Chullin — Daf 129b

לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל

אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אסי דילמא טעמא דרבי שמעון התם הואיל ומעורה מעורה

דתניא יחור של תאנה שנפשח ומעורה בקליפה ר' יהודה מטהר וחכמים אומרים אם יכול לחיות טהור ואם לאו טמא ואמרינן לך מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה ואמרת לן הואיל ומעורה מעורה

אמר ליה אמצעיתא נשחטה הבהמה הוכשרה בדמיה דברי ר' מאיר ר' שמעון אומר לא הוכשרו

(אמר ר' אסי) אמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לד) מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאין אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל

ודילמא טעמא דר' שמעון בההיא

אי כדרבא אי כדרבי יוחנן

אלא לעולם אסיפא ולאו אאבר אלא אבשר מתה הבהמה הבשר צריך הכשר ור' שמעון מטהר

אמר ר' יוחנן מ"ט דרבי שמעון אמר קרא מכל האוכל אשר יאכל אוכל שאתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים קרוי אוכל אוכל שאי אתה יכול להאכילו לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל:

מתני׳ האבר והבשר המדולדלין באדם טהורים מת האדם הבשר טהור האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואינו מטמא משום אבר מן המת דברי ר' מאיר ורבי שמעון מטהר:

גמ׳ ורבי שמעון מה נפשך אי מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן החי ואי אין מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן המת

ר' שמעון בעלמא קאי דקאמר תנא קמא האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואין מטמא משום אבר מן המת אלמא אבר המת בעלמא מטמא ואמר ליה ר"ש אבר המת בעלמא לא מטמא

דתניא אמר ר' אליעזר שמעתי שאבר מן החי מטמא אמר לו ר' יהושע מן החי ולא מן המת וקל וחומר ומה חי שהוא טהור אבר הפורש ממנו טמא מת שהוא טמא לא כל שכן

כתוב במגילת תענית פסחא זעירא דלא למספד הא רבה למספד אלא כל דכן הכא נמי כל דכן אמר ליה כך שמעתי

ומאי איכא בין אבר מן החי לאבר מן המת כזית בשר ועצם כשעורה הפורש מאבר מן החי איכא בינייהו

דתנן כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי ר' אליעזר מטמא ור' נחוניא בן הקנה ור' יהושע מטהרין עצם כשעורה הפורש מאבר מן החי ר' נחוניא מטמא רבי אליעזר ור' יהושע מטהרין

השתא דאתית להכי בין תנא קמא לרבי שמעון נמי כזית בשר ועצם כשעורה איכא בינייהו:

הדרן עלך העור והרוטב

others to eat is not termed food.1 R. Zera said to R. Assi, perhaps the reason for R. Simeon's view there [in the first clause] is: since it is attached it is regarded as one with it.2 For we have learnt:3 If a branch of a fig-tree was broken off but it was still attached by the bark, [and unclean matter came into contact with it.] R. Judah declares it to be clean;4 but the Sages say, if it can live,5 it is clean; but if not, it is unclean. And when we asked you the reason for R. Judah's view you told us that being still attached, it is regarded as one with it! — We must say that it6 refers to the middle clause [which reads]: 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. Thereupon R. Johanan said: What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? Because Scripture says: All food therein which may be eaten’; therefore, food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give others to eat is not termed food. But perhaps the reason for R. Simeon's view there is that given by Rabbah7 or R. Johanan!8 — Indeed we must say, it6 refers to the last clause, but [R. Simeon differs] not with regard to the limbs9 but only with regard to the pieces of flesh. Thus, IF THE ANIMAL DIED THE FLESH REQUIRES TO BE RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS; . . . R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. Thereupon R. Johanan said: What is the reason for R. Simeon's view?10 Because Scripture says: ‘All food therein which may be eaten’; therefore, food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give others to eat is not termed food. MISHNAH. LIMBS OR PIECES OF FLESH WHICH HANG LOOSE FROM A MAN ARE CLEAN. IF THE MAN DIED. THE FLESH IS CLEAN;11 THE LIMB IS UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING BODY BUT IS NOT UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM A CORPSE:12 SO R. MEIR. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. GEMARA. Whichever view R. Simeon takes [it is difficult]: If at death the limb is considered as already fallen off, then it should be unclean as a limb severed from the living body, and if at death it is not considered as already fallen off, then it should be unclean as a limb severed from a corpse! — R. Simeon refers to the law in general.13 For the first Tanna had stated: THE LIMB IS UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING BODY BUT IS NOT UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM A CORPSE, and this clearly shows that the law in general is that a limb14 severed from a corpse is unclean; thereupon R. Simeon said to him that in general a limb14 severed from a corpse is not unclean. For it has been taught: R. Eliezer said: I have heard that a limb severed from the living body is unclean. Said to him R. Joshua. [Do you mean only] from the living body and not from a corpse? Surely it is all the more so: for if a limb severed from the living body which is clean, is unclean, how much more is a limb severed from a corpse unclean! In like manner we find it stated in the Scroll of Fasts:15 ‘On the minor Passover no mourning is allowed’. Does this mean that on the major festival16 mourning is allowed? Surely it is all the more so [on the major festival]; similarly here it is all the more so [with regard to the limb severed from the corpse]! He replied: So have I heard.17 What difference is there between a limb severed from the living body and a limb severed from a corpse?18 — The difference is with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone cut away from the limb that was severed19 (from the living body).20 For we have learnt: If an olive's bulk of flesh was cut away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Eliezer declares it unclean; but R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh and R. Joshua declare it clean. If a barleycorn's bulk of bone broke away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh declares it unclean; but R. Eliezer and R. Joshua declare it clean.21 Now that you have come to this,22 you can also say that the difference between the first Tanna and R. Simeon is with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone.23 given to the sons of Noah, cf. Sanh. 56a. attachment may be, it is still regarded as part of the living animal and as such cannot be unclean. contract uncleanness since the tree is attached to the soil. as a handle to a limb. In some texts the reading is Raba, and his explanation of R. Simeon's view is that in no circumstances can a handle serve as the means of rendering the rest susceptible to uncleanness (cf. supra 128a). part the greater part would not come away with it the former cannot be regarded as one with the latter (cf. supra 127b). the view that flesh (not a limb) severed from the living body is clean. fasting, and in some cases also mourning, was forbidden. See further J.E. VIII, p. 427, and also S. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit, 1922. Iyar (cf. Num. IX, 11). unclean. corpse it is unclean. This view of R. Meir accords entirely with the view of R. Joshua as stated in the Mishnah ‘Ed., and in the foregoing Baraitha. they differ with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone cut away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Simeon considers each clean and is in accord with R. Joshua. The first Tanna, however, considers either the former clean and the latter unclean and so accords with R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh, or the former unclean and the latter clean and so accords with R. Eliezer.