Parallel
חולין 127:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED THEY HAVE BY THE BLOOD [OF THE SLAUGHTERING] BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS: SO R. MEIR. R. SIMEON SAYS, THEY HAVE NOT BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS. IF THE ANIMAL DIED. THE FLESH REQUIRES TO BE RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS, AND THE LIMB IS RENDERED UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING CREATURE, BUT IS NOT RENDERED UNCLEAN AS THE LIMB OF A CARCASS: SO R. MEIR. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. GEMARA. They are rendered unclean in respect of FOOD UNCLEANNESS but not in respect of nebelah uncleanness. Now what are the circumstances? If they can be restored they should not be rendered unclean even In respect of food uncleanness, and if they cannot be restored they should be then rendered unclean also in respect of nebelah uncleanness! — In fact they cannot be restored, but with regard to nebelah Uncleanness it is different, for the Divine Law says. And if there fall, that is, they must absolutely fall away [from the body]. There was also taught [a Baraitha] to this effect: ‘With regard to the limbs or the pieces of flesh which hang loose from the animal and are attached by a hairbreadth, I might have said that they should convey nebelah uncleanness, the text therefore states. "And if there fall", that is, they must absolutely fall away [from the body]’; nevertheless, they are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. This supports R. Hiyya b. Ashi, for R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Samuel: Figs which had shrivelled up on the branch are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness, and he who plucks them on the Sabbath is liable to bring a sin-offering. Shall we say that the following also supports him? It was taught: Vegetables, such as cabbages and pumpkins, which had shrivelled up on the stem, are not rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. If they were cut down and dried, they are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. ‘If they were cut down and dried’. But this is unthinkable, for they are then like wood! R. Isaac, however, explained that it means: If they were cut down in order to be dried. Now this reasoning applies only to cabbages and pumpkins, for these no sooner have they become dry than they are uneatable: but other fruits [even though they shrivelled up on the stem] are rendered unclean [in respect of food uncleanness]. And what are the facts [in the case of the shrivelled-up cabbages and pumpkins]? If both they and their stems dried up, it is obvious; it must be then that only they shrivelled up but not their stems! — [It is not so]. In fact both they and their stems had dried up, but it was necessary to teach that if one cut them down in order to dry them [they are still unclean in respect of food uncleanness]. Come and hear: If a branch of a tree broke off with fruits upon it they are regarded as plucked. If they had dried up they are regarded as attached, presumably as the one is regarded as plucked for all purposes, so the other is regarded as attached for all purposes! — Is this an argument? One means one thing, and the other another. IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED etc. What is the issue between them? — Rabbah said: They differ as to whether the animal can be regarded as serving as a handle to a limb; one holds that the animal can be regarded as a handle to a limb, and the other holds that the animal cannot be regarded as a handle to a limb. Abaye said: They differ as to the ruling in the case where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it; one is of the opinion that where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it it is regarded like it, but the other is of the opinion that where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it it is not regarded like it. R. Johanan also maintains that they differ as to the ruling in the case where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it. For R. Johanan pointed out a contradiction in the views of R. Meir. Did R. Meir say, where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part would not come away with it it is to be regarded like it? But there is a contradiction to it for we have learnt: If a foodstuff [of terumah] was divided, but was still attached in part.
—