Chullin

the 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]!1 — 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;2 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.3 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,4 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.5 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!6 — It refers to a trefah animal.7 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.8 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?9 — 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.10 R. Huna said in the name of R. Simeon son of R. Jose: This [teaching]11 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]12 applies only to a garment, but in the case of leather, [what is left] is firm.13 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 midras14 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;15 so R. Judah. But the Sages say. Not until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths.16 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.17 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 18 flayed is considered as fallen away.19 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!20 — Thereupon Abaye said to him, But read the next line: BUT THE SAGES DO REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE!21 In fact, said Abaye, the point at issue between them22 is concerning a protection that will soon fall away of its own accord:23 one maintains that it is still a protection,24 the other25 that it is no protection. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: If an oven26 had become unclean how can one make it clean again? One should divide it into three parts 27 and scrape off the plastering 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? 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. found to be trefah. and found to be trefah renders unclean, v. supra 73a. 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. 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. 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. each five handbreadths square, this being the minimum size for leather to contract midras uncleanness (cf. Kel. XXVII. 2). together to hold fast. skin (the animal being unclean) is not thereby rendered unclean; thus conflicting with Resh Lakish's view. from the flesh. to hold it firm.