Chullin 129a (קכט.) — the Talmud in English

!

Abaye said: They said: Food used as an idolatrous offering,

food that was offered to an idol,

imparts impurity through a tent. [

For idolatrous offerings were assimilated to a corpse, as it is written: “And they ate the sacrifices of the dead.” Just as a corpse imparts impurity through a tent, so too does food used as an idolatrous offering impart impurity through a tent.]

And I say that

their impurity is not by Torah law. [

And the verse is merely an asmachta.]

For if it enters your mind that it is by Torah law—

we find food that imparts severe impurity.

The question therefore returns: How can we derive from seeds that only something whose ultimate capacity is not to impart severe impurity requires hechsher? After all, seeds too are ultimately capable of imparting severe impurity when they are offered to an idol! Rather, it must be that their impurity is not by Torah law.

And we reject this: In fact, it is by Torah law, and there is no difficulty, for

when

the food served in the context of idolatrous impurity

served as an object of wood.

For it is no longer classified as “food,” since it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, and it is therefore like wood that was worshipped. Thus, we still have not found “food” that becomes a primary source of impurity.

Abaye said: They said: Food attachments,

food found in the crevices of a vessel and attached to it [and whose continued presence there is desired]—

are considered like vessels.

And if it becomes impure through a corpse, it becomes a primary source of impurity and in turn imparts impurity to a person, because its status is that of a “vessel,” not that of “food.”

And I say that

their impurity is not by Torah law. For if it enters your mind that it is by Torah law, we find food that imparts severe impurity

when it is nullified to the vessel?!

And we reject this:

When

the food served in the context of severe impurity

served as an object of wood.

It imparts impurity in its capacity as a vessel, and not in its capacity as “food.” Thus, we still have not found food that imparts severe impurity.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: With regard to that which was taught in a beraita: The milk

of a kosher animal

that is an animal carcass,

when it is

in the villages,

where it is not customary to eat milk,

requires intention

for the milk to be designated for human consumption [since the villagers do not generally eat milk], and thereby it acquires the status of “food” for purposes of contracting impurity [because, by virtue of its being from a carcass, it does not impart impurity; milk does not impart the impurity of a carcass],

and

it also requires

preparation

by contact with water, so that it becomes prepared to contract impurity, since the milk is not ultimately destined to impart severe impurity.

However, once he has formed an intention concerning it and it has been prepared to contract impurity, it now imparts impurity by the law of a “protective attachment” for the kidney, since the milk covers the kidney and protects it, and the kidney imparts the impurity of carcasses. Therefore, one who touches the milk becomes impure, as one who touches the protective attachment of a carcass.

And I say that

its impurity on account of the kidney,

by virtue of its being a protective attachment for the kidney,

is not by Torah law.

For if it enters your mind

that the milk is considered a protective attachment for the kidney by

Torah law, we find food that imparts severe impurity

and nevertheless requires preparation. Yet we learned that anything whose ultimate capacity is to impart severe impurity does not require preparation. Why, then, does the milk require preparation? Rather, it is proven that the milk is not considered a protective attachment for the kidney by Torah law. [

This question differs from the questions above. In the cases of a cake of leaven, food used as an idolatrous offering, and food attachments, and likewise below, in the case of a house roofed with seeds, the question concerned the derivation from seeds: We find something that is presently “food” and that, through a particular action, will impart severe impurity, which contradicts the entire derivation. In the case of milk, however, which is a protective attachment for the kidney, it imparts severe impurity from the outset because of the law of a protective attachment. Thus, this is not a question on the derivation from seeds; rather, the question is why the milk requires preparation. This resembles the first question that Rabba bar Rav Hanan raised to Rava concerning one who cuts meat from a limb of a living animal—Maharsha.]

And we reject this:

When

the milk served as a protective attachment for the kidney, it

served as an object of wood!

The severe impurity it possesses is not in its capacity as “food,” as is the impurity of an animal carcass and the carcass of a kosher bird; rather, it is in its capacity as a “protective attachment,” like ordinary wood. The rule that something whose ultimate capacity is to impart severe impurity does not require preparation applies only where the severe impurity too is in its capacity as food, belonging to the same category as the lesser impurity. [And this is as the Gemara answered above concerning the first question.]

Rav Mattana said: They said: A house that was roofed with seeds—the seeds become pure

from food impurity, because the designation “food” has been removed from them by their becoming part of the house. From this point onward, if a lesion appears in the house, the seeds too will contract the impurity of a “house afflicted with tzara'at.”

And I say that

the impurity

of the seeds through the impurity of a “house afflicted with tzara'at

is not by Torah law. For if it enters your mind that it is by Torah law, do we find seeds that impart severe impurity?

How, then, can we derive the rule from seeds, when we find food whose ultimate capacity is to impart severe impurity by using it to roof the house?

And we reject this:

When

the seeds served in the context of the impurity of lesions, they

served as an object of wood.

They were like the wood and stones of the house that contract impurity through lesions. But we have not found food whose ultimate capacity is to impart severe impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon declares it pure.

The Mishna contains three sections concerning a limb and flesh that are dangling from an animal:

A. While the animal is alive, they do not impart severe impurity; rather, they contract food impurity, provided that they are prepared to contract impurity.

B. If the animal was slaughtered, they do not impart severe impurity, because slaughter does not cause the dangling parts to fall off. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree as to whether they require preparation.

C. If the animal died, the limb imparts severe impurity by virtue of being a limb from a living animal, and not by virtue of being a limb from a dead animal, because death causes the dangling part to fall off. The flesh is pure, since flesh from a living animal does not impart impurity.

The conclusion of the Mishna, “Rabbi Shimon declares it pure,” plainly refers to its final clause: If the animal died, Rabbi Shimon declares the limb entirely pure from severe impurity.

And we raise a question concerning it: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon, who declares the limb entirely pure?

Whichever way you look at it, if

he holds

that “death causes the dangling part to fall off,”

so that the dangling limb is considered as though it fell from the animal before its death and did not become a carcass together with it at the time of its death, then

it should contract impurity as a limb from a living animal,

like any limb that separated during the animal’s lifetime.

And

if

he holds

that “death does not cause the dangling part to fall off,”

but rather it remains part of the animal even at the time of its death and becomes a carcass together with it, then

it should contract impurity as a limb from a carcass?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon is referring to the first clause

of the Mishna; he

is speaking

of what is taught at the beginning:

“The dangling limb and flesh of an animal”—

“impart food impurity in their place and require preparation,” and

concerning this it teaches that

“Rabbi Shimon declares it pure”

from food impurity.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon

who declares it pure from food impurity?

It is

that the verse says

with regard to food impurity:

“From all food that may be eaten,”

and we expound:

Food that you can feed to others

to gentiles with permission

is called “food.”