חולין 128:2 — Soncino English Talmud

can 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".^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote: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?
^ᵇnote:‘Uk. III, 8.
^ᶜnote:For it is still regarded as part of the tree and therefore cannot contract uncleanness.
^ᵈnote:I.e., if when tied to the tree it can produce fruit.
^ᵉnote: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?
^ᶠnote:Neg. XIII, 2.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote:Viz., after the first seven days.
^ⁱnote:Viz., after the second period of seven days.
^ʲnote: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.
^ᵏnote: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.
^ˡnote:In this case the expression vnvcv in, ‘of the beasts’, means among beasts; thus some beasts render unclean and some do not.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote:Lev. XI, 31.
^ᵖnote:There must be at least an olive's bulk thereof.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote:For a gentile.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote: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.