Chullin

and finally he derives the law as to ‘orlah by means of the word ‘fruit’ stated here and also in connection with the firstfruits.1 AND ALAL.2 What is ALAL? R. Johanan said: It is withered flesh.3 Resh Lakish said: It is flesh which the knife has cut away.4 An objection was ‘raised. It is written: But ye are plasterers of lies, ye are all physicians of elil.5 Now according to him who says it is withered flesh it is well, for such cannot be healed; but according to him who says it is flesh which the knife has cut away, surely this can be healed!6 — There is no dispute at all about the elil mentioned in the verse;7 they only disagree as to the meaning of alal in our Mishnah. Come and hear: [from our Mishnah]: R. JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED TOGETHER SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE. And to this R. Huna added, provided he collected it together.8 Now according to him who says it is the flesh which the knife has cut away, it is clear that when there was an olive's bulk of it [in one place] one would thereby become liable; but according to him who says it is withered flesh, what if there was an olive's bulk of it, it is surely only regarded as wood?They certainly do not disagree as to the alal referred to by R. Judah;9 they only disagree as to the meaning of the alal according to the Rabbis. R. Johanan maintains that even withered flesh can be included together [with ordinary flesh to make up the minimum quantity to convey uncleanness], but Resh Lakish maintains that only the flesh which the knife has cut away can be included but withered flesh cannot be included. What is the case with regard to the flesh which the knife had cut away? If he intended it [as a foodstuff],10 it should contract uncleanness alone;11 and if he did not intend it [as a foodstuff], he has then surely abandoned it! — R. Abin and R. Meyasha [each offered a suggestion]; one suggested the case where he intended part of it [as a foodstuff],12 the other suggested the case where part was rent by a wild beast and part cut away by the knife.13 We have learnt elsewhere:14 The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and can be reckoned together [with the flesh].15 But is not the beak like wood? — It refers to the lower beak. And is not the lower beak also like wood? — R. Papa said: It means the lower part [inside membrane] of the upper beak. As to ‘claws’, — R. Eleazar said: It refers to that part [of the claws only] which is buried in the flesh. HORNS. R. Papa said: It refers to that part [of the horns] from which the blood flows when cut into. SIMILARLY, IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL.16 R. Assi stated: Some teach that in the case of an Israelite [slaughtering] an unclean animal and also in the case of a gentile [slaughtering] a clean animal, there must be17 an express intention [to regard it as a foodstuff],18 and the animal must be17 rendered susceptible [to uncleanness by a liquid] from another source.19 Wherefore is it necessary that it be rendered susceptible to uncleanness? Ultimately it will convey the graver uncleanness,20 will it not? And whatever will ultimately convey the graver uncleanness does not require to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness! For the school of R. Ishmael taught: But if water be put upon seed21 — just as seeds, which will never ultimately convey the graver uncleanness, require to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid,22 in like manner, whatever will not ultimately convey the graver uncleanness requires to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid. And it has also been taught: R. Jose says: Why did [the Rabbis] rule23 that in the case of the carcass of a clean bird there must be an intention [to use it as food],24 but it does not need to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid? Because grapes but no other liquids (v. supra n. 4) so the term ‘fruit’ stated (Lev. XIX, 23) in connection with ‘orlah includes the products of olives and grapes but no other liquids. foodstuff. If, however, it was collected by a child, or if he himself inadvertently collected it together, R. Judah would agree that the olive's bulk of it cannot be accounted as nebelah. foodstuff will contract and convey food uncleanness. uncleanness, for in an egg's bulk thereof only part of it is a foodstuff, but that part which was intended as a foodstuff can be reckoned together with other foodstuff to make up the quantity of an egg's bulk. when the animal was being flayed this portion of flesh and some more was cut away by the knife and remained attached to the skin. Now it is to be assumed that the portion torn by the wild beast is usually not regarded as abandoned but that cut away by the knife is; consequently this portion of flesh adhering to the skin is abandoned in part only, and therefore the other part can be reckoned together with other flesh. source of uncleanness, but is regarded only as a foodstuff, to contract uncleanness from unclean matter and to transfer it to other foodstuffs. This Mishnah (Toh. I, 2) enumerates the various parts of a fowl which by themselves are not regarded as foodstuffs but can serve as handles to convey uncleanness to the fowl or from it. moment after the slaughtering, while it still moves about convulsively, until the moment it is dead. Without this express intention it would not be regarded as a foodstuff until it was actually dead. is the case generally with slaughtering (v. supra 35b), for the blood is regarded as the blood of a dead animal which is not designated in the Bible as a liquid. The word ‘water’ in cur. edd. is omitted in MSS. and is deleted by Shittah Mekuhbezeth. an olive's bulk of it, unclean, and it also renders these unclean by carrying. are implicitly excluded from Num. XIX. 22, since these, once unclean, have no remedy whereby they can become clean again. however, intention to use lt as a foodstuff is not necessary since it is there generally regarded as a foodstuff, cf. ‘Uk. III, 3.