Chullin 129a — the Talmud in English

And why? This is

the impurity of a concealed place!

For the contact of the impure flesh with the rest of the limb took place only while they were joined together, and the place of contact, which is the place of their joining, is not visible to the eye,

and the impurity of a concealed place

[contact with impurity that is not visible to the eye]

does not impart impurity!?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi:

I too have this difficulty

this question,

and I asked Rabbi Abba bar Memel,

and he said to me: Whose is this

this beraita

It is Rabbi Meir, who says: The impurity of a concealed place imparts impurity.

Rabbi Meir’s words were stated concerning a fetus that extended its hand from its mother’s womb, and one slaughtered the animal and afterward cut off the hand: the hand imparts impurity as a limb from a living creature and is not permitted through the slaughtering of the mother, since it emerged from the animal before the slaughtering. And from now on, even the flesh of the animal and the fetus are impure, because they came into contact after the slaughtering with the hand that was outside; and even though this is the impurity of a concealed place, since their contact took place while they were joined, nevertheless Rabbi Meir declares it impure .

He said to him

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Abba bar Memel’s resolution does not seem to me. For

is it not so? Many times she said it

concerning his resolution

before me. And I said to her: There is a distinction

there is a difference

according to Rabbi Meir between impurity that requires preparation and impurity that does not require preparation.

For in Rabbi Meir’s law—in the case of the fetus that extended its hand—the flesh of the animal and the fetus do not require preparation to receive impurity, since the slaughtering of the mother prepared them even before the hand was cut off from it. And if so, the contact that imparted impurity took place after the preparation.

But in the case before us, where he cut flesh from a limb from a living creature, the flesh had not yet been prepared at the time of the cutting; how, then, could it receive impurity from the limb ?

Rava said: And what is the difficulty!? Perhaps

the beraita is speaking

where it was prepared

the flesh before the limb was cut.

And we raise an objection:

Rabba bar Rav Hanan said to Rava: Why do I need preparation

for this flesh that was cut from a limb from a living creature, and

behold

it

imparts severe impurity by virtue of its father!?

For while the flesh was still joined to its “father,” the limb, it had severe impurity, for it too, while it was part of the limb, imparted impurity as a limb from a living creature [whose impurity is severe, as it is a primary source of impurity and imparts impurity to people and vessels]; and it is an established principle for us: Anything whose end is to impart severe impurity imparts lesser impurity even now [the impurity of foods] without preparation by water. And all the more so this flesh, which was already impure with severe impurity while it was joined to the limb, does not require preparation after it was cut from the limb, even though the severe impurity departed from it; why, then, did you need to say that it is speaking where it was prepared?

He said to him

Rava: When do we say that if its end is to impart severe impurity, it also imparts the impurity of foods now without preparation by water? Only where the severe impurity too is on account of the designation “food” that it possesses—for example, the impurity of an unslaughtered animal carcass, where only the flesh imparts impurity, and likewise the impurity of the carcass of a pure bird, where the impurity applies only through eating [for it imparts impurity only in the throat]. Since the severe impurity and the lesser impurity are of one matter, as both depend on the designation “food,” therefore the severe impurity is also a reason to impart lesser impurity even without preparation by water. But here, concerning the impurity of a limb from a living creature,

—

when it served

the flesh to complete it into a complete limb and to impart severe impurity together with it, it did not serve it in the capacity of “food,” but

it served as “the function of wood.”

For the flesh joined with the sinews and bones so that together they would have the designation “limb.” [For even if it had merely been wood, it would have joined with them, since the essential matter is that it should have the designation “limb.”] But the lesser impurity is in the capacity of “food.” Therefore we do not say that it does not require preparation because its “end [or beginning] is to impart severe impurity”; rather, it requires preparation for the impurity of foods .

Abaye said: They have said in tractate Pesachim: A loaf a lump

of leaven that one designated for sitting—

is nullified

from the status of leaven, and it is permitted to keep it in the house on Passover.

And since it was nullified from the status of “food” and became like a vessel designated for sitting, from now on it has the law of the impurity of a seat: if a person with a flux sat upon it, it would become a primary source of impurity. [For as long as it is designated for eating, it does not become a seat of a person with a flux, since it is not designated only for sitting; only after he designates it exclusively for sitting does it become a seat of a person with a flux.]

And concerning this Abaye said: Its

impurity [the impurity of the seat that it possesses]

is not by Torah law.

By Torah law it is not nullified from the status of food, nor does it become a seat of a person with a flux; rather, this is only rabbinic .

If it enters your mind that it is by Torah law

then

we have found foods that impart severe impurity!?

For if one designated them for sitting and a person with a flux sat upon them, they would impart severe impurity.

For the entire law of “its end is to impart severe impurity” is learned from what is stated in the Torah, “seeds,” concerning preparation by water; and we derive: Just as seeds, whose end is not to impart severe impurity [for food can never be a primary source of impurity], require preparation, so too everything whose end is not to impart severe impurity requires preparation—excluding one whose end is to impart severe impurity, which does not require preparation.

And if it is possible that foods should impart severe impurity by means of nullifying them from the status of food, then the entire derivation is refuted!?

And we reject this: In truth, its impurity is by Torah law, and nevertheless this is not considered that the end of the foods is to impart severe impurity, because

when it served

the food in the impurity of a seat after he nullified it from the status of food, it did not impart impurity in the capacity of “food,” but

it served as “the function of wood.”

For through its being nullified from the status of “food” and becoming designated for sitting like wood, it imparts the impurity of a seat. If so, we still have not found “food” that imparts severe impurity.

the food served

to convey impurity through being sat upon after it was nullified as food, it did not impart impurity in its capacity as “food,” but

“it served as wood.”

By being nullified as “food” and becoming designated for sitting, like wood, it conveys impurity through being sat upon. Therefore, we still have not found “food” that imparts severe impurity.

Abaye said: They have said: the food-offerings of idolatry,

that is, food that was offered to idolatry,

render impure through tenting. [

because the food-offerings of idolatry were likened to a corpse, as it is written, “and they ate the sacrifices of the dead”: just as a corpse renders impure through tenting, so the food-offerings of idolatry render impure through tenting].

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 renders severe impurity.

And the question returns: how do we derive from seeds that specifically something whose eventual capacity is not to render severe impurity requires preparation, when even seeds have the eventual capacity to render severe impurity when they are offered to idolatry?! Rather, it is necessarily the case that their impurity is not by Torah law.

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

when it served

the food in the impurity of idolatry,

it served as a wooden object.

For it is nullified from the status of “food,” since it is forbidden to benefit from, and it is like wood that was worshipped; and again we do not find “food” that became a primary source of impurity.

Abaye said: They have said: food-connections,

food found in the crevices of a vessel and connected to it [and one wishes that it remain there]—

are considered like vessels.

And if it becomes impure from a corpse, it becomes a primary source of impurity, and in turn renders a person impure, because its law is like that of a “vessel” and not like 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 renders severe impurity

when they nullify it to the vessel?!

And we reject this:

when it served

the food in the severe impurity,

it served as a wooden object.

It renders impure in the capacity of a vessel and not in the capacity of “food,” and again we do not find food that renders severe impurity.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: As for that which was taught in a beraita: milk

of a pure animal,

as carrion,

when it is

in the villages,

where it is not customary to eat milk there,

requires thought

that the milk be designated for human consumption [because it is not customary for the villagers to eat milk], and through this it acquires the status of “food” for receiving impurity [because by virtue of its being carrion it does not render impure, since milk does not render impure as carrion],

and

it also requires

preparation

so that water come upon it and it be prepared to receive impurity, because the milk does not have the eventual capacity to render severe impurity.

But after he thought about it and it was prepared to receive impurity, it now renders impure by the law of a “protector” for the kidney, for the milk covers the kidney and protects it, and the kidney renders impurity with the impurity of carrion; therefore, one who touches the milk also becomes impure, like one who touches the protector of carrion.

And I say that

its impurity on account of the kidney

by virtue of its being a protector for the kidney

is not by Torah law.

For if it enters your mind

that the milk is considered a protector for the kidney by

Torah law, we find food that renders severe impurity

and nevertheless requires preparation; yet we learned that anything whose eventual capacity is to render severe impurity does not require preparation, so why does the milk require preparation?! Rather, it is proven that the milk is not considered a protector for the kidney by Torah law. [

This question differs from the questions above. Regarding a cake of leaven, the food-offerings of idolatry, and food-connections, and likewise below regarding a house that was roofed with seeds, the question was concerning the derivation from seeds: we find something that is now “food,” and through a particular act it will render severe impurity, and this contradicts the entire derivation. But regarding milk, which is a protector for the kidney, from the outset it renders severe impurity because of the law of a protector within it; this is not a question against the derivation from seeds. Rather, the question is why the milk requires preparation, and this resembles the first question that Rabba bar Rav Hanan asked Rava regarding one who cuts meat from a limb taken from a living animal—Maharsha].

And we reject this:

when it served

the milk as a protector for the kidney,

it served as a wooden object!

For the severe impurity within it is not in the capacity of “food,” like the impurity of carrion and the carrion of a pure bird, but in the capacity of a “protector,” like ordinary wood; and the law that something whose eventual capacity is to render severe impurity does not require preparation was stated only in a case where the severe impurity as well is in the capacity of food, which belongs to the lesser impurity. [And as the Gemara answered above regarding the first question] .

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

from food impurity, for the status of “food” was nullified from them by their becoming part of the house. From now on, if a lesion appears in the house, the seeds too will become impure with the impurity of a “house afflicted with a lesion.”

And I say that

its impurity

—this impurity of the seeds with the impurity of a “house afflicted with a lesion” —

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

How, then, do we derive from seeds, when we find food whose eventual capacity is to render severe impurity by using it to roof the house?

And we reject this:

when they served

the seeds in the impurity of lesions,

they served as a wooden object.

Like the wood and stones of the house that render impure through lesions. But we do not find food whose eventual capacity is to render severe impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon declares pure.

We learned three sections in the Mishna regarding limbs and flesh that are dangling:

A. While the animal is alive—they do not render severe impurity, but they receive food impurity, provided that they are prepared to receive impurity.

B. The animal was slaughtered—they do not render severe impurity, because slaughter does not cause detachment; and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disputed whether they require preparation.

C. The animal died—the limb renders severe impurity by the law of a limb from a living animal and not by the law of a limb from a dead animal, for death causes detachment. And the flesh is pure, for flesh from a living animal does not render impurity.

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

And we considered it: What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason for declaring the limb completely pure?

Whichever way you look at it, if

he holds

“death causes detachment,”

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

let it become impure on account of a limb from a living animal,

like every limb that separated during the animal’s lifetime?

And

if

he holds

“death does not cause detachment,”

but rather it is like the body of the animal even at the time of its death and becomes carrion together with it, then

let it become impure on account of a limb from carrion?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon refers to the first clause

of the Mishna

and stands upon it.

For it teaches in the first clause:

the limb and the flesh dangling from the animal—

render food impurity in their place and require preparation, and

regarding this it teaches that

Rabbi Shimon declares pure

from food impurity.

Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason

for declaring pure from food impurity?

For

the verse says

regarding 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.”