Chullin 246

עולת העוף לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון ליגזר דילמא לא אתי למעבד רוב שנים

the same is to be feared in the case of the burnt-offering of a bird, according to the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, namely that he will not divide the greater part of both organs [of the throat]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In sacrificing the burnt-offering of a bird the head had to be nipped off by the officiating priest, but not severed entirely (cf. Lev. I, 17) ; and according to the interpretation of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, it means that he must divide the greater portion of each organ and no more (v. supra 21a) . Now is there not a similar apprehension in this case that the priest will not divide the greater portion of the organs?');">¹</span>

א"ל רב יוסף

- R'Joseph replied to him: As for your objection 'people might say that immersion during the day is sufficient', [my answer is,] the tearing explains the position;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The onlookers will know that it is the tearing of the garment that renders it clean and not the immersion by itself.');">²</span>

דקא אמרת גזירה שמא יאמרו טבילה בת יומא עולה קרעה מוכיח עליה

and as for your objection 'The same is to be feared in the case of a burnt-offering of a bird according to the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon', [my answer is,] priests are most careful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And do exactly what is required by law, neither more nor less.');">³</span>

ודקא אמרת עולת העוף לר' אלעזר בר' שמעון ליגזר כהנים זריזים הן

Come and hear: IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED] AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF, etc. Now if more than this had been flayed, it would be clean, would it not?

תא שמע

But why?

המפשיט בבהמה ובחיה בטמאה ובטהורה בדקה ובגסה לשטיח כדי אחיזה הא יתר מכדי אחיזה טהור אמאי

Should we not apprehend that he will have flayed only so much as can be taken hold of, in which case [by touching the hide] he is [as it were] touching uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assuming that the carcass was unclean.');">⁴</span>

ליגזר דילמא לא אתי למעבד אלא כדי אחיזה וקא נגע בטומאה וקא מטהרינן ליה

and yet we declare him to be clean?

אי בטומאה דאורייתא הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן בטומאה דרבנן

If it were a case of uncleanness as enjoined by the Torah this would indeed be so; but here we really speak of uncleanness as enjoined by the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ruling with regard to an unclean person flaying a clean animal as stated in our Mishnah, refers to a person that was rendered unclean by enactment of the Rabbis (cf. the cases enumerated in Shab. 13b) and the animal spoken of was a consecrated animal. Accordingly we do not impose any further preventive measures by reason of such remote apprehensions.');">⁵</span>

תינח טמא בטהורה טהור בטמאה טומאה דאורייתא היא

This is well in the case of an unclean person [flaying] a clean animal, but in the case of a clean person [flaying] an unclean animal, surely the uncleanness is enjoined by the Torah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the uncleanness of nebelah.');">⁶</span>

בטרפה

- It refers to a trefah animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference in our Mishnah with regard to an unclean animal, really means an animal which was slaughtered and found to be trefah.');">⁷</span>

טרפה בת טמויי היא

And can a trefah animal render ought unclean? - Yes, as stated by Samuel's father.

אין כדאבוה דשמואל

For Samuel's father stated: A trefah animal that was slaughtered renders holy things unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to Maim. Yad, Aboth Ha-tumah, II, 8. Rashi interprets: A consecrated animal which was slaughtered and found to be trefah renders unclean, v. supra 73a.');">⁸</span>

דאמר אבוה דשמואל

Come and hear: R'Dosethai B'Judah says in the name of R'Simeon: If a man was skinning reptiles, the skin is regarded as a connective until the whole has been removed.

טרפה ששחטה מטמאה במוקדשין

Now it follows, does it not, that in the case of a camel it is not regarded as a connective?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the extent of a handgrip of the hide has been flayed. And there is no mention of any apprehension lest on account of this ruling, people might be led to believe that even when less than a handgrip had been flayed the hide is not to be regarded as a connective. This then conflicts with R. Nahman's statement supra.');">⁹</span>

ת"ש

- Draw not the inference that in the case of a camel it is not regarded as a connective, but rather that in the case of a camel the skin that is on the neck is not regarde as a connective, and this accords with the opinion of R'Johanan B'Nuri.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the case where the man who flays the camel requires the hide for a water-skin, or where he flays it from the feet upwards; in either case, according to R. Johanan b. Nuri, once the whole hide, with the exception of that which is on the neck, has been flayed, it can no longer be regarded as a connective (v. our Mishnah supra) , in contradistinction from the case of reptiles, for with reptiles even the skin around the neck is regard ed as a connective. There is indeed here no ground at all to apply a preventive measure in apprehension lest he who flays the camel will not remove all the hide with the exception only of that which remains on the neck, in which case the hide would be a connective, for the standard has been clearly stated, namely, whether or not anything more than the skin of the neck remains, and this standard is a matter which is clearly noticeable and ascertainable. On the other hand, the standard 'as much as can be taken hold of' is not so clearly defined and ascertainable; similarly, the difference between tearing the greater part of a garment and only half of it is also a matter not clearly discernible, accordingly in the latter two cases there is ground for a restrictive measure.');">¹⁰</span>

רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה משום ר"ש אומר

R'Huna said in the name of R'Simeon son of R'Jose: This [teaching]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a garment is rendered clean by tearing the greater part of it.');">¹¹</span>

המפשיט בשרצים חבור עד שיפשיט את כולו הא בגמל אינו חבור

applies only to the case where he did not leave [untorn] a portion sufficient for an apron, but if he left [untorn] a portion sufficient for an apron, it [the garment] is deemed to be joined.

לא תימא

Resh Lakish said: This [teaching]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where there was not left untorn a portion sufficient for an apron the garment is rendered clean.');">¹²</span>

הא בגמל אינו חבור אלא אימא

applies only to a garment, but in the case of leather, [what is left] is firm.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No matter how little it is, for it can be sewn together and used again for its original purpose. xrsn');">¹³</span>

בעור שעל הצואר אינו חבור ור' יוחנן בן נורי היא

But R'Johanan said: Even in the case of leather, [what is left] is not firm.

אמר רב הונא משום ר"ש בר' יוסי

R'Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish [from the following Mishnah]: If a hide had contracted midras<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. The degree of uncleanness arising when an unclean person, of those mentioned in Lev. XV, 2, 19, 25, sits or treads upon or leans with the body against an object, provided such object is fit and generally used for one of the above purposes.');">¹⁴</span>

לא שנו אלא שלא שייר בה כדי מעפורת אבל שייר בה כדי מעפורת חבור

uncleanness, and a man had the intention to use it for straps and sandals, so soon as he puts the knife into it it becomes clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By putting the knife to it he has annulled it from its original use even though there are as yet substantial pieces left each five handbreadths square, this being the minimum size for leather to contract midras uncleanness (cf. Kel. XXVII. 2) .');">¹⁵</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

so R'Judah.

לא שנו אלא טלית אבל עור חלים

But the Sages say.

ורבי יוחנן אמר

Not until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. XXVI, 9.');">¹⁶</span>

אפי' עור נמי לא חלים

It follows, however, that if he had reduced its size [to less than five handbreadths] it would be clean; but why?

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש

Surely, we should say, [what is left] is firm! - When do we say, [what is left] is firm, only in the case where the hide was cut with a straight cut, but here we must suppose that it was trimmed on all sides.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there are irregular cuts on all sides, even if it is sewn together it will not hold firm.');">¹⁷</span>

עור טמא מדרס חישב עליו לרצועות וסנדלים כיון שנתן בו איזמל טהור דברי רבי יהודה

R'Jeremiah raised an objection: IF A MAN WAS FLAYING CATTLE OR WILD ANIMALS, CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, SMALL OR LARGE, IN ORDER TO USE THE HIDE FOR A COVERING, UNTIL SO MUCH [OF THE HIDE HAS BEEN FLAYED] AS CAN BE TAKEN HOLD OF, etc. Now if more than this had been flayed it would be clean, would it not?

וחכ"א

But why?

עד שימעיטנו מחמשה טפחים כי ממעיט ליה מיהא טהור אמאי

Surely we should say [that the residue of the hide that is attached to the carcass] is firm! - R'Abin explained it, [that with regard to the hide,] each portion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the first, the first'.');">¹⁸</span>

לימא חלים

flayed is considered as fallen away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it cannot by any means be made to adhere again to the flesh, whereas in the case of a garment it can be sewn together to hold fast.');">¹⁹</span>

כי קאמרי דחלים היכא דקא צרי ליה להדיא

R'Joseph raised an objection: AS FOR THE SKIN THAT IS ON THE NECK, R'JOHANAN B. NURI DOES NOT REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE.

הב"ע במקצע ובא לו דרך סביבותיו

But why?

מתיב ר' ירמיה

Surely it holds firm!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The skin on the neck still adheres to the flesh, nevertheless, R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that whosoever touches this skin (the animal being unclean) is not thereby rendered unclean; thus conflicting with Resh Lakish's view.');">²⁰</span>

המפשיט בבהמה ובחיה בטהורה ובטמאה בדקה ובגסה לשטיח כדי אחיזה

- Thereupon Abaye said to him, But read the next line: BUT THE SAGES DO REGARD IT AS A CONNECTIVE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this would be in support of Resh Lakish's view.');">²¹</span>

הא יתר מכדי אחיזה טהור

In fact, said Abaye, the point at issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. between the Sages and R. Johanan b. Nuri in our MISHNAH:');">²²</span>

ואמאי

is concerning a protection that will soon fall away of its own accord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the skin around the neck when all the rest of the hide has been removed.');">²³</span>

לימא חלים

one maintains that it is still a protection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages hold that so long as it has not fallen off it still serves as a protection and conveys uncleanness to and from the flesh.');">²⁴</span>

תרגמה ר' אבין

the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan b. Nuri.');">²⁵</span>

ראשון ראשון עושה ניפול

that it is no protection.

מתיב רב יוסף

R'Jeremiah raised an objection: If an oven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It usually consisted of an earthenware pot with no bottom, placed on the ground, and plastered on all sides with clay to hold it firm.');">²⁶</span>

עור שעל הצואר רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר אינו חבור אמאי

had become unclean how can one make it clean again?

הא חלים וקאי

One should divide it into three parts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that no part thereof be more than half the size of the original oven. Cf. Lev. XI, 35.');">²⁷</span>

אמר ליה אביי

and scrape off the plastering

אימא סיפא וחכ"א

חבור

אלא אמר אביי

בשומר העשוי לנתק מאליו קא מיפלגי מר סבר הוי שומר ומר סבר לא הוי שומר

מתיב רבי ירמיה

תנור שנטמא כיצד מטהרין אותו חולקו לשלשה וגורר את הטפילה