Chullin — Daf 127b

נשחטה הבהמה הוכשרו בדמיה דברי רבי מאיר רבי שמעון אומר לא הוכשרו

מתה הבהמה הבשר צריך הכשר האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואינו מטמא משום אבר נבלה דברי ר' מאיר ור' שמעון מטהר:

גמ׳ טומאת אוכלין אין טומאת נבלה לא

היכי דמי אי דמעלין ארוכה אפילו טומאת אוכלין נמי לא ליטמו ואי דאין מעלין ארוכה טומאת נבלה נמי ליטמו

לעולם דאין מעלין ארוכה ושאני טומאת נבלה דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא יא, לז) כי יפול עד שיפול

תניא נמי הכי האבר והבשר המדולדלין בבהמה ומעורין בחוט השערה יכול יטמאו טומאת נבלה תלמוד לומר יפול עד שיפול ואפילו הכי טומאת אוכלין מיטמו

מסייע ליה לרב חייא בר אשי דאמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל תאנים שצמקו באיביהן מטמאות טומאת אוכלין והתולש מהן בשבת חייב חטאת

לימא מסייע ליה ירקות שצמקו באיביהן כגון הכרוב והדלעת אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין קצצן ויבשן מטמאין טומאת אוכלין

קצצן ויבשן ס"ד עץ בעלמא הוא וא"ר יצחק בעל מנת ליבשן

טעמא דכרוב ודלעת הוא כיון דיבשן לאו בני אכילה נינהו הא שאר פירות מטמאי

היכי דמי אי דיבשן הן ועוקציהן פשיטא אלא לאו בלא עוקציהן

לעולם הן ועוקציהן וקצצן על מנת ליבשן איצטריכא ליה

ת"ש אילן שנפשח ובו פירות הרי הן כתלושין יבשו הרי הן כמחוברין מאי לאו מה תלושין לכל דבריהן אף מחוברין לכל דבריהן

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא:

נשחטה הבהמה [וכו']: במאי קא מיפלגי

אמר רבה בבהמה נעשית יד לאבר קמיפלגי מר סבר אין בהמה נעשית יד לאבר ומר סבר בהמה נעשית יד לאבר

אביי אמר באוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו קמיפלגי

מר סבר אוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו הרי הוא כמוהו ומר סבר אינו כמוהו

ואף ר' יוחנן סבר באוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו קא מיפלגי

דרבי יוחנן רמי דר"מ אדר"מ מי אמר ר' מאיר אוחז בקטן ואין גדול עולה עמו הרי הוא כמוהו

ורמינהו אוכל שנפרס ומעורה במקצת

IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED THEY HAVE BY THE BLOOD [OF THE SLAUGHTERING] BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS:1 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:2 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.3 Now what are the circumstances? If they can be restored4 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,5 that is, they must absolutely fall away [from the body].6 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.7 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.8 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,9 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.10 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;11 it must be then that only they shrivelled up but not their stems!12 — [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 they13 had dried up they are regarded as attached, presumably as the one is regarded as plucked for all purposes,14 so the other is regarded as attached for all purposes!14 — Is this an argument? One means one thing, and the other another.15 IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED etc. What is the issue between them?16 — Rabbah said: They differ as to whether the animal can be regarded as serving as a handle to a limb;17 one18 holds that the animal can be regarded as a handle to a limb,19 and the other20 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; one18 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,21 but the other20 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:22 If a foodstuff [of terumah] was divided, but was still attached in part. slaughtering cannot render the limbs and flesh fit for food it can render them clean that they be not nebelah, and at the same time it renders them susceptible to receive uncleanness by the moistening by the blood. V. supra 33a. therefore the flesh is entirely free from uncleanness (v. p. 714, n. 12) whereas the limbs convey uncleanness as limbs severed from a living animal but not as limbs severed from a carcass. For the distinction v. Gemara infra. completely. are regarded as fallen off. rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. do not convey food uncleanness, since they are as wood, but other vegetables do. Hence it was unnecessary for the Baraitha to state these obvious rules. uncleanness they are considered plucked and convey food uncleanness, thus supporting Samuel's view. these laws. agreement with Samuel. question is whether the major portion of a thing can in any way be said to serve as a handle to the lesser portion, so that by moistening the bulk the handle is regarded as made susceptible to uncleanness. handle to the limb, but R. Meir and R. Simeon differ in this: R. Meir maintains that whatever still hangs on to the whole is regarded as part of the whole; for, granted that the hanging limb cannot pull with it the rest of the animal, the animal when taken up would certainly take with it this hanging limb. R. Simeon, however, does not accept this argument.