חולין 128 — Soncino English Talmud

¹R. Meir says: If by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part comes away with it, it is regarded like it; otherwise it is not regarded like it. Whereupon R. Johanan suggested that he in this case changed his opinion! But what was [R. Johanan's] difficulty? perhaps R. Meir distinguishes between the uncleanness of a tebul yom and other uncleannesses? — [This surely is not the case for] it was taught: Rabbi says: It is all one whether the uncleanness was that of a tebul yom or any other uncleanness. But perhaps Rabbi draws no distinction [between the uncleannesses] but R. Meir does? — Said R. Josiah. This is what R. Johanan meant to say. According to Rabbi's view he [R. Meir] in this case changed his opinion. Raba said: They differ as to whether the law of handles applies only in respect of conveying the uncleanness but not in respect of rendering [the bulk] susceptible to uncleanness [or whether it applies to both]; one holds that the law of handles applies only in respect of conveying the uncleanness but not in respect of rendering [the bulk] susceptible to uncleanness, but the other holds that the law of handles applies both in respect of conveying the uncleanness and of rendering [the bulk] susceptible to uncleanness. R. Papa said: They differ as to the ruling in the case where [the limb] was rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] before any intention [was formed of using it as food]. For it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Akiba used to teach as follows: The forbidden fat of a slaughtered animal, in villages, needs intention [to be used for food], but does not need to be made susceptible to uncleanness, since it has already been made susceptible by the slaughtering. Thereupon I said to him: Master, did you not teach us that if a man gathered endives, washed them for [feeding] cattle, and then determined to use them as food for man, they again need [to be moistened in order] to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness? R. Akiba then retracted and taught according to R. Judah. The one accepts the original [teaching of R. Akiba]. the other [the teaching] after he retracted. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: They differ in the case where the blood was wiped away [from the limb] between the cutting of the first and second organs [of the throat]; one maintains that the term shechitah applies to the entire process of slaughtering from beginning to end, consequently this [blood that was upon the limb] was the blood of slaughtering; the other maintains that the term shechitah applies only to the last stage of the slaughtering, consequently this [blood that was upon the limb] was the blood of a wound. R. Ashi said: They differ as to whether the slaughtering only and not the blood renders susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbah raised the following question: Can the living animal serve as a handle to the limb or not? — It is undecided. Abaye said: Behold they have said: If a man planted a cucumber in a plant-pot and it grew and spread outside the pot, it is clean. Said R. Simeon: How does this come to be clean? Rather what is unclean remains unclean and what is clean remains clean. Now, asked Abaye, [according to R. Simeon] can it serve as a handle to the rest? — It is undecided. R. Jeremiah said: Behold they have said that if a man bowed down to half a pumpkin he has thereby rendered it forbidden. Now, asked R. Jeremiah,^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

^ᵃnote:And if a tebul yom (i.e., one who has immersed himself by day but is not regarded as absolutely clean until sunset) touched either part, the whole is rendered invalid (i.e., it is unclean, but it cannot convey the uncleanness).
^ᵇnote:And only the part touched by the tebul yom is rendered invalid but not the other.
^ᶜnote:R. Meir in the case of the tebul yom adopted a different view, but generally he is of the opinion that where by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part does not come away with it, the former is regarded as part of the whole (Rashi).
^ᵈnote:V. n. 2. In the case of a tebul yom R. Meir adopts a less strict view, since the uncleanness of such a person is only Rabbinic. So Rashi, but v. Glos. of R. Akiba Eger in the margin of the folio.
^ᵉnote:I.e., what is regarded as contact with the whole in the case of other sources of uncleanness is also regarded as contact with the whole by a tebul yom
^ᶠnote:They both, however, agree that the animal can serve as a handle to the limb.
^ᵍnote:R. Simeon.
^ʰnote:R. Meir.
^ⁱnote:Since the limb was hanging loose from the living animal it is forbidden, even after the slaughtering, to be eaten by all, Jew and gentile alike; consequently it is not regarded as a foodstuff unless an express intention was formed to that effect. In this case, however, at the time of slaughtering when the animal was rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the blood, no such intention was expressed. Later when it is intended to be used as food the question arises whether the first moistening has effectively rendered it susceptible to uncleanness or not. They both, however, agree that a part can serve as a handle both for the purposes of uncleanness and of rendering aught susceptible to uncleanness.
^ʲnote:In villages fat was not counted as a foodstuff for it was not usually eaten, either because the villagers could not afford to buy it, or because there was no need for it because of their abundant supply of meat.
^ᵏnote:Prior to the intention.
^ˡnote:For the first washing by water, since it preceded the intention to use them as a foodstuff, will not serve to render them susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵐnote:That moistening by water of any matter, even before the intention was formed to use it as a foodstuff, renders it susceptible to uncleanness.
^ⁿnote:They both hold that although the animal serves as a handle to the limb, it can only serve as such for the purposes of uncleanness but not for the purpose of rendering the limb susceptible to uncleanness; in other words the limb must itself be moistened. Now in this case some blood of the slaughtering splashed upon this loose limb but it was wiped off before the slaughtering was completed.
^ᵒnote:R. Meir.
^ᵖnote:R. Simeon.
^ᵠnote:Which cannot render aught susceptible to uncleanness; v. supra 35b.
^ʳnote:It is agreed by all that the animal cannot serve as a handle to the limb for the purpose of rendering it susceptible to uncleanness; it is therefore suggested that the limb was splashed with the blood of the slaughtering which was not wiped off at all. R. Simeon nevertheless maintains that the limb was not thereby rendered susceptible, for he holds that it is the act of slaughtering and not the blood which renders the animal susceptible to uncleanness, and this being so, the act of slaughtering must be a valid act such as renders the animal fit for food, which is not the case with regard to this limb.
^ˢnote:This question is founded upon the view of R. Meir who, on Rabbah's interpretation, holds that the slaughtered animal serves as a handle to the loose limb. If it is held that the living animal can also serve as a handle to the loose limb, then the position would be that if unclean matter came into contact with the body of the animal, although it could not itself contract uncleanness thereby for it is alive, it could nevertheless act as a ‘handle’ to convey the uncleanness to the loose limb (provided the limb was first moistened by water).
^ᵗnote:‘Uk. II, 9.
^ᵘnote:Whatsoever is planted in a plant-pot which is not perforated is not regarded as attached to the soil in any way; it is therefore susceptible to contract uncleanness, or if the plant was unclean before planting, it retains the uncleanness (which is not the case if the plant was planted in the ground). If, however part of the growth of the plant spread outside the pot this part clearly draws nourishment from the earth and the effect is that the whole plant, even that which is inside the pot, is insusceptible to uncleanness, or if the plant, before planting, was unclean, it is now clean.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘what is the nature of this’?
^ʷnote:Sc., that which is inside the pot, for it is not regarded as attached to the soil.
^ˣnote:Sc., that which is outside the pot, and which draws sustenance from the soil and so is regarded as attached to the soil.
^ʸnote:To convey uncleanness to what is inside the pot although it itself cannot contract uncleanness.
^ᶻnote:Inasmuch as it is forbidden to derive any benefit whatsoever from the object worshipped, the half pumpkin is no longer, according to the view of R. Simeon infra 129a, regarded as a foodstuff, and so cannot contract uncleanness.

²can it serve as a handle to the other [half]? — It is undecided. R. Papa said: Behold they have said, If a branch of a fig-tree was broken off but it was still attached by the bark, [and unclean matter came into contact with it.] R. Judah declares it to be clean; but the Sages say. If it can live, it is clean; but if not, it is unclean. Now, asked R. Papa, can it serve as a handle to the rest? — It is undecided. R. Zera said: Behold they have said, As to a stone that is in a corner, when it must be taken out the whole of it must be taken out, and when [the house] must be pulled down a man need pull down only his own [half of the stone] but leaves his neighbour's [half]. Now, asked R. Zera, can it serve as a handle to the rest? — It is undecided. IF THE ANIMAL DIED. What difference is there between a limb torn from a living animal and a limb torn from a dead animal? — The difference is where some flesh is severed from the limb; for flesh severed from the limb torn from a living animal is not rendered unclean, but [flesh severed] from the limb torn from a dead animal is rendered unclean. And where is there proof in Scripture that a limb torn away from a living animal renders unclean? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It is written: And if there die of the beasts. But surely this verse is required for the other teaching of Rab Judah in the name of Rab; for Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, (others say: It was so taught in a Baraitha). It is written: And if there die of the beasts, [he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean,] that is to say, some beasts render unclean and some do not, and which are they [that do] not render unclean]? They are trefah animals that have been slaughtered. — If that were so, Scripture should have stated ‘of beasts’; why does it state ‘of the beasts’? You may therefore infer two results from it. Then in that case even flesh [severed from the living animal] should also [render unclean], should it not? — You cannot say so, for it has been taught: I might think that flesh severed from the living animal should also be unclean, Scripture therefore states: And if there die of the beasts: as death cannot be replaced so everything that [is severed and] cannot be replaced [renders unclean]; so R. Jose [the Galilean]. R. Akiba says. It is written: ‘The beasts’: as the beast is made up of veins and bones so everything [severed] must be made up of veins and bones [in order to render unclean]. Rabbi says: ‘The beasts’: as the beast is made up of flesh and veins and bones so everything [severed] must be made up of flesh and veins and bones [in order to render unclean]. Wherein is there a difference between Rabbi and R. Akiba? — In the case of the nethermost joint [of the leg]. And wherein is there a difference between R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilean? — R. Papa answered: In the case of the kidney and the upper lip. The same has also been taught with regard to creeping things, viz., I might think that flesh severed from [living] creeping things should also be unclean, Scripture therefore states. When they are dead: as death cannot be replaced so everything that [is severed and] cannot be replaced [renders unclean]; so R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says. It is written: The creeping things: as the creeping thing is made up of veins and bones so everything [severed] must be made up of veins and bones [in order to render unclean]. Rabbi says: ‘The creeping things’: as the creeping thing is made up of flesh and veins and bones so everything [severed] must be made up of flesh and veins and bones. Between Rabbi and R. Akiba there is a difference with regard to the nethermost joint [of the leg]; and between R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilean there is a difference with regard to the kidney and the upper lip. Now both teachings were necessary. For if it had been taught only with regard to beasts I should have said that the reason [why the flesh torn from] the living beast does not render unclean was that [the beast when dead] does not render unclean by a lentil's bulk thereof, but in the case of a creeping thing, since [when dead] it renders Unclean by a lentil's bulk thereof, I should have said that the flesh of the living [creeping thing] should render Unclean. And if it had been taught only with regard to creeping things. I should have said that the reason [why the flesh torn from] the living creeping thing does not render unclean was that creeping things do not convey uncleanness by carrying, but in the case of beasts, since they do convey uncleanness by carrying. I should have said that even [the flesh torn from] the living beast should render unclean. Therefore both teachings were necessary. Our Rabbis taught: Where a man cut off an olive's bulk of flesh from a limb that was severed from a living animal, if he first cut it off and then intended it as food, it is clean; but if he first intended it as food and then cut it off, it is unclean. R. Assi was once absent from the Beth Hamidrash. He later met R. Zera and asked him, ‘What was said in the Beth Hamidrash’? Said the other, ‘And what was your difficulty’? He said: ‘Well, it has been stated: "If he first intended it as food and then cut it off, it is unclean".^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., if unclean matter came into contact with the forbidden half, can it, seeing that it cannot contract uncleanness itself, serve as a handle to convey the uncleanness to the other half or not?
^ᵃᵇnote:‘Uk. III, 8.
^ᵃᶜnote:For it is still regarded as part of the tree and therefore cannot contract uncleanness.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., if when tied to the tree it can produce fruit.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., can this branch which has been tied to the tree and continues to produce fruit, (in which case it cannot contract uncleanness itself,) serve as a handle, if unclean matter came into contact with it, to convey the uncleanness to a smaller branch broken away from it and which cannot live and produce fruit? This is the first interpretation of Rashi, and it is on all fours with the previous questions that were raised. A simpler interpretation is: can the tree, which does not contract uncleanness, convey the uncleanness which came into contact with it to the branch which has broken away and which cannot revive even when tied to the tree?
^ᵃᶠnote:Neg. XIII, 2.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., a stone which forms part of two adjoining houses and which was infected with some leprous disease. Cf. Lev. XIV, 33ff: if the plague had spread after the house had been shut up for seven days the infected stones must be removed and replaced by others, and if after a further period of seven days the plague appears upon the new stones then the entire house must be pulled down.
^ᵃʰnote:Viz., after the first seven days.
^ᵃⁱnote:Viz., after the second period of seven days.
^ᵃʲnote:It is established that stones infected with the plague render everything in the ‘tent’, i.e., under the same roof-space unclean; cf. Lev. XIV, 36. 46. The question, therefore, is: can the other half of the stone which remains, i.e., his neighbour's half, since it is clean itself, serve as a handle in order that the uncleanness may pass from his house into his neighbour's house.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lev. XI, 39. The exposition is inferred from the Heb. vnvcv in, ‘of the beasts’, i.e., a part thereof. Thus a limb that has died (i.e., torn away from the beast) renders unclean.
^ᵃˡnote:In this case the expression vnvcv in, ‘of the beasts’, means among beasts; thus some beasts render unclean and some do not.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sc., the metatarsus or the metacarpus; these consist entirely of bones and veins without flesh. According to R. Akiba, these are limbs and if severed from the living beast render unclean, and so too according to R. Jose; but according to Rabbi these are not limbs.
^ᵃⁿnote:These are without bones, but obviously once cut away the animal cannot get another kidney or upper lip. According to R. Jose's definition these are regarded as limbs, but not so according to R. Akiba's definition.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XI, 31.
^ᵃᵖnote:There must be at least an olive's bulk thereof.
^ᵃᵠnote:The words ‘an olive's bulk’ are omitted in MS.M. and other MSS. Rashi apparently also adopts the reading without these words and he quotes the Tosef. in support. The reason for the omission is, that for a foodstuff to contract uncleanness and to convey uncleanness, there must be at least an egg's bulk.
^ᵃʳnote:For a gentile.
^ᵃˢnote:For a morsel of flesh which has been cut away from a limb that was severed from a living animal has no uncleanness of its own; and at the moment that this morsel comes to be regarded as a foodstuff it was then separated from the limb or from any source of uncleanness, hence it is clean.
^ᵃᵗnote:Inasmuch as this morsel was regarded as a foodstuff whilst still joined to the limb, it has always borne uncleanness; for when joined to the limb it bore the graver uncleanness (which can render men and vessels unclean), and when separated from it it thereby loses the graver uncleanness but bears the lighter uncleanness (which can render unclean only foodstuffs and liquids) because of its contact with the limb.