Chullin — Daf 122a

אליבא דמאן

אי אליבא דר' ישמעאל האמר לא מבטל עור ואי אליבא דר"ע פשיטא האמר מבטל עור

לעולם אליבא דרבי ישמעאל וכי אמר רבי ישמעאל לא מבטל עור ה"מ שפלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין בטיל

ת"ש ר' יהודה אומר האלל המכונס אם יש כזית במקום אחד חייבין עליו ואמר רב הונא והוא שכנסו

אי אמרת בשלמא פלטתו סכין לרבי ישמעאל נמי לא בטיל רב הונא דאמר כרבי ישמעאל

אלא אי אמרת פלטתו סכין לר' ישמעאל בטיל רב הונא דאמר כמאן

אלא לעולם פלטתו סכין לר' ישמעאל לא בטיל ורב הונא דאמר כר"ע

פשיטא מהו דתימא כי קאמר ר"ע ה"מ פלטתו סכין אבל פלטתו חיה לא בטיל

קמ"ל טעמא דר"ע מפני שהעור מבטלן ל"ש פלט חיה ול"ש פלט סכין כדקתני סיפא מפני מה ר"ע מטהר בעור מפני שהעור מבטלן:

מתני׳ אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן עור האדם ועור חזיר של ישוב ר' יהודה אומר אף עור חזיר הבר

ועור חטרת של גמל הרכה ועור הראש של עגל הרך ועור הפרסות ועור בית הבושת ועור השליל ועור של תחת האליה ועור האנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט ר' יהודה אומר הלטאה כחולדה

וכולן שעבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור האדם ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמונה שרצים יש להן עורות:

גמ׳ אמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין

ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא וכולן שעיבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור אדם אמר עולא דבר תורה עור אדם שעבדו טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין

מאן דמתני לה ארישא כ"ש אסיפא ומאן דמתני אסיפא אבל ארישא טומאה דאורייתא:

ועור חזיר [וכו']: במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר האי אשון והאי רכיך ומר סבר האי נמי רכיך:

עור חטרת של גמל הרכה: וכמה גמל הרכה אמר עולא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל זמן שלא טענה

בעי ר' ירמיה הגיע זמנה לטעון ולא טענה מהו בעי אביי לא הגיע זמנה לטעון וטענה מהו תיקו

יתיב ר"ל וקמיבעיא ליה כמה גמל הרכה א"ל רבי ישמעאל בר אבא הכי א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל זמן שלא טענה א"ל תיב לקבלי

יתיב רבי זירא וקמיבעיא ליה כמה גמל הרכה א"ל רבין בר חיננא הכי אמר עולא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל זמן שלא טענה הוה קתני לה א"ל חדא הויא לך אמרת

תא חזי מה בין תקיפי ארעא דישראל לחסידי דבבל:

ועור הראש וכו': וכמה עגל הרך עולא אמר בן שנתו ר' יוחנן אמר כל זמן שיונק איבעיא להו היכי קאמר עולא בן שנתו והוא שיונק

According to whose authority is this ruling? If according to R. Ishmael's1 — but he maintains that the hide does not render them2 negligible; and if according to R. Akiba's1 — but it is obvious, for he maintains that the hide renders them2 negligible! — In fact it is in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, for R. Ishmael only maintains that the hide does not render them negligible in the case where the pieces were torn away by a wild beast,3 but where they were cut away by the knife [he concedes that] the hide renders them negligible. Come and hear [from our Mishnah]. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED TOGETHER SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE. And to this R. Huna added, provided he collected it together.4 Now if you say that even where the knife cut it5 away it is not rendered negligible according to R. Ishmael, it is well, for then R. Huna is in agreement with R. Ishmael.6 But if you say that where the knife cut it away R. Ishmael concedes that it is rendered negligible, then [it will be asked], With whom does R. Huna agree?7 — You must therefore say that even where the knife cut it away it is not rendered negligible according to R. Ishmael; and R. Huna8 is in agreement with R. Akiba. But this would be obvious? — No, for you might have thought that R. Akiba maintains his view only where the knife cut it away, but where it was torn away by a wild beast he would concede that it is not rendered negligible; he therefore teaches us that the reason for R. Akiba's view is because the hide renders it negligible, making thus no difference whether it was torn away by a wild beast or cut away by the knife, for so it reads in the last clause: ‘Wherefore does R. Akiba declare him clean in the case of the hide? Because the hide renders them negligible’. 9 MISHNAH. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE SKIN IS CONSIDERED FLESH:10 THE SKIN OF A MAN, THE SKIN OF THE DOMESTIC PIG (R. JUDAH11 SAYS, EVEN THE SKIN OF THE WILD PIG), THE SKIN OF THE HUMP OF A YOUNG12 CAMEL, THE SKIN OF THE HEAD OF A YOUNG12 CALF, THE SKIN AROUND THE HOOFS, THE SKIN OF THE PUDENDA,13 THE SKIN OF A FOETUS, THE SKIN BENEATH THE FAT TAIL, THE SKIN OF THE HEDGEHOG,14 THE CHAMELEON, THE LIZARD AND THE SNAIL. R. JUDAH SAYS, THE LIZARD IS LIKE THE WEASEL.15 IF ANY OF THESE SKINS WAS TANNED OR TRAMPLED UPON AS MUCH AS [WAS USUAL] FOR TANNING, IT BECOMES CLEAN, EXCEPTING THE SKIN OF A MAN. R. JOHANAN B. NURI SAYS, THE EIGHT REPTILES HAVE [REAL] SKINS.16 GEMARA. Ulla said: According to the law of the Torah the skin of a man17 is clean, but for what reason did they say it was unclean? As a precautionary measure lest a man make rugs out of the skin of his father and mother. Others refer this [dictum of Ulla's] to the later clause of our Mishnah, viz., IF ANY OF THESE [SKINS] WAS TANNED OR TRAMPLED UPON AS MUCH AS [WAS USUAL] FOR TANNING, IT BECOMES CLEAN, EXCEPTING THE SKIN OF A MAN. Ulla said: According to the law of the Torah, if the skin of a man was tanned, it thereby becomes clean, but for what reason did they say it remained unclean? As a precautionary measure lest a man make rugs out of the skin of his father and mother. Now those who refer this [dictum of Ulla's] to the first clause will certainly refer it to the later cause,18 but those who refer it to the later clause [maintain that] in the first the uncleanness is by the law of the Torah. THE SKIN OF THE DOMESTIC PIG etc. What is the issue between them? One19 is of the opinion that this20 is hard and only the other21 soft, whereas the other22 maintains that this,20 too, is soft. THE SKIN OF THE HUMP OF A YOUNG CAMEL. How long is the camel considered young? — Ulla said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the law [with regard to its skin] if it had reached the age for bearing burdens but had not actually borne any? Abaye enquired: What if it had actually borne burdens although it had not reached the age for it? — These questions must stand. Resh Lakish was once sitting and raised the question: How long is the camel considered young? — R. Ishmael b. Abba answered: So said R. Joshua b. Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden. Whereupon he [Resh Lakish] said: Sit down opposite me.23 R. Zera was once sitting and raised the question: How long is the camel considered young? — Rabin b. Hinena answered him: So said Ulla in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden. He [Rabin] then repeated it over again,24 whereupon the other [R. Zera] said to him, ‘It is the only thing you knew, and you have already told us it!’ Come and see the difference between the imperious men of the Land of Israel and the pious men of Babylon!25 THE SKIN OF THE HEAD [OF A YOUNG CALF]. How long is the calf considered young? — Ulla said: Throughout its first year. R. Johanan said: As long as it sucks. The question was raised: Did Ulla mean ‘Throughout its first year’ provided it still sucked, 26 and therefore R. Ishmael holds that these pieces are not rendered negligible. Where, however, the pieces were cut away and intentionally left hanging on to the skin by the man who flayed the animal, even R. Ishmael agrees that they are negligible in themselves and are considered as part of the hide. hide. The fact that one is liable if the pieces were collected together clearly indicates that the hide did not render these shreds negligible, for had they once been rendered negligible the person who touched them would not become unclean and so not be liable for any further consequences. with R. Judah are in agreement with R. Akiba. R. Huna which interprets the view of R Judah in our Mishnah (‘Provided he collected it together’) accords with R. Ishmael. flesh. is soft and is counted as the flesh. The identification of the reptiles mentioned is very uncertain; v. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds. utility. unclean, except this precautionary measure stated by Ulla. courtesy and respect, whereas R. Zera, a Babylonian who was renowned for his piety (cf B.M. 85a) treated his informant with disrespect and insult.