Chullin 123a (קכג.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

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

Ivo said it

in the name of Reish Lakish.

And he stated four matters concerning it:

There are four matters whose measure is four mil.

And one of them

is the additional matter beyond the three mentioned above, namely,

work,

the matter discussed in our sugya, that the time required for processing is four mil.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught—

that one must exert himself to travel four mil for prayer and for washing the hands—

only when it is before him,

meaning that the synagogue or the water for washing his hands is in the direction in which he is traveling.

But

if they are

behind him,

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

he does not turn back even for one mil!

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: And from this,

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

for one mil he does not turn back, but for less than one mil he does turn back!

The Sages taught: A legion

of soldiers

passing

in wartime

from place to place and entering a house—

the house is impure.

For there is no legion that does not have several karkefilin [

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

And do not wonder

about this matter,

for indeed the karkefel of Rabbi Yishmael

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

is placed on the heads of kings.

Mishna:

Earlier, we learned that there are hides whose status is like that of flesh with regard to the impurity of an unslaughtered animal. However, the other hides are not considered flesh and do not contract the impurity of an unslaughtered animal, [as we expound in the Sifra: It is stated “with its carcass,” but not with the hide].

Nevertheless, as long as the hide is attached to the flesh, it serves as a “guard” for the flesh. Even after one has begun flaying the hide, it serves as a “handle” by which the animal can be held. A handle and a guard convey impurity from the flesh of an unslaughtered animal to pure food, and likewise convey impurity from impure food to pure flesh.

Our Mishna discusses when the hide is considered a handle for the flesh with regard to conveying impurity into it and out of it:

An impure person

flaying

the hide

of a domesticated animal or a wild animal—

in the case of a pure animal,

meaning that the domesticated animal or wild animal was slaughtered in accordance with halakha [so that the flesh is pure, and the issue is whether impurity is conveyed from the flayer to the animal through the hide],

and in the case of an impure animal—

meaning that the person doing the flaying was pure, but he did so to an impure animal, which is an unslaughtered animal [and the issue is whether impurity is conveyed from the unslaughtered animal to the flayer through the hide],

whether

a

small

or a

whether

a

large

animal—

the law differs as follows: If he flayed the hide in order

to

make it into

a rug,

meaning that he intends to spread the hide over a table or a bed, in which case the flaying is performed by cutting the hide along the entire length of the animal, from its head to its tail, and flaying it from both sides, then as long as he has flayed only

the measure required for holding it [two handbreadths],

the flayed hide is still considered a “handle,” by means of which impurity can be conveyed into a pure animal and out of an impure animal, since it is customary to move the animal by means of the hide.

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 in the case of a water-skin—

if he flays the hide in order to make it into a vessel, in which case the hide is flayed by cutting it around the neck and removing it whole toward the tail—then

until he flays the chest

the hide is considered a handle, since with this method of flaying it is difficult to flay the chest. Sometimes, when he reaches the chest, he leaves it temporarily unflayed and uses the hide to move the animal.

But after he has flayed the chest, he immediately finishes flaying the entire hide; therefore it is no longer considered a handle, [according to Tosafot].

One who removes the hide in the regular manner—

one who flays the hide for a water-skin, but does so in the reverse manner, beginning to flay from the legs toward the head, so that he flays the chest last—then

all of it is connected,

for until he has flayed the entire hide, it is considered attached to the flesh and is a handle

with regard

to

impurity,

both

to become impure,

to convey impurity into it, and

to render impure,

to convey impurity out of it.

And if he has also flayed the chest, leaving only

the hide on the neck—

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:

The flayed hide

is not

any longer

connected.

What we said, “all of it is connected,” is not meant literally. Rather, it means until the end of the chest. But once he has flayed the chest, even though the hide on the neck has not yet been flayed, it is no longer considered a handle, since the hide on the neck is flayed easily on its own.

And the Sages say:

It remains

connected until he flays

the hide

entirely,

even the hide on the neck, for “all of it is connected” is meant literally.

Gemara: We learned in the Mishna: One who flays the hide in order to make it into a rug—the measure is the amount required for holding it.

And we raised a question concerning this:

From that point onward,

if he flayed more than the amount required for holding it,

—

what

is its law?

Rav said: The flayed hide is pure!

For none of the flayed hide is a handle. [But the hide that he has not yet flayed and that remains attached to the flesh has the status of a “guard,” which conveys impurity into and out of it and combines with the measure of an egg-bulk for purposes of the impurity of food].

Rabbi Asi said: One handbreadth

of the flayed hide

adjacent to the flesh—

is impure,

with the status of a handle, since he holds that handbreadth in order to pull the hide and flay it. [And what the Mishna said, “the amount required for holding it,” means that if he has not yet flayed two handbreadths, all of it is considered a handle. But once he has flayed two handbreadths, only the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh has the status of a handle].

Meytivi: It was taught: One who flays to this measure [ the amount required for holding it], from that point onward, if he continues flaying,

one who touches the

flayed

hide

is

pure,

since after the hide has been flayed to more than the amount required for holding it, the entire hide is no longer considered a handle.

And we infer:

Is it not even

if he touched

the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh,

in which case he is also pure? For it implies that all the flayed hide is pure, which is difficult for Rabbi Asi.

And we answer:

No!

Rather,

except for the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh,

which is considered a handle and conveys impurity.

Ta shma:

It was taught: If he flayed more than the amount required for holding it, then if he touched

the hide opposite the flesh,

which has not yet been flayed at all, he is

impure.

And we infer: Specifically, if he touched

the hide opposite the flesh

he is

impure; but

if he touched

the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh,

he is

pure,

which is difficult for Rabbi Asi.

And we answer: This

tanna calls every handbreadth adjacent to the flesh

“the hide opposite the flesh”!

Ta shma:

It was taught:

One who flays a domesticated animal or a wild animal, a pure animal or an impure animal, a small animal or a large animal, for a rug—

the amount required for holding it

is considered a handle. But if he flayed more than the amount required for holding it, then even

the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh is pure.

This is explicitly not in accordance with Rabbi Asi!

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With the first handbreadth

of the hide adjacent to the amount required for holding it. That is, we are dealing with a case in which he flayed the amount required for holding it plus one handbreadth. In this case, Rav Asi agrees that the hide is not considered a handle, since the hide has no use at all [because it is not yet sufficiently large to hold while continuing to flay; rather, he cuts with a knife without holding the hide]. Rabbi Asi renders it impure by the law of a handle only when he has flayed more than three handbreadths, at which point the hide weighs downward and it is convenient for him to hold the hide in order to continue flaying.

Accordingly, there are three degrees:

a. When he has flayed only the amount required for holding it, everyone agrees that the hide serves as a handle for the animal, since the animal is moved by means of the hide.

b. When he has flayed the amount required for holding it plus one handbreadth, everyone agrees that it does not serve as a handle at all—not for moving the animal and not for holding it while continuing the flaying.

c. When he has flayed more than three handbreadths, the hide serves for holding while continuing the flaying, and Rav and Rabbi Asi disagree over whether the hide has the status of a handle.

of the skin adjacent to the amount needed for holding it. That is, we are dealing with a case in which he removed the amount needed for holding it and one additional handbreadth. In this case, Rav Asi agrees that the skin is not considered a handle, since it has no use at all: the skin is not yet large enough to hold while continuing to remove it, so he cuts with a knife without holding the skin. Rabbi Asi declares it impure by the law of a handle only when he has removed more than three handbreadths, at which point the skin weighs downward and it is convenient for him to hold it in order to continue removing it.

Accordingly, there are three levels:

a. When he removed only the amount needed for holding it, everyone agrees that the skin serves as a handle for the animal, since the animal is moved by means of the skin.

It was taught: How much

is the measure of

“the amount required for holding it”? One handbreadth. And we challenge this: But it was taught: Two handbreadths? And we answer: Abaye said: The “handbreadth” mentioned in the first beraita means

a double handbreadth.

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

And we challenge this:

But it is taught in a beraita: Two handbreadths?

And we answer:

This was also taught: How much is the amount required for holding it? A double handbreadth!

We learned there

in tractate Kelim:

A garment

that is impure which one has begun to tear in order to nullify its status as a garment and thereby purify it from its impurity— once most of it has been torn—

it is no longer connected.

It has ceased to be a garment,

and it is pure

from the impurity that had been upon it.

which one began

to tear

in order to remove its status as a garment and thereby purify it from its impurity—

once most of it has been torn—

it is no longer attached

because it has ceased to be a garment,

and it is pure

from the impurity that had been upon it.

Rav Nahman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: It was taught only

that it becomes pure by tearing only the majority of it,

but with regard to a tallit that is a tevulat yom,

which has already been immersed in a mikveh, but may not yet be used for matters of ritual purity until sunset. He tears it so that he can immediately use it for matters of ritual purity, and in this case tearing the majority is sufficient to render it pure immediately,

since, as he did not spare it and immersed it,

even though the water damages the garment, therefore we say that

he does not spare it

in this regard as well,

and he tears the majority of it,

and there is no concern that he might come to purify it without tearing the majority.

But with regard to a tallit that is not a tevulat yom,

which has not yet been immersed in a mikveh,

no,

it does not become pure until he tears all of it.

This is a decree:

if we were to render it pure by 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 the majority has been torn.

Rabba said: There are two answers to this.

First,

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

lest

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

say

that the immersion alone purified it, and come to err and say that

an immersion performed on the same day is effective

without sunset.

Rather, the Mishna is speaking of a tallit that was not immersed at all, but which he tore on the day after it became impure. In that case, there is no concern that people will say that an immersion performed on the same day is effective, because those who see him using the tallit for matters of ritual purity today will certainly say that it was immersed yesterday . But according to your words, that the Mishna is speaking of a tallit that is a tevulat yom, this is difficult?