Are liquids that come out of fruits (other than grapes and olives) that were already designated to be teruma still sanctified with the holiness of teruma? What are all the different items that are listed in the mishna as items that can join meat to get to a requisite amount but are not impure on their own, nor can they become impure as a neveila. The gemara deals with the second part of the mishna that related to another difference between impurity for food and for neviela regarding an animal that was slughtered by a non Jew for a Jew or a non kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew for a non Jew but hasn’t yet died (still flailing) – what is its status for impurity of food, neveila and for eating a limb off a live animal?
Chullin 121
March 28, 2019 | כ״א באדר ב׳ תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 121
וַהֲדַר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ לְעׇרְלָה ״פְּרִי״ ״פְּרִי״ מִבִּכּוּרִים.
And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the word fruit and another instance of the word fruit. With regard to orla the verse states: “And you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden” (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.
וְהָאָלָל. מַאי אָלָל? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַרְטְקָא, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין.
§The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is referring to the nuchal ligament [marteka]. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְאוּלָם אַתֶּם טֹפְלֵי שָׁקֶר רֹפְאֵי אֱלִל כֻּלְּכֶם״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַרְטְקָא – הַיְינוּ דְּלָאו בַּר רְפוּאָה הוּא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בַּר רְפוּאָה הוּא!
The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish from that which is written: “But you are plasterers of lies, you are all physicians of no value [elil]” (Job 13:4). The term “no value [elil]” stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, that is why Job accused his companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging from the hide is able to be healed.
בָּאָלָל דִּקְרָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בָּאָלָל דְּמַתְנִיתִין.
The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse, everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but not if the alal was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מִיחַיַּיב, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַרְטְקָא, כִּי אִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מַאי הָוֵי? עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who collected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַרְטְקָא נָמֵי מִצְטָרֵף, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: דַּוְקָא בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל מַרְטְקָא לָא מִצְטָרֵף.
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Rabbis maintain that the nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament does not join together.
הַאי בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַנְפֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאִי דְּלָא חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ – בַּטּוֹלֵיה בַּטְּלֵיהּ!
What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna, that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but even by itself, like any other food. And if it is a case where one does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be susceptible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status as food.
רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, חַד אָמַר: מִקְצָתוֹ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו.
Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said: It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not susceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
וְחַד אָמַר: מִקְצָתוֹ פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה, וּמִקְצָתוֹ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין.
And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַחַרְטוֹם וְהַצִּפׇּרְנַיִם מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וּמִצְטָרְפִין. חַרְטוֹם – עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
§The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a bird that come into contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּחַרְטוֹם תַּחְתּוֹן. תַּחְתּוֹן נָמֵי עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן.
Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is referring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.
צִפׇּרְנַיִם, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מָקוֹם (המובלעים) [הַמּוּבְלָע] בַּבָּשָׂר.
Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons themselves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed within the flesh.
קַרְנַיִם, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחוֹתְכִין וְיוֹצֵא מֵהֶן דָּם.
Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.
כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ, הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה.
§The mishna teaches: Similarly, in the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, it imparts impurity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: שׁוֹנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּטְמֵאָה, וְגוֹי בִּטְהוֹרָה – צְרִיכִין מַחְשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.
Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And furthermore, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impurity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.
הֶכְשֵׁר לְמָה לִי? סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְכֹל שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה – לָא בָּעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food? The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.
דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, מָה זְרָעִים שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר.
The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.
וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר? מִפְּנֵי
And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a kosher bird to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason is because
שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה!
eventually the carcass of the bird will impart a more severe impurity when it is in the throat of the person who consumes it. Therefore, it is not necessary for the carcass of a kosher bird to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be susceptible to impurity.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְגוֹרְרָהּ, וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת.
Ḥizkiyya says in response: The reason for the opinion of the Sages stated by Rabbi Asi is since the slaughterer is able to chop the animal into small pieces and thereby establish the volume of every piece of the animal as less than an olive-bulk. In such a scenario, the animal would not be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, it is not certain that the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וּמִי אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים.
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And did Ḥizkiyya actually say such a statement? But wasn’t it stated: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal in a valid manner by cutting the two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ḥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating the limbs from such a twitching animal. Therefore, a gentile, who is prohibited from consuming a limb from a living animal, may consume this animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים: מֵתָה הִיא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים: לָאו מֵתָה הִיא.
The Gemara explains the opinions: Ḥizkiyya says that there is no prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it was slaughtered in a valid manner it is considered dead. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that there is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it is twitching it is not yet dead. Therefore, since Ḥizkiyya maintains that a twitching animal is considered dead, it should have the impurity of a carcass, contrary to the opinion of the Sages cited by Rabbi Asi, as well as the mishna.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָצְתָה מִכְּלַל חַיָּה, וְלִכְלַל מֵתָה לֹא בָּאת.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: Ḥizkiyya maintains that such an animal has left the category of a living animal, but has not entered the category of a dead animal. Therefore, it is not prohibited for a gentile to consume such an animal, but the animal does not have the impurity of a carcass.
גּוּפָא: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נְקוֹט לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּיָדְךָ, דְּתָנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.
§The Gemara discusses the matter itself of the dispute between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal by cutting the two simanim, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ḥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Elazar said: Take that opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan in your hand and accept it, as Rav Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with his opinion.
דְּתָנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לְגוֹי, שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
As Rav Oshaya teaches (Tosefta, Oholot 2:1): In the case of a Jew who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for the consumption of a gentile, if he slaughtered it by cutting two simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts impurity of food; but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of animal carcasses.
אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וְאָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ.
A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart impurity. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs. This ruling of Rav Oshaya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
שָׁחַט בָּהּ אֶחָד, אוֹ רוֹב אֶחָד – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; נְחָרָהּ – אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.
The Gemara cites the continuation of the Tosefta: In the case where a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, if he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart the impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid. Similarly, if he did not perform a valid slaughter but rather stabbed the animal, the animal has no impurity whatsoever while it is still twitching.
וְגוֹי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה.
And similarly, in the case of a gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for the consumption of a Jew, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts the impurity of food because it is considered to be food, but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of an animal carcass.
אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וְאָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ.
A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart the impurity of food. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs.
שָׁחַט בָּהּ אֶחָד אוֹ רוֹב אֶחָד – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, נְחָרָהּ – אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.
If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart impurity of food because the slaughter was not valid. Similarly, if he stabbed the animal rather than slaughtering it properly, it has no impurity whatsoever.
שָׁחַט גּוֹי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וּגְמָרָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
If a gentile partially slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, i.e., unfit for consumption due to a mortal wound, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then a Jew came and completed the slaughter, the animal is fit for consumption.
שָׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבֵין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבָא גּוֹי וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ – פְּסוּלָה.
But if a Jew slaughtered the animal, either in a place that renders the animal a tereifa, e.g., he cut the majority of the windpipe, or in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., he only partially cut the windpipe, and then a gentile came and completed the slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.
הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִבְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָתָהּ, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לַהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ. אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.
The baraita continues: One who wishes to eat from the meat of a slaughtered animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of its slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and blood, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then eat it. Both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it because the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is not applicable in such a case.
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָין: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִים בּוֹ.
The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: One who wants to be healthy should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, and salt it very well and rinse it very well, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שָׁהָה בָּהּ, דָּרַס בָּהּ – מַהוּ?
§It was previously taught in the baraita that if a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, or a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for a Jew’s consumption, that animal imparts impurity of food when it is twitching after the slaughter. With regard to that halakha, Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case if one interrupted the slaughter or pressed on the knife during the slaughter? Do these acts, which normally invalidate slaughter, also invalidate this slaughter, or does the slaughter in this case not have to fulfill all of the halakhic requirements of valid slaughter in order to render the slaughtered animal as food with regard to imparting the impurity of food?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה כִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה. הֶכְשֵׁר לְמַאי? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּדִיקַת סַכִּין.
A certain elder resolved this dilemma and said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: This case requires a valid slaughter in every detail, just like a Jew slaughtering a kosher animal. The Gemara clarifies: To what requirement does valid slaughter just like a kosher animal refer? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: It is referring to the requirement of examining the knife before the slaughter.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַהוּ שֶׁתַּצִּיל עַל הַבְּלוּעִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ?
Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: If a non-kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew is twitching under the same roof as a corpse, and the animal swallowed items before being slaughtered, what is the halakha with regard to those swallowed items that are inside the animal? Is the animal considered to be living and therefore it should save these items that are swallowed inside it from the impurity transmitted by the corpse to all items under the same roof? Or is the animal considered to be dead and therefore the items become impure?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וּמַצֶּלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, וְלֹא תַּצִּיל?
Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is established that such an animal is considered to be dead and imparts impurity of food, is it possible that it saves those items inside it from impurity? Certainly it does not. Rabbi Zeira said to him in response: It is also established that such an animal does not impart impurity of carcasses and is considered to be a living animal in that regard. How is it possible that the animal does not save those items inside it from impurity?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵינָהּ מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַבְּלוּעִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ, דְּהָא מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהָרוֹבְעָהּ חַיָּיב, דְּהָא אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה.
Abaye resolved the dilemma and said: It is proper to treat this case stringently. Therefore, such an animal does not save the items that are swallowed inside it because it imparts impurity of food. But one who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liable because the animal does not impart impurity of a carcass and is considered to be living in that regard.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
§The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. Rav Huna says in explanation: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.
וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן עַל גַּבֵּי הָעוֹר – הָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן,
And Rav Huna says: In a case of two pieces of flesh of an animal carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the hide, the hide nullifies them, as the hide does not impart the impurity of a carcass. Consequently, these pieces do not impart impurity either.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
Chullin 121
וַהֲדַר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ לְעׇרְלָה ״פְּרִי״ ״פְּרִי״ מִבִּכּוּרִים.
And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the word fruit and another instance of the word fruit. With regard to orla the verse states: “And you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden” (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.
וְהָאָלָל. מַאי אָלָל? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַרְטְקָא, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין.
§The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is referring to the nuchal ligament [marteka]. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְאוּלָם אַתֶּם טֹפְלֵי שָׁקֶר רֹפְאֵי אֱלִל כֻּלְּכֶם״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַרְטְקָא – הַיְינוּ דְּלָאו בַּר רְפוּאָה הוּא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בַּר רְפוּאָה הוּא!
The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish from that which is written: “But you are plasterers of lies, you are all physicians of no value [elil]” (Job 13:4). The term “no value [elil]” stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, that is why Job accused his companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging from the hide is able to be healed.
בָּאָלָל דִּקְרָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בָּאָלָל דְּמַתְנִיתִין.
The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse, everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but not if the alal was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מִיחַיַּיב, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַרְטְקָא, כִּי אִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מַאי הָוֵי? עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who collected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַרְטְקָא נָמֵי מִצְטָרֵף, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: דַּוְקָא בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל מַרְטְקָא לָא מִצְטָרֵף.
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Rabbis maintain that the nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament does not join together.
הַאי בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַנְפֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאִי דְּלָא חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ – בַּטּוֹלֵיה בַּטְּלֵיהּ!
What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna, that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but even by itself, like any other food. And if it is a case where one does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be susceptible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status as food.
רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, חַד אָמַר: מִקְצָתוֹ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו.
Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said: It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not susceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
וְחַד אָמַר: מִקְצָתוֹ פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה, וּמִקְצָתוֹ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין.
And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַחַרְטוֹם וְהַצִּפׇּרְנַיִם מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וּמִצְטָרְפִין. חַרְטוֹם – עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
§The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a bird that come into contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּחַרְטוֹם תַּחְתּוֹן. תַּחְתּוֹן נָמֵי עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן.
Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is referring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.
צִפׇּרְנַיִם, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מָקוֹם (המובלעים) [הַמּוּבְלָע] בַּבָּשָׂר.
Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons themselves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed within the flesh.
קַרְנַיִם, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחוֹתְכִין וְיוֹצֵא מֵהֶן דָּם.
Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.
כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ, הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה.
§The mishna teaches: Similarly, in the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, it imparts impurity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: שׁוֹנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּטְמֵאָה, וְגוֹי בִּטְהוֹרָה – צְרִיכִין מַחְשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.
Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And furthermore, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impurity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.
הֶכְשֵׁר לְמָה לִי? סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְכֹל שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה – לָא בָּעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food? The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.
דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, מָה זְרָעִים שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר.
The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.
וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר? מִפְּנֵי
And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a kosher bird to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason is because
שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה!
eventually the carcass of the bird will impart a more severe impurity when it is in the throat of the person who consumes it. Therefore, it is not necessary for the carcass of a kosher bird to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be susceptible to impurity.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְגוֹרְרָהּ, וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת.
Ḥizkiyya says in response: The reason for the opinion of the Sages stated by Rabbi Asi is since the slaughterer is able to chop the animal into small pieces and thereby establish the volume of every piece of the animal as less than an olive-bulk. In such a scenario, the animal would not be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, it is not certain that the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וּמִי אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים.
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And did Ḥizkiyya actually say such a statement? But wasn’t it stated: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal in a valid manner by cutting the two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ḥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating the limbs from such a twitching animal. Therefore, a gentile, who is prohibited from consuming a limb from a living animal, may consume this animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal.
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים: מֵתָה הִיא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים: לָאו מֵתָה הִיא.
The Gemara explains the opinions: Ḥizkiyya says that there is no prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it was slaughtered in a valid manner it is considered dead. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that there is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it is twitching it is not yet dead. Therefore, since Ḥizkiyya maintains that a twitching animal is considered dead, it should have the impurity of a carcass, contrary to the opinion of the Sages cited by Rabbi Asi, as well as the mishna.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָצְתָה מִכְּלַל חַיָּה, וְלִכְלַל מֵתָה לֹא בָּאת.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: Ḥizkiyya maintains that such an animal has left the category of a living animal, but has not entered the category of a dead animal. Therefore, it is not prohibited for a gentile to consume such an animal, but the animal does not have the impurity of a carcass.
גּוּפָא: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נְקוֹט לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּיָדְךָ, דְּתָנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.
§The Gemara discusses the matter itself of the dispute between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal by cutting the two simanim, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ḥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Elazar said: Take that opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan in your hand and accept it, as Rav Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with his opinion.
דְּתָנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לְגוֹי, שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
As Rav Oshaya teaches (Tosefta, Oholot 2:1): In the case of a Jew who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for the consumption of a gentile, if he slaughtered it by cutting two simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts impurity of food; but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of animal carcasses.
אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וְאָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ.
A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart impurity. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs. This ruling of Rav Oshaya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
שָׁחַט בָּהּ אֶחָד, אוֹ רוֹב אֶחָד – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; נְחָרָהּ – אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.
The Gemara cites the continuation of the Tosefta: In the case where a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, if he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart the impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid. Similarly, if he did not perform a valid slaughter but rather stabbed the animal, the animal has no impurity whatsoever while it is still twitching.
וְגוֹי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה.
And similarly, in the case of a gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for the consumption of a Jew, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts the impurity of food because it is considered to be food, but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of an animal carcass.
אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וְאָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ.
A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart the impurity of food. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs.
שָׁחַט בָּהּ אֶחָד אוֹ רוֹב אֶחָד – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, נְחָרָהּ – אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.
If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart impurity of food because the slaughter was not valid. Similarly, if he stabbed the animal rather than slaughtering it properly, it has no impurity whatsoever.
שָׁחַט גּוֹי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וּגְמָרָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
If a gentile partially slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, i.e., unfit for consumption due to a mortal wound, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then a Jew came and completed the slaughter, the animal is fit for consumption.
שָׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבֵין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבָא גּוֹי וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ – פְּסוּלָה.
But if a Jew slaughtered the animal, either in a place that renders the animal a tereifa, e.g., he cut the majority of the windpipe, or in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., he only partially cut the windpipe, and then a gentile came and completed the slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.
הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִבְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָתָהּ, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לַהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ. אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.
The baraita continues: One who wishes to eat from the meat of a slaughtered animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of its slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and blood, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then eat it. Both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it because the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is not applicable in such a case.
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָין: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִים בּוֹ.
The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: One who wants to be healthy should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, and salt it very well and rinse it very well, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שָׁהָה בָּהּ, דָּרַס בָּהּ – מַהוּ?
§It was previously taught in the baraita that if a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, or a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for a Jew’s consumption, that animal imparts impurity of food when it is twitching after the slaughter. With regard to that halakha, Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case if one interrupted the slaughter or pressed on the knife during the slaughter? Do these acts, which normally invalidate slaughter, also invalidate this slaughter, or does the slaughter in this case not have to fulfill all of the halakhic requirements of valid slaughter in order to render the slaughtered animal as food with regard to imparting the impurity of food?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה כִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה. הֶכְשֵׁר לְמַאי? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּדִיקַת סַכִּין.
A certain elder resolved this dilemma and said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: This case requires a valid slaughter in every detail, just like a Jew slaughtering a kosher animal. The Gemara clarifies: To what requirement does valid slaughter just like a kosher animal refer? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: It is referring to the requirement of examining the knife before the slaughter.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַהוּ שֶׁתַּצִּיל עַל הַבְּלוּעִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ?
Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: If a non-kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew is twitching under the same roof as a corpse, and the animal swallowed items before being slaughtered, what is the halakha with regard to those swallowed items that are inside the animal? Is the animal considered to be living and therefore it should save these items that are swallowed inside it from the impurity transmitted by the corpse to all items under the same roof? Or is the animal considered to be dead and therefore the items become impure?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וּמַצֶּלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, וְלֹא תַּצִּיל?
Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is established that such an animal is considered to be dead and imparts impurity of food, is it possible that it saves those items inside it from impurity? Certainly it does not. Rabbi Zeira said to him in response: It is also established that such an animal does not impart impurity of carcasses and is considered to be a living animal in that regard. How is it possible that the animal does not save those items inside it from impurity?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵינָהּ מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַבְּלוּעִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ, דְּהָא מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהָרוֹבְעָהּ חַיָּיב, דְּהָא אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה.
Abaye resolved the dilemma and said: It is proper to treat this case stringently. Therefore, such an animal does not save the items that are swallowed inside it because it imparts impurity of food. But one who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liable because the animal does not impart impurity of a carcass and is considered to be living in that regard.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
§The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. Rav Huna says in explanation: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.
וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן עַל גַּבֵּי הָעוֹר – הָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן,
And Rav Huna says: In a case of two pieces of flesh of an animal carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the hide, the hide nullifies them, as the hide does not impart the impurity of a carcass. Consequently, these pieces do not impart impurity either.
Follow
