Chullin 258
לאחרים אין קרוי אוכל
others to eat is not termed food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a limb severed from a living animal is forbidden even unto gentiles; this being one of the Seven Commandments given to the sons of Noah, cf. Sanh. 56a.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אסי
R'Zera said to R'Assi, perhaps the reason for R'Simeon's view there [in the first clause] is: since it is attached it is regarded as one with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'since it is attached, it is attached'. I.e., as long as it is joined to the living animal, however slender the attachment may be, it is still regarded as part of the living animal and as such cannot be unclean.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
דתניא
If a branch of a fig-tree was broken off but it was still attached by the bark, [and unclean matter came into contact with it.] R Judah declares it to be clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as long as it is joined to the tree, no matter how slightly, it is regarded as part of the tree, and therefore cannot contract uncleanness since the tree is attached to the soil.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ואמרינן לך
And whe we asked you the reason for R'Judah's view you told us that being still attached, it is regarded as one with it! - We must say that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., R. Johanan's explanation of R. Simeon's view derived from the interpretation of the verse in Lev. XI, 34.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה
refers to the middle clause [which reads]: IF THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED THEY HAVE, BY THE BLOOD [OF THE SLAUGHTERING], BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS: SO R'MEIR'R'SIMEON SAYS, THEY HAVE NOT BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO UNCLEANNESS.
אמר ליה
But perhaps the reason for R'Simeon's view there is that given by Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 127b, where Rabbah suggested as the reason for R. Simeon's view the principle that the animal cannot serve as a handle to a limb. In some texts the reading is Raba, and his explanation of R. Simeon's view is that in no circumstances can a handle serve as the means of rendering the rest susceptible to uncleanness (cf. supra 128a) .');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אמצעיתא נשחטה הבהמה הוכשרה בדמיה דברי ר' מאיר
or R'Johanan!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Johanan the reason for R. Simeon's view is that he holds that where by taking hold of the smaller part the greater part would not come away with it the former cannot be regarded as one with the latter (cf. supra 127b) .');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לא הוכשרו
refers to the last clause, but [R'Simeon differs] not with regard to the limbs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The limb is certainly unclean, whether as a limb severed from the living animal or as a limb from a carcass.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אלא לעולם אסיפא ולאו אאבר אלא אבשר
Thereupon R'Johanan said: What is the reason for R'Simeon's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the pieces of flesh even though moistened by water do not contract uncleanness.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האבר והבשר המדולדלין באדם טהורים מת האדם הבשר טהור
THE FLESH IS CLEAN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh which was hanging loose is clean for it is regarded as having fallen off before death, and this Tanna holds the view that flesh (not a limb) severed from the living body is clean.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואינו מטמא משום אבר מן המת דברי ר' מאיר ורבי שמעון מטהר:
THE LIMB IS UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING BODY BUT IS NOT UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM A CORPSE:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the distinction between these two v. Gemara infra.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ואי אין מיתה עושה ניפול ליטמא משום אבר מן המת
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whichever view R'Simeon takes [it is difficult]: If at death the limb is considered as already fallen off, then it should be unclean as a limb severed from the living body, and if at death it is not considered as already fallen off, then it should be unclean as a limb severed from a corpse! - R'Simeon refers to the law in general.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he holds that a limb (entirely without flesh) severed from a corpse does not convey uncleanness!');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ר' שמעון בעלמא קאי דקאמר תנא קמא האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי ואין מטמא משום אבר מן המת אלמא
For the first Tanna had stated: THE LIMB IS UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM THE LIVING BODY BUT IS NOT UNCLEAN AS A LIMB SEVERED FROM A CORPSE, and this clearly shows that the law in general is that a limb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With no flesh at all upon it.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
אמר לו ר' יהושע
Surely it is all the more so: for if a limb severed from the living body which is clean, is unclean, how much more is a limb severed from a corpse unclean! In like manner we find it stated in the Scroll of Fasts:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To commemorate joyous events in the history of the Jewish people there was drawn up a list of days on which fasting, and in some cases also mourning, was forbidden. See further J.E. VIII, p. 427, and also S. Zeitlin, Megillat Taanit, 1922.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
וקל וחומר ומה חי שהוא טהור אבר הפורש ממנו טמא מת שהוא טמא לא כל שכן
Does this mean that on the major festival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The festival of Passover in the month of Nisan as opposed to the minor festival, or Second Passover, in the month of Iyar (cf. Num. IX, 11) .');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אלא כל דכן
Surely it is all the more so [on the major festival]; similarly here it is all the more so [with regard to the limb severed from the corpse]! He replied: So have I heard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a limb from a corpse which contains neither an olive's bulk of flesh nor a barleycorn's bulk of bone is not unclean.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
הכא נמי כל דכן
What difference is there between a limb severed from the living body and a limb severed from a corpse?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the first Tanna (sc. R. Meir) in our Mishnah makes such a distinction.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אמר ליה
- The difference is with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone cut away from the limb that was severed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If such was cut away from the limb severed from the living body it is clean, but if from the limb severed from the corpse it is unclean. This view of R. Meir accords entirely with the view of R. Joshua as stated in the Mishnah 'Ed., and in the foregoing Baraitha.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
דתנן
R'Nehunia B'Hakaneh declares it unclean; but R'Eliezer and R'Joshua declare it clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ed. VI, 3. For the arguments and reasons adduced by these Rabbis in support of their views v. Mishnah there.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי ר' אליעזר מטמא ור' נחוניא בן הקנה ור' יהושע מטהרין
Now that you have come to this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having introduced the olive's bulk of flesh and the barleycorn's bulk of bone in the argument.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
עצם כשעורה הפורש מאבר מן החי ר' נחוניא מטמא רבי אליעזר ור' יהושע מטהרין
you can also say that the difference between the first Tanna and R'Simeon is with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the first Tanna and R. Simeon are of the opinion that the limb (even without flesh) of a corpse is unclean, but they differ with regard to an olive's bulk of flesh or a barleycorn's bulk of bone cut away from a limb that was severed from the living body. R. Simeon considers each clean and is in accord with R. Joshua. The first Tanna, however, considers either the former clean and the latter unclean and so accords with R. Nehunia b. Hakaneh, or the former unclean and the latter clean and so accords with R. Eliezer.');"><sup>23</sup></span>