Chullin 127b

נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.

If the animal was slaughtered, although this act of slaughter does not render it permitted for consumption by a Jew (see 73b), the limb and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with the blood of the slaughtered animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible to impurity through the animal’s own blood; they are rendered susceptible only once they have been wet with another liquid.

מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר נְבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.

If the animal died without slaughter, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure, as 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. The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal but does not impart impurity as the limb of an unslaughtered carcass; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the limb ritually pure.

גְּמָ׳ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – אִין, טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה – לָא.

GEMARA: The mishna states that the limb of an animal that was partially severed and remains hanging from the animal imparts impurity as food if one had intent to eat it. The Gemara infers: It imparts impurity as food, yes, but it does not impart the impurity of a carcass, which can be transmitted to people and utensils in addition to food.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין נָמֵי לָא לִיטַּמּוּ, וְאִי דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limb can heal and reattach to the animal’s body then it should not be susceptible even to impurity as food. And if it cannot heal, it should impart the impurity of a carcass as well.

לְעוֹלָם, דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה, וְשָׁאנֵי טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״כִּי יִפּוֹל״, עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is discussing a case where the limb will not heal, and the reason that the limb does not impart impurity of a carcass is that the impurity of a carcass is different and unique, as the Merciful One states with regard to the impurity of a carcass: “And if any of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of an animal is not considered a carcass until it completely falls from the animal.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּמְעוֹרִין בְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה, יָכוֹל יְטַמְּאוּ טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִפּוֹל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין מְטַמּוּ.

This explanation is also taught in a baraita : With regard to the limb and the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal and are connected to the animal by a connector the size of a strand of hair, one might have thought that they impart the impurity of a carcass. Therefore, the verse states: “And if any of the carcass fall,” indicating that a severed limb does not impart the impurity of a carcass until it completely falls from the animal. And nevertheless, despite the fact that it is not considered severed with regard to the impurity of a carcass, such a limb is considered severed with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food.

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּאֵנִים שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן – מְטַמְּאוֹת טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

This explanation supports the opinion of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Shmuel said: With regard to figs that dried while still attached to their tree, despite the fact that they are still attached, they are considered as if they have been picked and are susceptible to impurity as food. But with regard to one who picks them on Shabbat they are considered attached, and he is liable to bring a sin offering. Just as a partially severed limb of an animal is considered both attached and severed with regard to different halakhot , so too this dried fruit is considered both attached and detached with regard to different halakhot .

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יְרָקוֹת שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכְּרוּב וְהַדַּלַּעַת – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

Let us say that a baraita ( Tosefta , Okatzin 2:11) supports the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that dried figs still attached to the tree are considered as if they are detached with regard to susceptibility to impurity as food: Vegetables that dried while they are attached to their plant, such as cabbage and gourd, which become hard as wood and inedible when dried, are not susceptible to impurity as food. But if one cut them when they were still moist and then dried them in order to use them for fuel, or, in the case of gourds, to make utensils out of them, they are susceptible to impurity as food.

קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּעַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן.

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that if one cut them and dried them they are susceptible to impurity as food? Such a vegetable is merely wood, and it is inedible. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The baraita is discussing a case where one cut the vegetables when they were still moist in order to dry them. The novelty of the baraita is that even though one intends to dry the vegetables and render them inedible, as long as they are still moist they are susceptible to impurity as food.

טַעְמָא דִּכְרוּב וְדַלַּעַת הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּיִבְּשָׁן לָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ, הָא שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְטַמְּאִי.

The Gemara infers: The reason for this halakha in the baraita is that it is discussing cabbage and gourd: Since one dried them, they are inedible and consequently are not susceptible to impurity as food. But other types of produce, which are edible when dried, are susceptible to impurity.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיִבְּשָׁן הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּלֹא עוּקְצֵיהֶן.

The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: What are the circumstances? If one dried both the produce itself and its stems, isn’t it obvious that the produce is no longer considered attached to the plant and is susceptible to impurity? If so, it would be unnecessary for the baraita to teach this. Rather, isn’t the baraita discussing a case where one dried the produce without drying its stems? Accordingly, in such a case the produce is considered detached with regard to impurity even though it is considered attached with regard to Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel.

לְעוֹלָם הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן, וּקְצָצָן עַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: The baraita is not necessarily discussing that case. Actually, the baraita is discussing a case where both the produce itself and its stems were dried. And although it appears that the halakha is obvious in such a case, it was necessary for the baraita to mention it in order to teach the latter clause of the baraita : In a case where one cut the cabbage and gourd when they were still moist in order to dry them, they are susceptible to impurity as long as they are still moist.

תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּבוֹ פֵּירוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין, יָבְשׁוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְחוּבָּרִין. מַאי לָאו: מָה תְּלוּשִׁין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, אַף מְחוּבָּרִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita : In the case of a tree from which a branch broke off, and the branch has fruit attached to it, even if the fruit is still moist it is considered detached from the tree. But if the branch did not break off, and the fruit dried on the tree, it is considered attached. What, isn’t the ruling of the baraita that just as in the first clause the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters, the halakhot of both Shabbat and impurity, so too in the latter clause the fruit that dried on the tree is considered attached to the tree with regard to all matters, even the transmission of impurity, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel?

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

The Gemara rejects this challenge: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. In the first clause of the baraita , the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters. In the latter clause of the baraita , the dried fruit on the tree is considered attached with regard to Shabbat but detached with regard to impurity.

נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?

§The mishna teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that with the blood of the slaughtered animal the limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that they were not rendered susceptible with the animal’s own blood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר, וּמָר סָבַר בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר.

Rabba said: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb. The tanna’im agree that if an appendage that constitutes a handle is rendered susceptible to impurity, the food to which it is attached is also rendered susceptible. But they disagree with regard to whether an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb, and therefore the limb is not rendered susceptible to contract impurity along with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb, and therefore the limb is rendered susceptible along with the body of the animal.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

Abaye said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tanna’im agree that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb. But they also agree that if the liquid comes into contact with only part of the food it renders the entire item susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if the partially severed limb is considered part of the animal it is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the animal. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the limb is considered part of the animal, and generally speaking, with regard to any case where a small part of an item is hanging off the larger part such that if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does not ascend with it.

מָר סָבַר: אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ.

One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that although if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does not ascend with it, the small part is still considered one and the same with the large part. Therefore, a partially severed limb is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the small part is not considered one and the same with the large part in such a case, and therefore the partially severed limb is not rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal.

וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds in accordance with the explanation of Abaye that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the status of a small part of an item that is hanging off the larger part such that one grasps the small part and the large part does not ascend with it.

דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?

As Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and another statement of Rabbi Meir: Did Rabbi Meir actually say that even in a case where one grasps the small part of an item and the large part does not ascend with it, the small part is still considered one and the same with the large part?

וּרְמִינְהוּ: אוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּפְרַס וּמְעוֹרֶה בְּמִקְצָת,

One can raise a contradiction to this statement from a mishna ( Tevul Yom 3:1): With regard to a piece of food that was sliced from a larger piece of food and remains partially connected to the larger piece, the entire item is considered one and the same with regard to impurity. If one who was previously ritually impure and immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched either piece of the item, the entire item becomes impure.