According to whose authority is this ruling? If according to R. Ishmael's — but he maintains that the hide does not render them negligible; and if according to R. Akiba's — but it is obvious, for he maintains that the hide renders them negligible! — In fact it is in accordance with R. Ishmael's view, for R. Ishmael only maintains that the hide does not render them negligible in the case where the pieces were torn away by a wild beast, but where they were cut away by the knife [he concedes that] the hide renders them negligible. 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. Now if you say that even where the knife cut it away it is not rendered negligible according to R. Ishmael, it is well, for then R. Huna is in agreement with R. Ishmael. But if you say that where the knife cut it away R. Ishmael concedes that it is rendered negligible, then [it will be asked], With whom does R. Huna agree? — You must therefore say that even where the knife cut it away it is not rendered negligible according to R. Ishmael; and R. Huna is in agreement with R. Akiba. But this would be obvious? — No, for you might have thought that R. Akiba maintains his view only where the knife cut it away, but where it was torn away by a wild beast he would concede that it is not rendered negligible; he therefore teaches us that the reason for R. Akiba's view is because the hide renders it negligible, making thus no difference whether it was torn away by a wild beast or cut away by the knife, for so it reads in the last clause: ‘Wherefore does R. Akiba declare him clean in the case of the hide? Because the hide renders them negligible’. MISHNAH. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE SKIN IS CONSIDERED FLESH: THE SKIN OF A MAN, THE SKIN OF THE DOMESTIC PIG (R. JUDAH SAYS, EVEN THE SKIN OF THE WILD PIG), THE SKIN OF THE HUMP OF A YOUNG CAMEL, THE SKIN OF THE HEAD OF A YOUNG CALF, THE SKIN AROUND THE HOOFS, THE SKIN OF THE PUDENDA, THE SKIN OF A FOETUS, THE SKIN BENEATH THE FAT TAIL, THE SKIN OF THE HEDGEHOG, THE CHAMELEON, THE LIZARD AND THE SNAIL. R. JUDAH SAYS, THE LIZARD IS LIKE THE WEASEL. IF ANY OF THESE SKINS WAS TANNED OR TRAMPLED UPON AS MUCH AS [WAS USUAL] FOR TANNING, IT BECOMES CLEAN, EXCEPTING THE SKIN OF A MAN. R. JOHANAN B. NURI SAYS, THE EIGHT REPTILES HAVE [REAL] SKINS. GEMARA. Ulla said: According to the law of the Torah the skin of a man is clean, but for what reason did they say it was unclean? As a precautionary measure lest a man make rugs out of the skin of his father and mother. Others refer this [dictum of Ulla's] to the later clause of our Mishnah, viz., IF ANY OF THESE [SKINS] WAS TANNED OR TRAMPLED UPON AS MUCH AS [WAS USUAL] FOR TANNING, IT BECOMES CLEAN, EXCEPTING THE SKIN OF A MAN. Ulla said: According to the law of the Torah, if the skin of a man was tanned, it thereby becomes clean, but for what reason did they say it remained unclean? As a precautionary measure lest a man make rugs out of the skin of his father and mother. Now those who refer this [dictum of Ulla's] to the first clause will certainly refer it to the later cause, but those who refer it to the later clause [maintain that] in the first the uncleanness is by the law of the Torah. THE SKIN OF THE DOMESTIC PIG etc. What is the issue between them? One is of the opinion that this is hard and only the other soft, whereas the other maintains that this, too, is soft. THE SKIN OF THE HUMP OF A YOUNG CAMEL. How long is the camel considered young? — Ulla said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the law [with regard to its skin] if it had reached the age for bearing burdens but had not actually borne any? Abaye enquired: What if it had actually borne burdens although it had not reached the age for it? — These questions must stand. Resh Lakish was once sitting and raised the question: How long is the camel considered young? — R. Ishmael b. Abba answered: So said R. Joshua b. Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden. Whereupon he [Resh Lakish] said: Sit down opposite me. R. Zera was once sitting and raised the question: How long is the camel considered young? — Rabin b. Hinena answered him: So said Ulla in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden. He [Rabin] then repeated it over again, whereupon the other [R. Zera] said to him, ‘It is the only thing you knew, and you have already told us it!’ Come and see the difference between the imperious men of the Land of Israel and the pious men of Babylon! THE SKIN OF THE HEAD [OF A YOUNG CALF]. How long is the calf considered young? — Ulla said: Throughout its first year. R. Johanan said: As long as it sucks. The question was raised: Did Ulla mean ‘Throughout its first year’ provided it still sucked, 26ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻ