Chullin 122b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Not as you say, but only one condition is sufficient.

Whenever it nurses,

even after its year, its hide is considered soft. And likewise, within its year, even if it has stopped nursing, its hide is considered soft.

Or perhaps: Ulla said “within its year,”

for everything depends on this alone, and there is no difference

between

whether it

nurses and whether it does not nurse,

for within its year its hide is soft even when it does not nurse.

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him: “Within its year, and it nurses.”

For both are required in order for its hide to be considered soft.

Come and hear:

For

Rabbi Yohanan said: “Whenever it nurses!” And if it is so

that Rabbi Yohanan came to add to Ulla, that it is not enough for it to be within its year, but it must also nurse in order for its hide to be considered soft, then

he should have had to say: “And it nurses”!

And since he says, “Whenever it nurses,” this implies that this alone is sufficient for its hide to be considered soft, even when it is more than a year old,

learn from this.

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: What is the status of the head-hide of a tender calf, that it should become impure

with impurity imparted by an unslaughtered animal carcass?

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan:

It does not impart impurity.

Reish Lakish said to

Rabbi Yohanan:

Our teacher, you taught us

the law of our Mishna—

those whose hides are like their flesh,

and it teaches,

“and the head-hide of a tender calf,”

which likewise imparts impurity like flesh!?

Rabbi Yohanan said to

Reish Lakish:

Do not provoke me

with that Mishna, because it is not an anonymous Mishna, but

I recite it in the language of an individual 111 ,

for only one tanna holds this way, and the halakha does not follow him, but rather the tanna who disagrees with him.

For it was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters the burnt-offering

with the thought intending

to burn an olive-bulk of the hide beneath the tail outside its place—

it is invalid,

the offering, as is the law when one thinks of burning part of the offering outside its place.

And there is no excision

for one who eats it, because for an offering invalidated because of the thought of outside its place, one is not liable to excision for eating it.

And if he thought of burning it

outside its time—

the offering is

piggul, and one is liable for it

for eating it

to excision.

For an offering invalidated because of the thought of outside its time is considered pigul, and one is liable to excision for eating it.

And although his thought was about the hide beneath the tail, and one who thinks an invalidating thought concerning something that is not ordinarily eaten or burned does not thereby invalidate the offering, [and hide is neither fit for eating nor fit for burning], nevertheless, the hide beneath the tail is considered by him like flesh, and it is burned together with the burnt-offering upon the altar. Therefore, an invalidating thought applies to it.

Elazar ben Yehuda, איש אבלום [

the name of a village]

says in the name of Rabbi Yaakov; and likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, איש כפר עיכוס, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

Not only is this the law regarding the hide beneath the tail, but

both the hide of the hooves, and the head-hide of a tender calf, and the hide beneath the tail, and everything that the Sages listed concerning impurity whose hides are like their flesh

—namely,

to include the hide of the female genital organ 112 ,

if he thought of burning them

outside their place—

it is invalid, and there is no excision

for eating it; and if he thought of burning them

outside their time—

it is pigul, and one is liable for it

for eating it

to excision.

Because the law of all these is like flesh.

We see that only Elazar ben Yehuda holds like our Mishna, whereas the first tanna holds that hide is considered like flesh only in the case of the hide beneath the tail.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the hide of the house of the hooves.”

And we inquire into it:

What is “the house of the hooves”?

And we answer:

Rav said: The house of the hooves literally. [

From the ankles downward, and not the entire bone of the lower leg].

Rabbi Hanina said: The knee-joint,

the lower part of the lower-leg bone,

which is sold with the head. [

That is, from the knees downward], for all the hide upon it is considered like flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the hide of the anaka.”

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the eight creeping animals, “These are impure for you among every creeping animal,” and we expound from the letter heh of

“the impure”—

to include their hides

so that they should impart impurity

like their flesh.

One might have thought even all of them,

that the hides of all eight creeping animals would be like their flesh?

The verse says: “These.”

This excludes: specifically with these creeping animals was it expanded that their hides are like their flesh, but not with other creeping animals.

And we raise an objection:

But “these” is written concerning all of them,

the eight creeping animals,

is it not?

For after the eight creeping animals it says, “These are the impure ones”; which of them is excluded?

And we answer:

Rav said:

Two verses are written. In the first it says, “the weasel, the mouse, and the tortoise according to its kinds,” and in the second it says, “and the anaka, and the koah, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.” And afterward it says, “These are the impure ones.” And this “the impure ones,” which includes their hides as being like their flesh, applies only to the creeping animals in the second verse, for

“according to its kinds,”

which is written at the end of the first verse,

interrupted the matter.

This means that the expansion of “the impure ones” does not apply to them. Therefore, the expansion that their hides are like their flesh was stated only concerning the creeping animals mentioned in the second verse.

And we raise an objection:

And let him count

in the Mishna

also the mole

among the creeping animals whose hides are like their flesh, since it too is listed in the second verse?

And we answer:

Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak said: Rav is a tanna,

and he indeed disagrees with the Mishna,

and he teaches

also

the mole!

And we raise an objection:

But our tanna

of the Mishna

does not teach the mole,

and according to him, what is the reason for distinguishing between the creeping animals?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Our tanna holds like Rabbi Yehuda,

who says in the Mishna that even the lizard has the status of a weasel, whose hide is not like its flesh, although it is written in the second verse. Necessarily, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that we derive from the verse an expansion that their hides are like their flesh , but the matter depends on reasoning—

that he follows the touch,

and holds that one follows the quality of the hide: in those creeping animals whose hide is soft, their hides are like their flesh, while in those creeping animals whose hide is hard, their hides are not like their flesh. And our tanna likewise holds this way, except that he does not agree with him concerning the lizard.

And they disagree concerning the touch of the lizard,

for Rabbi Yehuda holds that the lizard’s hide is hard, and therefore its status is like that of a weasel, while our tanna holds that its hide is soft, and its status is like that of those creeping animals whose hides are like their flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And all of them, if he tanned them,”

or if he walked on them for the measure required for tanning, are pure.

And we inquire into it:

“If he walked”—

yes,

for only if he walked upon them are they removed from the status of flesh and become hide, but

if he did not walk—

no.

But Rabbi Hiyya teaches: “The ear of a donkey that he patched”

—that he made it into a patch

for his basket [

a leather basket]—

is pure

from impurity imparted by an unslaughtered animal carcass, because by patching it, the ear was removed from the status of flesh and became hide, which does not impart impurity from an unslaughtered animal carcass.

We see that even if he did not tan the hide, but designated it for use as hide, its law is that of hide. If so, in our Mishna too it should be sufficient that he placed the hide before the one who tramples, or wrapped the hide around his foot in order to walk upon it, so that the status of hide should apply to it. Why, then, does the Mishna say that specifically when he walked upon it was it removed from the status of flesh and became hide?

And we answer:

“He patched it”—

he performed an act upon it in order to remove its previous status; therefore,

even though he did not walk upon it,

it became hide.

But

if he did not patch it—

if he walked upon it, yes; if he did not walk upon it, no!

Regarding what the Mishna teaches, that he walked upon them for the measure required for tanning, we inquire:

How much

is the measure of walking

“for the measure required for tanning”?

And we answer:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

He must tread upon the hide for the time required to walk

four mil.

The Gemara brings additional matters whose measure is four mil:

Rabbi Avahu said in the name of Reish Lakish: For kneading—

a person who was hired by a householder to knead dough, and has only impure utensils, must trouble himself and travel a distance of four mil in order to immerse the kneading utensils in a ritual bath, since initially one must take care that the food be prepared in purity. But for more than four mil, he is not obligated unless the householder pays him for the travel.

And for prayer—

one who is traveling and decided to spend the night in a particular place, if there is a synagogue within four mil, is obligated to go there in order to pray with the congregation.

And for washing the hands—

if he is traveling and wants to eat bread, and he has no water here for washing the hands except at a distance of four mil, he is obligated to wait until he reaches there.

The measure of these three is

four mil.