Chullin 127a (קכז.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states: “

And this is for you the impure among the creeping things, the

one that creeps

on the earth,” and we derive from the superfluous word “the one that creeps”—as it could have written, “among the creeping things on the earth”—that

every place where

it

creeps,

meaning that it crawls and moves, renders impure. If so, it is impossible to exclude, from the phrase “on the earth,” the possibility that it renders impure when it is in the sea, since there too it swims and moves. Rather, “on the earth” must necessarily come to exclude the species of mouse that lives in the sea.

Or perhaps the phrase “the one that creeps”

does not come to include every place where it creeps,

but rather “the one that creeps”

comes to exclude that only

everything that reproduces

through the mating of a father and mother [as in the phrase, “Be fruitful and multiply and swarm”]

renders impure.

But

that which does not reproduce does not render impure.

I would exclude

from the category of mouse the

mouse that is half flesh and half earth

that does not

reproduce,

and multiply,

since it was not formed through the reproduction of mice but was formed spontaneously from the earth.

If so, the question returns to its original place: should we exclude, from “on the earth,” a mouse that descended into the sea, rather than the species of mouse that lives in the sea?

And it is a logical inference

that we should not exclude the mouse that is half flesh and half earth.

For

it rendered the weasel impure, and it rendered the mouse impure. Just as, in the case of the weasel,

anything called a weasel

is impure,

so too, in the case of the mouse, anything called a mouse

is impure.

I would include

within this category

a mouse that is half flesh and half earth.

Or follow this reasoning: Just as a weasel reproduces, so too a mouse reproduces,

and we would exclude a mouse that is half flesh and half earth, which does not reproduce and therefore does not render impure. And since the wording of the verse, “the one that creeps,” more strongly indicates an animal that reproduces, we should exclude a mouse formed from the earth.

The verse states: “

And this is for you the impure

among the creeping things

that creep on the earth.” This entire verse is superfluous, since afterward it is written, “These are the impure among all the creeping things,” and we derive from it the inclusion of the mouse that is half flesh and half earth.

Consequently, the verse “the one that creeps” must come to include every place where it creeps, even if it descended into the sea. And the verse “on the earth” comes to exclude the species of mouse that lives in the sea.

One of the Sages said to Rava: Say that “among the creeping things” comes to include a mouse that is half flesh and half earth,

as we said in the beraita. But regarding the statement of the beraita that “the one that creeps” includes an animal that descended into the sea and that “on the earth” excludes the species of mouse that lives in the sea, this is difficult. Let us say the opposite: that the verse

“the one that creeps”

comes to include

anything that creeps,

that crawls and moves,

even

the species of

mouse that lives in the sea. And as for “on the earth,”

let us say that it comes to exclude the case in which it is specifically

on the earth that it renders impure,

but if it

descended into the sea, it does not render impure!

He said to him,

Rava: It is not reasonable to expound the verses in this manner. For

once you have made the sea

a

place of ritual impurity

by declaring the sea mouse impure, then

what difference is there whether it is here,

where the mouse is found on the earth,

or whether it is here,

where it is found in the sea? The sea too is a place of ritual impurity! Rather, one must necessarily say that the sea mouse does not render impure, whereas a land mouse renders impure even when it descended into the sea.

We raise an objection to the beraita:

But

this phrase,

“on the earth,” is needed

for another exposition:

to exclude,

to exclude

a case of uncertain floating impurity.

If a creeping thing is floating on water and a person is uncertain whether he touched the creeping thing floating on the water or did not touch it, he is ritually pure due to the uncertainty, even in the private domain. Although in every other case of uncertain ritual impurity in the private domain the uncertain case is impure, in the case of uncertain floating impurity the uncertain case is pure.

As Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: The phrase “on the earth” indicates specifically when the creeping thing is resting on the earth, and not when it is floating on water. On the other hand, it is written “the one that creeps,” whose meaning is that it renders impure in every place where it creeps, even when it is floating on water! How can these verses be reconciled? Rather, “the one that creeps” comes to include the case in which one certainly touched floating impurity, in which case he is impure. And

“on the earth” comes

to exclude uncertain floating impurity 178.

If so, from where can we derive the exclusion of the mouse that lives in the sea as well?

And we resolve the difficulty:

“On the earth” is written twice

in the passage, in order to expound both occurrences.

The Sages taught:

It is written

“the tortoise according to its kinds,”

and we derive from “according to its kinds”

to include

the

ardav

that is born from a tortoise and a snake, which is considered a species of tortoise and is impure with the impurity of creeping things.

And likewise the nefilim and salamandra,

which are creeping things of the tortoise species; they too are impure with the impurity of creeping things, like a tortoise.

And when Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse,

he would

say: “How great are Your works, O Lord!”

You have creatures

that

grow in the sea,

such as fish of the sea,

and You have creatures

that

grow on dry land,

those

of the sea, if

[they]

were to come up onto dry land, immediately

they

would die.

And those

of dry land, if

[they]

were to descend into the sea, immediately

they

would die.

And likewise,

You have creatures

that

grow in light

—in fire, such as the salamandra, which is of the tortoise species. [This is why Rabbi Akiva said this when he reached the verse “the tortoise according to its kinds,” since the salamandra is included by this verse.]

And You have creatures

that

grow in air.

Those

in fire, if they were to rise into the air, they would immediately die!

For they cannot survive except in fire.

And those

in air, if they were to descend into fire, they would immediately die.

For they would be burned.

You must

say:

“How great are Your works, O Lord!”

The Sages taught: Every

living creature

that exists on dry land also exists

in a corresponding form

in the sea, except for the weasel.

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse

that hints at this?

As it is written,

“Hear this, all inhabitants of the world,”

meaning all inhabitants of dry land. Dry land is called “world,” because only there do weasels exist, and not in the sea, where no species of weasel exists.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The creatures of the marshes of Neresh,

the living creatures that grow in the water pools in the region of Neresh,

are not of the inhabited world.

They grow only in water.

Rav Pappa said: The people of

Neresh

should be placed under a ban,

for they are wicked.

Their fat, their skin, and their tail-fat

—the milk-fat and the hide together with the flesh and the tail-fat.

This is a proverb, meaning that all of them—from the least to the greatest—are wicked, and should be placed under a ban.

It is written in Jeremiah:

“Land, land, land

hear the word of the Lord.”

Rav Pappa said: Neresh did not wish to hear the word of the Lord.

For all of them are wicked.

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If a man of Neresh kisses you,

if one of the people of Neresh kisses you,

count your teeth!

Count your teeth to ascertain that none is missing. This is to say that all of them are thieves.

And if one of the inhabitants of

Nehardea accompanies you

on the road,

remove the fine cloak that you are wearing!

He did this because he saw you wearing a fine garment and wants to steal it from you.

And if one of the people of

Pumbedita accompanies you,

change your lodging!

Change your inn so that he will not know where you are staying, for they are expert thieves.

Rav Huna bar Torata said: Once I went to Va'ad,

a place of wicked people where they would mate diverse species,

and I saw a snake coiled around a tortoise,

which always dwelled with it and mated with it.

After some time, an ardav emerged from them,

which bites people and kills them.

When I came before Rabbi Shimon the Pious, he said to me:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: They,

the people of that place,

brought

into the world a hybrid creature that is

a creature that I did not create in My world,

by mating diverse species.

So I too will bring upon them

the ardav, which is

a creature that I did not create in My world.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the Master said: Every

creature

whose mating and gestation are alike

—where both mate face to face, as human beings do, or face to the back, as animals do, and the duration of their gestation is the same—only they

give birth to and raise offspring from one another,

meaning that one becomes pregnant from the other and each nurses the other’s offspring.

But any creatures whose mating and gestation are not alike do not give birth to or raise offspring from one another.

Yet the gestation periods of the snake and the tortoise are not alike: a snake’s gestation lasts seven years, while a tortoise’s lasts six months. How, then, could an ardav emerge from them?

And we answer:

Rav said: It was a miracle within a miracle

[that occurred]. [The first miracle was that it abandoned its own species and mated with a different species; the second was that they gave birth to one another even though their gestation periods were not the same—Shita Mekubetzet.]

And we raise a difficulty:

“This is punishment,”

so how can he call it a miracle?

And we answer:

What does “a miracle within a miracle”

mean?

It means a miracle for the purpose of punishment, in order to exact retribution from the wicked!

Mishna:

The flesh of an animal after its death contracts the impurity of an animal carcass in the measure of an olive-bulk. However, if the flesh separated from the animal before its death, it does not render impure at all unless it includes an entire limb—that is, flesh, sinews, and bones. For a limb that separated from an animal while it was alive contracts severe impurity, like a carcass.

The limb

[containing flesh, sinews, and bones]

and the flesh

[alone]

that are hanging from an animal,

having been torn from the animal but still remaining loosely attached to it,

contract the impurity of food where they are.

Even while they remain attached to the animal in their place, they already have the status of “food”; they are fit to contract the impurity of food from a creeping thing and to render other food impure.

This applies provided that he had in mind to feed them to a person. Since they are prohibited for consumption even to a gentile, on account of the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal, they are not presumptively considered “food” until he explicitly intends that the gentile eat them.

And

the limb and the flesh hanging from the animal

require preparation.

They do not contract impurity until they are prepared to contract impurity by being moistened [once] with water after they became loosely attached, like any food that requires preparation as a condition for contracting impurity.

However, with regard to the impurity of a limb from a living animal, they are considered attached to the animal and do not contract severe impurity; only with regard to the impurity of food are they considered detached.