Chullin 123b — the Talmud in English

Furthermore,

for if we decree concerning the majority on account of the half, then,

the bird burnt-offering, according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who says that in its case one pinches the majority of the two signs, and it is forbidden to pinch all the signs,

let us also decree

also

lest one come not to perform the majority of the two,

because, fearing that he might come to pinch all two, he will pinch only half of the signs, and the burnt-offering will become invalid

? And we answer:

Rav Yosef said to Rabbah

to Rabbah: it is not difficult according to Rav Nahman, who says that the Mishna concerning the garment speaks specifically of one immersed that day. For

as for what you said

that one should prohibit a garment of one immersed that day,

as a decree lest they say that immersion on that day is effective,

this is not an argument, for

its tearing

of the garment

proves concerning it

that this is the cause of its purification, and they will not err and think that the immersion purifies.

And as for what you said:

if so,

the bird burnt-offering, according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, let us decree,

this too is not difficult, for

priests are zealous.

And there is no concern lest they not pinch the majority of the signs.

Come and hear:

for we learned in the Mishna:

One who skins a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, an impure one or a pure one, a small one or a large one—

for a mat, [it is] the measure of a handhold.

And we infer:

this

if he skinned

more than the measure of a handhold—

pure.

Because it is not a handle.

And if you say as Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, that we decree concerning the majority on account of the half, this is difficult:

why

is he pure when he skinned more than the measure of a handhold?

let us decree lest he come not to perform

to skin

but only the measure of a handhold,

for then it is still a handle, and he will say that he skinned more than the measure of a handhold and it is not a handle,

and he will touch impurity

with that skin stripped from an impure animal, which in fact has the status of a handle and renders the person touching it impure—

and we purify him!? [ואף שרב נחמן גזר רק באופן שיש חשש שחייס עליה, והכא לא חייס על העור, שהרי הוא עומד להפשיט את כולה? מכל מקום פריך, לפי שנוח לו יותר להפשיט מתחילה בכל אורך הבהמה רק כדי אחיזה, כדי שיהיה נוח לו לאחוז בזה ולהמשיך להפשיט, וגם כאן יש מקום לגזור שמא יפשיט פחות מכדי אחיזה ויאמר שהפשיט יותר מכדי אחיזה - תוספות]And although Rav Nahman decreed only in a case where there is concern that he takes pity on it, and here he does not take pity on the skin, since he is going to skin all of it, nevertheless the question is raised because it is more convenient for him initially to skin along the entire length of the animal only the measure of a handhold, so that it will be convenient for him to grasp it and continue skinning; here too there is room to decree lest he skin less than the measure of a handhold and say that he skinned more than the measure of a handhold—Tosafot.

Although Rav Naḥman issued a decree only where there is concern that one might take pity on the object, and here he does not take pity on the hide, since he intends to strip the entire animal, the Gemara nevertheless raises the difficulty because it is more convenient for him initially to strip only the amount needed for holding along the entire length of the animal, so that he can hold it conveniently and continue stripping. Therefore, there is reason here as well to decree lest he strip less than the amount needed for holding it and say that he stripped more than that amount—Tosafot.

And we answer:

if

we are dealing

with impurity by Torah law, so too

there would be reason to decree. But

here, with what are we dealing—

with impurity by rabbinic enactment,

and Rav Nahman agrees that we do not decree in its case

. And we ask:

Granted

that which is taught in the Mishna, “and a pure one,” meaning that a person

impure

skins

a

a

animal,

it is possible to answer as you said, that the person was impure with impurity by rabbinic enactment.

But that which is taught, “an impure one,” meaning that a person

pure

skinned

an

an

animal,

is difficult: Every impure animal, even if it was slaughtered, is an animal carcass and therefore carries

is impurity by Torah law,

this is difficult: for every impure animal, even if it was slaughtered, is a carcass, and nevertheless we should decree in its case lest he skin it only to the measure of a handhold?

And we answer: this “an impure one” does not speak of a truly impure animal; rather, it speaks

of a terefa.

That is, a pure animal that was slaughtered properly, but is a terefa, which does not render impure with the impurity of carcasses by Torah law.

And we ask: Is a

terefa

that was slaughtered according to law

capable of rendering impure!?

For even by rabbinic enactment there is no impurity in it at all.

And we answer:

Yes! As the father of Shmuel.

For the father of Shmuel said: A terefa that one slaughtered—

renders [things] consecrated impure

by rabbinic enactment with the impurity of carcasses. That is, when the animal is consecrated, the Sages decreed upon it the impurity of carcasses even though it is a terefa . And here too we are dealing with a consecrated animal that is a terefa, whose impurity is only by rabbinic enactment; therefore, if he skinned the measure of a handhold, he is pure, and we do not decree in its case.

Come and hear:

for it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Dostai son of Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon says: One who skins

the skin

of creeping creatures,

it is

a connection,

that is, the skin has the status of a handle—

until he skins all of it.

For skinning the skin of creeping creatures is difficult, and sometimes he stops in the middle; meanwhile, the stripped skin serves as a place of grasping.

And we infer:

but with a camel [that is, with every impure animal other than creeping creatures],

[that is, in the case of every impure animal other than creeping animals], where stripping the hide is not difficult, do we say that

it is not a connection

but only for the measure of a handhold, and beyond the measure of a handhold it is not a handle; and even though the camel is impure by Torah law, we do not decree lest he skin only to the measure of a handhold and say that he skinned more. [That is, the beraita implies that the entire reason that in the case of creeping creatures all of it is a connection is only because it is difficult to skin the skin of creeping creatures; but according to Rav Nahman, in any event all of it is a connection because of the decree.] And this is difficult to Rav Nahman?

And we answer:

Do not say, “but with a camel it is not a connection,”

for in fact, even with a camel it is considered a connection even beyond the measure of a handhold, because of the decree. [And the Mishna concerning the measure of a handhold speaks of impurity by rabbinic enactment.]

Rather, say:

but with a camel—

with the skin upon the neck, it is not a connection!

For the beraita concerning creeping creatures speaks of one who skins the skin to make a wineskin from it, and in a manner in which he proceeds regularly, in which case the law is that it is a connection until he skins all of it, as explained in the Mishna.

And it is the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

who holds that this “all of it” is not precise, but rather until the end of the chest, where it is difficult to skin. Once he has skinned the chest, it is no longer a connection, even though the skin of the neck has still not been skinned.

And the beraita comes to teach us that with creeping creatures even the skin upon the neck is difficult to skin, and therefore it is a connection until he skins also the skin upon the neck. But with a camel, since he has skinned up to the neck, it is no longer a connection, according to the law of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

And one cannot raise a difficulty against Rav Nahman from this: why do we not decree, where he skinned up to the neck, lest he not skin up to the neck? Because there is a distinguishing sign between the place of the neck and the rest of the body, and they will not err between them. This is not so between a majority and a half, or between the measure of a handhold and more than the measure of a handhold, where the place is not defined; therefore, we must decree that they might err between the two.

Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Yosei: They taught

in the Mishna in tractate Kelim that a garment whose majority was torn is pure,

only when he did not leave in it

in the garment

the measure of a scarf [צעיף].

[a shawl];

But

if

he left in it the measure of a scarf,

that is, the untorn part is the size of a scarf—it is

a connection.

For the status of a garment has not been removed from it, and it has not become pure from its impurity. [Since it is still fit to be used for something resembling its original function, and there is no act of tearing here that can purify it.]

Reish Lakish said: They taught

in tractate Kelim that if its majority was torn and the measure of a scarf did not remain, it is pure

only [in the case of] a garment,

for even if he sews it, it will not return to its former state.

But skin

that is impure, whose greater part was torn and in which nothing the size of a scarf remains, does not become pure through this, since

heals.

For skin is stronger, and as long as it has not been torn completely, he can sew and attach to it the torn part, and the skin will return to being as it was; therefore its original designation has not been removed from it.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even skin does not heal.

Rather, its law is like that of a garment: if its majority was torn and he did not leave in it the measure of a scarf, it becomes pure from its impurity through this.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

we learned in tractate Kelim:

Skin

that is

impure

with the impurity of

a support,

for the skin had been designated for sitting or lying, and a zav sat or lay upon it, and the skin thereby became impure, and afterward

he intended it to

make from it

straps and sandals, [and skin designated for straps and sandals does not become impure with the support of a zav],

[and leather designated for straps and sandals does not become impure through the surface used by a person afflicted with gonorrhea],

once he placed a chisel in it,

for he began to cut the skin and remove it from being a mat—

it is pure; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say:

it is not pure

until he reduces it below five handbreadths.

So that intact skin measuring five handbreadths by five handbreadths will not remain, for this is the measure for skin to be fit to receive the impurity of support. But as long as the skin has this measure, the impurity of support does not depart from it, even though he performed an act to remove from it the status of something for lying and sitting. [ואף שלגבי טלית שנינו לעיל, שאם קרעה וביטלה מתורת בגד, הרי היא נטהרת בכך, אף שלא מיעטה משיעור בגד? תירץ רש"י, דהתם על ידי שקרעה בטל שמה הראשון, שכבר איננה משמשת לטלית, אלא לשימוש אחר, ולכן היא נטהרת במעשה הקריעה. אך בעור, השימוש לשכיבה או לישיבה נשאר עד שימעטנו מחמשה על חמשה, ולכן אינו נטהר עד שימעטנו מהשיעור]And although concerning a garment we learned above that if he tore it and removed from it the status of a garment, it thereby becomes pure, even though he did not reduce it below the measure of a garment, Rashi answered that there, by tearing it, its original designation is removed, since it no longer serves as a garment but for another use, and therefore it becomes pure through the act of tearing. But with skin, its use for lying or sitting remains until he reduces it below five by five, and therefore it does not become pure until he reduces it below the measure.

Although we learned above with regard to a garment that if one tore it and removed its status as clothing, it becomes pure through this act even if he did not reduce it below the minimum measure for clothing, Rashi answered that there the act of tearing removes its original designation, since it is no longer used as a garment but for another purpose. Therefore, the act of tearing purifies it. In the case of a hide, however, its use for lying or sitting remains until he reduces it below five by five handbreadths; therefore, it does not become pure until he reduces it below that measure.

And we infer from the Sages:

when he reduces it

the skin below five handbreadths,

at least it is pure,

even though he did not cut the hide along its entire length but left part of it attached.

why

is it pure?

Let us say—

“it heals,”

for he can return and sew the tears, and the skin will return to being as it was previously!?

And we answer:

when we say that it heals,

it is specifically

where he cuts it directly,

where he cut the skin straight along its length or its width. But

here, with what are we dealing? With one who cuts it at an angle and proceeds around it.

For he cuts the skin all around, so that in this manner, even if he sews it, it will no longer return to being as it was initially; and in this Rabbi Yohanan agrees that we do not say, “it heals.”

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection

to Reish Lakish: we learned in the Mishna:

One who skins a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a pure one or an impure one, a small one or a large one—

for a mat, the measure of a handhold

is a handle for impurity.

And we infer:

but

if he skinned

more than the measure of a handhold—

pure.

And why!? Let us say—

“it heals,”

for just as Reish Lakish said that torn skin is considered connected because it is strong, so let us say that stripped skin is considered connected to the flesh, and let it be a handle for the flesh as though it had not been skinned?

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin explained it: each first one,

each part of the skin that is stripped

becomes fallen away.

It is as though it has separated completely, since it is not destined to return and become connected with the flesh. This is not so with skin that he tore, concerning which Reish Lakish said, “it heals”; that is because its end is to be sewn, and since it is strong, it returns to its former state.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to Reish Lakish: we learned in the Mishna:

skin upon the neck

whose connection to the neck is a weak connection and whose end is to become detached by itself,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: It is not a connection!

And if one touched the skin, he does not become impure from the carcass.

And

And why

is it not a connection,

when it heals and remains!?

For here we are dealing with skin that has not yet been stripped, and if so, according to Reish Lakish, who holds that skin already torn is considered connected because it heals, here too we should have considered the skin of the neck that has not yet been torn as connected, even though its end is to become detached by itself. [But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that when he tore the skin we do not say “it heals,” likewise, with skin connected by a weak connection, we do not say that it is considered a connection—Tosafot.]

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef: Before you raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish from Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

say the latter clause,

which teaches:

“And the Sages say: It is a connection!”

And this is a proof for Reish Lakish from the words of the Sages, for we say, “it heals”?

Rather, Abaye said: They disagree concerning a protector that is destined to become detached by itself

the Sages and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri—whether it is a protector or not. For the skin of the neck is stripped by itself.

One master,

the Sages,

holds

:

it is a protector

as long as it has not become detached; therefore, the skin of the neck that is connected to the flesh has the status of a protector.

And one master,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

holds: It is not a protector.

But Reish Lakish is speaking of skin that was torn, whose intact part is not destined to become detached by itself; therefore, with regard to it we say “it heals,” for through the intact part the torn part too is considered connected

. Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection

to Reish Lakish: we learned:

An oven

that was initially a vessel resembling a pot, and afterward he fixed it to the ground and plastered clay around it. [The thickness of the clay is called “an attachment,” and it surrounds the oven on the outside, in order to preserve its heat].

that became impure,

How does one purify it?

For the law of an oven is like the law of an earthenware vessel, which does not become pure from its impurity except through breaking, and how will the breaking that purifies be?

They were divided,

broken from top to bottom from the inside

into three

parts, so that a majority would not remain in one part,

and he scrapes off

scrapes

the adhering layer,

the layer of plaster that is upon it,