חולין נה

חולין נה

שִׁיעוּרָן בִּכְדֵי סִיכַת קָטָן וְעַד לוֹג. מַאי לָאו לוֹג כִּלְמַטָּה? לֹא, לוֹג כִּלְמַעְלָה.

their measure in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity is that they can hold enough oil with which to anoint a small child. If they cannot hold this amount, they are considered useless and are not susceptible to impurity. And this measure applies only to vessels that held up to a log when they were whole; if they had originally held more, they must hold more when broken in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly one log it is treated as though it had held below that amount? If so, the term: Up to, means up to and including. The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly one log it is treated as though it held above that amount, and if broken it must be capable of holding a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִלּוֹג עַד סְאָה – בִּרְבִיעִית, מַאי לָאו סְאָה כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, סְאָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold a quarter-log in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount, and its base or sides must hold a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִסְּאָה וְעַד סָאתַיִם – בַּחֲצִי לוֹג, מַאי לָאו סָאתַיִם כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, סָאתַיִם כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel had originally held from a se’aup to two se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold half a log to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it had originally held exactly two se’a it is treated as if though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount.

וְהָתַנְיָא: לוֹג – כִּלְמַטָּה, סְאָה – כִּלְמַטָּה, סָאתַיִם – כִּלְמַטָּה.

The Gemara asks: How can one explain the mishna in this manner? But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: If the vessel had originally held exactly a log it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? Evidently, the term: Up to, means up to and including the given measure, in contradiction to Rav Naḥman’s opinion that it means up to and not including the measure.

הָתָם לְחוּמְרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַחְמִיר, חוּץ מִכִּגְרִיס שֶׁל כְּתָמִים לְהָקֵל.

The Gemara responds: The term: Up to, is always interpreted in the more stringent manner. Accordingly, there, with regard to the impurity of vessels, the term: Up to, is interpreted as up to and including in order to rule stringently, since the vessel is then more easily susceptible to impurity. As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a groat as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman’s clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Even if the stain is exactly the size of a groat, the woman remains pure. Here, it is more stringent to interpret the phrase: Up to, as up to and including, because an animal is then more susceptible to being rendered a tereifa.

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא: חֲמִשָּׁה – כִּלְמַעְלָה, עֲשָׂרָה – כִּלְמַטָּה.

The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, i.e., it is evident that the phrase: Up to, is always interpreted stringently, as the mishna (Kelim 19:2) states that if a rope extending from a rope bed is of any length up to five handbreadths, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it is of any length from five up to ten handbreadths, it is susceptible. And a baraita teaches with regard to that mishna: If the rope was exactly five handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were above that; if the rope was exactly ten handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were below that. In both cases, the measure is interpreted stringently.

נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל, אָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִיטַּל, אֲבָל נִיקַּב – טְרֵפָה.

§ The mishna states: If the spleen was removed the animal remains kosher. Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: The Sages taught that it is kosher only when the spleen was removed, but if it was perforated, it is a tereifa.

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא: חוֹתֵךְ מֵעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. הָא בְּהֵמָה גּוּפַהּ שַׁרְיָא!

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raises an objection from a mishna in the next chapter (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in the womb and leaves those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal (see 69a). By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, then even if those pieces are left inside the animal their consumption is prohibited, because an organ severed from a living being is not permitted by the subsequent slaughter of the animal. One can infer from the mishna that the animal itself is permitted even when part of the spleen was severed. Evidently, such an animal is not a tereifa.

הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי אֲסִירָא, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה״, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: נִיקַּב לְחוֹד, וְנֶחְתַּךְ לְחוּד.

The Gemara responds: The same is true of the animal, and even the animal is prohibited. But since the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to the parts of the fetus: Their consumption is permitted, it taught in the last clause with regard to the parts of the spleen: Their consumption is prohibited, to contrast between them. Or, if you wish, say instead that a perforated spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is a tereifa, and a cut spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is not.

נִיטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת. אָמַר רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת – טְרֵפָה. אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: וְהוּא דִּמְטַאי לָקוּתָא

§ The mishna states: If the kidneys were removed the animal remains kosher. Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If an animal was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifa. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: And this applies only in a case where the disease reached

לִמְקוֹם חָרִיץ. וְהֵיכָא מְקוֹם חָרִיץ? לְחִיוָּרָא דְּתוּתֵי מׇתְנֵי. אָמַר רַב נְחוּנְיָא: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ טָרוֹפָאֵי דְּמַעְרְבָא, וְאָמְרִי לִי הִלְכְתָא כְּרָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב עַוִּירָא.

the location of the crevice. And where is the location of the crevice? This is a reference to the white matter under the loins. Rav Neḥunya said: I asked all the authorities on tereifot of the West, and they said to me: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rav that a diseased kidney renders an animal a tereifa, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Avira that a perforated spleen renders the animal a tereifa.

דְּרַב עַוִּירָא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא בְּקוּלְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל בְּסוּמְכֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי אִישְׁתְּיַיר בֵּיהּ כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב – כְּשֵׁרָה.

The Gemara adds: And even with regard to the opinion of Rav Avira, we said that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion only if the spleen was perforated in its narrow, lower end, but if it was perforated in its thick, upper end, the animal is a tereifa. And even if it was perforated in its thick end, if it was not perforated completely and a layer of the spleen as thick as a gold dinar remains intact, the animal is kosher.

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בָּרֵיאָה – כָּשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶקֶב פָּסוּל בָּרֵיאָה, וְכָשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הֵיכָא דְּכָשֵׁר בָּרֵיאָה – כָּשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא.

§ They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any injury that renders an animal unfit for consumption when occurring in the lung is kosher when occurring in the kidney. For example, a perforation renders an animal unfit when occurring in the lung (see 42a), but the animal is kosher if it occurs in the kidney. And it follows that all the more so, where an animal is kosher despite an injury in the lung, it will remain kosher despite a similar injury in the kidney.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא: וּכְלָלָא הוּא? הֲרֵי מוּגְלָא, דְּכָשֵׁר בָּרֵיאָה וּפָסוּל בַּכּוּלְיָא! וַהֲרֵי מַיִם זַכִּין, דִּכְשֵׁרִים הָכָא וְהָכָא, אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּית לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחָיְתָה.

Rabbi Tanḥuma objects to this: And is this an established principle? But what about a case of pus, where the animal is kosher if it occurs in the lung and unfit for consumption if it occurs in the kidney? And what about clear fluid, which is kosher both here and there, i.e., whether occurring in the lungs or the kidney? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives. Certain injuries may compromise the kidney but not the lung, or vice versa.

וּמַיִם זַכִּין כְּשֵׁרִים, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּצִילִּי, אֲבָל עֲכִירִי – טְרֵפָה. וְכִי צִילִּי נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא סְרִיחַ, אֲבָל סְרִיחַ – טְרֵפָה.

The Gemara notes: And with regard to clear fluid found in the lungs or kidney, which is kosher, we said so only in a case where the fluid was unclouded, but if it was clouded, the animal is a tereifa. And even when the fluid was unclouded, we said the animal is kosher only if the fluid is not fetid, but if it is fetid, the animal is a tereifa.

הַכּוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה, בַּדַּקָּה – עַד כְּפוֹל, בַּגַּסָּה – עַד כַּעֲנָבָה בֵּינוֹנִית.

The Gemara continues to discuss cases of tereifot due to the kidneys: With regard to a kidney that shrank, in small animals, such as sheep, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of a bean; in large animals, such as cattle, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of an intermediate-sized grape.

נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת עַל יְדֵי לְעִיטָה וְהַמְרָאָה, אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת עַל יְדֵי לְעִיטָה וְהַמְרָאָה – טְרֵפָה.

§ The mishna states: If the animal’s lower jaw was removed, it remains kosher. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages taught this only when the animal is able to live by placing food in its mouth or stuffing it down its throat. But if it cannot live by placing or stuffing food into it, it is a tereifa.

נִיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, תָּנָא: הִיא הָאֵם, הִיא טַרְפַּחַת, וְהִיא שַׁלְפּוּחִית.

§ The mishna states: If its womb [em] was removed, the animal remains kosher. A Sage taught: The em is synonymous with the tarpaḥat, and it is synonymous with the shalpuḥit.

וַחֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹהִי חֲרוּתָה? כֹּל שֶׁצָּמְקָה רֵיאָה שֶׁלָּהּ. בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּידֵי אָדָם – טְרֵפָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.

§ The mishna states: Or if its lung shriveled [ḥaruta] by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is a ḥaruta? It is any animal whose lung shriveled. If this occurred by the hand of Heaven, e.g., if the lung shriveled from fright of thunder and lightning, the animal is kosher. But if it happened by the hands of a person who frightened it, e.g., if it witnessed another animal being slaughtered, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if the lung shriveled by the hands of any creature, e.g., if it was frightened by a lion’s roar.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי וּלְקוּלָּא, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי וּלְחוּמְרָא?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar referring to the first clause of the baraita, in which case the statement is a leniency, and even the roar of a lion is considered by the hand of Heaven? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and the statement is a stringency, and a lung shriveled by the hand of any creature renders the animal a tereifa?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי אָדָם – טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in the above baraita: A lung that was shriveled by the hands of a person renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hands of any creature. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is referring to the latter clause.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּמַדְבְּרָא, אַשְׁכַּח הָנְהוּ דִּיכְרֵי דִּצְמִיק רֵיאָה דִּידְהוּ. אֲתָא שְׁאֵיל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בְּקַיְיטָא – אַיְיתִי מְשִׁיכְלֵי חִיוָּרֵי, וּמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא קָרִירֵי, וְאַנְּחִינְהוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. אִי הָדְרָן בָּרְיָין – בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הִיא וּכְשֵׁרָה, וְאִי לָא – טְרֵפָה. בְּסִיתְוָא – אַיְיתִי מְשִׁיכְלֵי שִׁיחוּמֵי, וּמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי, וְאַנְּחִינְהוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. אִי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי לָא – טְרֵפָה.

The Gemara recounts: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was walking in the desert, and he found certain rams whose lungs were shriveled. He came and asked in the study hall how one can determine the cause of the shriveling. The Sages said to him: In the summer, bring white vessels and fill them with cold water and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, i.e., if they expand, one knows that it was by the hand of Heaven and the animals are kosher; but if they do not expand, the animals are tereifa. In the winter, bring dark vessels and fill them with tepid water, and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, they are kosher; but if not, they are tereifa.

הַגְּלוּדָה: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגְּלוּדָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים, וּכְבָר הֵעִיד אֶלְעָזָר סָפְרָא וְיוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

§ The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And Elazar the scribe and Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.

מִכְּלָל דִּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר פְּלִיג רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּגְלוּדָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה, וּכְבָר הֵעִיד רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַבַּשָּׂם לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה, וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ״? לֹא עָמַד רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמַחֲלוֹקְתּוֹ.

The Gemara objects: By inference, one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Meir initially disagreed with regard to an animal whose hide was removed. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree with regard to an animal whose hide was removed, and all agree that it is unfit for consumption. And Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Yehuda the spice merchant, already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. And if a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact, the animal is kosher. The Gemara explains the objection: The phrase: Did not disagree, indicates that Rabbi Meir never disagreed with the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Did not disagree? It means that Rabbi Meir did not stand firm in his disagreement and retracted.

אָמַר מָר: אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע – כְּשֵׁרָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact in the animal, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: Where must this piece of hide be? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The piece of hide must be along the entire spine.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּאֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין, דְּכִי מְצָרֵף לַהּ הָוֵי כְּסֶלַע, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרוֹחַב סֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּפָרֵישׁ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: בְּרוֹחַב כְּסֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי כׇּל הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Shmuel mean that it is kosher if a long and thin strip of hide remains along the spine, such that when one combines its area, it will constitute the same size as a sela? Or perhaps it is kosher only if the remaining hide is the width of a sela along the entire spine? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: It must be the width of a sela along the entire spine.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: There must be a piece of hide the size of a sela on the tips of all segments of the spine and on the tips of the femur and tibia. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The piece of hide must be the width of a sela at the place of its navel.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נִיטַּל מְקוֹם הַשִּׁדְרָה וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, נִיטַּל מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, נִיטְּלוּ רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, raises a dilemma: If all the hide covering the place of the spine was removed, but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering the place of its navel was removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering all the tips of the segments were removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הָעוֹר כּוּלּוֹ מַצִּיל בִּגְלוּדָה, חוּץ מֵעוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת נָמֵי מַצִּיל.

Rav says: Any portion of the hide that is the size of a sela saves an animal whose hide was removed from becoming a tereifa, except for the hide of the hooves, which is not considered hide. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even the hide of the hooves saves it.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל בִּגְלוּדָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַצִּיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן – עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, שֶׁבִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.

The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the hide of the hooves, what is the halakha? Does it save an animal whose hide was removed if a piece of it the size of a sela remains? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It saves the animal. Rabbi Asi said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, the following mishna (122a): These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status, in that it transmits ritual impurity…the skin of a head of a young calf, and the hide of the hooves? Evidently, the hide of the hooves is considered like flesh and not true skin. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Do not trouble me by invoking that mishna, as I teach it in the singular. Only according to one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, is the hide of the hooves not true skin; according to the Rabbis, it is considered true skin.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹלָה לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת; חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the hide beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for one who partakes of the offering. If he had intent to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This halakha usually applies to an offering’s flesh but not its hide. Since the hide beneath the tail is soft, it is treated like part of the flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ אֶיבְלַיִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ [כְּפַר] עִיכּוּס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶחָד עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְאֶחָד עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וְאֶחָד עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וְכֹל שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן,

Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so says Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves, or the hide of the head of a young calf, or the hide beneath the tail, or any hide that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status,