Chullin — Daf 123a

איבו אמרה וארבעי אמר בה וחדא מינייהו עבודה

א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא לא שנו אלא לפניו אבל לאחריו אפילו מיל אחד אינו חוזר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר ומינה מיל הוא דאינו חוזר הא פחות ממיל חוזר:

ת"ר ליגיון העובר ממקום למקום ונכנס לבית הבית טמא שאין לך כל ליגיון וליגיון שאין לו כמה קרקפלין ואל תתמה שהרי קרקפלו של ר' ישמעאל מונח בראש מלכים:

מתני׳ המפשיט בבהמה ובחיה בטהורה ובטמאה בדקה ובגסה

לשטיח כדי אחיזה

ולחמת עד שיפשיט את החזה

המרגיל כולו חבור לטומאה ליטמא ולטמא עור שעל הצואר רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר אינו חבור וחכ"א חבור עד שיפשיט את כולו:

גמ׳ מכאן ואילך מאי

אמר רב טהור המופשט רבי אסי אמר טפח הסמוך לבשר טמא

מיתיבי המפשיט כשיעור הזה מכאן ואילך הנוגע במופשט טהור מאי לאו אפי' בטפח הסמוך לבשר לא לבד מטפח הסמוך לבשר

תא שמע בעור שכנגד הבשר טמא עור שכנגד הבשר טמא הא בטפח הסמוך לבשר טהור תנא כל טפח הסמוך לבשר עור שכנגד הבשר קרי ליה

ת"ש המפשיט בבהמה ובחיה בטהורה ובטמאה בדקה ובגסה לשטיח כדי אחיזה וטפח הסמוך לבשר טהור

הכא במאי עסקינן בטפח ראשון

תנא כמה כדי אחיזה טפח והא תניא טפחיים

אמר אביי טפח כפול תניא נמי הכי כמה כדי אחיזה טפח כפול

תנן התם טלית שהתחיל בה לקורעה כיון שנקרע רובה שוב אינו חבור וטהורה

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא בטלית טבולת יום

דמיגו דלא חס עלה ואטבלה לא חייס עלה וקרע לה רובה אבל טלית שאינה טבולת יום לא גזרה דלמא לא אתי למיקרעה רובה

אמר רבה שתי תשובות בדבר חדא שמא יאמרו טבילה בת יומא עולה ועוד

It was Aibu who reported this1 and he mentioned four things, one of which was the trampling for tanning. R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: This ‘teaching applies only to the distance ahead of him,2 but [as for going] back he need not turn back even one mil. R. Aha b. Jacob said: From this [can be inferred that] a distance of one mil he need not turn back, but a distance of less than a mil he must turn back. Our Rabbis taught: If a [Roman] legion which passes from place to place enters a house, the house is unclean, for there is not a legion that does not carry with it several scalps.3 And be not surprised at this; for R. Ishmael's scalp was placed upon the head of kings.4 MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,5 SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING,6 [THE HIDE] IS REGARDED AS A CONNECTIVE [WITH THE FLESH] IN RESPECT OF UNCLEANNESS, FOR THE FLESH TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS OR CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE] HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF;7 OR IF [IT WAS BEING FLAYED] FOR A WATER-SKIN,8 UNTIL THE BREAST HAS BEEN FLAYED;9 OR IF IT WAS BEING FLAYED FROM THE FEET UPWARDS,10 UNTIL THE WHOLE HIDE11 [HAS BEEN FLAYED]. AS FOR THE SKIN THAT IS ON THE NECK, R. JOHANAN B. NURI DOES NOT REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE,12 BUT THE SAGES DO REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE UNTIL THE WHOLE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED. GEMARA. What is the law when more than this13 [has been flayed]? — Rab said: That which has already been flayed is clean;14 R. Assi said: The handbreadth nearest to the flesh is unclean. 15 An objection was raised: If a man had flayed this extent,16 henceforth whosoever touches that which has already been flayed is clean.17 Presumably [this is so] even [if he touches] the handbreadth nearest to the flesh?18 — No, except for the handbreadth nearest to the flesh. Come and hear: [Whosoever touches] the skin opposite the flesh is unclean. [That is, presumably whosoever touches] the skin opposite the flesh only is unclean, but [whosoever touches the skin in] the handbreadth nearest to the flesh is clean! — This Tanna expresses the handbreadth nearest to the flesh by the term ‘the skin opposite the flesh’. Come and hear: If a man flayed cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large, in order to use the hide for a covering, [and he flayed] so much [of the hide] as can be taken hold of, [it does not serve as a connective], and the handbreadth nearest to the flesh is clean! — That refers to the first handbreadth.19 It was taught: How much is meant by ‘so much as can be taken hold of’? — A handbreadth. But it was taught: Two handbreadths! — Abaye explained (The former Baraitha meant) a double handbreadth. And so it has been expressly taught: How much is ‘so much as can be taken hold of’. A double handbreadth. We have learnt elsewhere:20 If a man had begun to tear a garment21 (which was unclean), so soon as the greater part of it is torn22 the parts can no longer be deemed to be joined and it is clean. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This [teaching] applies only to a garment which had been immersed that same day,23 for since he did not shrink from immersing it, he likewise will not shrink from tearing the greater part of it; but it does not apply to a garment which had not been immersed that same day, for it is to be feared that he will not tear the greater part of it. Thereupon Rabbah said: There are two objections to this argument. In the first place [it certainly cannot apply to a garment which had been immersed that same day], for people might say that immersion during the day is sufficient [to render an article clean];24 secondly, difference in which direction he would have to go. V. however, Tosaf. supra 122b s.v. kcdk. was unclean, or the animal was unclean (i.e., either of the former species but not ritually slaughtered, or of the species that are forbidden to be eaten even though slaughtered ritually) and the man who flayed it was clean. sheet of hide. from the flesh but rather as a ‘handle’ which conveys uncleanness to and from the flesh. Once this extent (- for the measure v. Gemara — ) has been flayed the hide is regarded as disconnected and can no longer serve as a handle. to form a receptacle to hold liquids. as the region of the breast has not been flayed that which has already been flayed serves as a connective or ‘handle’ to the flesh. remains the skin around the neck to be flayed. R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Sages. as a connective. convey uncleanness to and from the flesh. the handbreadth nearest to the flesh is not deemed a ‘handle’ for the amount flayed is too little to be made use of as a handle. For a var. text and interpretation v. Tos. s.v. aurhpc. the garment is of a substantial size (Rashi). According to Tosaf. the garment was torn to shreds there was no piece the width of three fingerbreadths but these shreds were joined at one end (v. Tosaf. supra 72b s.v. ,gac). a bout to tear it. Now since he has actually immersed it in the waters of a mikweh, an act which certainly does not improve the garment, he will have no hesitation in tearing the greater part of the garment. be led to believe that immersion by itself renders an article clean without the additional necessity of waiting until sunset of that day, for they might not be aware of the fact that the garment had been torn.