Chullin 128b — the Talmud in English

What is to be done—

with that half of the gourd that is forbidden to derive benefit from and does not contract impurity—

“a handle for its fellow”

for its other half, which is permitted to derive benefit from: if a creeping creature touched the half forbidden to derive benefit from, does it bring the impurity to the permitted half by the law of a “handle,” or perhaps, since an object forbidden to derive benefit from does not contract impurity, it is likewise unable to transmit impurity by the law of a handle

? And we conclude:

teiku!

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

remains hanging

by its bark

of the tree alone,

Rabbi Judah declares pure

the figs that are on the branch, so that they do not contract impurity; for although it cannot live, since it is attached to the tree it is considered attached.

And the Sages say: If it can

the branch

live,

for if it is attached to the tree, it will again unite with it and grow fruit, it is considered attached, and

pure. But if not,

it is like something detached, and

impure.

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma:

According to the Rabbis, who say that a branch that cannot live contracts impurity even though it is attached to the tree,

what is it that makes

the tree

“a handle” for its fellow,

for the branch attached to it and unable to live? If impurity touched the tree, does the tree transmit the impurity to the shoot by the law of a “handle,” or perhaps, since something attached does not contract impurity, it is likewise unable to transmit impurity by the law of a handle?

And we conclude:

teiku!

Rabbi Zeira said: They said:

in tractate Nega’im:

a stone in the corner

of the house, where they are accustomed to place broad stones that contain the entire thickness of the wall, and consequently the stone is also visible on the other side of the wall, in the neighbor’s house, and the lesion is visible on that stone,

it follows that

when he removes

that stone from the house—for example, when the lesion remains as it was after two weeks of confinement, or when the lesion spreads after one week of confinement—

he removes all of it.

Including the part in the neighbor’s house, since the mitzva is to remove the stone as it is, in its entirety, whether large or small.

And when he demolishes

the entire house—for example, when the lesion returns after he removed the stone, so that he must demolish the entire house—

he demolishes the

side

belonging to him

in the stone,

and leaves the

side

belonging to his fellow.

For it is written, “And he shall demolish the house,” implying only one house and not two houses

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

. Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: What is it that makes

the pure part of the stone

“a handle” for its fellow,

for although the half of the stone in the neighbor’s house is not considered “the stone afflicted with a lesion” with regard to the law of demolition, regarding the impurity of the stone afflicted with a lesion—which renders impure everyone who comes into the house where the stone is—even the other half renders impure by the law of a “handle,” transmitting the impurity from the impure half to the neighbor’s house, and everyone who comes into the neighbor’s house becomes impure , or perhaps there is no law of a handle for impurity from lesions ?

And we conclude:

teiku!

We learned in the Mishna:

The animal died

the dangling limb contracts impurity as a limb from a living creature, but does not contract impurity as a limb of an animal carcass.

And we raised an issue concerning it:

What

difference

is there between a limb from a living creature and a limb of the carcass,

for are they not both sources of severe impurity? And we answer:

There is a difference between them: flesh that separates from it

from the limb.

For whereas flesh that separates from a limb from a living creature does not render impure,

for even if the flesh separated from the animal itself it would not render impure [since only a complete limb renders impure as a limb from a living creature], all the more so flesh that separates from a limb that separated from the living creature does not render impure

. But flesh that separates

from a limb of the carcass

is

impure,

for it contains an olive-bulk of the flesh of an animal carcass, which renders impure through carcass impurity.

And we raised an issue concerning it:

A limb from a living creature

that we said

renders impure—

what is the verse?

From where did we learn this? And we answer:

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav:

For it is written:

“And when there dies of the animal

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

. And we raise an objection:

And

this

particular

verse

is needed for the other teaching of Rav Judah in the name of Rav.

For Rav Judah said in the name of Rav—and some say that a tanna taught it in a beraita: “And when there dies of the animal,”

which implies that not every animal renders impure, but only

part of an animal renders impure

through its death,

and part of an animal does not render impure

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

And which is this

that does not render impure?

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

For although slaughter does not permit it to be eaten, it is effective to purify it from carcass impurity; so how do we derive from here also the impurity of a limb from a living creature!?

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse comes only for this derivation, that an animal with a fatal defect that was slaughtered does not render impure,

the Torah should have written “

and when there dies

of an animal,”

which would also imply that only “part of an animal” renders impure.

What is the meaning of “of the animal”? It teaches us two

derivations.

And we raised an issue concerning it:

If so,

since we include that part of an animal that died renders impure with the impurity of a limb from a living creature,

even flesh

that separated from the living creature

also

should render impure?

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind!

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

for from this verse we derive impurity for something separating from a living creature. And since the Torah calls it “dead,” we derive:

Just as death does not produce replacements,

for the dead does not return to life,

so too, anything that does not produce replacements

alone renders impure when it separates from a living creature—that is, a limb that does not return after it separates. But flesh that separates from the living creature does not render impure, for it does produce replacements, since other flesh comes in its place—

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili 210 .

Rabbi Akiva says: From

“animal”

we derive:

Just as an animal

has

sinews and bones, so too, anything

that has

sinews and bones

renders impure when it separates from a living creature, but not flesh alone.

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,