Chullin 73b (עג:) — the Talmud in English

Granted, according to

the view of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

who maintains that through slaughter the Sages render pure even the dangling limb of an animal, it is possible to explain Rabbi Meir's statement in the beraita, that

he said this to them according to their view,

according to the position of the Sages,

he said to them

that slaughter renders the dangling limb of an animal pure.

However,

as for me,

that is, according to Rabbi Meir himself,

there is no difference between the limb of a fetus

which is not rendered pure through slaughter of the mother

and there is no difference between a limb

that is dangling

of an animal

which is not rendered pure through slaughter of the animal, since slaughter causes a nippul, as was stated in the Gemara above,

they are equivalent,

as according to Rabbi Meir both have the same status.

Thus far, the Gemara has explained why, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who maintains that in the view of the Sages even a dangling limb of an animal is rendered pure through slaughter, there is no difficulty.

But according to

the view of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who maintains that the Sages rendered pure through slaughter only a limb of a fetus that protrudes, whereas a dangling limb of an animal is not rendered pure through slaughter,

there is a difficulty:

How could Rabbi Meir have said to the Sages, in the beraita cited above, “and the dangling limb,” when according to Rabbi Yohanan the Sages did not render it pure at all?

Rather, if it was stated

that the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was stated with regard to the opinion of the Sages,

this is what was stated: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as there is a dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

with regard to fetuses,

concerning the status of limbs protruding from fetuses—according to Rabbi Meir, the limb is impure with the impurity of an animal carcass even though the mother was slaughtered, while according to the Sages its status is that of a slaughtered tereifa—

so

is there

a dispute

between them

with regard to

the status of

limbs

that are dangling from an animal.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is only

with regard to a limb

that protrudes

from a fetus.

For according to the Sages it is pure, while according to Rabbi Meir it is impure.

But with regard to a limb

that is dangling

from an animal, everyone agrees that slaughter does not cause a “nippul”!

When an animal whose one limb had become detached at its joint is slaughtered, that limb retains its status like any of the animal's other limbs, and is pure.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan disagree concerning Rabbi Meir's opinion. Is Rabbi Meir's statement to the Sages, “If the slaughter of a tereifa renders it and the dangling limb in it pure,” intended to mean that Rabbi Meir is addressing the Sages, according to whom the dangling limb is rendered pure, while he himself maintains that slaughter causes a nippul?

Or does even Rabbi Meir maintain that the dangling limb is rendered pure through slaughter? And by his statement, “and the dangling limb in it,” he intended to say that according to his own view as well, the limb is pure.

In any event, there is no difficulty from the beraita cited above.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason

for

Rabbi Yohanan's opinion according to Rabbi Meir,

that there is a distinction between a protruding limb of a fetus, which is not rendered pure through slaughter, and a dangling limb of an animal, which remains pure like the other limbs of the animal?

This

dangling limb

is its body

of the animal, and therefore it is rendered pure through slaughter.

And

if

this,

the protruding fetal limb,

is not its body,

then it is not rendered pure through slaughter of the mother.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone,

both Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

agrees that death causes a “nippul.”

If an animal containing a dangling limb dies, that limb is treated as though it fell from the animal during its lifetime. It is not considered an animal carcass like the other limbs of the dead animal; rather, it is impure with the impurity of a limb from a living animal.

And

this law applies only when the animal dies and becomes an unslaughtered carcass on its own. But when an animal whose one limb had become detached at its joint is slaughtered,

slaughter does not cause a nippul,

rather, the dangling limb is pure, like all the limbs of a slaughtered animal.

The Gemara discusses and raises a difficulty:

With regard to what are we dealing

when Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said this in the name of Rabbi Yohanan?

If you say

that their statement was made

with regard to a limb

protruding from

a fetus,

that death causes a nippul but slaughter does not cause a nippul, this is a matter in which

they explicitly disagree,

as Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree over whether slaughter of the mother renders the fetal limb pure.

Rather,

necessarily, these words were stated

with regard to a limb

that is dangling

from an animal.

For if the animal dies, death causes a nippul with regard to that limb, and it is impure with the impurity of a limb from a living animal; whereas slaughter does not cause a nippul, and the dangling limb is pure like the other limbs of the slaughtered animal.

The difficulty is: Why did Rabbi Yohanan need to teach these laws? After all, the law that

death

causes a nippul

we already learned!?

We already learned it. And likewise, the law that

slaughter

does not cause a nippul—

we also already learned it!?

Death

causes a nippul;

we learned

this in the following Mishna:

For purposes of understanding the Mishna, the following introduction is necessary:

A. Not every part that separates from a living creature is a “limb from a living animal.” Only a complete limb is treated as a “limb from a living animal.” But if a piece of flesh separates from a living creature, it does not have the status of a “limb from a living animal”; rather, it is “flesh from a living animal.”

B. Flesh from a living animal does not convey the impurity of a limb from a living animal, nor any other impurity. Therefore, if the flesh was not washed with water or one of the other six liquids after it separated, it is not impure and cannot contract impurity. If it came into contact with a liquid, it becomes susceptible to impurity.

And these are the words of the Mishna: If an animal has a dangling limb and dangling flesh—that have lost their vitality, become detached at their joint, and hang from the animal—and if

the animal dies,

the flesh that separated from it is not impure with the impurity of a limb from a living animal, as explained in the introduction. In order to contract impurity,

the flesh requires preparation

through water or another liquid.

And

if

the limb

that is dangling

conveys impurity as a limb from a living animal,

because death causes a nippul,

and it does not convey impurity

as an animal carcass

due to being a limb from a carcass.

Since death causes a nippul, it is impure with the impurity of a limb from a living animal. Flesh that separated from a limb from a living animal is not impure, either as a limb from a living animal or with the impurity of an animal carcass. These are the words of

Rabbi Meir. [The Mishna contains no dissenting opinion on this matter.]

No one disputes him with regard to this matter.

It follows from these statements of the Mishna that death causes a nippul. Therefore, a piece of flesh that separates from the dangling limb is not impure with the impurity of an animal carcass. Likewise, the limb is treated as a limb from a living animal and not as a limb from a carcass, because death causes a nippul, and the limb and flesh are treated as though they fell during the animal's lifetime.

The difficulty, as stated, is: Why is Rabbi Yohanan's statement necessary to teach that death causes a nippul?

The Gemara continues and raises a difficulty: The law that

slaughter

does not cause a nippul

we also already learned,

as we learned that as well in the Mishna there:

If the animal was slaughtered

and it contained a dangling limb and dangling flesh, the limb and flesh do not have the impurity of a limb from a living animal intrinsically, because slaughter does not cause a nippul. Rather,

they become susceptible

to contracting impurity because they were washed

with its blood; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They did not become susceptible

to contracting impurity through the blood, and as long as they have not been washed with a liquid, they cannot contract impurity. His reason is that the animal itself cannot serve as an aid in preparing its own limb for susceptibility to impurity. In any event, since the dangling limb and flesh are not impure with the impurity of a limb from a living animal, it is proven that slaughter does not cause a nippul.

The Gemara rejects this and answers:

If

we wished to prove

from that

Mishna that according to Rabbi Meir the limbs became susceptible to impurity through the blood,

I would have said

that indeed according to Rabbi Meir the dangling limb of an animal becomes a nippul through slaughter, like a limb protruding from a fetus, and conveys the impurity of a limb from a living animal. And

what

is the meaning of what is stated in the Mishna there,

“They became susceptible

through its blood”? The intention is

with regard to

the

flesh

that is dangling, which is pure by virtue of the law of “flesh from a living animal.” We learned that flesh that separates from a living animal is pure and does not have the status of a limb from a living animal. It follows that we need Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef's statement in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that slaughter does not cause a nippul, since apparently this cannot be inferred from Rabbi Meir's statement.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But

in the Mishna there,

“They became susceptible

through its blood,” is stated in the plural,

it teaches.

If the intention were only the dangling flesh, it should have said, “It became susceptible.” Therefore, necessarily, Rabbi Meir is referring also to the dangling limb. Once again, it follows that Rabbi Meir's statement serves as a source for the law that slaughter does not cause a nippul. Why, then, is Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef's statement in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that slaughter does not cause a nippul necessary?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say

that Rabbi Meir's statement in the Mishna, “They became susceptible,” means that

one

preparation through the blood applies

to flesh that separates from the animal,

which, as stated, is pure and has no susceptibility to impurity except through the blood,

and

that

one

additional preparation through the blood applies

to flesh that separates from the limb

that is dangling. As we learned, the impurity of a limb from a living animal applies only to flesh that remains on the limb when it is intact; flesh that separates from it does not have this impurity.

It follows that Rabbi Meir's statement in the Mishna cannot establish that a dangling limb in a slaughtered animal is pure. For it is necessary to teach both the law of flesh from the animal and the law of flesh from the limb, as stated. Therefore, once again, we need Rabbi Yitzḥak in the name of Yosef, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, to teach that slaughter does not cause a nippul, and that even the dangling limb is pure.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And what greater force does

the law of

this

flesh that separates from the limb have

than this,

the flesh that separates from the animal? Although the Mishna teaches that flesh that separates from a living animal requires preparation through the blood, it should also need to teach us that flesh that separates from a limb from a living animal can be rendered susceptible through the blood.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach specifically the law of flesh that separates from the limb, because

it might enter your mind to say

that

since

when this flesh was part of the limb, it

conveyed severe impurity

like a carcass, which conveys impurity to people and utensils,

by virtue of its father,

namely, the limb from a living animal itself, of which this piece of flesh was a part,

say

that since this flesh had already been part of an entity with severe impurity,

it would not require

and would not need

preparation

through water in order to convey impurity, but would contract impurity on its own even without preparation.

This teaches us:

even flesh from the limb has no capacity to become susceptible to impurity, except through the blood of the animal, as is the law with all foods, which become susceptible to impurity only through such preparation.

Rav Yosef said: Hold

the words

of Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

firmly,

for according to everyone, slaughter does not render it a nifel, contrary to what was initially cited in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that slaughter does render it a nifel.

Rabba bar bar Hana agrees with him,

as he too cited this in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, as follows:

For it was taught:

It is stated [Exodus 22:30]

“And flesh in the field that is torn you shall not eat”—

to include the limb and the dangling flesh in a domesticated animal, in a wild animal, and in a bird, when they are slaughtered

these,

which are

the limb and the dangling flesh,

are forbidden

for consumption.