Chullin 255
רבי מאיר אומר
R'Meir says: If by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part comes away with it, it is regarded like it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if a tebul yom (i.e., one who has immersed himself by day but is not regarded as absolutely clean until sunset) touched either part, the whole is rendered invalid (i.e., it is unclean, but it cannot convey the uncleanness) .');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ואמר רבי יוחנן
Whereupon R'Johanan suggested that he in this case changed his opinion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir in the case of the tebul yom adopted a different view, but generally he is of the opinion that where by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part does not come away with it, the former is regarded as part of the whole (Rashi) .');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ומאי קושיא
perhaps R'Meir distinguishes between the uncleanness of a tebul yom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2. In the case of a tebul yom R. Meir adopts a less strict view, since the uncleanness of such a person is only Rabbinic. So Rashi, but v. Glos. of R. Akiba Eger in the margin of the folio.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
דילמא שני ליה לר"מ בין טבול יום לשאר טומאות
and other uncleannesses? - [This surely is not the case for] it was taught: Rabbi says: It is all one whether the uncleanness was that of a tebul yom or any other uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is regarded as contact with the whole in the case of other sources of uncleanness is also regarded as contact with the whole by a tebul yom');"><sup>5</sup></span>
לרבי לא שני ליה
Raba said: They differ as to whether the law of handles applies only in respect of conveying the uncleanness but not in respect of rendering [the bulk] susceptible to uncleanness [or whether it applies to both];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They both, however, agree that the animal can serve as a handle to the limb.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר ר' יאשיה הכי אמר ר' יוחנן
holds that the law of handles applies only in respect of conveying the uncleanness but not in respect of rendering [the bulk] susceptible to uncleanness, but the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
רבא אמר
R'Papa said: They differ as to the ruling in the case where [the limb] was rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] before any intention [was formed of using it as food].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the limb was hanging loose from the living animal it is forbidden, even after the slaughtering, to be eaten by all, Jew and gentile alike; consequently it is not regarded as a foodstuff unless an express intention was formed to that effect. In this case, however, at the time of slaughtering when the animal was rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the blood, no such intention was expressed. Later when it is intended to be used as food the question arises whether the first moistening has effectively rendered it susceptible to uncleanness or not. They both, however, agree that a part can serve as a handle both for the purposes of uncleanness and of rendering aught susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ביש יד לטומאה ואין יד להכשר קמיפלגי
For it was taught: R'Judah said: R'Akiba used to teach as follows: The forbidden fat of a slaughtered animal, in villages,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In villages fat was not counted as a foodstuff for it was not usually eaten, either because the villagers could not afford to buy it, or because there was no need for it because of their abundant supply of meat.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יש יד לטומאה ולהכשר
Thereupon I said to him: Master, did you not teach us that if a man gathered endives, washed them for [feeding] cattle, and then determined to use them as food for man, they again need [to be moistened in order] to be rendered susceptible to uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first washing by water, since it preceded the intention to use them as a foodstuff, will not serve to render them susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
דתנן אמר ר' יהודה
accepts the original [teaching of R'Akiba].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That moistening by water of any matter, even before the intention was formed to use it as a foodstuff, renders it susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
למדתנו רבינו עולשין שלקטן והדיחן לבהמה ונמלך עליהן לאדם צריכות הכשר שני
R'Aha the son of R'Ika said: They differ in the case where the blood was wiped away [from the limb] between the cutting of the first and second organs [of the throat];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They both hold that although the animal serves as a handle to the limb, it can only serve as such for the purposes of uncleanness but not for the purpose of rendering the limb susceptible to uncleanness; in other words the limb must itself be moistened. Now in this case some blood of the slaughtering splashed upon this loose limb but it was wiped off before the slaughtering was completed.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מר סבר לה כמעיקרא ומר סבר לה כחזרה
maintains that the term shechitah applies to the entire process of slaughtering from beginning to end, consequently this [blood that was upon the limb] was the blood of slaughtering; the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר
maintains that the term shechitah applies only to the last stage of the slaughtering, consequently this [blood that was upon the limb] was the blood of a wound.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot render aught susceptible to uncleanness; v. supra 35b.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
בנתקנח הדם בין סימן לסימן קמיפלגי
R'Ashi said: They differ as to whether the slaughtering only and not the blood renders susceptible to uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is agreed by all that the animal cannot serve as a handle to the limb for the purpose of rendering it susceptible to uncleanness; it is therefore suggested that the limb was splashed with the blood of the slaughtering which was not wiped off at all. R. Simeon nevertheless maintains that the limb was not thereby rendered susceptible, for he holds that it is the act of slaughtering and not the blood which renders the animal susceptible to uncleanness, and this being so, the act of slaughtering must be a valid act such as renders the animal fit for food, which is not the case with regard to this limb.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מר סבר
Rabbah raised the following question: Can the living animal serve as a handle to the limb or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question is founded upon the view of R. Meir who, on Rabbah's interpretation, holds that the slaughtered animal serves as a handle to the loose limb. If it is held that the living animal can also serve as a handle to the loose limb, then the position would be that if unclean matter came into contact with the body of the animal, although it could not itself contract uncleanness thereby for it is alive, it could nevertheless act as a 'handle' to convey the uncleanness to the loose limb (provided the limb was first moistened by water) .');"><sup>19</sup></span>
אינה לשחיטה אלא לסוף והאי דם מכה הוא
If a man planted a cucumber in a plant-pot and it grew and spread outside the pot, it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatsoever is planted in a plant-pot which is not perforated is not regarded as attached to the soil in any way; it is therefore susceptible to contract uncleanness, or if the plant was unclean before planting, it retains the uncleanness (which is not the case if the plant was planted in the ground) . If, however part of the growth of the plant spread outside the pot this part clearly draws nourishment from the earth and the effect is that the whole plant, even that which is inside the pot, is insusceptible to uncleanness, or if the plant, before planting, was unclean, it is now clean.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
בהמה בחייה מהו שתעשה יד לאבר
remains unclean and what is clean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., that which is outside the pot, and which draws sustenance from the soil and so is regarded as attached to the soil.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
הרי אמרו קישות שנטעה בעציץ והגדילה ויצאת חוץ לעציץ טהורה
serve as a handle to the rest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To convey uncleanness to what is inside the pot although it itself cannot contract uncleanness.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
וכי מה טיבה לטהר
R'Jeremiah said: Behold they have said that if a man bowed down to half a pumpkin he has thereby rendered it forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inasmuch as it is forbidden to derive any benefit whatsoever from the object worshipped, the half pumpkin is no longer, according to the view of R. Simeon infra 129a, regarded as a foodstuff, and so cannot contract uncleanness.');"><sup>26</sup></span>