Chullin 122bחולין קכ״ב ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 122b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
122bקכ״ב ב

ואמר ליה ר' יוחנן כל זמן שיונק

and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with Ulla and said to him: A calf is considered young as long as it is suckling, even after its first year of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.

או דלמא עולא בן שנתו קאמר בין יונק ובין שאינו יונק ואמר ליה ר' יוחנן בן שנתו והוא שיונק

Or perhaps, does Ulla say that a calf is considered young if it is in its first year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no longer suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The calf must be in its first year of age and it must also be suckling in order to be considered young?

ת"ש ר' יוחנן אמר כל זמן שיונק ואם איתא והוא שיונק מיבעי ליה ש"מ

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yoḥanan should have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an additional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yoḥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year, and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and suckling to be young.

בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן עור הראש של עגל הרך מהו שיטמא אמר ליה אינו מטמא

§The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether the skin of the head of a young calf that is still fit to be eaten imparts impurity? Is the status of the skin like that of flesh or not? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It does not impart impurity.

אמר ליה לימדתנו רבינו אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן ועור הראש של עגל הרך א"ל אל תקניטני בלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה

Reish Lakish said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, that it says in the mishna: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf is included among them? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Do not provoke me by asking such a question. I teach that mishna in the singular, i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the halakha is not in accordance with it.

דתניא השוחט את העולה להקטיר כזית מעור שתחת האליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. Since this particular area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

אלעזר בן יהודה איש אבלום אומר משום ר' יעקב וכן היה ר' שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עיכום אומר משום רבי שמעון אחד עור פרסות ואחד עור הראש של עגל הרך ואחד עור של תחת האליה וכל שמנו חכמים גבי טומאה שעורותיהן כבשרן להביא עור של בית הבושת

Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha applies both to the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all of the entities that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity that the halakhic status of their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.

חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת:

Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins outside its designated area renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. Therefore, the mishna is in accordance with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not in accordance with the Rabbis’ opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.

ועור בית הפרסות: מאי בית הפרסות רב אמר בית הפרסות ממש רבי חנינא אמר רכובה הנמכרת עם הראש:

§The mishna teaches: And the hide of the hooves has the status of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To what is the term hooves referring? Rav says: It is literally referring to the hooves. Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is referring to the skin of the section of the knee at the top of the lower bone, which is sold with the head. This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it, has the status of flesh.

ועור האנקה: תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, כו) הטמאים לרבות עורותיהן כבשרן

§The mishna teaches: And the halakhic status of the skin of the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: “And these are they which are impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds. And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon. These are they which are impure for you among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:29–32). The term “they which are” in the expression “they which are impure” seems superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as having the same halakhic status as their flesh.

יכול אפי' כולן ת"ל (ויקרא יא, לא) אלה

One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states: “These,” indicating that this halakha applies only to these animals mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the lizard, and the skink.

והא אלה אכולהו כתיבי אמר רב למינהו הפסיק הענין

The Gemara asks: But isn’t the term “these” written with regard to all eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? Rav says: After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the verse states: “After its kinds.” Therefore, the verse interrupted the previous matter and taught that the status of the skin is like that of the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the latter part of the verse.

וליחשוב נמי תנשמת אמר רב שמואל בר יצחק רב תנא הוא ותני תנשמת

The Gemara objects: But since the chameleon is listed in the latter part of the verse, let the chameleon also be counted among the animals whose skin has the status of flesh. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: Rav, who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of a tanna, and unlike the mishna, he teaches that the skin of the chameleon has the status of flesh.

והא תנא דידן לא תני תנשמת

The Gemara asks: But the tanna of our mishna does not teach this halakha with regard to the chameleon. According to his opinion, why doesn’t the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי תנא דידן סבר לה כר' יהודה דאזיל בתר גישתא

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The tanna of our mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the halakhic status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: “They which are impure.” Rather, he follows the texture of the skin of each creeping animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that of its flesh.

ובגישתא דהלטאה קמיפלגי:

The first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the texture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh; and they disagree with regard to the texture of the skin of the lizard. Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first tanna of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.

וכולן שעיבדן [וכו']: הילך אין לא הילך לא והא תני ר' חייא אוזן חמור שטלאה לקופתו טהורה טלאה אע"ג דלא הילך

§The mishna teaches: And all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara objects: The mishna indicates that if one trod upon them they are no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon them they do not cease being classified as flesh. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classified as flesh once it is sewed into a basket, so too skin that is spread on the ground, even if one did not tread upon it, should no longer be classified as flesh.

לא טלאה הילך אין לא הילך לא

The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an action that nullifies the ear’s classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin’s classification as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one trod upon the skin it is no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon it, it does not cease being classified as flesh.

כמה כדי עבוד אמר רב הונא אמר רבי ינאי ארבעת מילין

The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: How long is the period required for tanning? Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yannai says: The time which it takes one to walk four mil.

(רבי אבהו משום דריש לקיש אמר) לגבל

§Since the period of time it takes to walk four mil was mentioned, the Gemara lists halakhot that employ this period of time. Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to a professional kneader who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four mil in order to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him pays for him to do so.

ולתפלה ולנטילת ידים ארבעת מילין

And similarly, with regard to prayer, one who is traveling may not pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four mil ahead of him, but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. And similarly, with regard to washing one’s hands before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within four mil ahead of him.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: