Chullin 128b (קכח:) — the Talmud in English

What is to be done with

that half of the gourd which is prohibited as forbidden to derive benefit from and which does not contract ritual impurity—

does it become a “handle for its counterpart,”

for its other half, which is permitted as not forbidden to derive benefit from? If a creeping creature touched the half that is forbidden as forbidden to derive benefit from, does it convey the impurity to the permitted half by virtue of the law of a “handle,” or perhaps, since an item that is forbidden as forbidden to derive benefit from does not contract ritual impurity, it cannot convey impurity either by virtue of the law of a handle?

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

Rav Pappa said: They said

in tractate Uktzin:

A shoot,

a branch

of a

tree,

of a fig tree,

with figs on it,

that was torn off,

that was detached from the tree,

but remains attached

remaining suspended

by its bark

to the tree alone,

Rabbi Yehuda deems

the figs on the branch pure, since they do not contract ritual impurity. Although it cannot survive, since it is attached to the tree, it is considered attached.

And the Sages say: If

the branch

can survive,

that is, if it is attached to the tree, it will reunite with it and grow fruit, it is considered attached and

pure. But if not,

it is considered detached and

impure.

Rav Pappa asked:

According to the Sages, who say that a branch that cannot survive contracts ritual impurity even though it is attached to the tree,

what is the halakha concerning whether

the tree

becomes a “handle for its counterpart,”

for the branch attached to it that cannot survive? If impurity touched the tree, does the tree convey the impurity to the shoot by virtue of the law of a “handle,” or perhaps, since an attached object does not contract ritual impurity, it cannot convey impurity either by virtue of the law of a handle?

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

Rabbi Zeira said: They said:

in tractate Nega'im:

A stone at the corner

of a house, where it is customary to place broad stones that span the entire thickness of the wall, so that the stone is also visible on the other side of the wall, in the neighbor’s house, and the affliction is visible on that stone,

then

when he removes

this stone from the house—for example, when the affliction remains unchanged after two weeks of quarantine, or when the affliction spreads after one week of quarantine—

he removes all of it.

This includes the portion in the neighbor’s house, since the mitzva is to remove the stone in its entirety, whether it is large or small.

And when he demolishes

the entire house—for example, when the affliction returns after he removes the stone, in which case he must demolish the entire house—

he demolishes the

side

belonging to him

of the stone,

and leaves the

side

belonging to his fellow.

For it is written: “He shall demolish the house,” implying only one house and not two houses.

It is thus clear that only the half of the stone belonging to the house in which the affliction appeared is considered “the afflicted stone.” But the half of the stone in the neighbor’s house is not considered the afflicted stone, and therefore does not require demolition.

Rabbi Zeira asked: What is the halakha concerning whether

the pure portion of the stone

becomes a “handle for its counterpart,”

Although the half of the stone in the neighbor’s house is not considered “the afflicted stone” with regard to the law of demolition, with regard to the impurity of the afflicted stone—which renders everyone who enters the house where the stone is located impure—does the other half also convey impurity by virtue of the law of a “handle,” thereby extending the impurity from the impure half to the neighbor’s house, so that everyone who enters the neighbor’s house becomes impure, or perhaps there is no law of a handle with regard to the impurity of afflictions?

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the animal died,

the dangling limb conveys impurity as a limb severed from a living animal, but it does not convey impurity as a limb of an animal carcass.

We raised a difficulty:

What

practical difference

is there between a limb severed from a living animal and a limb of a carcass,

when both convey severe impurity? And we answered:

The difference between them concerns flesh that separates from it,

from the limb.

For flesh that separates from a limb severed from a living animal does not convey impurity,

since even if the flesh separates from the animal itself, it does not convey impurity—for only an entire limb conveys impurity as a limb severed from a living animal—and certainly flesh that separates from a limb severed from a living animal does not convey impurity.

But flesh that separates

from a limb of a carcass

is

impure,

since it contains an olive-bulk of carcass flesh, which conveys impurity as a carcass.

We raised a difficulty:

The limb severed from a living animal

that we said

conveys impurity—

what is the verse?

From where did we learn this? And we answered:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

For it is written:

“And when something dies of the animal

one who touches its carcass shall become impure.” And we derive from the words “of the animal” that even a part of the animal that died—for example, a limb that separated from it—conveys impurity as a carcass.

We raise an objection:

But

But

this

verse

is needed for the other teaching of Rav Yehuda who said that Rav said.

For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said—and some say that it was taught in a beraita: “And when something dies of the animal,”

and this indicates that not every animal conveys impurity, but only

a part of an animal conveys impurity

through its death,

and a part of an animal does not convey impurity

as a carcass, even though it is like a dead animal.

And which is the one

that does not convey impurity?—

This is an animal with a fatal condition that was slaughtered.

Although the slaughter does not permit it to be eaten, it is effective in purifying it from carcass impurity. How, then, can the impurity of a limb severed from a living animal also be derived from this verse?

We answer:

If so,

if the verse comes only for this exposition, that a slaughtered animal with a fatal condition does not convey impurity,

the Torah should have written “

and when something dies

of an animal”

which would also indicate that only “a part of an animal” conveys impurity.

What, then, is the purpose of “of the animal”? Learn from it two

expositions.

We raise a difficulty:

If so,

since we derive that a part of an animal that dies conveys impurity as a limb severed from a living animal,

even flesh

that separated from a living animal

also

should convey impurity?

We answer:

That cannot enter your mind!

As it was taught in a beraita: Could it be that flesh separating from a living animal is impure? The verse states: “And when something dies of the animal,”

for impurity is derived from this verse with regard to an object that separates from a living animal. Since the Torah called it “dead,” we expound:

Just as death does not produce a replacement,

since the dead does not return to life,

so too, anything that does not produce a replacement

specifically conveys impurity when it separates from a living animal—that is, a limb that does not return after separating. But flesh that separates from a living animal does not convey impurity, since it produces a replacement, as other flesh comes in its place—

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili 210 .

Rabbi Akiva says: From

“animal”

we expound:

Just as an animal

has

sinews and bones, so too, anything

that has

sinews and bones

conveys impurity when it separates from a living animal, but flesh alone does not.

Rabbi says: “Animal”—

just as an animal

that has

flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, anything

that has

flesh, sinews, and bones.

And we explain:

The difference between Rabbi and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to the knee joint.

The lower bone of the leg that separated from a living animal, which has sinews and bones but no flesh. According to Rabbi, who expounds: Just as an animal has flesh, sinews, and bones, the knee joint does not impart impurity, since it has no flesh. According to Rabbi Akiva, who expounds: Just as an animal has sinews and bones, the knee joint also imparts impurity, since it has sinews and bones. [And according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili as well, it imparts impurity, since “it does not undergo replacement”]] .

What is the difference between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

Rav Pappa said: The kidney and the lip appendage are the difference between them. They do not undergo replacement and contain no bone. If they separated from a living animal, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they impart impurity, whereas according to Rabbi Akiva [and all the more so according to Rabbi] they do not impart impurity]] .

It was taught likewise with regard to creeping animals: One might have thought that flesh that separates from creeping animals would be impure

like a limb that separates from them? [For a limb that separated from creeping animals also imparts impurity]],

the verse states: “At their death,”

and we expound:

Just as death does not undergo replacement, so too, anything that does not undergo replacement, the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says:

From

“creeping animal”

we derive:

Just as a creeping animal has sinews and bones, so too, anything that has sinews and bones.

Rabbi says: “creeping animal”—

Just as a creeping animal has flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, anything that has flesh, sinews, and bones.

And we explain:

The difference between Rabbi and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to a knee joint

from a creeping animal.

What is the difference between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

Rav Pappa said: The kidney and the lip appendage

from a creeping animal

are the difference between them.

And it is necessary

for the verses to exclude flesh from a living animal, which does not impart impurity, both with regard to animals and with regard to creeping animals.

For if it had been stated

with regard to

an animal,

I would have said:

The reason that it does not impart impurity

when flesh separates from it

while it is alive is because it does not impart impurity

as the carcass of an animal

with a lentil-sized measure,

but only with an olive-sized measure;

but a creeping animal,

which is more stringent,

as its carcass imparts impurity

with

a lentil-sized measure, I would say that it should impart impurity while it is alive.

And if it had been stated with regard to a creeping animal,

I would have said that

the reason that it does not impart impurity

is because of flesh that separates from it

through carrying,

and therefore

it does not impart impurity while it is alive. But an animal,

which is more stringent,

because

its carcass

imparts impurity through carrying, I would say that it should impart impurity while it is alive;

therefore

it is necessary

to have two verses.

The Sages taught: One who cuts an olive-sized measure

of flesh from a limb of

a living animal—the flesh that separated from the limb does not impart severe impurity, [as we derived above, that only a complete limb imparts impurity], but it does impart food impurity, provided that he designates it for consumption by a gentile, since ordinarily it is not intended for consumption]] .

If

he cut it and only afterward designated it—

it is pure.

Since from the moment he designated it, making it “food” fit to receive impurity, no impurity touched it, it remains pure until a creeping animal touches it.

But if

he designated it, and afterward cut it—

it is impure.

For while the flesh was still attached to the limb from a living animal, it already had the status of “food” and was fit to receive food impurity. At that point the flesh came into contact with the limb from a living animal, which imparts “severe impurity,” and received “food impurity” from it]] . This impurity does not leave it even after it is cut away from the limb.

Rav Asi did not enter the house of study. He encountered Rabbi Zeira and said to him:

Rav Asi said to Rabbi Zeira:

What was said in the house of study?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi:

What difficulty do you have?

You think that perhaps they discussed your question in the house of study.

He said to him

Rav Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: This is my difficulty:

It is taught

in the above beraita:

If he designated it and afterward cut it, it is impure.

Because the flesh came into contact with the limb while it was still attached to it and became impure with food impurity from it,