חולין 123:1 — Soncino English Talmud

It 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.