Chullin 128a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Meir says: If he holds the small one and the large one rises with it, it is like it,

because they are considered connected to one another; and if a tevul yom touched one of them, its fellow also became impure [when they were teruma, since teruma is disqualified by a tevul yom],

and if not—

it is not like it,

and its fellow does not become impure. [And one part cannot render the other impure, because a tevul yom is a secondary degree of impurity, and the part that he touched is third-degree, and a third-degree does not produce a fourth-degree in teruma].

It follows that Rabbi Meir held the opposite: that it is not like it?

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The positions are reversed!

For in tractate Tevul Yom he reversed his position. But everywhere else he holds that if he holds the small one and the large one rises with it, it is like it.

It is thus explained that Rabbi Yohanan too interpreted the reason of Rabbi Meir—that the limb does not require preparation—as being that he holds that if he holds the small one and the large one does not rise with it, it is like it, as Abaye [explained].

And we raised an objection:

And what is the difficulty

for Rabbi Yohanan from Rabbi Meir’s words in our Mishna against his words in tractate Tevul Yom?

Perhaps Rabbi Meir distinguishes between a tevul yom and other impurities?!

For the impurity of a tevul yom is weak, since he has already immersed, and therefore Rabbi Meir is lenient to say that when a tevul yom touches one part, the other part does not become impure along with it, since with regard to this they are not considered connected,

But if a person whose impurity is severe, or a creeping creature, touched one part, the other part would also become impure along with it, since they are considered connected. And likewise in our Mishna, with regard to preparation, both the dangling limb and the dangling flesh were prepared together with the animal, since they are considered connected. If so, is there not no difficulty at all of a contradiction in Rabbi Meir’s words?

And we answer: This

was taught: Rabbi says: Both a tevul yom and other impurities

are equal: What is considered touching with regard to other impurities is also considered touching with regard to a tevul yom. And for this reason Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection from Rabbi Meir against Rabbi Meir.

But we continue to object:

Perhaps Rabbi does not distinguish, whereas Rabbi Meir does distinguish

between a tevul yom and other impurities; and what difficulty is there for Rabbi Yohanan?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yoshiya said: This is what Rabbi Yohanan said: According to Rabbi’s words

that a tevul yom and other impurities are equal—

the position is reversed

for Rabbi Meir: With regard to a tevul yom he said that it is not like it, whereas here he changed his mind and said that it is like it.

g.

Rava said:

The case is one in which no blood of the slaughtering was spattered onto the dangling limb. Everyone agrees that an animal becomes a handle for one limb; rather,

they disagree

whether, just as there is a handle for impurity, there is also a handle for preparation,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon

being the ones who disagree.

The Master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds: There is a handle for impurity, but there is no handle for preparation.

The law of a “handle” was innovated only with regard to transmitting impurity from the creeping creature to food and from impure food to pure food. But with regard to preparation—that if the handle was prepared, the food too was prepared—the law of a handle was not innovated. Therefore, although the animal becomes a handle for one limb, nevertheless it does not bring the preparation to the limb.

And the Master,

Rabbi Meir,

holds: There is a handle for impurity and for preparation.

Just as the law of a handle was innovated with regard to transmitting impurity to food, so the law of a handle was innovated with regard to preparation. Therefore, when the animal was prepared, it brings the preparation to the dangling limb, since the animal becomes a handle for one limb. [And Rav and Rabbi Yohanan already disagreed in this dispute above, on 118b].

d.

Rav Pappa said:

Actually, the case is one in which the limb had already been prepared by the blood of the slaughtering, [which is possible for two reasons: first, when blood of the slaughtering was spattered onto the limb; and second, because everyone agrees that there is a handle for preparation, and an animal becomes a handle for one limb]. Rather, the preparation occurred before he thought of it for eating, so that the limb did not yet have the status of food when it was prepared, [and without thought the dangling limb is not fit to receive impurity, because it is forbidden to eat] ,

And

with preparation

that was made

before

the

thought they disagree,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon—whether the preparation is effective or not.

For Rabbi Shimon holds that just as impurity does not take effect upon something that is not designated for eating, so preparation does not take effect upon something that is not designated for eating. Therefore the dangling limb and flesh were not prepared by the blood of the slaughtering. And Rabbi Meir holds that preparation takes effect even before they are designated for eating; and when he thinks of them for eating, they will be fit to receive impurity through the preparation that was made initially.

For it was taught: Rabbi Judah said—

This is how Rabbi Akiva used to teach: The milk

of a slaughtered pure animal

that has been slaughtered—

in the villages—

requires thought.

He must think of it for human consumption, and only then does it acquire the status of “food” for receiving impurity. For milk is eaten only under pressure; and in the villages, where the number of people is small and meat suffices for them, they do not eat milk. But in the cities, where there are many people, meat alone is insufficient, and therefore they eat milk there as well. Consequently, there it is designated for eating even without thought. [

Another interpretation: Milk is more expensive than meat, and the villagers are poor and cannot afford to buy milk, whereas the wealthy townspeople also eat milk. Therefore, there it is designated for eating even without thought.]

And it does not require

the milk

preparation,

because

it

is

already prepared at

the time of

slaughtering,

even though the preparation occurred before the thought.

And

I said before him,

before Rabbi Akiva:

You taught us, our teacher: Chicory,

[the name of a herb],

which he gathered and washed

in water with the intention of feeding it

to an animal,

[and something designated for animal consumption does not receive food impurity],

and

afterward

changed his mind about them

so that they would be

for

the consumption of

a person,

and from now on they are fit to receive food impurity,

they

require a second preparation.

For the first preparation, when he washed them, occurred before the thought, and preparation is effective only if it was made after it became fit to receive impurity. How, then, do you say with regard to slaughtered milk that preparation before thought is effective?

And Rabbi Akiva returned to teach in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

Indeed, slaughtered milk too requires a second preparation after the thought that he thought of it for human consumption.

And after we have found that the tannaim discussed this matter, it is now possible to say that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagreed about this in our Mishna:

The Master,

Rabbi Meir,

held

like what Rabbi Akiva said

originally,

that preparation is effective even if it was made before the thought, and the preparation of the slaughtering blood was effective to prepare the dangling limb.

And the Master,

Rabbi Shimon,

held like

what Rabbi Akiva held after

retraction,

that preparation does not take effect before thought. Therefore the dangling limb requires a second preparation after he thinks of it for eating.

h.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:

The case is one in which blood of the slaughtering was spattered onto the limb,

and

when the blood

of the slaughtering

was wiped away between

the slaughtering of the first

sign

and the slaughtering of

the

second

sign—

they disagree,

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon.

For “blood” is not considered a liquid with regard to preparation unless it is “blood of the slain,” meaning that the animal was killed by being cut lengthwise. The blood of slaughtering, which prepares, does so for another reason: because the blood of slaughtering was equated with water. Therefore, it prepares only when it has the status of “blood of slaughtering.”

The Master,

Rabbi Meir,

holds: “Slaughtering exists from beginning to end,”

and already with the slaughtering of the first sign it has the status of slaughtering;

therefore,

this

blood, although it was wiped away before the completion of the slaughtering,

is “blood of slaughtering,”

and it prepared the dangling limb and flesh.

And the Master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds: “There is no slaughtering,”

the slaughtering is not called slaughtering

except at the end,

the slaughtering.

And this

blood, which was wiped away before the end of the slaughtering, is not “blood of slaughtering,” but

it is blood of a wound,

which does not prepare. Therefore the dangling limb and flesh were not prepared .

And.

Rav Ashi said:

The case is one in which blood of the slaughtering was spattered onto the limb ,

And

through slaughtering it prepares

the flesh

and not blood

of the slaughtering prepares—or perhaps the blood of the slaughtering prepares—

they disagree.

For Rabbi Shimon follows his position [above, 35b] that “blood of slaughtering” is not called a liquid at all, and does not prepare for receiving impurity. Rather, the slaughtering itself prepares the flesh to receive impurity: since it permits the flesh for eating, it gives it the status of “food” also with regard to receiving impurity [for preparation is analogous to the “completion of the work” of food]. And since the slaughtering does not permit the dangling limb and flesh for eating, it likewise does not prepare them to receive impurity .

And Rabbi Meir holds that the blood of slaughtering is called a liquid and prepares for receiving impurity. Therefore the dangling limb and flesh were prepared by the blood of slaughtering.

Rabba inquired: According to Rabbi Meir, who holds that an animal becomes a handle for a limb at the time of slaughtering [according to Rabba’s explanation above]—

while the animal is alive, can it become a handle for the limb?

For the animal itself, while alive, does not receive impurity at all, whereas the dangling limb receives food impurity through thought and preparation. Now there is room to inquire in a case where impurity touched the animal

Does it bring the impurity into the limb by the law of a “handle” [a handle brings in and takes out impurity], or perhaps, since living creatures do not receive impurity at all, they cannot transmit impurity even by the law of a handle?

And we conclude:

teyku! Abaye said: They have said in Tractate Uktzin:

in Tractate Uktzin:

a cucumber that was planted in a flowerpot

that is not perforated, whose status is that of something detached, and which contracts impurity like any food,

and it grew

the cucumber

and went out beyond the flowerpot,

and leans over the ground—

pure

is the entire cucumber. Since the part that goes out from the flowerpot draws nourishment from the scent of the earth beneath it, while what is inside the flowerpot draws nourishment from the part leaning outward, and everything is considered attached to the ground; and something attached to the ground does not contract impurity.

Rabbi Shimon said: And what is the status

of the cucumber that is inside the flowerpot

to become pure!?

What reason is there to purify also the principal part that is inside the flowerpot? After all, it does not draw nourishment from the ground?

Rather, the impure remains in its impurity!

What is inside the flowerpot remains as something detached even after the cucumber has grown, and contracts impurity.

And the pure remains in its purity.

What leans outward alone has the status of something attached, and does not contract impurity.

Abaye inquired:

according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that what grows inside the flowerpot contracts impurity, while what is outside the flowerpot does not contract impurity,

what is it that the cucumber

leaning outward

becomes a “handle” for its fellow,

for what is inside the flowerpot? That is to say, if impurity touches the part outside, does it bring the impurity into the cucumber inside the flowerpot by the law of a “handle,” or perhaps, since something attached does not contract impurity, it is also unable to transmit impurity by the law of a handle?

And we conclude:

teyku!

Rabbi Yirmeya said: They have said: One who bows down to half a gourd—

forbade it

from benefit. For that half of the gourd to which he bowed becomes forbidden from benefit by the law of “idolatry.” But the other half of the gourd, to which he did not bow, is permitted from benefit.

Rabbi Yirmeya inquired:

According to Rabbi Shimon, that prohibitions deriving from benefit do not contract impurity, since they do not have the designation of food, it follows that the half of the gourd to which he bowed does not contract impurity, while the half of the gourd to which he did not bow does contract impurity,