## Chullin Daf 120a

###### Chullin 120a:1
[Chullin 120a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:1)

אַמַּתְנִיתִין: ״הָעוֹר וְהָרוֹטֶב וְהַקֵּיפֶה וְכוּ׳״ מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
maintaining that the dispute is **with regard to** that which is taught in **the mishna: The** attached **hide, and the** congealed **gravy** attached to the meat, **and the spices,** and the meat residue, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves all **join together** with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk **to impart the impurity of food.**


###### Chullin 120a:2
[Chullin 120a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:2)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֶצֶם, דְּהָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר, אֲבָל נִימָא לָא הָוְיָא שׁוֹמֵר. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִימָא נָמֵי הָוְיָא שׁוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** The Sages **taught** that **only a bone** and the other items mentioned in the mishna join together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity **because** they **constitute protection** for the meat. **But a hair** does not join together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity because it **is not protection** for the meat. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hair is protection** for the meat and therefore joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 120a:3
[Chullin 120a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹמֵר? חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But** the hide protects the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide. **Is** the *halakha* of protection applicable with regard to **protection** that is **on top of** another **protection?** Rabbi Yoḥanan answered: The hair **penetrates through** the hide and touches the flesh, thereby providing protection directly for the flesh.


###### Chullin 120a:4
[Chullin 120a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תְּפִילִּין הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? הָא בָּעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa objects to this** answer: **If that is so,** that there are perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, **how can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require** phylacteries to be written with **a perfect writing** with no perforations in the letters? **And** that **is not** possible if there are perforations in the hide.


###### Chullin 120a:5
[Chullin 120a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:5)

אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** *halakha* **which they say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **escaped** Rav Aḥa: **Any perforation over which the ink passes** and which it covers **is not** considered **a perforation** that invalidates the writing.


###### Chullin 120a:6
[Chullin 120a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּצִיב הַיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבְשַׂעֲרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר? לָא, מִשּׁוּם יָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to** the opinion of **Reish Lakish** opinion from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case of the **hide** of an animal carcass **upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand** of flesh **emerging from** the flesh **or** touches **a hair that is** on the side of the hide **opposite** the flesh **is ritually impure,** even though he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh. **What** is the reason that one who touches the strand of flesh or the hair becomes impure? **Is it not because** they constitute **protection** for the flesh? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **because** the hair constitutes **a handle** for the flesh.


###### Chullin 120a:7
[Chullin 120a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:7)

נִימָא אַחַת לְמַאי חַזְיָא? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין, הָכִי נָמֵי בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **For what** function **is one hair fit** such that it constitutes a handle? The Gemara answers: One can explain that mishna **as Rabbi Ela said** in explanation of a different mishna: It is stated **with regard to** the case of **an awn among** many **awns. Here too,** the mishna is stated **with regard to** the case of **a hair among** many **hairs** and not the case of a single hair. The hair serves as a handle for the flesh because one can hold the hair and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.


###### Chullin 120a:8
[Chullin 120a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:8)

וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִילְעָא? אַהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמְּלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִין מְטַמְּאִין וּמִיטַּמְּאִין וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And where was** the opinion **of Rabbi Ela stated?** It **was stated with regard to that which we learned** in a mishna: **An awn that is on** top of **a stalk can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together** with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: **For what** function **is an awn fit** such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? **Rabbi Ela said:** The mishna is stated **with regard to** the case of **an awn among** many **awns.**


###### Chullin 120a:9
[Chullin 120a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:9)

וְהָרוֹטֶב. מַאי רוֹטֶב? אָמַר רָבָא: שׁוּמְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: **The gravy [*rotev*]** joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, but an egg-bulk of gravy itself is not susceptible to impurity. The Gemara asks: To **what** is the term ***rotev*** referring? **Rava said:** The term *rotev* is referring to **the fat** that floats on top of a soup of cooked meat.


###### Chullin 120a:10
[Chullin 120a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין! אֶלָּא חֵלֶב דִּקְרִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** to Rava: That fat **itself** is eaten and **is** therefore susceptible to **impurity of food. Rather,** the term *rotev* is referring to **fat that** oozed out of the meat and **congealed.** That fat is not eaten, but it does join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food.


###### Chullin 120a:11
[Chullin 120a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:11)

מַאי אִירְיָא קְרִישׁ? כִּי לָא קְרִישׁ נָמֵי! דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: צִיר שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי יָרָק מִצְטָרֵף לִכְכוֹתֶבֶת בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** is the mishna referring **specifically** to **congealed** fat? **Even** in a case **where the fat did not congeal** it joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, **as Reish Lakish said: Brine on a vegetable,** even though it is a liquid, **combines** with the vegetable **to** constitute **a large date-bulk [*kakotevet*]** with regard to rendering one liable for violating the prohibition against eating **on Yom Kippur.** Similarly, liquid fat should combine with the meat to constitute the requisite volume to impart the impurity of food.


###### Chullin 120a:12
[Chullin 120a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:12)

הָתָם מִשּׁוּם יַתּוֹבֵי דַּעְתָּא הוּא, בְּכֹל דְּהוּ מְיַתְּבָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Liquids and solids do not join together to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The reason for the *halakha* **there,** with regard to Yom Kippur, **is because** one is liable even for the consumption of a liquid that is not characterized as food if the **mind** of the one who consumes it is **settled.** This is because with regard to the fast of Yom Kippur the Torah is concerned with a person’s affliction, as the verse states: “You shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 23:27). Therefore, one is liable on Yom Kippur for **any** eating that **settles his mind.**


###### Chullin 120a:13
[Chullin 120a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:13)

הָכָא מִשּׁוּם אִיצְטְרוֹפֵי הוּא, אִי קְרִישׁ – מִצְטָרֵף, אִי לָא קְרִישׁ – לָא מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But that is not the case **here with regard to** impurity. For two substances to join together to impart impurity, **a combination** between substances that have a common requisite measure for imparting impurity **is** necessary. Liquid and solid foods do not have the same requisite measure. Therefore, **if** the fat **is congealed, it joins together** with the meat. **If it is not congealed, it does not join together** with the meat.


###### Chullin 120a:14
[Chullin 120a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:14)

וְהַקֵּיפֶה, מַאי קֵיפֶה? אָמַר רַבָּה: פִּירְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: **The spices [*kifa*]** join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, but an egg-bulk of *kifa* itself is not susceptible to impurity. The Gemara asks: To **what** is the term ***kifa*** referring? **Rabba said:** The term *kifa* is referring to a congealed **hash** of cooked meat that settled to the bottom of the pot.


###### Chullin 120a:15
[Chullin 120a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּבְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** to Rabba: That hash **itself is** eaten and is therefore susceptible to **the impurity of food. Rather, Rav Pappa said:** The term *kifa* is referring to **spices,** which are not eaten themselves but do join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food.


###### Chullin 120a:16
[Chullin 120a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:16)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הִקְפָּה אֶת הַדָּם וַאֲכָלוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§Since the mishna mentions *kifa*, which, according to Rabba, is referring to a congealed substance, the Gemara discusses the *halakha* of one who congealed a forbidden substance and consumed it. **We learned** in a *baraita* **there:** One who **caused blood to coagulate and ate it or melted** forbidden **fat and swallowed it is liable.**


###### Chullin 120a:17
[Chullin 120a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:17)

בִּשְׁלָמָא הִקְפָּה אֶת הַדָּם וַאֲכָלוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּאַקְפְּיֵהּ אַחְשׁוֹבֵי אַחְשְׁבֵיהּ, אֶלָּא הִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ – אֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ, וְהָא לָאו אֲכִילָה הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Granted,** one who **caused blood to coagulate and ate it** is liable. Although blood is not normally eaten in such a manner, **since he caused** the blood **to coagulate, he ascribed** the **significance** of food **to it,** and the Torah prohibits the eating of blood, as it is written: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17). **But** why is one who **melted** forbidden **fat and swallowed it** liable? **Eating,** and not drinking, **is stated** in the Torah with regard to the prohibition against the consumption of forbidden fat, as it is written: “You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat” (Leviticus 7:23), **and this** swallowing of a liquid **is not eating.**


###### Chullin 120a:18
[Chullin 120a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:18)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** One is liable even for drinking the melted forbidden fat of an animal. **The verse states:** “For all who eat the fat of the animal that one could offer from it a fire offering to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The term **“soul”** is interpreted homiletically **to include** in the prohibition **one who drinks** the fat.


###### Chullin 120a:19
[Chullin 120a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:19)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי חָמֵץ כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא: הִמְחָהוּ וּגְמָעוֹ – אִם חָמֵץ הוּא, עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת; אִם מַצָּה הִיא, אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: A novelty **of this kind is also taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to** the prohibition against eating **leavened bread** on Passover: If one took bread, **dissolved it** in water, **and swallowed** this mixture on Passover, the *halakha* is as follows: **If it is leavened bread, he is punished with *karet*; if it is *matza*,** then **a person does not fulfill his obligation** to eat *matza* **on Passover with** this food.


###### Chullin 120a:20
[Chullin 120a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:20)

בִּשְׁלָמָא אִם מַצָּה הִיא אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח, ״לֶחֶם עֹנִי״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו לֶחֶם עֹנִי הוּא. אֶלָּא אִם חָמֵץ הוּא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, אֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Granted, if it is *matza*, a person does not fulfill his obligation** to eat *matza* **on Passover with** this food, as **the Merciful One states** with regard to the prohibition against eating leavened bread on Passover: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, even **the bread of affliction”** (Deuteronomy 16:3), indicating that one must eat the bread of affliction, **but this** bread dissolved in water **is not** considered **the bread of affliction. But if** the bread **is leavened bread,** why **is he punished with *karet*? Eating is written with regard to** the prohibition against leavened bread, and in this case he did not eat it but rather drank it.


###### Chullin 120a:21
[Chullin 120a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:21)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** One is liable even for drinking leavened bread. **The verse states:** “For all who eat leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus 12:15). The term **“soul”** is interpreted homiletically **to include** in the prohibition **one who drinks** leavened bread.


###### Chullin 120a:22
[Chullin 120a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:22)

וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא: הִמְחָהוּ בָּאוּר – טָמֵא, בַּחַמָּה – טָהוֹר. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: אֲכִילָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: A novelty **of this kind is also taught** in the *Tosefta* (*Zavim* 5:9) **with regard to** one who eats **the** unslaughtered **carcass of a kosher bird: One who liquefied** the carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird **in fire** and drank the substance **is impure.** But one who liquefied it **in the sun** and drank it **is pure. And we discussed it: Eating** and not drinking **is stated** with regard to the impurity of a carcass, as it is written: “And every soul that eats an unslaughtered carcass or that which is mauled by an animal, whether he is native or stranger, he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 17:15). Why, then, does one who drinks a kosher bird carcass become impure?


###### Chullin 120a:23
[Chullin 120a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:23)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״נֶפֶשׁ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשּׁוֹתֶה. אִי הָכִי, בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי? בַּחַמָּה אַיסְרוֹחֵי מַסְרַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** He becomes impure because **the verse states:** “And every **soul.”** The term “soul” is interpreted homiletically **to include one who drinks.** The Gemara objects: **If so,** one who drinks a carcass that is melted **in the sun** should **also** become impure. The Gemara explains: A carcass takes a long time to melt **in the sun.** Therefore, the liquid **becomes rotten** and unfit for consumption.


###### Chullin 120a:24
[Chullin 120a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:24)

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חֵלֶב – חָמֵץ לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר; נְבֵלָה לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ, שֶׁכֵּן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cited three instances in which Reish Lakish interpreted the term “soul” as including one who drinks. The Gemara explains: All three mentions of the term “soul” **are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written** the term “soul” only with regard to forbidden **fat,** liability for drinking liquefied **leavened bread could not have been derived from it, since** the prohibition against the consumption of forbidden fat has an element of stringency that does not apply to leavened bread in that the forbidden fat **had no period of fitness** for consumption. Leavened bread, on the other hand, may be consumed before Passover. Likewise, impurity contracted by drinking a liquefied **carcass could not be derived from** the *halakha* of forbidden fat **because** the consumption of forbidden fat is **punishable by *karet*,** which is not the case with regard to the consumption of a carcass.


###### Chullin 120a:25
[Chullin 120a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:25)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא חָמֵץ – חֵלֶב לָא אָתֵי מִינֵּיהּ, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ, וּנְבֵלָה לָא אָתְיָא מִינֵּיהּ, שֶׁכֵּן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** the term “soul” only with regard to **leavened bread,** liability for drinking melted forbidden **fat could not be derived from it, as** there are **no** circumstances in which **the general prohibition** against eating leavened bread **was permitted.** The consumption of forbidden fat, on the other hand, is permitted with regard to the fat of an undomesticated animal. **And** similarly, impurity contracted by drinking a liquefied **carcass could not be derived from** the *halakha* of leavened bread, **because** the *halakha* of leavened bread has an element of stringency that does not apply to a carcass in that its consumption is **punishable by *karet*.**


###### Chullin 120a:26
[Chullin 120a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:26)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְבֵלָה – הָנָךְ לָא אָתְיָא מִינַּהּ, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמְּאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** the term “soul” only **with regard to a carcass, those** prohibitions against drinking melted fat and liquefied leavened bread **could not be derived from it, because** a carcass has an element of stringency that does not apply to those prohibitions in that **it transmits impurity** to one who eats it. Therefore, all three mentions of the term “soul” are necessary.


###### Chullin 120a:27
[Chullin 120a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:27)

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי! הֵי תֵּיתֵי? לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְבֵלָה וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ – מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: It is true that **one** *halakha* **cannot be derived from** either **one** of the others, as detailed above. Nevertheless, one can **derive** the *halakha* of **one** of them **from** the other **two.** The Gemara responds: This is not possible, as **which** *halakha* can one **derive** from the others? **Let the Merciful One not write** this *halakha* **with regard to** a liquefied **carcass and derive** it **from these** other prohibitions against eating forbidden fat and leavened bread. One can refute this derivation: **What** is notable **about these** other prohibitions? They are notable **in that** one who transgresses them **is punished with *karet*,** contrary to one who eats a carcass.


###### Chullin 120a:28
[Chullin 120a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:28)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחָמֵץ, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ – מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הָיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let the Merciful One not write** this *halakha* **with regard to** dissolved **leavened bread and derive** it **from these** *halakhot* of forbidden fat and a carcass. The Gemara refutes the derivation: **What** is notable **about these** *halakhot*? They are notable **in that they had no period of fitness** for consumption, as opposed to leavened bread, which was fit for consumption before Passover.


###### Chullin 120a:29
[Chullin 120a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:29)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחֵלֶב, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ – מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלָן, תֹּאמַר בְּחֵלֶב שֶׁהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let the Merciful One not write** this *halakha* **with regard to** forbidden **fat and derive** it **from these** *halakhot* of consuming leavened bread and a carcass. The Gemara refutes the derivation: **What** is notable **about these** *halakhot*? They are notable **in that** there are **no** circumstances in which **their general prohibition was permitted. Shall you say** the same **with regard to** forbidden **fat, whose general prohibition was permitted** in certain circumstances? Therefore, all three mentions of the term “soul” are necessary.


###### Chullin 120a:30
[Chullin 120a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:30)

וּמַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה לַגָּבוֹהַּ – נְבֵלָה נָמֵי אִשְׁתְּרַאי מְלִיקַת עוֹף לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is** the case in which forbidden fat is permitted? **If we say** that it is the **fat of a domesticated animal** that is permitted to be sacrificed in the Temple **to the Most High,** a bird **carcass is also permitted** to be sacrificed in the Temple. Although **pinching** the nape of the neck of **a bird** renders it an unslaughtered carcass and forbidden for consumption, bird offerings are sacrificed **to the Most High** in such a manner.


###### Chullin 120a:31
[Chullin 120a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:31)

וְאֶלָּא חֵלֶב חַיָּה לְהֶדְיוֹט – נְבֵלָה נָמֵי אִשְׁתְּרַאי מְלִיקָה דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף לַכֹּהֲנִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if the reference is **rather** to **the** forbidden **fat of an undomesticated animal,** which is permitted **to an ordinary** person, one may respond that **a carcass is also permitted** for a person’s consumption in a certain case, as **the pinching of** the nape of the neck of **a bird sin offering** renders it fit **for** consumption of **the priests.**


###### Chullin 120a:32
[Chullin 120a:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:32)

לְעוֹלָם חֵלֶב חַיָּה לְהֶדְיוֹט, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ כֹּהֲנִים – כֹּהֲנִים מִשֻּׁלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the reference is to **the** forbidden **fat of an undomesticated animal,** which is permitted **to an ordinary** person. **And that which** is **difficult for you** with regard to the fact that the **priests** eat the carcass of a bird which is brought as a sin offering is not difficult, as the **priests receive** their portion **from the table of the Most High.** Since this carcass is permitted as an offering to God, it is permitted to the priests as well. Therefore, this does not qualify as a case of an unslaughtered carcass permitted to ordinary people.


###### Chullin 120a:33
[Chullin 120a:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:33)

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לֶאֱסוֹר צִירָן וְרוֹטְבָן וְקֵיפֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן, לְמָה לִי? לִיגְמַר מֵהָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara challenges: **But that which is taught** in the following *baraita* is difficult. The Torah states with regard to the prohibition against eating creeping animals: “These are they **that are impure [*hatteme’im*]** to you among all the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:31). The Sages interpret the letter *heh* in the term “*hatteme’im*” **to forbid their juice** that oozes from their carcasses, **and their gravy** that is produced when they are cooked, **and sediments** of **their** flesh that congeal at the bottom of the dish when cooked. The Gemara explains the challenge: **Why do I** need a verse to teach this *halakha*? **Let** this *halakha* **be learned from these** *halakhot* of melted forbidden fat, a liquefied bird carcass, and dissolved leavened bread.


###### Chullin 120a:34
[Chullin 120a:34](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/120a:34)

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מָה הָתָם – עַד דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי – עַד דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is necessary** for this *halakha* to be written, **as if the Merciful One had not written** this *halakha* with regard to creeping animals and instead the *halakha* was derived from the other *halakhot*, **I would say: It is sufficient for the** conclusion that **emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source.** Accordingly, **just as there,** one who consumes melted forbidden fat, a liquefied carcass, or dissolved leavened bread is not liable **until** he consumes **an olive-bulk, so too here,** with regard to consuming the juice, gravy, and sediments of creeping animals, one is not liable **until** he consumes **an olive-bulk.** Therefore, a separate verse is necessary to teach that one is liable even for consuming a lentil-bulk of the juice, gravy, or sediments of a creeping animal, just as one is liable for consuming this measure of the creeping animal itself.