חולין קכג

חולין קכג

אַיְבוּ אַמְרַהּ, וְאַרְבְּעֵי אֲמַר בַּהּ, וַחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲבוֹדָה.

It was Aivu who said this statement in the name of Reish Lakish and not Rabbi Abbahu, and he said four halakhot, not three, with regard to the measure of four mil, and the fourth one of them is the halakha mentioned in the mishna: Skins that one spread on the ground and trod upon for the period required for tanning, i.e., the amount of time it takes to walk four mil, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל לְאַחֲרָיו – אֲפִילּוּ מִיל אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר, וּמִינַּהּ: מִיל הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, הָא פָּחוֹת מִמִּיל – חוֹזֵר.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: With regard to prayer and washing one’s hands, the Sages taught that one must travel four mil to find a synagogue or water only if the synagogue or the water is ahead of him, in the direction that he is traveling. But if it is behind him, he need not return even one mil. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: From this statement one may infer that it is specifically a mil that one need not return; but one must return for a synagogue or water that is at a distance of less than one mil.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִיגְיוֹן הָעוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְנִכְנַס לְבַיִת – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאֵין לָךְ כׇּל לִיגְיוֹן וְלִיגְיוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּמָּה קַרְקִפְלִין. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי קַרְקִפְלוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מוּנָּח בְּרֹאשׁ מְלָכִים.

§The mishna states that the skin of a human corpse is impure like its flesh. The Sages taught in the Tosefta (8:16): In the case of a legion traveling for warfare from place to place, and one member of the legion enters a house, the house is impure, as there is no legion that does not have several scalps that its soldiers carry around for witchcraft. And you should not be surprised that they do so, as the scalp [karkefal] of Rabbi Yishmael was placed on the heads of kings.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה –

MISHNA: The halakhic status of the hide of an animal after it was flayed is no longer like its flesh in terms of becoming impure and imparting impurity. Nevertheless, in the case of one who flays either a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal; a ritually pure animal that was slaughtered properly and afterward came in contact with impurity, e.g., the one flaying it is impure, or a ritually impure unslaughtered carcass; a small animal, e.g., sheep, or a large animal, e.g., cattle; and even after flaying the animal’s hide is still partially attached to the flesh, the hide’s halakhic status remains that of flesh in some circumstances.

לְשָׁטִיחַ, כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה.

These circumstances are: If he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, a tablecloth, or to drape over a couch, in which case he would cut the hide along the length of the animal from head to tail and then remove the hide from both sides, its halakhic status remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide, i.e., two handbreadths.

וּלְחֵמֶת – עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הֶחָזֶה.

And if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of crafting a leather jug, in which case he cuts a circle near the animal’s neck and removes the hide in a downward movement, its halakhic status remains that of flesh until he flays the animal’s entire breast.

הַמַּרְגִּיל – כּוּלּוֹ חִבּוּר לַטּוּמְאָה, לִיטַּמֵּא וּלְטַמֵּא. עוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חִבּוּר עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

In the case of one who seeks to fashion a jug and begins flaying from the legs, until he removes the animal’s hide in its entirety, the entire hide is considered as having a connection with the flesh and its halakhic status remains that of flesh with regard to impurity, i.e., with regard to becoming impure and with regard to imparting impurity. If one removed the entire hide except for the hide over the neck, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: It is not considered to have a connection to the flesh, and the Rabbis say: It is considered to have a connection to the flesh until he removes the animal’s hide in its entirety, including the neck.

גְּמָ׳ מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ מַאי?

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If one flays an animal for the purpose of making a carpet out of it, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide. The Gemara asks: From that point forward, i.e., when one has flayed more than the measure of grasping of the hide, what is the status of the hide?

אָמַר רַב: טָהוֹר הַמּוּפְשָׁט, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: טֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר טָמֵא.

Rav says: The entire section of the hide that has been flayed is pure because it no longer serves the flesh as a handle. But the hide that is still attached to the flesh serves the flesh as protection, and therefore it transmits impurity to the flesh and from the flesh, and joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impurity of food. Rabbi Asi says: One handbreadth of the flayed hide that is next to the flesh is susceptible to impurity. Since the one who flays the hide holds this handbreadth of the hide while flaying, this section of the hide serves the flesh as a handle.

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפְשִׁיט כְּשִׁיעוּר הַזֶּה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בַּמּוּפְשָׁט טָהוֹר. מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ בְּטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר? לָא, לְבַר מִטֶּפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from a baraita: In the case of one who flays an unslaughtered animal carcass, once he has cut the hide along the length of the animal from head to tail and then removed this measure of the hide from both sides, then from that point forward, a person who touches the flayed hide is pure, because the flayed hide does not impart impurity of a carcass. What, is it not discussing even the handbreadth of hide next to the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi? The Gemara answers: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may be discussing the flayed hide except for the handbreadth next to the flesh.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּעוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר – טָמֵא. עוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר – טָמֵא, הָא בְּטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר – טָהוֹר. תָּנָא: כׇּל טֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר, עוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר קָרֵי לֵיהּ.

Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Asi from a baraita: Once an animal carcass has been flayed more than the measure of grasping the hide, if one touches the hide opposite the flesh before that hide was flayed he is impure. This statement indicates that the attached hide opposite the flesh is impure, but one handbreadth of the flayed hide that is next to the flesh is pure, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara answers: There is no proof from this baraita. The tanna who taught this baraita was referring to the entire handbreadth of flayed hide next to the flesh by calling it the hide opposite the flesh.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ – כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה, וְטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר – טָהוֹר.

Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Asi from a baraita (Tosefta 8:18): In the case of one who flays a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure animal or a ritually impure unslaughtered carcass, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping it, and one who touches one handbreadth of the flayed hide next to the flesh remains pure, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטֶפַח רִאשׁוֹן.

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the first handbreadth of hide that is flayed in addition to the measure of grasping. In a case where only one handbreadth of hide has been flayed in addition to the measure of grasping, it is more comfortable for the one flaying the hide to grasp the edge of the hide rather than the handbreadth of hide that is nearest to the flesh. Furthermore, the most comfortable way to continue flaying is to do so with a knife without grasping the flayed hide at all. Therefore, Rabbi Asi concedes that the hide in this case does not serve the flesh as a handle and consequently does not impart impurity. But afterward, when one has already flayed more than three handbreadths of hide, one holds the handbreadth of hide next to the flesh while continuing to flay the animal, and since it serves the flesh as a handle it imparts impurity.

תָּנָא: כַּמָּה כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה? טֶפַח. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: טִפְחַיִים!

§The mishna teaches that the hide’s halakhic status remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide. It was taught in a baraita: How much is the measure of grasping? It is one handbreadth. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: The measure of grasping is two handbreadths?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טֶפַח כָּפוּל. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כַּמָּה כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה? טֶפַח כָּפוּל.

Abaye says: The first baraita is referring to one who grasps a double handbreadth by folding the first two handbreadths together and grasping them. This explanation of Abaye is also taught in the Tosefta (8:18): How much is the measure of grasping? It is a double handbreadth.

תְּנַן הָתָם: טַלִּית שֶׁהִתְחִיל בָּהּ לְקוֹרְעָהּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוּבָּהּ – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וּטְהוֹרָה.

§The Gemara discusses a matter similar to the previous discussion of a partially flayed hide. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Kelim 28:8): A ritually impure garment that tears is rendered pure because it is no longer considered a useable garment. In the case of a ritually impure garment that one began to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered as having a connection, and since it is no longer considered a useable garment, it is pure.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּטַלִּית טְבוּלַת יוֹם.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to an impure garment that was already immersed in a ritual bath that day, but one must wait until nightfall for the purification process to be completed in order to wear the garment while eating ritually pure food. In such a case, tearing the majority of the garment renders it pure, and the Sages did not apply the requirement that the entire garment be torn.

דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּלָא חַס עֲלַהּ וְאַטְבְּלַהּ, לָא חָיֵיס עֲלַהּ וְקָרַע לַהּ רוּבַּהּ. אֲבָל טַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְבוּלַת יוֹם – לָא, גְּזֵרָה דִּלְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמִיקְרְעַהּ רוּבַּהּ.

This is because the reason for this rabbinic decree is lest one tear only half of it out of concern for the damage to the garment. And since in this case, the owner of the garment showed that he was not concerned about damage to the garment by immersing it in a ritual bath, an act which damages the garment, so too he is presumably not concerned about the garment with regard to tearing it, and he will certainly tear the majority of it. But a garment that was not immersed that day is not rendered pure by tearing the majority of the garment due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to not tear the majority of the garment but only half of it.

אָמַר רַבָּה: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא – שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה, וְעוֹד –

Rabba said: There are two refutations of this statement. One is that the decree should apply even to a garment that was immersed that day, lest people who see one eating ritually pure food while wearing such a garment say that immersion of a garment on the same day is sufficient for the garment to be worn while eating ritually pure food, and there is no need to wait until nightfall. And furthermore, if a garment that was not immersed that day is rendered pure only by tearing the entire garment and not by tearing merely a majority of the garment, due to a decree lest one tear less than a majority of the garment,

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִיגְזַר, דִּילְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.

so too, with regard to a bird burnt offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is required to pinch merely a majority of two simanim in the nape of the neck in order to prepare it for sacrifice, let him decree against pinching the majority of two simanim lest one come to not perform the pinching on the majority of two simanim, but rather on merely half of them.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה – קִרְעָהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ.

Rav Yosef responded to Rabba’s two refutations and said to him: With regard to that which you said, that a rabbinic decree is necessary even with regard to a garment that was immersed that day lest onlookers say that immersion of a garment on that same day is sufficient, there is no reason for such a concern. This is because its tear proves that the garment is pure due to the tear, and not because one is allowed to wear an immersed garment while eating pure food before sunset.

וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִיגְזַר – כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִים הֵן.

And with regard to that which you said, that with regard to a bird burnt offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, let him decree against pinching the majority of the simanim lest one fail to pinch the majority, in fact there is no reason for such a concern. Rav Yosef explains: The reason there is no concern is that pinching is performed by the priests, who are vigilant with regard to mitzvot.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּמֵאָה וּבִטְהוֹרָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ – כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate Kelim from the mishna here: In the case of one who flays a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually impure animal or a ritually pure animal, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide.

הָא יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה – טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לִיגְזַר, דִּילְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד אֶלָּא כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה, וְקָא נְגַע בְּטוּמְאָה, וְקָא מְטַהֲרִינַן לֵיהּ!

The Gemara infers: But after one has flayed more than a measure of grasping the hide, the hide is pure. Why is this so? Let the Sages decree that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of grasping is susceptible to impurity lest one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping come to complete only a measure of grasping, and he is thereby touching a source of impurity, and we might mistakenly deem him pure.

אִי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara answers: If the mishna were discussing impurity by Torah law, indeed the Sages would issue such a decree. But here we are dealing with impurity by rabbinic law, and therefore the Sages did not issue such a decree.

תִּינַח טָמֵא בַּטְּהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר בִּטְמֵאָה – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! בִּטְרֵפָה.

The Gemara objects: According to this answer, the case in the mishna of an impure person who flays a pure animal works out well. That could be referring to a case of impurity by rabbinic law. But in every case of a pure person who flays an impure animal, i.e., an unslaughtered animal carcass, the impurity of the animal is by Torah law. Therefore, in such a case the Sages should have issued a decree. The Gemara explains: The case taught in the mishna of a person who flays an impure animal is referring to a pure animal that was properly slaughtered, but after the slaughter the animal was found to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, thereby rendering it a tereifa. Such an animal imparts impurity by rabbinic law.

טְרֵפָה בַּת טַמּוֹיֵי הִיא? אִין, כְּדַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין.

The Gemara asks: Is a pure animal that is found to be a tereifa capable of imparting impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel’s father, as Shmuel’s father said: A tereifa that one slaughtered imparts impurity by rabbinic law if it is a sacrificial animal. Accordingly, the mishna is referring to the case of a sacrificial animal that was found to be a tereifa.

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בִּשְׁרָצִים – חִבּוּר, עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation of Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate Kelim from a baraita (Tosefta 8:19): Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: With regard to one who flays creeping animals, its hide is considered to have a connection with the flesh, and it imparts impurity of a creeping animal until he flays the animal in its entirety.

הָא בְּגָמָל – אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר.

The Gemara infers: This halakha applies only with regard to creeping animals, but with regard to a camel or other non-kosher animals, when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it is not considered to have a connection with the flesh and is pure, even though when the measure of grasping is flayed it is impure. Apparently, there is no rabbinic decree that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of grasping imparts impurity lest one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping come to flay only a measure of grasping, contrary to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh.

לָא תֵּימָא הָא בְּגָמָל אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּעוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא.

The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that this statement indicates that with regard to a camel, when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it is not considered to have a connection with the flesh. Rather, say that this statement indicates that only with regard to a creeping animal is the hide considered to have a connection with the flesh until one flays the animal in its entirety. But with regard to a camel carcass and other non-kosher animals, in a case where one seeks to fashion a jug and begins flaying from the legs, if he removed the entire hide except for the hide over the neck, it is not considered to have a connection to the flesh, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri stated in the mishna.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר.

§The Gemara returns to discuss, and limit the scope of, the previously cited mishna (Kelim 28:8): In the case of a ritually impure garment that one began to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered to have a connection, and the garment is pure. Rav Huna says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei: The mishna taught that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, is no longer impure only when one did not leave untorn a part of the garment that is the measure of a scarf. But if he left an untorn piece that is the measure of a scarf, it is considered to have a connection, and the garment remains ritually impure.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טַלִּית, אֲבָל עוֹר – חֲלִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר נָמֵי לָא חֲלִים.

Reish Lakish said: The mishna taught only with regard to an impure garment, most of which has been torn, that it is no longer impure, but an impure hide that was torn in such a manner remains impure because it is repairable. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hide that was torn in such a manner is no longer impure because it is not repairable.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר טָמֵא מִדְרָס, חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִרְצוּעוֹת וְסַנְדָּלִים – כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן בּוֹ אִיזְמֵל טָהוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּמְעִיטֶנּוּ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים. כִּי מְמַעֵיט לֵיהּ מִיהָא טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲלִים!

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Kelim 26:9): In the case of a hide that is impure with impurity imparted by treading, if the owner intended with regard to the hide to make it into straps and sandals, when he applies a scalpel [izmel] to the hide, the hide becomes pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: The hide does not become pure until he reduces the size of the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths. In any event, when he reduces the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it becomes pure. Why is this so? Let us say according the opinion of Reish Lakish that the hide should not become pure, as it is repairable.

כִּי קָאָמְרִי דַּחֲלִים, הֵיכָא דְּקָא צָרֵי לֵיהּ לְהֶדְיָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּמְקַצֵּעַ וּבָא לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ סְבִיבוֹתָיו.

Reish Lakish responded to Rabbi Yoḥanan: When I said that a torn hide is repairable, I was referring to a case where one cut the hide in a straight line. By contrast, here we are dealing with a case where one cut the hide in a circular manner. In such a case, the hide is not repairable.

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה – הָא יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה טָהוֹר, וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲלִים! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי אָבִין: רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן עוֹשֶׂה נִיפּוּל.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: In the case of one who flays either a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure animal or a ritually impure animal, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping. Rabbi Yirmeya infers: But once one has flayed more than the measure of grasping, the hide is pure. But according to Reish Lakish, why is this so? Let us say that the hide is repairable, i.e., it can be sewn back on. Rabbi Avin interpreted the mishna and explained that one piece after one piece, i.e., each piece that is flayed is rendered fallen and disconnected from the flesh, as it will never be reattached to the flesh, unlike the case of a torn hide, which may be sewn back together.

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: עוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר. אַמַּאי? הָא חֲלִים וְקָאֵי!

Rav Yosef raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from another ruling in the mishna: With regard to the hide over the neck, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: It is not considered to have a connection to the flesh, as the hide is merely loosely connected to the neck itself, and it is pure. According to Reish Lakish, why is this so? Doesn’t the hide exist in its repaired state, i.e., isn’t it still connected to the neck itself? If an impure hide that was torn and can be repaired remains impure, this should certainly be the halakha with regard to hide that was never moved from its initial state.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא סֵיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חִבּוּר.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Instead of objecting to the opinion of Reish Lakish due to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say: The hide covering the neck is considered to have a connection to the flesh, a statement that supports the opinion of Reish Lakish according to your reasoning.

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּשׁוֹמֵר הֶעָשׂוּי לִנָּתֵק מֵאֵלָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: הָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר.

Rather, Abaye said: The dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan is irrelevant to the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. In the mishna, they disagree with regard to whether an appendage, such as the hide of the neck, that protects the flesh but is prone to become detached by itself is considered to be protection. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is considered to be protection, and one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, holds that it is not considered to be protection.

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תַּנּוּר שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אוֹתוֹ? חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְגוֹרֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Kelim 5:7): With regard to an oven that has become impure, how does one purify it? One divides the oven into three parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster that surrounds the oven