Chullin 121a (קכא.) — the Talmud in English

And then

again

he cites it with regard to orla

by means of a gzera shava,

“fruit”—

“fruit” from the first fruits—

both of which contain the word “fruit.” Thus, even with regard to orla, the liquids that emerge from the fruit are prohibited like the fruit itself only in the case of olives and grapes. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is liable to lashes even for drinking other liquids .

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the alal.”

[It combines with food for the requisite measure of an egg-bulk with regard to ritual impurity of food, but in and of itself it is not susceptible to impurity.]

The Gemara asks:

What is “alal”?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Marteka—

the neck tendon, which is hard and is not considered food in its own right, but only when it is together with meat.

And Reish Lakish said: Meat released by the knife—

when the hide is removed from the animal, sometimes a small amount of meat remains attached to the hide because the knife did not remove it. That meat is not considered food when it is on its own, because it is subordinate to the hide.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is stated in the Book of Job: “

But you are

fabricators of falsehood, worthless physicians, all of you.”

That is, Job said to his friends: You comfort me with something that contains no healing, like the alal, which has no healing.

Granted, according to the one who says

that alal is

marteka,

the neck tendon,

this is why it has no healing,

since once the tendon has been severed it cannot be reattached.

But according to the one who says

that alal is

meat released by the knife,

it is difficult, for

it does have healing!

The meat that has been torn away can be returned to its place, where it joins with the rest of the meat and heals.

And we answer:

With regard to the alal in the verse,

everyone agrees

that its meaning is marteka.

They disagree

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish

with regard to the alal of the Mishna:

whether its meaning is marteka, or whether its meaning is meat released by the knife.

Come and hear:

As we learned at the beginning of our chapter:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The alal

of an animal carcass

that has been gathered,

having been collected together in one place,

if there is an olive-bulk in one place,

one is liable for it

on account of the ritual impurity of an animal carcass: If one touched the gathered alal of a carcass and entered the Temple, he is liable to karet, since it imparts the impurity of carcasses by Torah law and not merely by rabbinic law, unlike the first tanna, who maintains that alal does not impart the impurity of carcasses at all.

And Rav Huna said: This is when he gathered it

the person, thereby assigning it importance; consequently, it retroactively has the status of meat, from the time he cut it from the animal. But if it was gathered on its own, it did not thereby acquire importance, and it is like other alal, which does not impart the impurity of an animal carcass.

The Gemara now asks:

Granted, according to the one who says

that alal is

meat released by the knife, this explains why, when there is an olive-bulk

that has been gathered,

one is liable.

The sole deficiency of this meat is that it lacks importance, since it is subordinate to the hide. Once a person gathers it, it retroactively acquires importance, and its status is that of any meat that imparts the impurity of carcasses.

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

that has been gathered,

what difference does it make?

It is

merely wood,

so what benefit is there in assigning it importance?

And we answer:

According to Rabbi Yehuda, they do not disagree,

as his statement concerns only meat released by the knife.

They disagree according to the Rabbis,

that is, the first tanna of the Mishna.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The alal mentioned by the Rabbis, which combines for the ritual impurity of food but not for the impurity of carcasses, means everything that is called alal. It is not only meat released by the knife, which combines with the meat;

even marteka combines,

because it is eaten together with the meat.

Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the first tanna with regard to only one of them. With regard to marteka, he agrees with the first tanna that it does not impart the impurity of carcasses at all. With regard to meat released by the knife, he disagrees: If it has been gathered, it imparts the impurity of carcasses.

And Reish Lakish said:

The alal of the Rabbis means

specifically meat released by the knife,

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

But marteka,

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

does not combine,

because it is not eaten with the meat at all.

The Gemara asks:

This meat released by the knife,

which the Rabbis say is not considered food in its own right with regard to becoming susceptible to impurity, but only when combined with the meat—

what are the circumstances?

If he assigned it

for consumption, then

even on its own should it become impure?

Anything fit for consumption, even if it is not normally eaten, acquires the status of food if a person intends to eat it.

And if he did not assign it to himself,

then even combining it with the meat should not help, for

he utterly nullified it

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

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha

disagreed over how to answer this question:

One said:

What are the circumstances here? It is a case in which

part of it

the meat released by the knife

he assigned

for consumption, but he did not specify which part he had in mind. Therefore, when the meat is on its own it is not susceptible to impurity, since the portion he intended does not contain the requisite measure of an egg-bulk. But when it is attached to other food, the portion he intended combines with that food to complete the requisite measure, even though he does not know which portion is the one that combines. [If the portion he intended contains an egg-bulk, then indeed the meat becomes impure even when it is on its own.]

And one said:

This is a case in which

part of it was released 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 subordinate to the hide, and it becomes susceptible to the ritual impurity of food even on its own, since it was not torn away by a person and therefore there was no intention to nullify it.

And part of it was released by the knife—

when the hide was removed, a small amount of meat was left attached to it. It is now unknown which portion was released by the knife and thereby lost the status of meat, and which portion was released by the animal and did not become subordinate to the hide. Therefore, on its own it does not become susceptible to impurity, since the portion released by the animal does not contain an egg-bulk. But when it is attached to other food, that portion combines with it to complete the measure of an egg-bulk, even though he does not know which portion released by the animal is the one that combines. [If the portion released by the animal contains an egg-bulk, it becomes susceptible to impurity even on its own].

—