Chullin 122b (קכב:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

Not as you say; rather, one condition alone suffices.

As long as it is nursing,

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

Or perhaps: Ulla said, “during its first year,”

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

between

whether it is

nursing or not nursing,

for during its first year its hide is soft even when it is not nursing.

And Rabbi Yohanan said to him: “During its first year, and provided that it is nursing.”

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

Come and hear:

For

Rabbi Yohanan said: “As long as it is nursing!” And if it is so

that Rabbi Yohanan intended to add to Ulla’s statement—that being within its first year alone is insufficient, but it must also be nursing for its hide to be considered soft—then

he should have said: “and provided that it is nursing.”

And since he said, “as long as it is nursing,” this indicates that this alone suffices for its hide to be considered soft, even if it is more than a year old;

conclude from this.

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: What is the halakhic status of the head hide of a young calf—can it become impure

through contact with an animal carcass?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

It does not become impure.

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 young calf,

which likewise becomes impure like flesh!?

Rabbi Yohanan said

to Reish Lakish:

Do not provoke me

with that Mishna, because it is not an unattributed Mishna; rather,

I teach it as the view of an individual 111 ,

as only one tanna holds this opinion, and the halakha is not in accordance with him, but rather in accordance with the tanna who disputes him.

As it was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering

with the thought that he intends

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

the offering is invalid,

as is the law when one thinks that he will burn part of the offering outside its designated place.

But there is no liability for karet

for one who eats it, because when an offering is disqualified because of a thought concerning outside its designated place, there is no liability for karet for eating it.

And if he thought that he would burn it

outside its designated time—

the offering is

piggul, and one is liable for it

for eating it,

with karet.

For an offering disqualified because of a thought concerning outside its designated time is considered piggul, and one who eats it is liable for karet.

Although his thought concerned the hide beneath the tail, and when one entertains an invalidating thought concerning something that is not ordinarily eaten or burned, the offering is not thereby disqualified [and hide is neither fit to be eaten nor fit to be burned], nevertheless, the hide beneath the tail is considered like flesh, and it is burned together with the burnt offering on the altar. Therefore, an invalidating thought is applicable to it.

Elazar ben Yehuda of Avlum [

the name of a town]

says in the name of Rabbi Yaakov; and likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikkus would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

The law applies not only to the hide beneath the tail, but

both the hide of the hooves, the head hide of a young calf, and the hide beneath the tail, and everything that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity as having hides like their flesh—

that is,

including the hide of the female genital area 112 ,

if one thought that he would burn them

outside their designated place—

the offering is invalid, and there is no liability for karet

for eating it; and if he thought that he would burn them

outside their designated time—

the offering is piggul, and one is liable for it

for eating it,

with karet.

This is because the law of all these hides is like that of flesh.

We see that only Elazar ben Yehuda agrees with 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 hooves.

And we inquire about this:

What is meant by “the hide of the hooves”?

And we answer:

Rav said: The hooves literally. [

From the ankles downward, but not the entire shin bone.]

Rabbi Hanina said: The knee joint,

the lower part of the shin bone,

which is sold together with the head. [

That is, from the knees downward.] For all the hide covering it is considered like flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the hide of the anaka.

The Sages taught in a beraita:

It is stated concerning the eight creeping creatures: “These are impure for you among every creeping creature,” and we derive from the letter hei in

“the impure”

to include their hides,

so that they become impure

like their flesh.

One might have thought that this applies even to all of them,

that the hides of all eight creeping creatures would be like their flesh.

The verse therefore states: “These.”

This excludes other creatures: specifically with regard to these creatures it was derived that their hides are like their flesh, but not with regard to other creeping creatures.

And we raise an objection:

But “these” is written concerning all

eight creeping creatures;

is it not?

For after the eight creeping creatures, it is written, “These are the impure,” so 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 toad according to its kinds”; and in the second it says: “The anaka, the koach, the lizard, the snail, and the tinshemet.” Afterward it says: “These are the impure.” The expression “the impure,” which includes their hides as being like their flesh, applies only to the creeping creatures in the second verse, because

“according to its kinds,”

written at the end of the first verse,

interrupts the subject.

This indicates that the inclusion conveyed by “the impure” does not apply to them. Therefore, the inclusion of their hides as being like their flesh applies only to the creatures mentioned in the second verse.

And we raise an objection:

And let the Mishna list

also

the tinshemet

among the creeping creatures 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 teaches

also

the tinshemet!

And we raise an objection:

But the tanna of our Mishna,

that is, the tanna of the Mishna,

does not teach the tinshemet,

and according to him, what is the reason for distinguishing among the creeping creatures?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The tanna of our Mishna agrees with 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 inclusion making their hides like their flesh ; rather, the matter depends on reasoning—

we follow the texture,

and he holds that we follow the quality of the hide. In the case of those creeping creatures whose hides are soft, their hides are like their flesh; and in the case of those whose hides are hard, their hides are not like their flesh. The tanna of our Mishna likewise holds this, but does not agree with him concerning the lizard.

And they disagree concerning the texture of the lizard’s hide,

for according to Rabbi Yehuda the lizard’s hide is hard, and therefore its law is like that of a weasel, whereas according to the tanna of our Mishna its hide is soft, and its law is like that of those creeping creatures whose hides are like their flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

And all of them, if they were processed

or one walked on them for the duration required for processing, are pure.

And we inquire about this:

If he walked on them

yes,

meaning that specifically if he walked on them they lose the status of flesh and become hide, but

if he did not walk on them

no.

But Rabbi Hiyya taught: An ass’s ear that he attached

and made into a patch

for his basket [

a leather basket]—

is pure

from the impurity of an animal carcass, because by attaching it he removed the ear from the status of flesh, and it became hide, which does not become impure through an animal carcass.

We see that even if he did not process the hide, but merely designated it for use as hide, it has the status of hide. If so, in our Mishna as well, it should suffice that he placed the hide before the one treading it, or wrapped the hide around his foot in order to walk on it, for it to acquire the status of hide. Why, then, does the Mishna say that it is specifically when he walked on it that it loses the status of flesh and becomes hide?

And we answer:

“That he attached it”—

he performed an act with it in order to remove its prior status. Therefore,

even though he did not walk on it,

it becomes hide.

But

if he did not attach it—

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

Regarding what the Mishna teaches, that one walked on them for the duration required for processing, we inquire:

How long

must he walk

“for processing”?

And we answer:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yannai:

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

four mil!

The Gemara cites additional matters whose measure is four mil:

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

a person hired by a householder to knead dough who has only impure utensils must exert himself and travel a distance of four mil in order to immerse the kneading utensils in a ritual bath, since initially one must ensure that the food is prepared in purity. But beyond four mil he is not required to go, unless the householder pays him for the journey.

And for prayer—

one who is traveling and decides to spend the night in a particular place must travel to a synagogue within four mil in order to pray with the congregation.

And for washing the hands—

if he is traveling and wishes to eat bread, and there is no water available for washing the hands except at a distance of four mil, he must wait until he reaches that place.

The measure of these three matters is

four mil.