חולין 123 — Soncino English Talmud

¹It was Aibu who reported this and he mentioned four things, one of which was the trampling for tanning. R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: This ‘teaching applies only to the distance ahead of him, but [as for going] back he need not turn back even one mil. R. Aha b. Jacob said: From this [can be inferred that] a distance of one mil he need not turn back, but a distance of less than a mil he must turn back. Our Rabbis taught: If a [Roman] legion which passes from place to place enters a house, the house is unclean, for there is not a legion that does not carry with it several scalps. And be not surprised at this; for R. Ishmael's scalp was placed upon the head of kings. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, [THE HIDE] IS REGARDED AS A CONNECTIVE [WITH THE FLESH] IN RESPECT OF UNCLEANNESS, FOR THE FLESH TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS OR CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE] HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF; OR IF [IT WAS BEING FLAYED] FOR A WATER-SKIN, UNTIL THE BREAST HAS BEEN FLAYED; OR IF IT WAS BEING FLAYED FROM THE FEET UPWARDS, UNTIL THE WHOLE HIDE [HAS BEEN FLAYED]. AS FOR THE SKIN THAT IS ON THE NECK, R. JOHANAN B. NURI DOES NOT REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE, BUT THE SAGES DO REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE UNTIL THE WHOLE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED. GEMARA. What is the law when more than this [has been flayed]? — Rab said: That which has already been flayed is clean; R. Assi said: The handbreadth nearest to the flesh is unclean. An objection was raised: If a man had flayed this extent, henceforth whosoever touches that which has already been flayed is clean. Presumably [this is so] even [if he touches] the handbreadth nearest to the flesh? — No, except for the handbreadth nearest to the flesh. Come and hear: [Whosoever touches] the skin opposite the flesh is unclean. [That is, presumably whosoever touches] the skin opposite the flesh only is unclean, but [whosoever touches the skin in] the handbreadth nearest to the flesh is clean! — This Tanna expresses the handbreadth nearest to the flesh by the term ‘the skin opposite the flesh’. Come and hear: If a man flayed cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large, in order to use the hide for a covering, [and he flayed] so much [of the hide] as can be taken hold of, [it does not serve as a connective], and the handbreadth nearest to the flesh is clean! — That refers to the first handbreadth. It was taught: How much is meant by ‘so much as can be taken hold of’? — A handbreadth. But it was taught: Two handbreadths! — Abaye explained (The former Baraitha meant) a double handbreadth. And so it has been expressly taught: How much is ‘so much as can be taken hold of’. A double handbreadth. We have learnt elsewhere: If a man had begun to tear a garment (which was unclean), so soon as the greater part of it is torn the parts can no longer be deemed to be joined and it is clean. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This [teaching] applies only to a garment which had been immersed that same day, for since he did not shrink from immersing it, he likewise will not shrink from tearing the greater part of it; but it does not apply to a garment which had not been immersed that same day, for it is to be feared that he will not tear the greater part of it. Thereupon Rabbah said: There are two objections to this argument. In the first place [it certainly cannot apply to a garment which had been immersed that same day], for people might say that immersion during the day is sufficient [to render an article clean]; secondly,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:In the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, and not R. Abbahu.
^ᵇnote:This distinction obviously according to Rashi does not refer to the case of the kneader, for to him it would make no difference in which direction he would have to go. V. however, Tosaf. supra 122b s.v. kcdk.
^ᶜnote:As mementos of victories, or, as Rashi suggests, to serve as charms against danger in battle.
^ᵈnote:Cf. A.Z. 11b, Sonc. ed., p. 58.
^ᵉnote:Either the animal was clean (i.e., of the species fit for food, and also slaughtered ritually) and the man who flayed it was unclean, or the animal was unclean (i.e., either of the former species but not ritually slaughtered, or of the species that are forbidden to be eaten even though slaughtered ritually) and the man who flayed it was clean.
^ᶠnote:For this purpose the hide was slit the whole length of the animal and flayed on both flanks, the result being one large sheet of hide.
^ᵍnote:Until this much has been flayed that portion which has actually been flayed is not regarded as entirely disconnected from the flesh but rather as a ‘handle’ which conveys uncleanness to and from the flesh. Once this extent (- for the measure v. Gemara — ) has been flayed the hide is regarded as disconnected and can no longer serve as a handle.
^ʰnote:For this purpose the hide was not slit lengthwise but was cut around the neck and flayed whole from the animal so as to form a receptacle to hold liquids.
^ⁱnote:The breast is the most difficult part of the operation of flaying for the hide adheres fast there and, therefore, so long as the region of the breast has not been flayed that which has already been flayed serves as a connective or ‘handle’ to the flesh.
^ʲnote:In this manner of flaying, the region around the breast is the last important section to be flayed, although there yet remains the skin around the neck to be flayed.
^ᵏnote:Whether this includes the flaying of the skin around the neck or not, is the subject of the following dispute between R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Sages.
^ˡnote:It is negligible and soon falls away of itself by the weight of the rest of the hide, and therefore can no longer serve as a connective.
^ᵐnote:Sc. as much as can be taken hold of; a handgrip.
^ⁿnote:But that which still adheres to the flesh serves as a ‘protection’ and conveys uncleanness to and from the flesh.
^ᵒnote:The last handbreadth of the skin that had been flayed nearest to the flesh is unclean, i.e., it serves as a ‘handle’ to convey uncleanness to and from the flesh.
^ᵖnote:As much as a handgrip.
^ᵠnote:Assuming the animal was itself unclean; for it does not serve as a ‘handle’.
^ʳnote:Contra R. Assi.
^ˢnote:R. Assi admits that where only so much of the hide as can be taken hold of plus one handbreadth had been flayed the handbreadth nearest to the flesh is not deemed a ‘handle’ for the amount flayed is too little to be made use of as a handle. For a var. text and interpretation v. Tos. s.v. aurhpc.
^ᵗnote:Kel. XXVIII, 8.
^ᵘnote:In order to render it clean by making it unfit for its former use.
^ᵛnote:The original garment is now deemed to be destroyed and with it the uncleanness it bore, even though each part of the garment is of a substantial size (Rashi). According to Tosaf. the garment was torn to shreds there was no piece the width of three fingerbreadths but these shreds were joined at one end (v. Tosaf. supra 72b s.v. ,gac).
^ʷnote:Ordinarily the garment by evening would be clean, but this man desiring to use it immediately with clean things sets a bout to tear it. Now since he has actually immersed it in the waters of a mikweh, an act which certainly does not improve the garment, he will have no hesitation in tearing the greater part of the garment.
^ˣnote:For those who saw the immersion of the article by day and later see it used that selfsame day with clean things, will be led to believe that immersion by itself renders an article clean without the additional necessity of waiting until sunset of that day, for they might not be aware of the fact that the garment had been torn.

²the same is to be feared in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird, according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, namely that he will not divide the greater part of both organs [of the throat]! — R. Joseph replied to him: As for your objection ‘people might say that immersion during the day is sufficient’, [my answer is,] the tearing explains the position; and as for your objection ‘The same is to be feared in the case of a burnt-offering of a bird according to the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon’, [my answer is,] priests are most careful. Come and hear: IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED] AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF, etc.Now if more than this had been flayed, it would be clean, would it not? But why? Should we not apprehend that he will have flayed only so much as can be taken hold of, in which case [by touching the hide] he is [as it were] touching uncleanness, and yet we declare him to be clean? If it were a case of uncleanness as enjoined by the Torah this would indeed be so; but here we really speak of uncleanness as enjoined by the Rabbis. This is well in the case of an unclean person [flaying] a clean animal, but in the case of a clean person [flaying] an unclean animal, surely the uncleanness is enjoined by the Torah! — It refers to a trefah animal. And can a trefah animal render ought unclean? — Yes, as stated by Samuel's father. For Samuel's father stated: A trefah animal that was slaughtered renders holy things unclean. Come and hear: R. Dosethai b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon: If a man was skinning reptiles, the skin is regarded as a connective until the whole has been removed. Now it follows, does it not, that in the case of a camel it is not regarded as a connective? — Draw not the inference that in the case of a camel it is not regarded as a connective, but rather that in the case of a camel the skin that is on the neck is not regarded as a connective, and this accords with the opinion of R. Johanan b. Nuri. R. Huna said in the name of R. Simeon son of R. Jose: This [teaching] applies only to the case where he did not leave [untorn] a portion sufficient for an apron, but if he left [untorn] a portion sufficient for an apron, it [the garment] is deemed to be joined. Resh Lakish said: This [teaching] applies only to a garment, but in the case of leather, [what is left] is firm. But R. Johanan said: Even in the case of leather, [what is left] is not firm. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish [from the following Mishnah]: If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness, and a man had the intention to use it for straps and sandals, so soon as he puts the knife into it it becomes clean; so R. Judah. But the Sages say. Not until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. It follows, however, that if he had reduced its size [to less than five handbreadths] it would be clean; but why? Surely, we should say, [what is left] is firm! — When do we say, [what is left] is firm, only in the case where the hide was cut with a straight cut, but here we must suppose that it was trimmed on all sides. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED] AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF, etc. Now if more than this had been flayed it would be clean, would it not? But why? Surely we should say [that the residue of the hide that is attached to the carcass] is firm! — R. Abin explained it, [that with regard to the hide,] each portion flayed is considered as fallen away. R. Joseph raised an objection: AS FOR THE SKIN THAT IS ON THE NECK, R. JOHANAN B. NURI DOES NOT REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE. But why? Surely it holds firm! — Thereupon Abaye said to him, But read the next line: BUT THE SAGES DO REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE! In fact, said Abaye, the point at issue between them is concerning a protection that will soon fall away of its own accord: one maintains that it is still a protection, the other that it is no protection. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: If an oven had become unclean how can one make it clean again? One should divide it into three parts and scrape off the plastering^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ʸnote:In sacrificing the burnt-offering of a bird the head had to be nipped off by the officiating priest, but not severed entirely (cf. Lev. I, 17); and according to the interpretation of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, it means that he must divide the greater portion of each organ and no more (v. supra 21a). Now is there not a similar apprehension in this case that the priest will not divide the greater portion of the organs?
^ᶻnote:The onlookers will know that it is the tearing of the garment that renders it clean and not the immersion by itself.
^ᵃᵃnote:And do exactly what is required by law, neither more nor less.
^ᵃᵇnote:Assuming that the carcass was unclean.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., the ruling with regard to an unclean person flaying a clean animal as stated in our Mishnah, refers to a person that was rendered unclean by enactment of the Rabbis (cf. the cases enumerated in Shab. 13b) and the animal spoken of was a consecrated animal. Accordingly we do not impose any further preventive measures by reason of such remote apprehensions.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., the uncleanness of nebelah.
^ᵃᵉnote:The reference in our Mishnah with regard to an unclean animal, really means an animal which was slaughtered and found to be trefah.
^ᵃᶠnote:So according to Maim. Yad, Aboth Ha-tumah, II, 8. Rashi interprets: A consecrated animal which was slaughtered and found to be trefah renders unclean, v. supra 73a.
^ᵃᵍnote:As soon as the extent of a handgrip of the hide has been flayed. And there is no mention of any apprehension lest on account of this ruling, people might be led to believe that even when less than a handgrip had been flayed the hide is not to be regarded as a connective. This then conflicts with R. Nahman's statement supra.
^ᵃʰnote:This refers to the case where the man who flays the camel requires the hide for a water-skin, or where he flays it from the feet upwards; in either case, according to R. Johanan b. Nuri, once the whole hide, with the exception of that which is on the neck, has been flayed, it can no longer be regarded as a connective (v. our Mishnah supra), in contradistinction from the case of reptiles, for with reptiles even the skin around the neck is regard ed as a connective. There is indeed here no ground at all to apply a preventive measure in apprehension lest he who flays the camel will not remove all the hide with the exception only of that which remains on the neck, in which case the hide would be a connective, for the standard has been clearly stated, namely, whether or not anything more than the skin of the neck remains, and this standard is a matter which is clearly noticeable and ascertainable. On the other hand, the standard ‘as much as can be taken hold of’ is not so clearly defined and ascertainable; similarly, the difference between tearing the greater part of a garment and only half of it is also a matter not clearly discernible, accordingly in the latter two cases there is ground for a restrictive measure.
^ᵃⁱnote:That a garment is rendered clean by tearing the greater part of it.
^ᵃʲnote:That where there was not left untorn a portion sufficient for an apron the garment is rendered clean.
^ᵃᵏnote:No matter how little it is, for it can be sewn together and used again for its original purpose.
^ᵃˡnote:Heb. xrsn. The degree of uncleanness arising when an unclean person, of those mentioned in Lev. XV, 2, 19, 25, sits or treads upon or leans with the body against an object, provided such object is fit and generally used for one of the above purposes.
^ᵃᵐnote:By putting the knife to it he has annulled it from its original use even though there are as yet substantial pieces left each five handbreadths square, this being the minimum size for leather to contract midras uncleanness (cf. Kel. XXVII. 2).
^ᵃⁿnote:Kel. XXVI, 9.
^ᵃᵒnote:Since there are irregular cuts on all sides, even if it is sewn together it will not hold firm.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘the first, the first’.
^ᵃᵠnote:For it cannot by any means be made to adhere again to the flesh, whereas in the case of a garment it can be sewn together to hold fast.
^ᵃʳnote:The skin on the neck still adheres to the flesh, nevertheless, R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that whosoever touches this skin (the animal being unclean) is not thereby rendered unclean; thus conflicting with Resh Lakish's view.
^ᵃˢnote:And this would be in support of Resh Lakish's view.
^ᵃᵗnote:Sc. between the Sages and R. Johanan b. Nuri in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵘnote:E.g., the skin around the neck when all the rest of the hide has been removed.
^ᵃᵛnote:The Sages hold that so long as it has not fallen off it still serves as a protection and conveys uncleanness to and from the flesh.
^ᵃʷnote:R. Johanan b. Nuri.
^ᵃˣnote:It usually consisted of an earthenware pot with no bottom, placed on the ground, and plastered on all sides with clay to hold it firm.
^ᵃʸnote:So that no part thereof be more than half the size of the original oven. Cf. Lev. XI, 35.