חולין 73 — parallel

73:1

is already accounted as cut up. According to whom is this teaching? [Is it only] according to R. Meir? For we have learnt: vessels that have very long handles which are to be cut down need be immersed only as far as the measure [that has been determined]. R. Judah says: The whole of it must be immersed! — You can even say that [the teaching of our Mishnah] is in accordance with the view of the Sages, for a mass of foodstuffs is always to be regarded as separated into parts and [the parts] as touching each other. Now according to Ulla it is well that [the Mishnah] states: AND THEN CUT IT OFF, but according to Rabina why does it state, AND THEN CUT IT OFF? — Since it states, in the first clause, AND CUT IT OFF, it states in the second clause too, AND THEN CUT IT OFF. BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS UNCLEAN LIKE THAT WHICH HAD TOUCHED A SLAUGHTERED TREFAH ANIMAL. But does a slaughtered trefah animal render anything unclean? It does indeed, as stated by Samuel's father. For Samuel's father stated: A trefah animal that was slaughtered renders holy things unclean. FOR JUST AS WE FIND THAT THE SLAUGHTERING OF A TREFAH [ANIMAL] RENDERS IT CLEAN, SO THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE ANIMAL SHOULD RENDER THE [PROTRUDING] LIMB CLEAN. It was taught: R. Meir said to them, But what was it that rendered this limb clean, so that it be not nebelah? Was it not the slaughtering of its dam? Then it should also render it permitted to be eaten! They replied: It is often the case that an act has a greater effect upon that which is not part of itself than upon that which is part of itself; for we have learnt: ‘Whatsoever is cut off from the foetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or the kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. What does this mean? — Raba, others say Kadi, replied: There is an omission here, and this is the real teaching. R. Meir said to them, But what was it that rendered this limb clean so that it be not nebelah? Was it not the slaughtering of its dam? Then it should also render it permitted to be eaten! They replied: The case of a trefah [animal] proves otherwise, for the slaughtering renders it clean, so that it be not nebelah, and yet does not render it permitted to be eaten. He retorted: It is not so. For when you say that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean, you are concerned with [the animal] itself; but can it render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? They replied: It is often the case that an act has a greater effect upon that which is not part of itself than upon that which is part of itself; for we have learnt: Whatsoever is cut off from the foetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or the kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. There is [also a Baraitha] taught which expressly states it so. R. Meir said to them, But what was it that rendered this limb clean so that it be not nebelah? They replied: The slaughtering. Then, said he, it should also render it permitted to be eaten. They replied: The case of a trefah [animal] proves otherwise, for the slaughtering renders it clean, so that it be not nebelah, and yet does not render it permitted to be eaten. He retorted: When you say that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean or [that the slaughtering of an animal renders clean] the limb that hangs loose, you are concerned with [the animal] itself; but can it render clean the [limb of the] foetus which is not part of [the animal] itself? They replied: It is often the case that an act’ has a greater effect upon that which is not part of itself than upon that which is part of itself; for we have learnt: Whatsoever is cut off from the foetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or the kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Just as they differ with regard to the [limb of the] foetus so they differ with regard to loose limbs. R. Johanan said: They differ only with regard to the limb of the foetus, but with regard to a loose limb of the animal all agree that at the slaughtering it is accounted as detached. R. Jose b. Hanina said: What reason does R. Johanan suggest for the view of the Rabbis? — In this case [of the foetus] there is a remedy for it by withdrawal [into the womb], but in that case [of the loose limb] there is no remedy for it by withdrawal. An objection was raised. R. Meir said to them: It is not so. When you say that the slaughtering of a trefah [animal] renders it clean, or [that the slaughtering of an animal renders clean] the loose limb, you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can it render clean the [limb of the] foetus which is not part of the animal itself?

—

73:2

Now this is all well according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, for then he [R. Meir] would be arguing from their point of view. For according to my view, [says R. Meir] there is no difference between the limb of the foetus and the loose limb of the animal; they are both alike. But according to R. Johanan this is a difficulty! — We must therefore say that if [the dispute was] reported it was reported as follows: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Just as they differ with regard to the [limb of the] foetus so they differ with regard to loose limbs. R. Johanan said: They differ only with regard to the limb of the foetus, but with regard to the loose limb of the animal all agree that at the slaughtering it is not accounted as detached. R. Jose b. Hanina said: What reason does R. Johanan suggest for R. Meir's view? — One is part of the animal but the other is not. R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that at death [the limb] is accounted as detached, and that at the slaughtering it is not accounted as detached. What is [the subject that is] spoken of? If you say the limb of the foetus, surely there is a difference of opinion with regard to it! And if you say the loose limb of the animal, but we have already learnt it both of death and also of slaughtering! We have learnt it of death [in the following Mishnah]: If the animal died, the flesh [that was hanging loose] must be made susceptible [to contract uncleanness], but the limb [that was hanging loose] conveys uncleanness as the limb of a living animal and not as the limb of a dead animal [nebelah]: so R. Meir. We have also learnt it of slaughtering [in the following Mishnah]: If the animal was slaughtered, they have been rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness] by the blood: so R. Meir. R. Simeon says: They have not been rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness]! — From this [last Mishnah] I might have thought that ‘rendered susceptible’ referred only to the [loose] flesh. But does it not say: ‘They have been rendered susceptible’? — It might have been thought [that ‘they’ refers to] flesh that hangs loose from the animal and also to flesh that is severed from the limb. And why is one more certain than the other? — I might have argued that, since it conveys the graver uncleanness as long as it is with the whole [limb], it does not require to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness]. We are therefore taught [that it does]. R. Joseph said: Hold fast to the ruling of R. Isaac b. Joseph, for Rabbah b. Bar Hana is in agreement with him. For it was taught: The verse: Ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field, includes [within its prohibition] any limb or flesh that hangs loose from cattle, wild beasts, or birds at the time of slaughtering. But Rabbah b. Bar Hana added in the name of R. Johanan,

—