Parallel
חולין 123:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
the same is to be feared in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird, according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, namely that he will not divide the greater part of both organs [of the throat]! — R. Joseph replied to him: As for your objection ‘people might say that immersion during the day is sufficient’, [my answer is,] the tearing explains the position; and as for your objection ‘The same is to be feared in the case of a burnt-offering of a bird according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon’, [my answer is,] priests are most careful. Come and hear: IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED] AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF, etc.Now if more than this had been flayed, it would be clean, would it not? But why? Should we not apprehend that he will have flayed only so much as can be taken hold of, in which case [by touching the hide] he is [as it were] touching uncleanness, and yet we declare him to be clean? If it were a case of uncleanness as enjoined by the Torah this would indeed be so; but here we really speak of uncleanness as enjoined by the Rabbis. This is well in the case of an unclean person [flaying] a clean animal, but in the case of a clean person [flaying] an unclean animal, surely the uncleanness is enjoined by the Torah! — It refers to a trefah animal. And can a trefah animal render ought unclean? — Yes, as stated by Samuel's father. For Samuel's father stated: A trefah animal that was slaughtered renders holy things unclean. Come and hear: R. Dosethai b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon: If a man was skinning reptiles, the skin is regarded as a connective until the whole has been removed. Now it follows, does it not, that in the case of a camel it is not regarded as a connective? — Draw not the inference that in the case of a camel it is not regarded as a connective, but rather that in the case of a camel the skin that is on the neck is not regarded as a connective, and this accords with the opinion of R. Johanan b. Nuri. R. Huna said in the name of R. Simeon son of R. Jose: This [teaching] applies only to the case where he did not leave [untorn] a portion sufficient for an apron, but if he left [untorn] a portion sufficient for an apron, it [the garment] is deemed to be joined. Resh Lakish said: This [teaching] applies only to a garment, but in the case of leather, [what is left] is firm. But R. Johanan said: Even in the case of leather, [what is left] is not firm. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish [from the following Mishnah]: If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness, and a man had the intention to use it for straps and sandals, so soon as he puts the knife into it it becomes clean; so R. Judah. But the Sages say. Not until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. It follows, however, that if he had reduced its size [to less than five handbreadths] it would be clean; but why? Surely, we should say, [what is left] is firm! — When do we say, [what is left] is firm, only in the case where the hide was cut with a straight cut, but here we must suppose that it was trimmed on all sides. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED] AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF, etc. Now if more than this had been flayed it would be clean, would it not? But why? Surely we should say [that the residue of the hide that is attached to the carcass] is firm! — R. Abin explained it, [that with regard to the hide,] each portion flayed is considered as fallen away. R. Joseph raised an objection: AS FOR THE SKIN THAT IS ON THE NECK, R. JOHANAN B. NURI DOES NOT REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE. But why? Surely it holds firm! — Thereupon Abaye said to him, But read the next line: BUT THE SAGES DO REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE! In fact, said Abaye, the point at issue between them is concerning a protection that will soon fall away of its own accord: one maintains that it is still a protection, the other that it is no protection. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: If an oven had become unclean how can one make it clean again? One should divide it into three parts and scrape off the plastering
—