Chullin 73b — the Talmud in English

Granted according to

the view of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

who holds that through slaughtering the Sages purify even the dangling limb of the animal, there is a way to interpret Rabbi Meir’s words in the beraita, that

“according to their words,”

according to the position of the Sages,

he said to them

Rabbi Meir, that slaughtering purifies the dangling limb of the animal.

However,

according to me,

that is, according to Rabbi Meir himself,

it makes no difference whether it is the limb of a fetus

which does not have purification through the slaughtering of the mother,

or whether it is the limb

that is dangling

of the animal

which does not have purification through slaughtering the animal, since slaughtering causes nippul [as was brought in the Gemara above],

they are equivalent,

for according to Rabbi Meir, the two are equal in their law.

Thus far the Gemara explains why, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who holds that in the opinion of the Sages even the dangling limb of an animal is purified through slaughtering, there is no difficulty.

But according to

the view of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that the Sages purified through slaughtering only the limb that protrudes from the fetus, but the dangling limb of an animal does not have purification through slaughtering,

it is difficult:

how did Rabbi Meir say to the Sages [in the beraita brought above], “and the dangling limb,” when according to Rabbi Yohanan the Sages did not purify it at all?

Rather, if it was stated

that the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish was in the opinion of the Sages,

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

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

regarding fetuses,

concerning the law 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 law is that of a slaughtered tereifa],

so

is the

dispute

between them

regarding

the law of

limbs

that are dangling from an animal.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Sages is only

regarding the limb

that protrudes

of a fetus.

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

But regarding the limb

that is dangling

of an animal, everyone agrees: slaughtering does not cause “nippul”!

And when an animal whose one limb had become dangling was slaughtered, that limb remains in its law like each of the limbs of the animal, and is pure.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan disputed the opinion of Rabbi Meir: whether his words to the Sages, “If the slaughtering of a tereifa purified it and the dangling limb in it,” mean that Rabbi Meir is addressing the Sages, for only according to their words is the dangling limb purified, whereas he himself holds that “slaughtering causes nippul.”

Or whether even according to Rabbi Meir the dangling limb is purified through slaughtering. And by his words, “and the dangling limb in it,” he intended to say that even according to his position the limb is pure.

In any event, there is no difficulty from the words of the beraita brought above.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason

what is the reason

of Rabbi Yohanan according to Rabbi Meir,

that there is a distinction between a limb protruding from a fetus, which is not purified through slaughtering, 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 purified through slaughtering.

And

if

this one,

the limb protruding from the fetus,

is not its body,

therefore it does not have purification through slaughtering the mother.

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Everyone,

both Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

agrees that death causes “nippul.”

An animal in which there is a dangling limb, and it died, has this limb treated as though it fell from it during its lifetime, and it is not considered a carcass like the other limbs of the dead animal; rather, it is impure with the impurity of a limb from a living creature.

And

this law applies only when the animal died and became a carcass on its own. But when an animal whose one limb had become dangling was slaughtered,

slaughtering does not cause nippul,

rather, the law of the dangling limb is that it is pure like all the limbs of the slaughtered animal.

The Gemara discusses and raises a difficulty:

With what are we dealing?

To which limb do Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef’s words in the name of Rabbi Yohanan refer?

If you say

that their words were stated

regarding a limb

that protrudes from the

fetus,

that death causes nippul but slaughtering does not cause nippul, then regarding this law

they explicitly disagree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed whether the slaughtering of the mother purifies the fetal limb.

Rather,

necessarily, these words were stated

regarding the limb

that is dangling

of an animal.

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

And it is difficult: Why does Rabbi Yohanan need to innovate these laws? For the law that

death

causes nippul,

we already learned it!?

We already learned it. And likewise the law that

slaughtering

does not cause nippul, that too

we already learned it!?

Death

causes nippul;

we learned it

we learned it in the following Mishna:

For the purpose of understanding the Mishna, it is necessary to precede:

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

b. Flesh from a living creature does not impart the impurity of a limb from a living creature, nor any other impurity. Therefore, if the flesh was not washed with water or with one of the other seven liquids after it separated, it is not impure and does not become susceptible to impurity. But if it came into contact with a liquid, it became prepared to receive impurity.

And these are the words of the Mishna: An animal in which there is a dangling limb and dangling flesh [whose life-force ceased, which became dangling and hangs from the animal], if

the animal died,

the flesh that separated from it is not impure with the impurity of a limb from a living creature [as we explained in the introduction], and in order to receive impurity,

the flesh requires preparation

through water or other liquids.

And

if

the limb

that is dangling

imparts impurity due to a limb from a living creature,

since death causes nippul,

and it does not impart impurity

with the impurity of a carcass

due to a limb from the carcass.

Since death causes nippul, it is impure with the impurity of a limb from a living creature. And flesh that separated from a limb from a living creature is not impure either due to a limb from a living creature or with the impurity of a carcass; these are the words of

Rabbi Meir. [

And no one disputes him concerning this matter].

It follows from these words of the Mishna that death causes nippul. And for this reason, the piece of flesh separating from the dangling limb is not impure with the impurity of a carcass. And likewise the limb is treated as a limb from a living creature and not as a limb from a carcass. Because death causes nippul, the limb and the flesh are treated as though they fell during the animal’s lifetime.

And as stated, it is difficult: Why are Rabbi Yohanan’s words needed that death causes nippul?

And the Gemara continues and raises a difficulty: Behold, the law that

slaughtering

does not cause nippul,

we also learned it,

we also learned that law [in the Mishna there]:

The animal was slaughtered

in which there were dangling limb and flesh; the limb and the flesh do not have the impurity of a limb from a living creature on account of themselves, since slaughtering does not cause nippul, but

they became prepared

to receive impurity through being washed

with its blood, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They did not become prepared

to receive impurity through the blood, and as long as they were not washed by a liquid, they do not receive impurity. And his reason is that the animal itself does not have the power to serve as assistance for the preparation for impurity of a limb belonging to itself. Nevertheless, from the fact that the dangling limb and flesh are not impure with the impurity of a limb from a living creature, it is proven that slaughtering does not cause nippul.

The Gemara rejects and answers:

If

we wished to prove

from that,

from this Mishna, that according to Rabbi Meir the limbs became prepared to receive impurity through the blood,

I would have said,

we would indeed say that according to Rabbi Meir the dangling limb of an animal becomes fallen through slaughtering, like a limb protruding from a fetus, and imparts the impurity of a limb from a living creature. And

what

is stated in that Mishna,

“they became prepared

through its blood,” means

with regard to

the

flesh

that is dangling, which is pure under the law of “flesh from a living creature,” for we learned that flesh separating from a living creature is pure and is not like a limb from a living creature. It follows that we require Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef’s words in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that slaughtering does not cause nippul, since from Rabbi Meir’s words, apparently, this cannot be learned.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But

in that Mishna

“they became prepared

is taught in the plural

it teaches.

And if the intention were only the dangling flesh, it should have said, “it became prepared.” If so, necessarily Rabbi Meir’s intention also includes the dangling limb. And once again it follows that Rabbi Meir’s words constitute a source for the law that slaughtering does not cause nippul [and once again it is necessary to understand what need there is for Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef’s words in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that slaughtering does not cause nippul]?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say,

we would say that Rabbi Meir’s words in the Mishna, “they became prepared,” mean that

one

preparation through the blood exists

for flesh separating from the animal,

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

and

if

one

means the second preparation, which is effected through the blood, it is

for flesh separating from the limb

that is dangling. For we learned that the impurity of a limb from a living creature applies only to flesh found in the limb when it is complete. But separated flesh does not have this impurity.

It follows that from Rabbi Meir’s words in the Mishna one cannot learn about the purity of the dangling limb of a slaughtered animal, since it is necessary to teach the law of the flesh of the animal and the flesh of the limb, as stated. If so, once again we require Rav Yitzhak in the name of Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that slaughtering does not cause nippul, and that even the dangling limb is pure.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And what is the greater force

what is the greater force

of this one,

of flesh separating from the limb,

than this one,

than flesh separating from the animal? Even though the Mishna teaches that flesh separating from a living creature requires preparation through the blood, the Mishna must also inform us that flesh separating from a limb from a living creature has preparation through the blood?

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state specifically the law of flesh separating from the limb, because

it might enter your mind to say

we would say that

since

when this flesh was part of the limb it

imparted severe impurity

like a carcass [which imparts impurity to people and vessels]

by virtue of its father,

that is, the limb from a living creature itself, of which this piece of flesh was a part,

say:

we would say that since this flesh had already been part of a severe impurity,

it should not require,

it does not require

preparation

through water in order to impart impurity, but receives impurity on its own even without preparation.

This teaches us:

that even flesh from the limb has no preparation to receive impurity except through the blood of the animal, as is the law of all foods that do not become susceptible to impurity except through preparation.

Rav Yosef said: Take

the words of

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

in your hand,

that according to everyone slaughter does not cause detachment, and not as was initially brought in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that slaughter causes detachment.

Rabba bar bar Hana stands in agreement with him,

for he too brought 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, and one slaughtered them

these,

which are

the limb and the dangling flesh,

forbidden

to eat.