חולין 129 — Soncino English Talmud

¹But it had only [made] covert [contact with] uncleanness and covert [contact with] uncleanness does not render unclean’? Said the other, ‘I, too, had this difficulty and I put it to R. Abba b. Memel, and he told me that this ruling was in accordance with R. Meir's view who maintains that covert [contact with] Uncleanness does render unclean’. He said: ‘Indeed on many occasions he told me that too, but I replied to him that R. Meir surely made a distinction between that which needed to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness by a liquid] and that which did not need to be so rendered susceptible’, Raba said: But what was the objection, perhaps it was rendered susceptible to uncleanness? Whereupon Rabbah son of Hanan asked Raba: Why is it at all necessary that it be rendered susceptible? Originally it conveyed the graver uncleanness! — He replied. But then it served only as wood. Abaye said: Behold they have said that if a man especially set aside a lump of leaven to be used as a seat, he has thereby nullified it. The uncleanness thereof [I say] is not decreed by the law of the Torah; for should you say it is so by the law of the Torah then we should have a case of foodstuffs being able to convey the graver uncleanness [later on]! — [No. Not necessarily so]. For it now serves as wood. Abaye said: Behold they have said that foodstuffs used as offerings to idols render unclean [men and vessels that are] in the same tent. This uncleanness [I say] is not decreed by the law of the Torah; for should you say it is so by the law of the Torah then we should have a case of foodstuffs being able to convey the graver uncleanness [later on]! — [No. Not necessarily so]. For they now serve as wood. Abaye said: Behold they have stated that foodstuffs that adhere closely [to vessels] are like the vessels themselves. The uncleanness [in such a case I say] is not decreed by the law of the Torah; for should you say it is so by the law of the Torah then we should have a case of foodstuffs being able to convey the graver uncleanness [later on]! — [No. Not necessarily so]. For they now serve as wood. R. Papa said to Raba: In view of that which has been taught viz.: The forbidden fat of a carcass [of a clean animal], in villages, needs the intention [to be used as food] and also needs to be made susceptible to uncleanness, [I say] the uncleanness that [the fat] conveys by reason of the kidney within it, is not decreed by the law of the Torah; for should you say it is so by the law of the Torah then we should have a case of foodstuffs being able to convey the graver uncleanness! — [No, not necessarily so]. For it now serves as wood. R. Mattenah said: Behold they have spoken of a house roofed with stalks; the uncleanness thereof [I say] is not decreed by the law of the Torah; for should you say that it is so by the law of the Torah then we should have a case of stalks conveying the graver uncleanness! — [No, not necessarily so]. For they now serve as wood. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. But whichever view you take [it is difficult]: If at death the limb is considered as already fallen off then it should be unclean as a limb severed from a living animal, and if at death it is not considered as already fallen off then it should be unclean as a limb severed from a carcass! — R. Simeon refers to the first clause [which reads]: LIMBS OR PIECES OF FLESH WHICH HANG LOOSE FROM THE [LIVING] ANIMAL ARE UNCLEAN IN RESPECT OF FOOD UNCLEANNESS WHILST THEY ARE IN THEIR PLACE, AND REQUIRE TO BE RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS. But R. Simeon declares them clean. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan. What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? Because Scripture says. All food therein which may be eaten; therefore, food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:The contact between the morsel and the limb was made only at the place where subsequently the severance is to be made, and that contact was not exposed. Cf. supra 72b.
^ᵇnote:R. Meir would agree that where after severance from the limb the part has to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by water or some other liquid, as is the case here (cf. the Mishnah supra 127a bot.), the covert contact with the uncleanness would not render unclean. Contrast the case stated supra 72b, where the foetus in the womb was already rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the slaughtering of its dam before the unclean protruding limb was cut off.
^ᶜnote:I.e., the morsel before it was severed from the limb was moistened with water.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘together with its father’.
^ᵉnote:The morsel when joined to the limb was regarded as a primary source of uncleanness to convey the graver uncleanness, and it is established that whatsoever will convey the graver uncleanness later on does not require to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by water, v. supra 121a; how much more so this morsel which in the past did convey the graver uncleanness!
^ᶠnote:I.e., it had no individual character but formed together with the bones and sinews an entire limb. It is only now on being severed from the limb that it assumes a new character, viz., that of a foodstuff, and like all foodstuffs it requires moistening in order to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵍnote:Pes. 45b.
^ʰnote:I.e., it no longer counts as leaven and by using it on the Passover one does not transgress the prohibition of Ex. XII, 19, for it is no longer a foodstuff but converted into a seat. As a seat it would contract midras uncleanness (which is a grave uncleanness) if a man that has an issue sat upon it.
^ⁱnote:Which would conflict with the principle laid down supra 121a, quoted supra p. 725, n. 5.
^ʲnote:When converted into a seat it has lost all the characteristics of a foodstuff and has become quite a new article, and as such can convey the graver uncleanness. Accordingly the uncleanness spoken of can well be by the law of the Torah.
^ᵏnote:The words ‘men and vessels that are in the same tent’ are omitted in MS.M. Cf. Tosaf. supra 13b s.v. ,cure,.
^ˡnote:Since it has been used for idolatrous purposes it is forbidden for all purposes, consequently it has lost its character as a foodstuff, and it is on all fours with any article that has been worshipped.
^ᵐnote:E.g., pieces of dough found in the cracks of the kneading vessels are regarded as part of the vessel and, if unclean, can render unclean men and vessels. Cf. Pes. 45a, 46a.
^ⁿnote:The reference given in the margin is to ‘Uk. III, 3, but it is not to be found in the Mishnah in the form quoted. V. Tosaf. Nid. 50b s.v. d"k.
^ᵒnote:Where the fat is rarely eaten even by gentiles; v. supra p. 719, n. 5.
^ᵖnote:The fat of a carcass cannot convey uncleanness as nebelah save that which encloses the kidney, and that is because of the kidney that is inside it; v. supra 126b.
^ᵠnote:And this cannot be for then it would not need to be made susceptible to uncleanness, in accordance with the rule quoted, supra 121a.
^ʳnote:The fat that encloses the kidney conveys uncleanness not by virtue of its being a foodstuff but, on the contrary, rather as a bone or wood which serves as a protection to the kidney which is nebelah.
^ˢnote:So MS.M. and Rashi. The text in cur. edd. reads: ‘If a house was roofed with stalks they become clean’. V. Rashi s.v. u,tnuy.
^ᵗnote:The stalks, although they contain grain, can no longer be regarded as foodstuffs but form the roof of the house; and if the house was stricken with a leprous plague, this roof as well as the walls and the rest of the house would be unclean and render men and vessels unclean.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XI, 34.
^ᵛnote:Sc. gentiles.

²others to eat is not termed food. R. Zera said to R. Assi, perhaps the reason for R. Simeon's view there [in the first clause] is: since it is attached it is regarded as one with it. For we have learnt: 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. And when we asked you the reason for R. Judah's view you told us that being still attached, it is regarded as one with it! — We must say that it refers to the middle clause [which reads]: IF 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. Thereupon R. Johanan said: What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? Because Scripture says: All food therein which may be eaten’; therefore, food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give others to eat is not termed food. But perhaps the reason for R. Simeon's view there is that given by Rabbah or R. Johanan! — Indeed we must say, it refers to the last clause, but [R. Simeon differs] not with regard to the limbs but only with regard to the pieces of flesh. Thus, IF THE ANIMAL DIED THE FLESH REQUIRES TO BE RENDERED SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS; . . . R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. Thereupon R. Johanan said: What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? Because Scripture says: ‘All food therein which may be eaten’; therefore, food which you may give others to eat is termed food, but food which you may not give others to eat is not termed food. MISHNAH. LIMBS OR PIECES OF FLESH WHICH HANG LOOSE FROM A MAN ARE CLEAN. IF THE MAN DIED. THE FLESH IS CLEAN; THE LIMB IS UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING BODY BUT IS NOT UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM A CORPSE: SO R. MEIR. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT CLEAN. GEMARA. Whichever view R. Simeon takes [it is difficult]: If at death the limb is considered as already fallen off, then it should be unclean as a limb severed from the living body, and if at death it is not considered as already fallen off, then it should be unclean as a limb severed from a corpse! — R. Simeon refers to the law in general. For the first Tanna had stated: THE LIMB IS UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING BODY BUT IS NOT UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM A CORPSE, and this clearly shows that the law in general is that a limb severed from a corpse is unclean; thereupon R. Simeon said to him that in general a limb severed from a corpse is not unclean. For it has been taught: R. Eliezer said: I have heard that a limb severed from the living body is unclean. Said to him R. Joshua. [Do you mean only] from the living body and not from a corpse? Surely it is all the more so: for if a limb severed from the living body which is clean, is unclean, how much more is a limb severed from a corpse unclean! In like manner we find it stated in the Scroll of Fasts: ‘On the minor Passover no mourning is allowed’. Does this mean that on the major festival mourning is allowed? Surely it is all the more so [on the major festival]; similarly here it is all the more so [with regard to the limb severed from the corpse]! He replied: So have I heard. What difference is there between a limb severed from the living body and a limb severed from a corpse? — The difference is with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone cut away from the limb that was severed (from the living body). For we have learnt: If an olive's bulk of flesh was cut away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Eliezer declares it unclean; but R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh and R. Joshua declare it clean. If a barleycorn's bulk of bone broke away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh declares it unclean; but R. Eliezer and R. Joshua declare it clean. Now that you have come to this, you can also say that the difference between the first Tanna and R. Simeon is with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone.23^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ʷnote:And a limb severed from a living animal is forbidden even unto gentiles; this being one of the Seven Commandments given to the sons of Noah, cf. Sanh. 56a.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘since it is attached, it is attached’. I.e., as long as it is joined to the living animal, however slender the attachment may be, it is still regarded as part of the living animal and as such cannot be unclean.
^ʸnote:‘Uk. III; 8; v. supra p. 721.
^ᶻnote:For as long as it is joined to the tree, no matter how slightly, it is regarded as part of the tree, and therefore cannot contract uncleanness since the tree is attached to the soil.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., if when fastened to the tree the branch can continue to produce fruit.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc., R. Johanan's explanation of R. Simeon's view derived from the interpretation of the verse in Lev. XI, 34.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. supra 127b, where Rabbah suggested as the reason for R. Simeon's view the principle that the animal cannot serve as a handle to a limb. In some texts the reading is Raba, and his explanation of R. Simeon's view is that in no circumstances can a handle serve as the means of rendering the rest susceptible to uncleanness (cf. supra 128a).
^ᵃᵈnote:According to R. Johanan the reason for R. Simeon's view is that he holds that where by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part would not come away with it the former cannot be regarded as one with the latter (cf. supra 127b).
^ᵃᵉnote:The limb is certainly unclean, whether as a limb severed from the living animal or as a limb from a carcass.
^ᵃᶠnote:That the pieces of flesh even though moistened by water do not contract uncleanness.
^ᵃᵍnote:The flesh which was hanging loose is clean for it is regarded as having fallen off before death, and this Tanna holds the view that flesh (not a limb) severed from the living body is clean.
^ᵃʰnote:For the distinction between these two v. Gemara infra.
^ᵃⁱnote:And he holds that a limb (entirely without flesh) severed from a corpse does not convey uncleanness!
^ᵃʲnote:With no flesh at all upon it.
^ᵃᵏnote:To commemorate joyous events in the history of the Jewish people there was drawn up a list of days on which fasting, and in some cases also mourning, was forbidden. See further J.E. VIII, p. 427, and also S. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit, 1922.
^ᵃˡnote:The festival of Passover in the month of Nisan as opposed to the minor festival, or Second Passover, in the month of Iyar (cf. Num. IX, 11).
^ᵃᵐnote:That a limb from a corpse which contains neither an olive's bulk of flesh nor a barleycorn's bulk of bone is not unclean.
^ᵃⁿnote:Seeing that the first Tanna (sc. R. Meir) in our Mishnah makes such a distinction.
^ᵃᵒnote:If such was cut away from the limb severed from the living body it is clean, but if from the limb severed from the corpse it is unclean. This view of R. Meir accords entirely with the view of R. Joshua as stated in the Mishnah ‘Ed., and in the foregoing Baraitha.
^ᵃᵖnote:These words in brackets are obviously to be deleted. V. Glos. of Strashun a.l.
^ᵃᵠnote:‘Ed. VI, 3. For the arguments and reasons adduced by these Rabbis in support of their views v. Mishnah there.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., having introduced the olive's bulk of flesh and the barleycorn's bulk of bone in the argument.
^ᵃˢnote:Both the first Tanna and R. Simeon are of the opinion that the limb (even without flesh) of a corpse is unclean, but they differ with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone cut away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Simeon considers each clean and is in accord with R. Joshua. The first Tanna, however, considers either the former clean and the latter unclean and so accords with R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh, or the former unclean and the latter clean and so accords with R. Eliezer.