Chullin 122a

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן?

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it.

אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הָאָמַר לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר. וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – פְּשִׁיטָא, הָאָמַר מְבַטֵּל עוֹר.

If one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didn’t Rabbi Yishmael say that the hide does not nullify the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? And if one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didn’t Rabbi Akiva say that the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?

לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ חָיָה, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בָּטֵיל.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yishmael said that the hide does not nullify the flesh, that statement applies to a case where an animal severed the hide. But in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the attached flesh.

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to this explanation of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna says in explanation of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי לָא בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. Therefore, the Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, even in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh, accordingly, Rav Huna said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and therefore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected the pieces.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן?

But if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna say that the hide does not nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart the impurity of a carcass?

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

The Gemara responds: Rather, it is necessary to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael differently. Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael even a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the attached flesh. And Rav Huna said his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of flesh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָנֵי מִילֵּי פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה – לָא בָּטֵיל.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna’s statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement is necessary lest you say: When Rabbi Akiva said that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of flesh, that statement applies only to a case where a person used a knife to flay the animal. But if an animal severed the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh.

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן, לָא שְׁנָא (פלט) [פְּלָטַתּוּ] חַיָּה, וְלָא שְׁנָא (פלט) [פְּלָטַתּוּ] סַכִּין, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַהֵר בְּעוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.

Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is because the hide nullifies the flesh, and there is no difference whether an animal severed the hide, and there is no difference whether a person used a knife to flay the hide. This statement of Rav Huna is therefore in accordance with that which the latter clause of that mishna teaches: For what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן: עוֹר הָאָדָם, וָעוֹר חֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עוֹר חֲזִיר הַבָּר.

MISHNA: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh: The skin of a dead person, which imparts impurity like his flesh; and the skin of a domesticated pig, which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the skin of a wild boar has the same status.

וָעוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וָעוֹר הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת, וָעוֹר הַשְּׁלִיל, וְעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחוֹמֶט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַלְּטָאָה כְּחוּלְדָּה.

And the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is also like that of their flesh: The skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen; and the skin of the head of a young calf; and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin of an animal fetus in the womb of a slaughtered animal; and the skin beneath the tail of a ewe; and the skin of the gecko [ anaka ], and the desert monitor [ ko’aḥ ], and the lizard [ leta’a ], and the skink [ ḥomet ], four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death. Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic status of the skin of the lizard is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh.

וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן, אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה – טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאָדָם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת.

And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: All eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah have skins whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.

GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that the skin of a dead person imparts impurity like his flesh. With regard to this, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר אָדָם. אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם שֶׁעִבְּדוֹ טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.

And there are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. With regard to that clause, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

The Gemara comments: The one who teaches the statement of Ulla that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not tanned, all the more so would teach it with regard to the latter clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that only the tanned skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, but does not teach it with regard to the first clause of the mishna because he holds that the impurity of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is by Torah law.

וְעוֹר חֲזִיר [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: הַאי אַשּׁוּן וְהַאי רַכִּיךְ, וּמָר סָבַר: הַאי נָמֵי רַכִּיךְ.

§The mishna teaches that according to the first tanna , the skin of a domesticated pig imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the first tanna , holds that this skin of a wild boar is tough and therefore its status is not that of flesh, but that skin of a domesticated pig is soft and therefore its status is that of flesh. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this skin of a wild boar is also soft and therefore its status is that of flesh.

עוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְכַמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה.

§The mishna teaches that the skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a camel considered young and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? Ulla says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as the camel has not carried a burden.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְלֹא טָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְטָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time, i.e., age, to carry a burden has arrived, but it has not yet carried one? Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time to carry a burden has not arrived, but it has nevertheless carried one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּיב לְקִבְלִי.

Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored him and said to him: Sit opposite me.

יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. הֲוָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא הָוְיָא לָךְ אֲמַרְתְּ.

Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Ravin bar Ḥinnana said to him: This is what Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. Ravin bar Ḥinnana then repeated his answer to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do you have only one halakha to say, and that is why you are repeating it?

תָּא חֲזִי, מָה בֵּין תַּקִּיפֵי אַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לַחֲסִידֵי דְבָבֶל.

The Gemara points out: Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael, such as Reish Lakish, and the saintly ones of Babylonia, such as Rabbi Zeira. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira responded sharply to the one who taught him this halakha .

וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ וְכוּ׳. וְכַמָּה עֵגֶל הָרַךְ? עוּלָּא אָמַר: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר עוּלָּא? בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק,

§The mishna teaches: And the skin of the head of a young calf has the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a calf considered young? Ulla says: It is considered young in its first year of age. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: For as long as the calf is suckling. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is Ulla speaking? Is he referring to a calf that is in its first year of age and is still suckling,