Chullin

Now this is all well according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, for then he [R. Meir] would be arguing from their point of view.1 For according to my view, [says R. Meir] there is no difference between the limb of the foetus and the loose limb of the animal; they are both alike. But according to R. Johanan this is a difficulty!2 — We must therefore say that if [the dispute was] reported it was reported as follows: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Just as they differ with regard to the [limb of the] foetus so they differ with regard to loose limbs. R. Johanan said: They differ only with regard to the limb of the foetus, but with regard to the loose limb of the animal all agree that at the slaughtering it is not accounted as detached.3 R. Jose b. Hanina said: What reason does R. Johanan suggest for R. Meir's view? — One4 is part of the animal but the other is not. R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that at death [the limb] is accounted as detached,5 and that at the slaughtering it is not accounted as detached. What is [the subject that is] spoken of? If you say the limb of the foetus, surely there is a difference of opinion with regard to it!6 And if you say the loose limb of the animal, but we have already learnt it both of death and also of slaughtering! We have learnt it of death [in the following Mishnah]: If the animal died, the flesh [that was hanging loose] must be made susceptible [to contract uncleanness],7 but the limb [that was hanging loose] conveys uncleanness as the limb of a living animal and not as the limb of a dead animal [nebelah]:8 so R. Meir.9 We have also learnt it of slaughtering [in the following Mishnah]: If the animal was slaughtered, they10 have been rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness] by the blood: so R. Meir. R. Simeon says: They have not been rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness]!9 — From this [last Mishnah] I might have thought that ‘rendered susceptible’ referred only to the [loose] flesh.11 But does it not say: ‘They have been rendered susceptible’?12 — It might have been thought [that ‘they’ refers to] flesh that hangs loose from the animal and also to flesh that is severed from the limb.13 And why is one more certain than the other?14 — I might have argued that, since it conveys the graver uncleanness as long as it is with the whole [limb],15 it does not require to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness]. We are therefore taught [that it does]. 16 R. Joseph said: Hold fast to the ruling of R. Isaac b. Joseph,17 for Rabbah b. Bar Hana is in agreement with him. For it was taught: The verse: Ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field,18 includes [within its prohibition] any limb or flesh that hangs loose from cattle, wild beasts, or birds at the time of slaughtering. But Rabbah b. Bar Hana added in the name of R. Johanan, hangs loose clean, were right (which he does not admit), the conclusion drawn from it cannot be sustained. the slaughtering, is clearly contradicted by the passage quoted. part of the carcass, but rather unclean as a limb that had been detached from a living animal. And the difference between the two is this: a portion of nebelah the size of an olive will render unclean, whereas a portion severed from a limb that had become detached from a living animal will not, for only when the limb is complete in its entirely with flesh, bones and veins, will it render unclean, and not otherwise. Cf. Lev. XI, 38. accordingly, only convey uncleanness when complete; v. supra n 2. susceptible to uncleanness clearly proves that they are themselves clean by reason of the slaughtering, hence it is evident that at the slaughtering the loose flesh and limbs are not considered detached. itself a source of uncleanness, and as such does not require to be rendered susceptible by moistening, inasmuch as at the slaughtering it was accounted as detached; it was therefore necessary for R. Johanan to teach that all agree that the limb is itself clean, for at the slaughtering the limb is not accounted as detached. slaughtering. distinguished from flesh that hangs loose from the animal? must be rendered susceptible to uncleanness in accordance with the principle laid down in Nid. 51a, and infra 121a. animal has an effect upon the loose limb, even to the extent of rendering it permitted to be eaten.