Chullin

R. Meir says: If by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part comes away with it, it is regarded like it;1 otherwise it is not regarded like it.2 Whereupon R. Johanan suggested that he in this case changed his opinion!3 But what was [R. Johanan's] difficulty? perhaps R. Meir distinguishes between the uncleanness of a tebul yom4 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.5 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];6 one7 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 other8 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].9 For it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Akiba used to teach as follows: The forbidden fat of a slaughtered animal, in villages,10 needs intention [to be used for food], but does not need to be made susceptible to uncleanness, since it has already11 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?12 R. Akiba then retracted and taught according to R. Judah. The one8 accepts the original [teaching of R. Akiba].13 the other7 [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];14 one15 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 other16 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.17 R. Ashi said: They differ as to whether the slaughtering only and not the blood renders susceptible to uncleanness.18 Rabbah raised the following question: Can the living animal serve as a handle to the limb or not?19 — It is undecided. Abaye said: Behold they have said:20 If a man planted a cucumber in a plant-pot and it grew and spread outside the pot, it is clean.21 Said R. Simeon: How does this come22 to be clean? Rather what is unclean23 remains unclean and what is clean24 remains clean. Now, asked Abaye, [according to R. Simeon] can it24 serve as a handle to the rest?25 — 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.26 Now, asked R. Jeremiah, touched either part, the whole is rendered invalid (i.e., it is unclean, but it cannot convey the uncleanness). hold of the smaller part the greater part does not come away with it, the former is regarded as part of the whole (Rashi). Rabbinic. So Rashi, but v. Glos. of R. Akiba Eger in the margin of the folio. with the whole by a tebul yom 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. afford to buy it, or because there was no need for it because of their abundant supply of meat. them susceptible to uncleanness. susceptible to uncleanness. 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. 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. 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). 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. soil. longer, according to the view of R. Simeon infra 129a, regarded as a foodstuff, and so cannot contract uncleanness.