Chullin 121a — the Talmud in English

And again

again

he brings it for orla

by a gezera shava

“fruit” —

“fruit” from first fruits —

in both of which “fruit” is stated: that also with regard to orla, the liquids that emerge from them are not forbidden like them except with olives and grapes alone. But according to the method of Rabbi Eliezer, he is liable for lashes even for drinking other liquids.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the allel.” [

For it combines with food impurity to the measure of an egg, but by itself it does not contract impurity.]

And we raised a question concerning it:

What is “allel”?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: martaka —

the neck sinew, which is hard and is not considered food by itself, but only when it is with the meat.

And Resh Lakish said: meat that the knife left behind —

when the hide is removed from the animal, sometimes a little meat remains attached to the hide, which the knife did not remove; that meat is not considered food when it is by itself, since it is nullified to the hide.

An objection is raised:

It is stated in the Book of Job: “

But you —

plasterers of falsehood, worthless physicians are all of you.”

That is, Job said to his companions: You comfort me with something in which there is no healing, like the allel, which has no healing.

Granted, according to the one who says

that allel is

the martaka,

the neck sinew,

this is why it has no healing,

for after the sinew has been severed, it is impossible to join it again.

But according to the one who says

that allel is

meat that the knife left behind,

it is difficult, for

it does have healing!?

For the meat that was torn away can be returned to its place; it joins with the rest of the meat and heals.

And we answer:

With regard to the allel of the verse,

everyone agrees

that its meaning is martaka.

They disagree

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

with regard to the allel of the Mishna:

whether its meaning is martaka, or whether its meaning is meat that the knife left behind.

Come and hear:

for we learned at the beginning of our chapter:

“Rabbi Yehuda says: The allel

of a carcass

that has been gathered,

that was collected together in one place,

if there is an olive-bulk in one place —

one is liable for it

on account of carcass impurity: if one touched gathered allel of a carcass and entered the Temple, he is liable for excision. For it imparts the impurity of carcasses by Torah law and not merely rabbinically, unlike the first tanna, who holds that allel does not impart carcass impurity at all.

And Rav Huna said: And this is when he gathered it

the person, through which he assigned it importance, and retroactively there is upon it the status of meat, from the time he cut it from the animal. But if it gathered by itself, it did not become important through this, and it is like other allel, which does not involve carcass impurity.

And now it is difficult:

Granted, according to the one who says

that allel is

meat that the knife left behind, this is why when there is an olive-bulk

gathered

one is liable.

For the only deficiency of this meat is that it is not important, and it is nullified to the hide; but through a person’s gathering it, it becomes important retroactively, and its law is like that of all meat that imparts carcass impurity.

But according to the one who says “martaka, when there is an olive-bulk

gathered,

what is there?

For

it is merely wood,

and what benefit is there in the fact that he assigned it importance?

And we answer:

According to Rabbi Yehuda they do not disagree,

for the case concerns only meat that the knife left behind.

They disagree according to the Rabbis,

that is, the first tanna of the Mishna.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The allel that the Rabbis speak of, which combines for food impurity but not for carcass impurity, means everything that is called allel. It is not necessary to say this of meat that the knife left behind, which combines with the meat; rather, even

the martaka also combines,

since it is eaten with the meat.

Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the first tanna concerning only one of them: with regard to the martaka, he agrees with the first tanna that it does not impart carcass impurity at all; and with regard to meat that the knife left behind, he disagrees, for if one gathered it, it imparts carcass impurity.

And Resh Lakish said:

The allel of the Rabbis means

specifically meat that the knife left behind,

whose deficiency is one of importance; therefore, when it is combined with the meat, it too is considered food.

But the martaka,

since it is merely wood, even when it is together with the meat it

does not combine.

For it is not eaten with the meat at all.

And we raised a question concerning it:

This meat that the knife left behind,

about which the Rabbis say that by itself it does not have the status of food with regard to contracting impurity, but only when combined with the meat —

what are the circumstances?

If he assigned it importance

to eat it, then

even by itself should it contract impurity?

For every thing fit for eating, even though it is not customary to eat it, nevertheless, if a person intended to eat it, it has the status of food.

And if he did not assign it importance,

then even combination would not be effective, for

he nullified it completely

by leaving it attached to the hide, and it is like the hide.

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meisha

disagreed how to answer this:

One said:

What are we dealing with here? With a case in which

part of it

of the meat left behind by the knife

he intended for

eating, but he did not specify which part he had intended. Therefore, when the meat is by itself, it does not contract impurity, since there is not an egg-sized measure in that part which he intended. But when it is attached to other food, the part that he intended combines with the food to complete the measure, although he does not know which part is the part that combines. [And when there is an egg-sized measure in the part that he intended, in fact the meat contracts impurity even when it is by itself].

And one said:

Here we are dealing with a case in which

part of it was torn away by an animal —

through the bite of an animal, part of the meat was torn away and remained beneath the hide. That meat is not nullified to the hide, and it contracts food impurity even when it is by itself, since, as it was not torn away by a person, there was no intention to nullify it.

And part of it was left behind by the knife —

when the hide was removed, a little meat was left attached to the hide. It is now unknown which part was left behind by the knife and nullified from the status of meat, and which part was torn away by the animal and was not nullified. Therefore, by itself it does not contract impurity, since there is not an egg-sized measure in the part torn away by the animal; but when it is attached to other food, that part combines to complete an egg-sized measure, although he does not know which part torn away by the animal is the part that combines. [And when there is an egg-sized measure in the part torn away by the animal, it contracts impurity even when it is by itself] .

We learned there

in tractate Tohorot, concerning the carcass of a pure bird

The beak and the claws

of the bird

receive impurity and convey impurity,

for they have the status of a handle, to bring impurity into the bird when they touched a creeping creature, and to bring impurity out of the bird when the bird is impure and they touched pure food,

and combine

for the measure of an egg with regard to the impurity of foods, since they are considered food when they are together with the flesh.

And we raised it:

The beak—

it is merely wood,

and why does it combine with the flesh!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said: [It is speaking of] the lower beak.

And we object: The beak

also, the lower one—

is it merely wood?!

And we answer:

Pappa said: [It is speaking of] the lower part of the upper one.

For the membrane attached to the upper part of the beak has the designation of food when it is together with the flesh.

And as for that which it teaches,

“claws”—

Rabbi Elazar said:

specifically in

the place embedded in the flesh,

that is, the roots of the claws; there they are considered food.

And as for that which we learned in our Mishna at the beginning of our chapter, that

horns

combine with the flesh—

Rav Pappa said:

only

in the place where they are cut and blood emerges from them,

that is, adjacent to the flesh, where they are soft and are eaten together with the flesh. But all the horns are not eaten together with the flesh and do not combine .

We learned in the Mishna:

“Similarly, one who slaughters an animal”

impure for a gentile and it is struggling, conveys the impurity of foods but not the impurity of carcasses, until it dies or until he severs its head.

For when a Jew slaughters a pure animal with valid slaughter, the animal becomes permitted for consumption immediately, even while it is still struggling, since the act of slaughter permits the animal, and it is immediately considered food. Therefore, also when a Jew slaughtered an impure animal, or when a gentile slaughtered a pure animal, it is considered food even while it is still struggling. However, when a gentile slaughters an impure animal, it is not considered food while it is struggling until it dies .

Rabbi Asi said:

There are tannaim who

teach: A Jew

who slaughtered

Rabbi Asi said:

There are tannaim who

teach: A Jew

who slaughtered

an impure

animal,

and

likewise

a gentile

who slaughtered a pure animal: the law is that even while the animal is struggling—when it is considered alive in every respect—it is already now considered food, and it receives the impurity of foods from a creeping creature.

The animal does not receive the impurity of foods immediately upon its slaughter; rather,

intention and the preparation of water from another source are required.

That is, it is insufficient that at the time of its slaughter he thought about it—that he was slaughtering it for the gentile’s consumption. Rather, he must think of it as intended for consumption now, while it is struggling; only then does it receive the impurity of foods from the creeping creature .

Likewise, it does not receive impurity until the flesh is moistened with water and prepared to receive impurity. And although every animal that was slaughtered receives the impurity of foods from a creeping creature even without the preparation of water, since the blood of slaughter prepares it to receive impurity, here the blood of the slaughter does not prepare it to receive impurity, because this slaughter is not valid. For the blood is considered a “liquid” that prepares [food for impurity] only when it is “blood of the slain,” that is, when he completely cut the head of the animal from the neck, or when it is the blood of valid slaughter; whereas here it is neither the blood of the slain nor the blood of valid slaughter.

And we raised it:

The preparation

of water

why is it needed!?

After all,

its end is to convey severe impurity.

For after the animal dies and becomes a carcass, it will convey severe impurity, conveying impurity to a person and to vessels [which is considered severe impurity in relation to impure food, which conveys impurity only to other food] .

And anything whose end is to convey severe impurity—

does not require preparation.

For even before the severe impurity descends upon it, it possesses this stringency: it receives the impurity of foods even without preparation?

For the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

It is stated in the Torah,

“And when water is placed upon seed,”

and from this verse we learn that food requires preparation. And we say:

Just as seeds, whose end is not to convey severe impurity,

for food can never be a primary source of impurity and can never convey impurity to a person or to vessels,

—

require preparation, and without the preparation of water they do not receive impurity,

so too, anything whose end is not to convey severe impurity

alone

requires preparation

of water; but something whose end is to convey severe impurity does not require preparation of water.

And

further

it was taught: Rabbi Yose said: Why did they say

at the beginning of tractate Tohorot

that the carcass of a pure bird requires intention

for consumption , [ because people are not accustomed to eating the carcass of a bird, and therefore it does not have the designation of food until a person thinks of it for consumption; only then does it receive impurity and convey impurity to other food. And by virtue of its being a carcass it does not convey impurity, because the carcass of a pure bird does not convey impurity through contact; it conveys impurity only when it is in the throat passage, for the person who eats it becomes impure],