Chullin 243

אליבא דמאן

According to whose authority is this ruling?

אי אליבא דר' ישמעאל האמר לא מבטל עור

If according to R'Ishmael's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 124a.');">¹</span>

ואי אליבא דר"ע פשיטא האמר מבטל עור

- but he maintains that the hide does not render them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. pieces of flesh adhering to the hide each less than an olive's bulk.');">²</span>

לעולם אליבא דרבי ישמעאל וכי אמר רבי ישמעאל לא מבטל עור ה"מ שפלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין בטיל

negligible; and if according to R'Akiba's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 124a.');">¹</span>

ת"ש ר' יהודה אומר

- but it is obvious, for he maintains that the hide renders them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. pieces of flesh adhering to the hide each less than an olive's bulk.');">²</span>

האלל המכונס אם יש כזית במקום אחד חייבין עליו

negligible! - In fact it is in accordance with R'Ishmael's view, for R'Ishmael only maintains that the hide does not render them negligible in the case where the pieces were torn away by a wild beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the pieces of flesh became attached to the hide accidentally, without the knowledge or will of the owner, and therefore R. Ishmael holds that these pieces are not rendered negligible. Where, however, the pieces were cut away and intentionally left hanging on to the skin by the man who flayed the animal, even R. Ishmael agrees that they are negligible in themselves and are considered as part of the hide.');">³</span>

ואמר רב הונא

but where they were cut away by the knife [he concedes that] the hide renders them negligible.

והוא שכנסו

Come and hear [from our Mishnah].

אי אמרת בשלמא פלטתו סכין לרבי ישמעאל נמי לא בטיל רב הונא דאמר כרבי ישמעאל

R'JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED TOGETHER SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE.

אלא אי אמרת פלטתו סכין לר' ישמעאל בטיל רב הונא דאמר כמאן

And to this R'Huna added, provided he collected it together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This provision implies that the knife had cut away shreds of flesh in a number of places and left them attached to the hide. The fact that one is liable if the pieces were collected together clearly indicates that the hide did not render these shreds negligible, for had they once been rendered negligible the person who touched them would not become unclean and so not be liable for any further consequences.');">⁴</span>

אלא לעולם פלטתו סכין לר' ישמעאל לא בטיל ורב הונא דאמר כר"ע

Now if you say that even where the knife cut it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. shreds of flesh attached to the hide.');">⁵</span>

פשיטא

away it is not rendered negligible according to R'Ishmael, it is well, for then R'Huna is in agreement with R'Ishmael.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah of our Mishnah, as interpreted by R. Huna, is in agreement with R. Ishmael, and the Rabbis who differ with R. Judah are in agreement with R. Akiba.');">⁶</span>

מהו דתימא

But if you say that where the knife cut it away R'Ishmael concedes that it is rendered negligible, then [it will be asked], With whom does R'Huna agree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah's view as interpreted by R. Huna.');">⁷</span>

כי קאמר ר"ע ה"מ פלטתו סכין אבל פלטתו חיה לא בטיל קמ"ל טעמא דר"ע מפני שהעור מבטלן ל"ש פלט חיה ול"ש פלט סכין

- You must therefore say that even where the knife cut it away it is not rendered negligible according to R'Ishmael; and R'Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second dictum of R. Huna ('If there were two pieces of flesh' etc.) accords with R. Akiba; the first dictum of R. Huna which interprets the view of R Judah in our Mishnah ('Provided he collected it together') accords with R. Ishmael.');">⁸</span>

כדקתני סיפא

is in agreement with R'Akiba.

מפני מה ר"ע מטהר בעור מפני שהעור מבטלן:

But this would be obvious? - No, for you might have thought that R'Akiba maintains his view only where the knife cut it away, but where it was torn away by a wild beast he would concede that it is not rendered negligible; he therefore teaches us that the reason for R'Akiba's view is because the hide renders it negligible, making thus no difference whether it was torn away by a wild beast or cut away by the knife, for so it reads in the last clause: 'Wherefore does R'Akiba declare him clean in the case of the hide?

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן

Because the hide renders them negligible'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 124a.');">⁹</span>

עור האדם ועור חזיר של ישוב

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE SKIN IS CONSIDERED FLESH:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The skins enumerated are thin and tender, and therefore with regard to the laws of uncleanness are regarded as flesh.');">¹⁰</span>

ר' יהודה אומר

THE SKIN OF A MAN, THE SKIN OF THE DOMESTIC PIG (R'JUDAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In MS.M. and in the editions of the Mishnah: 'R. Jose'.');">¹¹</span>

אף עור חזיר הבר

SAYS, EVEN THE SKIN OF THE WILD PIG) , THE SKIN OF THE HUMP OF A YOUNG<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gemara, for the definition of 'YOUNG'.');">¹²</span>

ועור חטרת של גמל הרכה ועור הראש של עגל הרך ועור הפרסות ועור בית הבושת ועור השליל ועור של תחת האליה ועור האנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט

CAMEL, THE SKIN OF THE HEAD OF A YOUNG<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gemara, for the definition of 'YOUNG'.');">¹²</span>

ר' יהודה אומר

CALF, THE SKIN AROUND THE HOOFS, THE SKIN OF THE PUDENDA,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the skin of the womb in a female animal.');">¹³</span>

הלטאה כחולדה

THE SKIN OF A FOETUS, THE SKIN BENEATH THE FAT TAIL, THE SKIN OF THE HEDGEHOG,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XI, 29, 30, where are enumerated the eight unclean reptiles. In the case of these four mentioned, their skin is soft and is counted as the flesh. The identification of the reptiles mentioned is very uncertain; v. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds.');">¹⁴</span>

וכולן שעבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור האדם

THE CHAMELEON, THE LIZARD AND THE SNAIL.

ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר

R'JUDAH SAYS, THE LIZARD IS LIKE THE WEASEL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose skin is hard and therefore not unclean.');">¹⁵</span>

שמונה שרצים יש להן עורות:

IF ANY OF THESE SKINS WAS TANNED OR TRAMPLED UPON AS MUCH AS [WAS USUAL] FOR TANNING, IT BECOMES CLEAN, EXCEPTING THE SKIN OF A MAN.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר עולא

R'JOHANAN B. NURI SAYS, THE EIGHT REPTILES HAVE [REAL] SKINS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. ibid. The skins of these eight reptiles are quite separate from the flesh and cannot convey uncleanness.');">¹⁶</span>

דבר תורה עור אדם טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Ulla said: According to the law of the Torah the skin of a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taken from a corpse. Human skin might have been preserved for sentimental reasons, or perhaps on grounds of utility.');">¹⁷</span>

ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא וכולן שעיבדן או שהילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור אדם אמר עולא

is clean, but for what reason did they say it was unclean?

דבר תורה עור אדם שעבדו טהור ומה טעם אמרו טמא גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין

As a precautionary measure lest a man make rugs out of the skin of his father and mother.

מאן דמתני לה ארישא כ"ש אסיפא ומאן דמתני אסיפא אבל ארישא טומאה דאורייתא:

Others refer this [dictum of Ulla's] to the later clause of our Mishnah, viz. , IF ANY OF THESE [SKINS] WAS TANNED OR TRAMPLED UPON AS MUCH AS [WAS USUAL] FOR TANNING, IT BECOMES CLEAN, EXCEPTING THE SKIN OF A MAN.

ועור חזיר [וכו']:

Ulla said: According to the law of the Torah, if the skin of a man was tanned, it thereby becomes clean, but for what reason did they say it remained unclean?

במאי קמיפלגי

As a precautionary measure lest a man make rugs out of the skin of his father and mother.

מר סבר

Now those who refer this [dictum of Ulla's] to the first clause will certainly refer it to the later cause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the skin was tanned and its character thus altered, there would be no other reason why it should remain unclean, except this precautionary measure stated by Ulla.');">¹⁸</span>

האי אשון והאי רכיך ומר סבר

but those who refer it to the later clause [maintain that] in the first the uncleanness is by the law of the Torah.

האי נמי רכיך:

THE SKIN OF THE DOMESTIC PIG etc. What is the issue between them?

עור חטרת של גמל הרכה:

One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna.');">¹⁹</span>

וכמה גמל הרכה

is of the opinion that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The skin of a wild pig.');">²⁰</span>

אמר עולא א"ר יהושע בן לוי

is hard and only the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The skin of the domestic pig.');">²¹</span>

כל זמן שלא טענה

soft, whereas the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah.');">²²</span>

בעי ר' ירמיה

maintains that this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The skin of a wild pig.');">²⁰</span>

הגיע זמנה לטעון ולא טענה מהו

too, is soft.

בעי אביי

THE SKIN OF THE HUMP OF A YOUNG CAMEL.

לא הגיע זמנה לטעון וטענה מהו

How long is the camel considered young? - Ulla said in the name of R'Joshua B'Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden.

תיקו

R'Jeremiah enquired: What is the law [with regard to its skin] if it had reached the age for bearing burdens but had not actually borne any?

יתיב ר"ל וקמיבעיא ליה

Abaye enquired: What if it had actually borne burdens although it had not reached the age for it? - These questions must stand.

כמה גמל הרכה

Resh Lakish was once sitting and raised the question: How long is the camel considered young? - R'Ishmael B'Abba answered: So said R'Joshua B'Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden.

א"ל רבי ישמעאל בר אבא הכי א"ר יהושע בן לוי

Whereupon he [Resh Lakish] said: Sit down opposite me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a token of his gratitude and as a mark of respect.');">²³</span>

כל זמן שלא טענה

R'Zera was once sitting and raised the question: How long is the camel considered young? - Rabin B'Hinena answered him: So said Ulla in the name of R'Joshua B'Levi: As long as it has not borne a burden.

א"ל

He [Rabin] then repeated it over again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He thought that R. Zera had not heard it the first time.');">²⁴</span>

תיב לקבלי

whereupon the other [R'Zera] said to him, 'It is the only thing you knew, and you have already told us it!' Come and see the difference between the imperious men of the Land of Israel and the pious men of Babylon!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish who was of the powerful and imperious men of Palestine (cf. Yoma 9b) treated his informant with courtesy and respect, whereas R. Zera, a Babylonian who was renowned for his piety (cf B.M. 85a) treated his informant with disrespect and insult.');">²⁵</span>

יתיב רבי זירא וקמיבעיא ליה

THE SKIN OF THE HEAD [OF A YOUNG CALF].

כמה גמל הרכה

How long is the calf considered young? - Ulla said: Throughout its first year.

א"ל רבין בר חיננא הכי אמר עולא א"ר יהושע בן לוי

R'Johanan said: As long as it sucks.

כל זמן שלא טענה הוה קתני לה

The question was raised: Did Ulla mean 'Throughout its first year' provided it still sucked,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if it had passed its first year or if it had ceased to suck within its first year it was no more young.');">²⁶</span>

א"ל

חדא הויא לך אמרת

תא חזי מה בין תקיפי ארעא דישראל לחסידי דבבל:

ועור הראש וכו':

וכמה עגל הרך

עולא אמר

בן שנתו

ר' יוחנן אמר

כל זמן שיונק

איבעיא להו

היכי קאמר עולא בן שנתו והוא שיונק