Chullin 122a — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection concerning this: Rav Huna

according to whose view

did he say it? For below, in the Mishna [124a], Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree concerning two half-olive-portions of carrion that are found upon the hide. Rabbi Ishmael holds that one who touches them does not become impure, since he did not touch an olive-portion all at once; but one who carries them does become impure, since in one carrying he carried an olive-portion of carrion, and carrion imparts impurity through carrying. Whereas Rabbi Akiva holds that even one who carries them does not become impure, since the hide nullifies the two half-olive-portions from the status of flesh, and they do not impart impurity of carrion at all.

And now,

if

Rav Huna said that the hide nullifies them

according to Rabbi Ishmael,

it is difficult, for

did he not say

Rabbi Ishmael: the hide

does not nullify

the

hide

from the flesh!?

And if according to Rabbi Akiva,

what does Rav Huna come to teach us? For

it is obvious,

as

did he not say

Rabbi Akiva explicitly that

the hide nullifies

the flesh?

And we answer:

Actually,

Rav Huna

according to Rabbi Ishmael

said it.

And

Rav Huna comes to teach us that

when Rabbi Ishmael said

that the

hide does not nullify

the half-olive-portions of flesh,

this applies

where

an animal tore it out,

for through the bite of an animal part of the flesh was torn away together with the hide. Since it was not done by a person and there was no intention to nullify it, the flesh was not nullified.

But if a knife tore it out,

so that at the time of flaying a small amount of flesh remained attached to the hide, which the knife did not remove—

it is nullified.

Since it was done by a person with the intention of nullifying it. And Rav Huna came to teach us this distinction in the view of Rabbi Ishmael.

Come and hear:

For we learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: The collected sinew—

if there is an olive-portion in one place, one is liable on account of it. And Rav Huna said: And this is when he collected it.

From Rav Huna’s words we learn that Rabbi Judah is speaking even when the two half-olive-portions had been scattered and afterward he collected them. [Without Rav Huna’s words, we would have explained Rabbi Judah’s words as speaking of a case in which they had been collected in the amount of an olive-portion in one place, and then the following difficulty of the Gemara would not have arisen ].

We also learn that Rabbi Judah is speaking of a case in which a knife tore it out. For if an animal tore it out, collection is not applicable, since collection applies only when the flesh is removed by a knife through a person, so that it appears as though he nullified it, and through the collection he reveals his intention that he had never nullified it. But when an animal tore it out, in either event: if the hide nullifies it by itself, collection will not help to render it flesh from this point onward, since once it has been nullified from the status of flesh, it will not again become flesh. And if the hide does not nullify it, collection is not needed, since the person did not nullify it. [Ramban].

And now it is difficult:

Granted, if you say

that

when a knife tears it out, according to Rabbi Ishmael too, the hide is not nullified from the flesh,

this is understandable, for

Rav Huna,

who says that according to Rabbi Judah collection is effective to render it flesh retroactively,

speaks according to Rabbi Ishmael,

who holds that removal by a knife does not nullify it [and indeed Rabbi Ishmael is speaking of a case in which he collected it, and therefore the hide does not nullify the flesh; or he is speaking of a case in which an animal tore it out, where collection is not required, but when a knife tears it out, collection is required].

But if you say

that

when a knife tears it out,

even

according to Rabbi Ishmael it is nullified,

and even collection is ineffective, as is implied by Rav Huna [who proceeds according to Rabbi Ishmael], who said, “the hide nullifies them” —if so,

Rav Huna,

who said that according to Rabbi Judah even when a knife tears it out collection is effective and the hide does not nullify it,

according to whom does he speak?

For when a knife tears it out, everyone agrees that collection is ineffective?

And we answer:

Rather, actually,

even

when a knife tears it out, according to Rabbi Ishmael it is not nullified, [and Rav Huna, who said that according to Rabbi Judah collection is effective even when a knife tears it out, and the hide does not nullify it, means according to this that Rabbi Judah holds like Rabbi Ishmael ].

[and Rav Huna, who said that according to Rabbi Yehuda gathering is effective even when a knife tore it away and the skin does not remove it, thus holds that Rabbi Yehuda follows the view of Rabbi Yishmael

And Rav Huna, who said

concerning two half-olive-portions that the hide nullifies them,

speaks according to Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that the hide nullifies them and even collection is ineffective.

And we object: What does Rav Huna come to teach us? For

it is obvious

that this is Rabbi Akiva’s view [as we objected above: if it is according to Rabbi Akiva, it is obvious]?

And we answer:

Lest you say, when Rabbi Akiva says

that the hide nullifies it,

this applies

when

a knife tears it out,

for the person intended to nullify it;

but when an animal tears it out it is not nullified—Rav Huna comes to teach us

that

the reason of Rabbi Akiva

is

because the hide

by itself

nullifies them,

and not because the person nullifies them. If so,

it makes no difference whether an animal tore it out or whether a knife tore it out:

the hide nullifies the flesh.

There is proof that this is Rabbi Akiva’s reason.

As it is taught in the latter clause

of the Mishna, in the dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva:

“For what reason does Rabbi Akiva declare the hide pure? Because the hide nullifies them.”

It follows that the nullification is on account of the hide and not through the person .

Mishna:

These are whose hides

impart impurity

like their flesh:

The hide of a human being

who died imparts the impurity of the dead, like his flesh.

And the hide of a domesticated pig

that died imparts the impurity of carrion, like its flesh, because it is soft.

Rabbi Judah says: Even the hide of a wild pig

that died has the status of its flesh, for it too is soft.

And the hide of the hump

[the humped back]

of a soft camel

[a young one].

And the hide of the head of a soft calf

[a small calf].

And the hide of the hooves

[the hide on the underside of the animal’s foot, which is soft ].

And the hide of the vulva

[the womb of a female animal, which is soft].

And the hide of the fetus

a fetus found in its mother’s womb after she was slaughtered, whose hide is soft.

And the hide beneath the tail—

the hide beneath the tail, which is soft.

And the hide of the anaka, the koah, the lizard, and the snail 105,

which are four of the eight creeping creatures that impart the impurity of carrion, and whose hides are soft. But the hides of the other four creeping creatures are hard and do not impart impurity.

Rabbi Judah says: The lizard

has its status

like the weasel,

whose hide does not impart impurity like its flesh.

And all of them,

all these hides,

that he tanned

[with salt, as is the way of tanning hides],

or that he walked upon them,

stepped on them

for the time required for processing,

the measure of time for which one steps on them for the purpose of tanning—they are

pure.

For then they harden and become actual hide, and do not impart impurity like flesh.

Except for the hide of a human being,

which even after he tanned it has the status of flesh, and imparts the impurity of the dead.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says:

All

eight creeping creatures

mentioned in the Torah, including those listed above,

have hides!

Meaning, their hides do not impart impurity like their flesh .

Gemara:

Ulla said: By Torah law

by the law of the Torah

a human hide is pure.

For it is not considered flesh and is not included in “the dead.”

And for what reason did they say

the Sages that it is

impure?

A decree lest a person make

from the

hides of his father and mother rugs!

And by saying that the hide imparts impurity, he will not come to do so .

And there are those who teach it

concerning Ulla

with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna.

For it teaches:

“And all of them that he tanned or that he walked upon for the time required for processing are pure, except for the hide of a human being.”

And concerning this

Ulla said: By Torah law, a human hide that he tanned—

is pure.

For it too becomes hide through the tanning.

And for what reason did they say

that it is

impure? A decree lest a person make the hides of his father and mother into rugs.

And we explain:

The one who teaches it

concerning Ulla

with regard to the first clause,

that even before tanning the human hide imparts impurity only by rabbinic decree,

all the more so with regard to the latter clause,

that after tanning it imparts impurity only by rabbinic decree.

And the one who teaches it

concerning it

with regard to the latter clause

holds that

but with regard to the first clause—

before tanning—

the impurity

of it

is by Torah law

[ ^108]!

We learned in the Mishna:

And the hide of a pig

of a domesticated pig; Rabbi Judah says: even the hide of a wild pig.

And we raised an objection concerning this:

Over what do they disagree,

the first Tanna and Rabbi Judah? And we answer:

One master

the first Tanna

holds: This

hide of a wild pig

is dry,

hard,

and this

hide of a domesticated pig

is soft.

And

Rabbi Judah

held: this

wild boar hide

is also soft.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the hide of the hump of a young camel.

And we raised an objection:

and how much

until when is the

young camel,

whose hide imparts impurity like its flesh?

And we answer:

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: as long as it has not carried

a load.

Rabbi Jeremiah raised a question: its time arrived

for the camel

to carry

a load [because of its age]

but it did not carry—what is it?

Is it still considered young or not?

Abaye raised a question: its time had not arrived for it to carry, but it carried—

what is it?

And the sides of the doubt in the two questions are: is the softness of the hide dependent on the camel’s age, or on actually carrying a load, because the load makes the hide hard?

And we conclude:

teyku! Resh Lakish sat and was asking: how young is a young camel?

Rabbi Ishmael bar Abba said to him: Thus said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: as long as it has not carried.

He said to him

Resh Lakish to Rabbi Ishmael bar Abba:

sit opposite me!

Sit with me—that is, may your strength increase for having told me a meaningful statement.

Rabbi Zeira sat and was asking: how young is a young camel?

Rabin bar Hinnana said to him: Thus said Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: as long as it has not carried.

He would repeat it to him—

Rabin bar Hinnana repeated his statement once more, because he thought that Rabbi Zeira had not heard.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira to Rabin:

you had one [statement],

one novel point was in your possession that we did not know,

and

already

you said it,

so why are you repeating it a second time—is it in order to display your wisdom!?

And we say:

come see—

what is the difference between the forceful ones of

that is, Resh Lakish,

and the pious ones of Babylonia!

That is, Rabbi Zeira. For Resh Lakish honored the one who told him a novel point, whereas Rabbi Zeira embarrassed him.

We learned in the Mishna:

and the head-hide

of a young calf.

And we raised an objection:

and how young is a young calf?

And we answer:

Ulla said: one year old.

Rabbi Yohanan said: as long as it nurses!

They raised it as a question: how did Ulla state it: one year old and provided that it nurses,

for only when two conditions are fulfilled—that it is both within its first year and nursing—is its head-hide soft. But if it stopped nursing within its first year, or if its year passed even though it is nursing, the hide has already become hard.