long and therefore will ultimately be cut off, one must immerse them only until the point of their eventual size. Even though the part of the handle that will be cut off is not submerged, the vessel is nevertheless purified; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that even though the handle is still physically attached, since that part of the handle stands to be cut off, it is already regarded as though it were cut off. Consequently, immersing the handle up until that point is regarded as immersing the entire vessel.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讟讘讬诇 讗转 讻讜诇讜

And the Rabbis say that the vessel is not purified until he immerses all of it, including the handle. Apparently, the Rabbis do not hold that an item that stands to be cut is regarded as though it was already cut, and Ravina鈥檚 explanation is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讞讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诪驻专转讬 讚诪讬 讜谞讙讬注讬 讘讛讚讚讬

The Gemara responds: You may even say that Ravina鈥檚 explanation is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir concerns utensils, but even the Rabbis agree that the connections between two pieces of food are disregarded, and the item is considered as though it is already separated into two pieces that are touching one another, and so ritual impurity can be imparted from one piece to another. Similarly, the fetus and the foreleg are considered like food in this regard. Therefore, it is considered as if they have already been separated and are touching, allowing the foreleg to impart impurity to the fetus.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讞转讻讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讞转讻讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讞转讻讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讞转讻讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the explanation of Ulla that the fetus was rendered impure at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches, that the foreleg was severed from the body of the fetus. But according to the explanation of Ravina, the connection between the foreleg and fetus is like that of food, and even if the foreleg was never severed from the fetus it would still impart impurity to the fetus. What, then, is the reason the mishna states it was severed? The Gemara answers: Since the mishna needed to teach in the first clause that the foreleg was severed, it also taught in the latter clause that it was severed, for stylistic consistency, even though the halakha would apply even were it not severed.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙注 讟专驻讛 砖讞讜讟讛 讟专驻讛 砖讞讜讟讛 诪讬 诪讟诪讬讗 讗讬谉 讻讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: The flesh of a fetus that extended its foreleg outside the mother鈥檚 womb and whose mother was subsequently slaughtered has ritual impurity due to having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: Does a slaughtered tereifa impart impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, and this is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel鈥檚 father, as Shmuel鈥檚 father says: The Sages decreed that a tereifa that one slaughtered imparts impurity to sacrificial animals, i.e., it will disqualify them if it comes in contact with them.

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讗祝 砖讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专

搂 The mishna cites the Rabbis鈥 rationale for their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., it prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass, despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that it is prohibited for consumption.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讬 讟讬讛专讜 诇讗讘专 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 砖讞讬讟转 讗诪讜 讗诐 讻谉 转转讬专谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The mishna itself proceeds to cite Rabbi鈥檚 Meir鈥檚 response to this claim. The Gemara here cites a different version of his response based on that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But what renders this limb pure from the impurity of a carcass? You might say it is the slaughter of its mother, but if so, the act of slaughter should also permit it even for consumption.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讛 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讞讜转讱 诪谉 讛注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Rabbis said to him: The slaughter of an animal has a greater effect in shielding that which is not part of its body from having the ritual impurity of a carcass than that which is part of its body, as is apparent from that which we learned in the mishna (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in its womb, leaving those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughtered it, then even if those pieces were left inside the animal, their consumption is prohibited.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讬 讟讛专讜 诇讗讘专 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 砖讞讬讟转 讗诪讜 讗诐 讻谉 转转讬专谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟专驻讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讬专转讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara clarifies the response of the Rabbis: What are the Rabbis saying? Rava said, and some say it unattributed [kedi] to any particular Sage, that the baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But what renders this limb pure from the impurity of a carcass? You might say it is the slaughter of its mother, but if so, it should also permit it even for consumption. In response the Rabbis said to him: Let the halakha of a tereifa prove the point, as its slaughter renders it pure from the impurity of a carcass but it does not permit it for consumption. Similarly, the slaughter of the mother animal should render pure even the foreleg of its fetus, even if it does not permit it for consumption.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讚讘专 砖讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛讗讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讛 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讞讜转讱 诪谉 讛注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure from having the impurity of a carcass, that is true with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body? The Rabbis said to him: The slaughter of an animal has a greater effect in shielding that which is not part of its body from having the impurity of a carcass than that which is part of its body, as is apparent from that which we learned in the mishna at the beginning of the chapter: If one severs pieces from a fetus that is in an animal鈥檚 womb and then slaughters the mother animal, their consumption is permitted. By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, their consumption is prohibited.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讬 讟讬讛专讜 诇讗讘专 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讞讬讟转 讗诪讜 讗诐 讻谉 转转讬专谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟专驻讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讬专转讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara notes that this clarification of Rava is also taught explicitly in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But what renders this limb pure from the impurity of a carcass? The Rabbis said to him: It is the slaughter of its mother. Rabbi Meir responded: But if so, it should also permit it even for consumption. In response the Rabbis said to him: Let the halakha of a tereifa prove the point, as its slaughter renders it pure from the impurity of a carcass but it does not permit it for consumption. Similarly, the slaughter of the mother animal should render pure even the foreleg of its fetus, even if it does not permit it for consumption.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: Even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure, and likewise the slaughter of any animal renders the limb that was partially cut from it but still hangs from it pure from imparting the impurity of a carcass despite being prohibited for consumption, that is the halakha with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讛 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讞讜转讱 诪谉 讛注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Rabbis said to him: The slaughter of an animal has a greater effect in shielding that which is not part of its body from imparting the ritual impurity of a carcass than that which is part of its body, as is apparent from that which we have learned in the mishna above: If one severed pieces from a fetus that was in an animal鈥檚 womb and then slaughtered the mother animal, their consumption is permitted. But if one severed pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughtered it, their consumption is prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注讜讘专讬谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讬讘专讬谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to fetuses, concerning whether the slaughter of the mother prevents a limb that emerged from the womb from having the impurity of a carcass, so too, they have a parallel dispute with regard to limbs of an animal that were partially cut from it but still hanging from it, whether the slaughter of the animal prevents such limbs from having the impurity of a carcass.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 讗讘诇 讘讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Their dispute is only with regard to a limb of a fetus that emerged from the womb, but with regard to a limb hanging from an animal, everyone agrees that the slaughter of the animal renders such a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and the slaughter does not prevent the limb from having the impurity of a carcass.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘讞讝专讛 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘讞讝专讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: What is the reason for the distinction made by Rabbi Yo岣nan concerning the opinion of the Rabbis that the slaughter of an animal renders pure the limb of its fetus, but does not render pure a limb hanging from the animal itself? The reason is that this limb of the fetus that emerged from its womb has a means of rectification by returning back inside the womb, in accordance with the opinion that it will then be permitted for consumption by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. But this hanging limb does not have a means of rectification by returning, as it cannot be reattached to the animal鈥檚 body.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion from the baraita cited above: Rabbi Meir said to them: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders pure the animal itself and similarly the slaughter of any animal renders pure the limb that is hanging from it from having the impurity of a carcass, this is true with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜

Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement appears inconsistent with his opinion, as he holds that a hanging limb is not rendered pure by slaughtering the animal. The Gemara suggests that this difficulty can be resolved only according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 version of the Rabbis鈥 opinion, but not according to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 version. Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one can explain that Rabbi Meir was speaking in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, as follows: According to my own opinion, there is no difference with regard to the limb of a fetus, and there is no difference with regard to a limb hanging from an animal; they are the same in that the slaughter of the animal does not render either of them pure. Accordingly, Rabbi Meir must have been speaking in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that a limb hanging from an animal is rendered pure by the animal鈥檚 slaughter.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗

But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that both the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir agree that a limb hanging from an animal is not rendered pure by the animal鈥檚 slaughter, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement is difficult, as it is inconsistent with both his opinion and the Rabbis鈥 opinion. The Gemara concedes the challenge.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注讜讘专讬诐 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讬讘专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 讗讘诇 讘讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇

Rather, if such a dispute was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to fetuses whose limbs emerged from the womb, so too, they have a parallel dispute with regard to limbs hanging from an animal. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Their dispute is only with regard to the limb of a fetus that emerged from the womb; but with regard to a limb hanging from an animal, everyone agrees that the slaughter of the animal does not render such a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and does not impart the impurity of a carcass. According to this version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 understanding of the dispute, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement is consistent even with his own opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 讙讜驻讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讜驻讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: What is the reason for the distinction made by Rabbi Yo岣nan concerning the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that the slaughter of an animal does not render pure the limb of its fetus, but it does render pure a limb hanging from the animal itself? It is that this hanging limb is part of the animal鈥檚 body, but that, the limb of the fetus, is not part of its body.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讜讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇

搂 The Gemara continues to elucidate the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Everyone agrees that the death of an animal by means other than slaughter renders a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the animal鈥檚 death. Therefore, it will not have the impurity of a carcass, but it will have the impurity of a limb taken from a living animal. And likewise, everyone agrees that the slaughter of the animal does not render a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and therefore it will not have the impurity of a carcass.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 诪讬转讛 转谞讬谞讗 砖讞讬讟讛 转谞讬谞讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are we dealing with here? If we say we are dealing with a limb of its fetus that emerged from its womb, Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis explicitly disagree with regard to this case. Rather, we are dealing with a limb hanging from an animal. But if so, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is unnecessary. With regard to a hanging limb, we already learn about the effect of the death of the animal in a mishna elsewhere, and we already learn about the effect of the slaughter of the animal in a mishna elsewhere.

诪讬转讛 转谞讬谞讗 诪转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讘砖专 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讜讛讗讘专 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 讛谞讘诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara elaborates: We already learn about the effect of the death of an animal in the mishna (127b): If the animal died without slaughter, any hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to contracting ritual impurity in order to become impure. This is accomplished by coming in contact with liquid, with the owner鈥檚 approval. The reason is that its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass. And a hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal, but does not impart impurity as a limb from a carcass; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that upon the animal鈥檚 death, anything hanging from the animal is considered as though it had already fallen off before the animal鈥檚 death. Since the mishna does not record that the Rabbis disagree, it would appear that they agree.

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

Likewise, we already learn about the effect of the slaughter of an animal in the same mishna: If the animal is slaughtered, they, the limb and the flesh hanging from it, are thereby rendered susceptible to impurity, by coming in contact with its blood. Blood is one of the seven liquids that render foods susceptible to impurity and its presence is considered to be with the approval of the owner, as it makes the meat look redder and fresher; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible to impurity through the animal鈥檚 own blood, but only once they were wet with another liquid, with the owner鈥檚 approval. It is apparent that both opinions in that mishna agree that the limb does not have the impurity of a limb severed from a living animal. Evidently, they hold that the slaughter does not render the hanging limb as though it had already fallen off beforehand.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗讘砖专

Given that the mishna has already taught both halakhot, what was the necessity of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: If these halakhot were derived only from that mishna, I would say that actually, slaughter does render a hanging limb as though it had already fallen off beforehand, and such a limb would have the impurity of a limb severed from a live animal. If so, what does the mishna mean when it states: They are rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with its blood? Ostensibly, the intention is that both the limb and the flesh must be rendered susceptible to impurity, which indicates that the limb does not have any impurity of its own. The Gemara explains: One would have explained that the need to be rendered susceptible to impurity is referring only to the flesh, as flesh severed from a living animal does not have any impurity of its own.

讜讛讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 拽转谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚 诇讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讞讚 诇讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讗讘专

The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches: They are rendered susceptible, in the plural, which is apparently referring to both the flesh and the limb, which were mentioned previously in the mishna. The Gemara explains: You might say that the plural is used because the statement is referring to two types of hanging flesh that upon slaughter are considered to have been separated from a living animal: One is for flesh that separates from the body of the animal, and the other one is for flesh that separates from the hanging limb. Neither type has its own impurity, so they must be rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with liquid.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讛讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讙讘 讗讘讬讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讻砖专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: But in what way is it more compelling to apply the halakha to this type of flesh than to that type, making it necessary to state the halakha with regard to both? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that since flesh that is attached to a limb severed from a living animal imparts the same severe form of ritual impurity as the limb on account of being a part of it, one might say that once the flesh is separated from the limb it does not need to then be rendered susceptible to impurity. To reject this possibility, the mishna uses the plural form to teach us that this type of flesh does need to be rendered susceptible to impurity.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞拽讜讟 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘讬讚讱 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘讞讬讛 讜讘注讜祝 讜砖讞讟谉 砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Yosef said: Take the statement that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, i.e., that the slaughter of an animal does not render a hanging limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, in your hand, i.e., accept it as correct, as Rabba bar bar 岣na also holds in accordance with this opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd flesh that is torn in the field, you shall not eat鈥 (Exodus 22:30). This serves to include the case of the limb or the flesh that was partially cut off but was still hanging on a domesticated animal or on an undomesticated animal or on a bird, and one slaughtered them; it is derived that they are prohibited as limbs severed from a living animal. And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says with regard to the ruling of this baraita:

  • 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 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 73

讻讞转讜讱 讚诪讬

is regarded as though it were cut. Therefore, it is regarded as though the foreleg had already been severed from the body of the fetus, and the point of contact between them is not considered to be a concealed area. Rather, it is regarded as if the foreleg and fetus were two separate items that came into contact with each other. Consequently, the former can impart impurity to the latter.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讬讚讜转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讜讻讜转 讜注转讬讚 诇拽爪爪谉 诪讟讘讬诇 注讚 诪拽讜诐 诪讚讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakhic principle that Ravina cites? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 10:5): When a vessel is immersed in a ritual bath, it is purified only if all parts of the vessel are submerged at the same time. But with regard to any handles of vessels that are too long and therefore will ultimately be cut off, one must immerse them only until the point of their eventual size. Even though the part of the handle that will be cut off is not submerged, the vessel is nevertheless purified; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that even though the handle is still physically attached, since that part of the handle stands to be cut off, it is already regarded as though it were cut off. Consequently, immersing the handle up until that point is regarded as immersing the entire vessel.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讟讘讬诇 讗转 讻讜诇讜

And the Rabbis say that the vessel is not purified until he immerses all of it, including the handle. Apparently, the Rabbis do not hold that an item that stands to be cut is regarded as though it was already cut, and Ravina鈥檚 explanation is in accordance only with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讞讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诪驻专转讬 讚诪讬 讜谞讙讬注讬 讘讛讚讚讬

The Gemara responds: You may even say that Ravina鈥檚 explanation is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir concerns utensils, but even the Rabbis agree that the connections between two pieces of food are disregarded, and the item is considered as though it is already separated into two pieces that are touching one another, and so ritual impurity can be imparted from one piece to another. Similarly, the fetus and the foreleg are considered like food in this regard. Therefore, it is considered as if they have already been separated and are touching, allowing the foreleg to impart impurity to the fetus.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讞转讻讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讞转讻讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讞转讻讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讞转讻讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the explanation of Ulla that the fetus was rendered impure at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches, that the foreleg was severed from the body of the fetus. But according to the explanation of Ravina, the connection between the foreleg and fetus is like that of food, and even if the foreleg was never severed from the fetus it would still impart impurity to the fetus. What, then, is the reason the mishna states it was severed? The Gemara answers: Since the mishna needed to teach in the first clause that the foreleg was severed, it also taught in the latter clause that it was severed, for stylistic consistency, even though the halakha would apply even were it not severed.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讙注 讟专驻讛 砖讞讜讟讛 讟专驻讛 砖讞讜讟讛 诪讬 诪讟诪讬讗 讗讬谉 讻讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讟讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉

搂 The mishna states: And the Rabbis say: The flesh of a fetus that extended its foreleg outside the mother鈥檚 womb and whose mother was subsequently slaughtered has ritual impurity due to having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: Does a slaughtered tereifa impart impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, and this is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel鈥檚 father, as Shmuel鈥檚 father says: The Sages decreed that a tereifa that one slaughtered imparts impurity to sacrificial animals, i.e., it will disqualify them if it comes in contact with them.

诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讟专驻讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讗祝 砖讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专

搂 The mishna cites the Rabbis鈥 rationale for their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., it prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass, despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that it is prohibited for consumption.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讬 讟讬讛专讜 诇讗讘专 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 砖讞讬讟转 讗诪讜 讗诐 讻谉 转转讬专谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The mishna itself proceeds to cite Rabbi鈥檚 Meir鈥檚 response to this claim. The Gemara here cites a different version of his response based on that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But what renders this limb pure from the impurity of a carcass? You might say it is the slaughter of its mother, but if so, the act of slaughter should also permit it even for consumption.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讛 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讞讜转讱 诪谉 讛注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Rabbis said to him: The slaughter of an animal has a greater effect in shielding that which is not part of its body from having the ritual impurity of a carcass than that which is part of its body, as is apparent from that which we learned in the mishna (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in its womb, leaving those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughtered it, then even if those pieces were left inside the animal, their consumption is prohibited.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讬 讟讛专讜 诇讗讘专 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 砖讞讬讟转 讗诪讜 讗诐 讻谉 转转讬专谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟专驻讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讬专转讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara clarifies the response of the Rabbis: What are the Rabbis saying? Rava said, and some say it unattributed [kedi] to any particular Sage, that the baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But what renders this limb pure from the impurity of a carcass? You might say it is the slaughter of its mother, but if so, it should also permit it even for consumption. In response the Rabbis said to him: Let the halakha of a tereifa prove the point, as its slaughter renders it pure from the impurity of a carcass but it does not permit it for consumption. Similarly, the slaughter of the mother animal should render pure even the foreleg of its fetus, even if it does not permit it for consumption.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讚讘专 砖讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛讗讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讛 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讞讜转讱 诪谉 讛注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure from having the impurity of a carcass, that is true with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body? The Rabbis said to him: The slaughter of an animal has a greater effect in shielding that which is not part of its body from having the impurity of a carcass than that which is part of its body, as is apparent from that which we learned in the mishna at the beginning of the chapter: If one severs pieces from a fetus that is in an animal鈥檚 womb and then slaughters the mother animal, their consumption is permitted. By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, their consumption is prohibited.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 诪讬 讟讬讛专讜 诇讗讘专 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讞讬讟转 讗诪讜 讗诐 讻谉 转转讬专谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讟专驻讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 诪讬讚讬 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讬专转讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara notes that this clarification of Rava is also taught explicitly in a baraita: Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: But what renders this limb pure from the impurity of a carcass? The Rabbis said to him: It is the slaughter of its mother. Rabbi Meir responded: But if so, it should also permit it even for consumption. In response the Rabbis said to him: Let the halakha of a tereifa prove the point, as its slaughter renders it pure from the impurity of a carcass but it does not permit it for consumption. Similarly, the slaughter of the mother animal should render pure even the foreleg of its fetus, even if it does not permit it for consumption.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

Rabbi Meir said to them: Even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure, and likewise the slaughter of any animal renders the limb that was partially cut from it but still hangs from it pure from imparting the impurity of a carcass despite being prohibited for consumption, that is the halakha with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讘讛 诪爪诇转 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛 讬讜转专 诪讙讜驻讛 砖讛专讬 砖谞讬谞讜 讞讜转讱 诪谉 讛注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Rabbis said to him: The slaughter of an animal has a greater effect in shielding that which is not part of its body from imparting the ritual impurity of a carcass than that which is part of its body, as is apparent from that which we have learned in the mishna above: If one severed pieces from a fetus that was in an animal鈥檚 womb and then slaughtered the mother animal, their consumption is permitted. But if one severed pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughtered it, their consumption is prohibited.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注讜讘专讬谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讬讘专讬谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to fetuses, concerning whether the slaughter of the mother prevents a limb that emerged from the womb from having the impurity of a carcass, so too, they have a parallel dispute with regard to limbs of an animal that were partially cut from it but still hanging from it, whether the slaughter of the animal prevents such limbs from having the impurity of a carcass.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 讗讘诇 讘讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Their dispute is only with regard to a limb of a fetus that emerged from the womb, but with regard to a limb hanging from an animal, everyone agrees that the slaughter of the animal renders such a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and the slaughter does not prevent the limb from having the impurity of a carcass.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘讞讝专讛 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘讞讝专讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: What is the reason for the distinction made by Rabbi Yo岣nan concerning the opinion of the Rabbis that the slaughter of an animal renders pure the limb of its fetus, but does not render pure a limb hanging from the animal itself? The reason is that this limb of the fetus that emerged from its womb has a means of rectification by returning back inside the womb, in accordance with the opinion that it will then be permitted for consumption by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal. But this hanging limb does not have a means of rectification by returning, as it cannot be reattached to the animal鈥檚 body.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion from the baraita cited above: Rabbi Meir said to them: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders pure the animal itself and similarly the slaughter of any animal renders pure the limb that is hanging from it from having the impurity of a carcass, this is true with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜

Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement appears inconsistent with his opinion, as he holds that a hanging limb is not rendered pure by slaughtering the animal. The Gemara suggests that this difficulty can be resolved only according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish鈥檚 version of the Rabbis鈥 opinion, but not according to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 version. Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one can explain that Rabbi Meir was speaking in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, as follows: According to my own opinion, there is no difference with regard to the limb of a fetus, and there is no difference with regard to a limb hanging from an animal; they are the same in that the slaughter of the animal does not render either of them pure. Accordingly, Rabbi Meir must have been speaking in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that a limb hanging from an animal is rendered pure by the animal鈥檚 slaughter.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗

But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who holds that both the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir agree that a limb hanging from an animal is not rendered pure by the animal鈥檚 slaughter, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement is difficult, as it is inconsistent with both his opinion and the Rabbis鈥 opinion. The Gemara concedes the challenge.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注讜讘专讬诐 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讬讘专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 讗讘诇 讘讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇

Rather, if such a dispute was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to fetuses whose limbs emerged from the womb, so too, they have a parallel dispute with regard to limbs hanging from an animal. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Their dispute is only with regard to the limb of a fetus that emerged from the womb; but with regard to a limb hanging from an animal, everyone agrees that the slaughter of the animal does not render such a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and does not impart the impurity of a carcass. According to this version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 understanding of the dispute, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement is consistent even with his own opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 讙讜驻讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讜驻讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: What is the reason for the distinction made by Rabbi Yo岣nan concerning the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that the slaughter of an animal does not render pure the limb of its fetus, but it does render pure a limb hanging from the animal itself? It is that this hanging limb is part of the animal鈥檚 body, but that, the limb of the fetus, is not part of its body.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇 讜讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 谞讬驻讜诇

搂 The Gemara continues to elucidate the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Everyone agrees that the death of an animal by means other than slaughter renders a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the animal鈥檚 death. Therefore, it will not have the impurity of a carcass, but it will have the impurity of a limb taken from a living animal. And likewise, everyone agrees that the slaughter of the animal does not render a limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, and therefore it will not have the impurity of a carcass.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗讘专 讚注讜讘专 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讗讘专 讚讘讛诪讛 诪讬转讛 转谞讬谞讗 砖讞讬讟讛 转谞讬谞讗

The Gemara clarifies: What are we dealing with here? If we say we are dealing with a limb of its fetus that emerged from its womb, Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis explicitly disagree with regard to this case. Rather, we are dealing with a limb hanging from an animal. But if so, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is unnecessary. With regard to a hanging limb, we already learn about the effect of the death of the animal in a mishna elsewhere, and we already learn about the effect of the slaughter of the animal in a mishna elsewhere.

诪讬转讛 转谞讬谞讗 诪转讛 讛讘讛诪讛 讛讘砖专 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专 讜讛讗讘专 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 讛谞讘诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara elaborates: We already learn about the effect of the death of an animal in the mishna (127b): If the animal died without slaughter, any hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to contracting ritual impurity in order to become impure. This is accomplished by coming in contact with liquid, with the owner鈥檚 approval. The reason is that its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass. And a hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal, but does not impart impurity as a limb from a carcass; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that upon the animal鈥檚 death, anything hanging from the animal is considered as though it had already fallen off before the animal鈥檚 death. Since the mishna does not record that the Rabbis disagree, it would appear that they agree.

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

Likewise, we already learn about the effect of the slaughter of an animal in the same mishna: If the animal is slaughtered, they, the limb and the flesh hanging from it, are thereby rendered susceptible to impurity, by coming in contact with its blood. Blood is one of the seven liquids that render foods susceptible to impurity and its presence is considered to be with the approval of the owner, as it makes the meat look redder and fresher; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible to impurity through the animal鈥檚 own blood, but only once they were wet with another liquid, with the owner鈥檚 approval. It is apparent that both opinions in that mishna agree that the limb does not have the impurity of a limb severed from a living animal. Evidently, they hold that the slaughter does not render the hanging limb as though it had already fallen off beforehand.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讻砖专讜 讗讘砖专

Given that the mishna has already taught both halakhot, what was the necessity of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: If these halakhot were derived only from that mishna, I would say that actually, slaughter does render a hanging limb as though it had already fallen off beforehand, and such a limb would have the impurity of a limb severed from a live animal. If so, what does the mishna mean when it states: They are rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with its blood? Ostensibly, the intention is that both the limb and the flesh must be rendered susceptible to impurity, which indicates that the limb does not have any impurity of its own. The Gemara explains: One would have explained that the need to be rendered susceptible to impurity is referring only to the flesh, as flesh severed from a living animal does not have any impurity of its own.

讜讛讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 拽转谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讚 诇讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讞讚 诇讘砖专 讛驻讜专砖 诪谉 讛讗讘专

The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches: They are rendered susceptible, in the plural, which is apparently referring to both the flesh and the limb, which were mentioned previously in the mishna. The Gemara explains: You might say that the plural is used because the statement is referring to two types of hanging flesh that upon slaughter are considered to have been separated from a living animal: One is for flesh that separates from the body of the animal, and the other one is for flesh that separates from the hanging limb. Neither type has its own impurity, so they must be rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with liquid.

讜诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚讛讗讬 诪讛讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讗讙讘 讗讘讬讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讻砖专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: But in what way is it more compelling to apply the halakha to this type of flesh than to that type, making it necessary to state the halakha with regard to both? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that since flesh that is attached to a limb severed from a living animal imparts the same severe form of ritual impurity as the limb on account of being a part of it, one might say that once the flesh is separated from the limb it does not need to then be rendered susceptible to impurity. To reject this possibility, the mishna uses the plural form to teach us that this type of flesh does need to be rendered susceptible to impurity.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞拽讜讟 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘讬讚讱 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讛讗讘专 讜讛讘砖专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘讞讬讛 讜讘注讜祝 讜砖讞讟谉 砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

Rav Yosef said: Take the statement that Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, i.e., that the slaughter of an animal does not render a hanging limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, in your hand, i.e., accept it as correct, as Rabba bar bar 岣na also holds in accordance with this opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd flesh that is torn in the field, you shall not eat鈥 (Exodus 22:30). This serves to include the case of the limb or the flesh that was partially cut off but was still hanging on a domesticated animal or on an undomesticated animal or on a bird, and one slaughtered them; it is derived that they are prohibited as limbs severed from a living animal. And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says with regard to the ruling of this baraita:

Scroll To Top