חולין 127 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The text therefore teaches: That creep signifies, wherever it creeps [it renders unclean]. But perhaps it is not so but that the expression ‘that creep’ signifies, all that breed can render unclean, but those that do not breed cannot render unclean, and so I would exclude the mouse which is half flesh and half earth since it does not breed. There is, however, a good argument [against this]: [Scripture] declared the weasel unclean and the mouse unclean, therefore as the weasel refers to all that bear the name weasel, so the mouse refers to all that bear the name mouse, and [in this way] I include the mouse which is half flesh and half earth. Or you might argue in this way: As the weasel breeds so the mouse [includes all species that] breed, [and so I would exclude the mouse which is half flesh and half earth]! The text therefore teaches. Among the creeping things. A certain Rabbi said to Raba: Perhaps the expression ‘among the creeping things’ includes the mouse which is half flesh and half earth, and the expression ‘that creep’ signifies all that creep, thus including the sea-mouse, and as for the expression ‘upon the earth’, it would be interpreted as follows: While upon earth it can render unclean, but if it went down into the sea it cannot render anything unclean? — He replied: Since you regard the sea as a place of uncleanness, then it is all one, whether here or there. But is not the expression ‘upon the earth’ required to exclude a floating uncleanness where there is a doubt [concerning contact]? For R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: The expression ‘upon the earth’ excludes a floating uncleanness concerning which there is a doubt! — ‘Upon the earth’ is written twice. Our Rabbis taught: The toad after its kind, includes the ‘arod, the ben-nephilin, and the salamander. When R. Akiba read this verse he used to say: ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! Thou hast creatures that live in the sea and Thou hast creatures that live upon the dry land; if those of the sea were to come up upon the dry land they would straightway die, and if those of the dry land were to go down into the sea they would straightway die. Thou hast creatures that live in fire and Thou hast creatures that live in the air; if those of the fire were to come up into the air they would straightway die, and if those of the air were to go down into the fire they would straightway die. How manifold are Thy works, O Lord!’ Our Rabbis taught: Every creature that is on the dry land is also to be found in the sea, excepting the weasel. R. Zera said: Where is there proof for this from Scripture? Give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said. The beavers around Naresh are not land [creatures]. R. Papa said. The ban upon Naresh, its fat, its hide, and its tail! O Land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord. Said R. Papa. Yet the inhabitants of Naresh would not hear the word of the Lord. R. Giddal said in the name of Rab, If an inhabitant of Naresh has kissed you then count your teeth. If a man of Nehar Pekod accompanies you it is because of the fine garments he sees on you. If a Pumbedithan accompanies you then change your quarters. R. Huna b. Torta said: I once went to Wa'ad and saw a snake wrapped round a toad; after some days there came forth an ‘arod from between them. When I came before R. Simeon the pious, [and related this to him,] he said to me: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: They have produced a new creature which I had not created into my world, I too will bring upon them a creature which I had not created in my world. (But has not a Master said, All creatures whose manner of copulation is the same and whose period of gestation is the same can bear young from each other and suckle each other, but all creatures whose manner of copulation is not the same and whose period of gestation is not the same cannot bear young from each other nor suckle each other? — Rab said: It was a miracle within a miracle. But this is for chastisement! — It was a micracle within a miracle even for chastisement!) MISHNAH. LIMBS OR PIECES OF FLESH WHICH HANG LOOSE FROM THE [LIVING] ANIMAL ARE RENDERED UNCLEAN IN RESPECT OF FOOD UNCLEANNESS WHILST THEY ARE IN THEIR PLACE. AND REQUIRE TO BE RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS.32^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:Ibid.
^ᵇnote:In the light of this interpretation it could not have been maintained that a mouse cannot render unclean if it fell into the sea and there came into contact with some object. Consequently the term ‘upon the earth’ must be explained with regard to species, thus only land species can render unclean but not the sea species.
^ᶜnote:Heb. .ra might also mean to propagate, breed; cf. Ex. I, 7. Rashi, however, explains the word in the sense that the creature is the product of copulation of the sexes, which is not the case with the mouse that is generated by the earth itself. In some MSS. of Rashi this explanation is not found.
^ᵈnote:Consequently the expression ‘upon the earth’ would signify that all creatures, whether land or sea creatures, if they have fallen into the sea, cannot render anything unclean.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XI, 29. This would include even the mouse generated by the earth.
^ᶠnote:Sc., any mouse, whether land-mouse or sea-mouse, or the mouse generated from the earth.
^ᵍnote:I.e., a breeding place for species that can render unclean. Since it has been established that the sea-mouse can render unclean, there is no sufficient reason, indeed it is illogical to limit such uncleanness to the time when it creeps upon the land.
^ʰnote:I.e., if a dead reptile was floating upon the water and there arose a doubt as to whether or not it had come into contact with some object, even if the doubt arose in a private domain (in which case the established rule is that the state of doubt is resolved according to its more stringent aspect. i.e., unclean), the object remains clean. This is deduced from the strict interpretation of the expression ‘upon the earth’. V. Nazir 64a.
^ⁱnote:Ibid. XI, 29 and 41.
^ʲnote:Lev. XI. 29.
^ᵏnote:surg, a species of lizard; a cross between a snake and a toad. ‘The watersnake’ according to Lewysohn, op. cit. pp. 241-2.
^ˡnote:ihkhpb or ihkhpb ic, the skink; so Lewysohn, p. 225.
^ᵐnote:A kind of lizard which was supposed to exist in fire without being burnt; v. Hag. end.
^ⁿnote:Ps. CIV, 24.
^ᵒnote:Ibid. XLIX, 2. ‘The world’ is expressed by the rare word skj (heled) which is similar to the word for the weasel (holed). The world (heled) is the specific habitation of the weasel (holed), for the latter is not to be found in the sea.
^ᵖnote:Identical with Nahras, on the canal of the same name, on the East bank of the Euphrates.
^ᵠnote:So according to Rashi. Tosaf., however, gives an entirely different rendering: ‘The inhabitants of Bibri and of Naresh are not fit for human society’ (i.e., they are in every way wicked, see following statement of R. Papa). Accordingly Bibri (Be-Bari) is taken as the town close to Naresh; cf. ‘Er. 56a and Sot. 10a. V. Tosaf. a.l., and Lewysohn, op. cit. p. 98. [Obermeyer p. 308 renders: Be-Bari and Naresh are not accounted as (inhabited) settlements. They are, that is, sparsely inhabited and infested consequently with wild animals.1
^ʳnote:The inhabitants of Naresh, both great and small, all without exception are wicked, and should be put under the ban. The fat, the hide, and the tail, indicate the various sections of the community.
^ˢnote:Jer. XXII, 29.
^ᵗnote:For they are all thieves and insincere in their profession of friendship.
^ᵘnote:He will steal it from you at the first opportunity.
^ᵛnote:That he may not rob you.
^ʷnote:The name of a certain place whose inhabitants used to engage in crossbreeding animals. A variant reading is, rgh, ‘a forest’.
^ˣnote:Sc. the ‘arod whose bite is deadly; cf. Ber. 331.
^ʸnote:Bek. 8a.
^ᶻnote:The periods of gestation of a snake and a toad differ greatly; with the latter it is six months, with the former seven years, cf. Bek. 8a, consequently they cannot be crossed.
^ᵃᵃnote:First that each should leave its own kind, and secondly that these two kinds should bear from each other.
^ᵃᵇnote:God surely would not perform miracles for the purpose of chastisement.
^ᵃᶜnote:So MS.M. Cur. edd., ‘what is the meaning of a miracle within a miracle? For the purpose of punishment.’
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., pieces consisting of bones, flesh and sinews. A limb entirely severed from the living animal renders unclean men and vessels like a carcass, whereas a piece of flesh entirely severed from the animal has no uncleanness whatsoever, v. infra 128b.
^ᵃᵉnote:Although they are not severed from the animal and the animal whilst alive cannot contract or convey uncleanness, they are in this respect regarded as detached from the animal, provided they were expressly intended to serve as food (for a gentile, cf. ‘Uk. III, 2), so as to contract uncleanness like ordinary foodstuffs and also to convey it.
^ᵃᶠnote:By being moistened by water or one of the seven liquids (v. Maksh. VI, 4) at any time after they have been torn loose.

²IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED THEY HAVE BY THE BLOOD [OF THE SLAUGHTERING] BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS: SO R. MEIR. R. SIMEON SAYS, THEY HAVE NOT BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS. IF THE ANIMAL DIED. THE FLESH REQUIRES TO BE RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS, AND THE LIMB IS RENDERED UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING CREATURE, BUT IS NOT RENDERED UNCLEAN AS THE LIMB OF A CARCASS: SO R. MEIR. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. GEMARA. They are rendered unclean in respect of FOOD UNCLEANNESS but not in respect of nebelah uncleanness. Now what are the circumstances? If they can be restored they should not be rendered unclean even In respect of food uncleanness, and if they cannot be restored they should be then rendered unclean also in respect of nebelah uncleanness! — In fact they cannot be restored, but with regard to nebelah Uncleanness it is different, for the Divine Law says. And if there fall, that is, they must absolutely fall away [from the body]. There was also taught [a Baraitha] to this effect: ‘With regard to the limbs or the pieces of flesh which hang loose from the animal and are attached by a hairbreadth, I might have said that they should convey nebelah uncleanness, the text therefore states. "And if there fall", that is, they must absolutely fall away [from the body]’; nevertheless, they are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. This supports R. Hiyya b. Ashi, for R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Samuel: Figs which had shrivelled up on the branch are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness, and he who plucks them on the Sabbath is liable to bring a sin-offering. Shall we say that the following also supports him? It was taught: Vegetables, such as cabbages and pumpkins, which had shrivelled up on the stem, are not rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. If they were cut down and dried, they are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness. ‘If they were cut down and dried’. But this is unthinkable, for they are then like wood! R. Isaac, however, explained that it means: If they were cut down in order to be dried. Now this reasoning applies only to cabbages and pumpkins, for these no sooner have they become dry than they are uneatable: but other fruits [even though they shrivelled up on the stem] are rendered unclean [in respect of food uncleanness]. And what are the facts [in the case of the shrivelled-up cabbages and pumpkins]? If both they and their stems dried up, it is obvious; it must be then that only they shrivelled up but not their stems! — [It is not so]. In fact both they and their stems had dried up, but it was necessary to teach that if one cut them down in order to dry them [they are still unclean in respect of food uncleanness]. Come and hear: If a branch of a tree broke off with fruits upon it they are regarded as plucked. If they had dried up they are regarded as attached, presumably as the one is regarded as plucked for all purposes, so the other is regarded as attached for all purposes! — Is this an argument? One means one thing, and the other another. IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED etc. What is the issue between them? — Rabbah said: They differ as to whether the animal can be regarded as serving as a handle to a limb; one holds that the animal can be regarded as a handle to a limb, and the other holds that the animal cannot be regarded as a handle to a limb. Abaye said: They differ as to the ruling in the case where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it; one is of the opinion that where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it it is regarded like it, but the other is of the opinion that where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it it is not regarded like it. R. Johanan also maintains that they differ as to the ruling in the case where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part does not come away with it. For R. Johanan pointed out a contradiction in the views of R. Meir. Did R. Meir say, where by taking hold of the smaller part of a thing the greater part would not come away with it it is to be regarded like it? But there is a contradiction to it for we have learnt: If a foodstuff [of terumah] was divided, but was still attached in part.^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ

^ᵃᵍnote:For at the slaughtering the limbs and pieces of flesh are not regarded as having fallen off, so that although the slaughtering cannot render the limbs and flesh fit for food it can render them clean that they be not nebelah, and at the same time it renders them susceptible to receive uncleanness by the moistening by the blood. V. supra 33a.
^ᵃʰnote:For at death the limbs and pieces of flesh are regarded as having fallen off before, i.e., from the living animal, and therefore the flesh is entirely free from uncleanness (v. p. 714, n. 12) whereas the limbs convey uncleanness as limbs severed from a living animal but not as limbs severed from a carcass. For the distinction v. Gemara infra.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., the limb does not render men and vessels unclean.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the flesh or the limb hanging from the body could be reset and bound up with the body so as to heal and recover completely.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. XI, 37.
^ᵃˡnote:In order to be deemed unclean like nebelah.
^ᵃᵐnote:Though in respect of nebelah uncleanness they are considered attached to the animal.
^ᵃⁿnote:Thus although with regard to Sabbath the figs are regarded as still upon the tree, with regard to food uncleanness they are regarded as fallen off.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., during growth.
^ᵃᵖnote:Although they were intended to be dried and used as fuel, nevertheless so long as they are still moist they are rendered unclean in respect of food uncleanness.
^ᵃᵠnote:For even with regard to the laws of Sabbath these vegetables would be regarded as plucked, consequently only these do not convey food uncleanness, since they are as wood, but other vegetables do. Hence it was unnecessary for the Baraitha to state these obvious rules.
^ᵃʳnote:In which case with regard to the laws of Sabbath they would be regarded as unplucked, nevertheless with regard to uncleanness they are considered plucked and convey food uncleanness, thus supporting Samuel's view.
^ᵃˢnote:In the case where the tree had not split but the fruits had dried upon the tree.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., both as regards the laws of Sabbath and uncleanness, thus conflicting with Samuel, who distinguishes between these laws.
^ᵃᵘnote:In other words, ‘regarded as attached’ has reference only to the laws of Sabbath but not to uncleanness, thus in agreement with Samuel.
^ᵃᵛnote:R. Meir and R. Simeon in our Mishnah.
^ᵃʷnote:Both agree that moistening the handle of foodstuffs renders the whole foodstuff susceptible to uncleanness, but the question is whether the major portion of a thing can in any way be said to serve as a handle to the lesser portion, so that by moistening the bulk the handle is regarded as made susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵃˣnote:R. Meir.
^ᵃʸnote:So when the animal was rendered susceptible to uncleanness the hanging limb was likewise rendered susceptible.
^ᵃᶻnote:R. Simeon.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., the smaller part is still considered as part of the whole. It is agreed to by all that the animal cannot serve as a handle to the limb, but R. Meir and R. Simeon differ in this: R. Meir maintains that whatever still hangs on to the whole is regarded as part of the whole; for, granted that the hanging limb cannot pull with it the rest of the animal, the animal when taken up would certainly take with it this hanging limb. R. Simeon, however, does not accept this argument.
^ᵇᵇnote:T. Y. III, 1. Cf. variant text in Tosaf. 128a, s.v. hcr.