Chullin 123a — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

It was not Rabbi Abbahu who said it in the name of Reish Lakish, but

Ivo said it

in the name of Reish Lakish.

And Arba'i said concerning it:

There are four matters whose measure is four mil.

And one of them

that is added to the three mentioned is

labor,

this matter of our sugya, that the time of processing is four mil.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught —

that one must trouble oneself to go four mil for prayer and for washing the hands —

only before him,

when the synagogue or the water for washing the hands is in the direction of his travel.

But

if they are

behind him,

so that he must change the direction of his travel for that,

he does not even return one mil!

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: And from it,

from the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina, who said “even one mil,” we learn that specifically

one mil is what he does not return, but less than one mil he does return!

The Sages taught: A legion

of army men

passing

in war

from place to place and entering a house —

the house is impure.

For you have no legion and no legion that does not have several karkaflin [

the scalp of a dead person ], which they carried with them and performed sorcery with them.

And do not wonder

about this matter,

for behold, the karkaflo of Rabbi Yishmael

the High Priest [whose skin they removed before his death]

lies on the heads of kings.

Mishna:

Above we learned that there are skins whose law is like that of flesh with regard to the impurity of carcasses. But the other skins are not considered like flesh, and they do not impart the impurity of carcasses, [as we expound in the Sifra: “with its carcass,” but not with the skin].

Nevertheless, as long as the skin is attached to the flesh, it is considered a “protector” for the flesh; and even after one has begun to strip the skin, it serves as a “handle” for grasping the animal. The handle and the protector transmit impurity from the flesh of the carcass to pure food, and likewise they bring impurity from impure food to the pure flesh.

Our Mishna discusses when the skin is considered a handle for the flesh with regard to bringing in and taking out impurity:

An impure person

who strips

the skin

of a domesticated animal and of a wild animal —

in a pure one,

that is, when the domesticated animal and the wild animal were slaughtered according to their law, [so that the flesh is pure, and the issue is bringing impurity from the person stripping to the animal by means of the skin],

and in an impure one —

that is, the person stripping was pure, but he did this to an impure animal, which is a carcass, [and the issue is taking impurity from the carcass to the person stripping by means of the skin],

whether

in

a small

or in

whether

in

a large

animal —

the law in this matter is divided: if he stripped the skin in order

to

make from it

a mat,

that is, to spread the skin on a table or on a bed, in which case the stripping is done by making a cut in the skin along the entire length of the animal, from its head to its tail, and stripping from both sides, then as long as he has stripped only

the measure of a grasp [two handbreadths],

the stripped skin is still considered a “handle,” in order to bring impurity to the pure animal and to take impurity from the impure animal, because one is accustomed to move the animal by means of the skin. But once he has stripped more than this, one is no longer accustomed to move the animal by means of the skin, and therefore it is not considered a handle .

But once he has flayed more than this, it is no longer customary to move the animal by means of the hide, and therefore it is not considered a handle.

And for a flask —

if he strips the skin to make from it a vessel, in which case the form of the stripping is by cutting the skin around the neck and stripping it whole toward the tail, then

until he strips the breast

the skin is considered a handle, because with this form of stripping it is difficult to strip the breast, and sometimes, when he reaches the breast, he leaves it temporarily unstripped and uses the skin to move the animal by means of it.

But after he has stripped the breast, he immediately finishes stripping all the skin; therefore it is no longer considered a handle, [according to Tosafot].

One who makes it regular —

one who strips the skin for the purpose of a flask, but does so in the reverse manner, beginning to strip from the legs toward the head, so that he strips the breast at the end, then

all of it is connected,

for until he strips all the skin, it is considered attached to the flesh, and it is a handle

for

the matter of

impurity,

both

to become impure,

to bring in impurity, and both

to render impure,

to take out impurity .

And if he also stripped the breast, and only

skin on the neck remains —

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:

the stripped skin

is not

any longer

a connection.

For what we said, “all of it is connected,” is not exact; rather, the intention is until the end of the breast. But once he has stripped the breast, even though the skin of the neck has not yet been stripped, it is no longer considered a handle, because the skin of the neck is stripped easily on its own.

And the Sages say:

it is

a connection until he strips

the skin

entirely

even from the neck, for “all of it is connected” is exact .

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who strips the skin in order to make it a mat—the measure is the measure of a grasp.

And we raised it:

From this point onward,

if he stripped more than the measure of a grasp —

what

is its law?

Rav said: The stripped part is pure!

For all the stripped skin is not a handle. [But the skin that he has not yet stripped and that is attached to the flesh has the status of a “protector,” which brings in and takes out impurity and joins the measure of an egg for the impurity of food].

Rabbi Asi said: A handbreadth

of the stripped skin

adjacent to the flesh —

is impure

according to the law of a handle, because he grasps that handbreadth in order to pull the skin and strip it. [And what the Mishna said, “the measure of a grasp,” means that if he has not yet stripped two handbreadths, all of it is considered a handle. But when he has stripped two handbreadths, only the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh has the law of a handle] .

He raised an objection:

It was taught:

one who strips by this measure [

the measure of a grasp],

from this point onward

if he continued stripping,

one who touches the

stripped

skin

is

pure,

because after the skin has been stripped by more than the measure of a grasp, all the skin is no longer considered a handle.

And we inferred:

Is it not even

if he touched

the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh,

he is also pure, for it implies that all the stripped skin is pure, and this is difficult for Rabbi Asi?

And we answer:

No!

Rather,

except for the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh,

for there it is considered a handle, and it imparts impurity.

Come and hear:

It was taught: If he stripped more than the measure of a grasp, then if he touched

skin corresponding to the flesh,

which has not yet been stripped at all, he is

impure.

And we inferred: specifically if he touched

skin corresponding to the flesh

he is

impure; but

if he touched

the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh,

he is

pure,

and this is difficult for Rabbi Asi?

And we answer: This

Tanna calls every handbreadth adjacent to the flesh

“skin corresponding to the flesh”!

Come and hear:

It was taught:

One who strips a domesticated animal and a wild animal, a pure one and an impure one, a small one and a large one, for a mat —

the measure of a grasp

is considered a handle. And if he stripped more than the measure of a grasp, then even

the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh is pure.

This is explicitly not like Rabbi Asi!?

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? With the first handbreadth

of the skin adjacent to “the measure of a grasp”; that is, we are dealing with a case where he stripped the measure of a grasp and one additional handbreadth. In this Rabbi Asi agrees that the skin is not considered a handle, since the skin has no use at all, [because the skin is still not large enough to grasp when he continues stripping, but he cuts with a knife without grasping the skin]. And Rabbi Asi renders it impure by the law of a handle only when he stripped more than three handbreadths, for then the skin weighs downward, and it is convenient for him to grasp the skin in order to continue stripping.

Accordingly, there are three levels:

a. When he stripped only the measure of a grasp, according to everyone the skin serves as a handle for the animal, because the animal is moved by means of the skin.

b. When he stripped the measure of a grasp and one additional handbreadth, according to everyone it does not serve as a handle at all—not for moving the animal and not for grasping during the continuation of the stripping.

c. When he stripped more than three handbreadths, the skin serves for grasping in order to continue the stripping, and in this case Rav and Rabbi Asi disagree whether the skin has the law of a handle .

It was taught: How much

is the measure of

“the measure of a grasp”? One handbreadth.

And we ask:

But was it not taught: two handbreadths?

And we answer:

Abaye said: The “handbreadth” of the first beraita means

The “handbreadth” in the first beraita means

a double handbreadth.

For there is a “handbreadth” whose measure is like two handbreadths .

It was also taught so: How much is the measure of a grasp? A double handbreadth!

We learned there

in tractate Kelim:

A garment

that is impure

which one began

to tear

in order to nullify it from the status of a garment, and thereby purify it from its impurity, then

once most of it has been torn —

it is no longer a connection.

For it has ceased to be a garment,

and it is pure

from the impurity that had been upon it .

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: They taught

that it is pure through tearing the majority alone,

only with a tallit that is tevulat yom,

which he had already immersed in a mikveh, but he still cannot use it for matters of purity until the sun has set. And he tears it so that he can use it immediately for matters of purity, and in this case tearing the majority is sufficient to render it pure immediately,

since, from the fact that he did not spare it and immersed it,

although the water damages the garment, therefore we say that

he did not spare it

also with regard to this,

and he tore the majority of it,

and there is no concern that perhaps he will come to render it pure without tearing the majority.

But a tallit that is not tevulat yom,

which he has still not immersed in a mikveh,

not

does it become pure until he tears all of it.

A decree:

if we were to render it pure through tearing the majority,

perhaps

he would spare it and

would not come to tear the majority of it,

but only half of it, and say that there is a majority here.

Rabba said: There are two answers to the matter.

One:

it is necessarily the case that the Mishna is not speaking of a tallit that is tevulat yom, because that tallit is forbidden for matters of purity even after he has torn it—

lest

people who do not understand that the tearing renders the tallit pure see that the tallit became impure today and that he is using it for matters of purity after immersing it, and

they will say

that the immersion alone rendered it pure, and they will come to err and say that

an immersion on the same day is effective

without the setting of the sun.

Rather, the Mishna is speaking of a tallit that was not immersed at all, but that he tore on the day after it became impure; for now there is no concern that they will say that an immersion on the same day is effective, since the people who see that they are using the tallit for matters of purity today will say that it was certainly immersed yesterday. And according to your words, that the Mishna is dealing with a tallit that is tevulat yom, this is difficult?