## Chullin Daf 122a

###### Chullin 122a:1
[Chullin 122a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:1)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is the statement of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it.


###### Chullin 122a:2
[Chullin 122a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:2)

אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הָאָמַר לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר. וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – פְּשִׁיטָא, הָאָמַר מְבַטֵּל עוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael, didn’t** Rabbi Yishmael **say** that the **hide does not nullify** the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? **And if** one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva,** then it is **obvious,** as **didn’t** Rabbi Akiva **say** that **the hide nullifies** the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?


###### Chullin 122a:3
[Chullin 122a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:3)

לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ חָיָה, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the statement of Rav Huna is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yishmael said** that **the hide does not nullify** the flesh, **that statement** applies to a case **where an animal severed** the hide. **But** in a case where a person used **a knife** to **flay** the hide, the hide **nullifies** the attached flesh.


###### Chullin 122a:4
[Chullin 122a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a refutation to this explanation of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna: **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. And Rav Huna says** in explanation of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: 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.


###### Chullin 122a:5
[Chullin 122a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:5)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי לָא בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. Therefore, the Gemara challenges: **Granted, if you say** that **according to Rabbi Yishmael, even** in a case where a person used **a knife** to **flay** the hide, the hide **does not nullify** the flesh, accordingly, **Rav Huna said** his statement **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael** that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and therefore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected the pieces.


###### Chullin 122a:6
[Chullin 122a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:6)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **according to Rabbi Yishmael,** in a case where a person used **a knife** to **flay** the hide, the hide **nullifies** the flesh and therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then **in accordance with whose** opinion **did Rav Huna say** that the hide does not nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart the impurity of a carcass?


###### Chullin 122a:7
[Chullin 122a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:7)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rather,** it is necessary to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael differently. **Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael** even a hide **flayed by a knife does not nullify** the attached flesh. **And Rav Huna said** his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of flesh **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Chullin 122a:8
[Chullin 122a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:8)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָנֵי מִילֵּי פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה – לָא בָּטֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna’s statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement is necessary **lest you say: When Rabbi Akiva said** that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of flesh, **that statement** applies only to a case where a person used **a knife** to **flay** the animal. **But** if **an animal severed** the hide, the hide **does not nullify** the flesh.


###### Chullin 122a:9
[Chullin 122a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:9)

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן, לָא שְׁנָא (פלט) [פְּלָטַתּוּ] חַיָּה, וְלָא שְׁנָא (פלט) [פְּלָטַתּוּ] סַכִּין, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַהֵר בְּעוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, Rav Huna **teaches us** that **the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva** is **because the hide nullifies** the flesh, and there **is no difference** whether **an animal severed** the hide, **and** there **is no difference** whether a person used **a knife** to **flay** the hide. This statement of Rav Huna is therefore **in accordance with that which the latter clause** of that mishna **teaches: For what** reason **does Rabbi Akiva deem** one ritually **pure in** a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with **the hide?** It is **because the hide** separates between them and **nullifies them.**


###### Chullin 122a:10
[Chullin 122a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן: עוֹר הָאָדָם, וָעוֹר חֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עוֹר חֲזִיר הַבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **These** are the entities **whose skin** has the same halakhic status **as their flesh: The skin of** a dead **person,** which imparts impurity like his flesh; **and the skin of a domesticated pig,** which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the skin of a wild boar** has the same status.


###### Chullin 122a:11
[Chullin 122a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:11)

וָעוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וָעוֹר הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת, וָעוֹר הַשְּׁלִיל, וְעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחוֹמֶט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַלְּטָאָה כְּחוּלְדָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is also like that of their flesh: **The skin of the hump of a young camel** that did not yet toughen; **and the skin of the head of a young calf; and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin of** an animal **fetus** in the womb of a slaughtered animal; **and the skin beneath the tail** of a ewe; **and the skin of the gecko [*anaka*], and the desert monitor [*ko’aḥ*], and the lizard [*leta’a*], and the skink [*ḥomet*],** four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The halakhic status of the skin of **the lizard** is **like** that of the skin of **the weasel** and is not like that of its flesh.


###### Chullin 122a:12
[Chullin 122a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:12)

וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן, אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה – טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאָדָם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **all of** these skins, in a case **where one tanned them or** spread them on the ground and **trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning,** they are no longer classified as flesh and are **ritually pure, except for the skin of a person,** which maintains the status of flesh. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says:** All **eight creeping animals** enumerated in the Torah **have skins** whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.


###### Chullin 122a:13
[Chullin 122a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The first clause of the mishna teaches that the skin of a dead person imparts impurity like his flesh. With regard to this, **Ulla says: The skin of** a dead **person is pure by Torah law; and what** is the **reason** that the Sages **said** that it is **impure?** It is a rabbinic **decree lest a person fashion mats** from **the skins of his** deceased **father and mother.**


###### Chullin 122a:14
[Chullin 122a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:14)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר אָדָם. אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם שֶׁעִבְּדוֹ טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are those who teach** this statement of Ulla **with regard to the latter clause** of the mishna: **And** with regard to **all of** these skins, in a case **where one tanned them or** spread them on the ground and **trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning,** they are no longer classified as flesh and are **ritually pure, except for the skin of a person,** which maintains the status of flesh. With regard to that clause, **Ulla says: The skin of** a dead **person that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what** is the **reason** that the Sages **said** that it is **impure?** It is a rabbinic **decree lest a person fashion mats** from **the skins of his** deceased **father and mother.**


###### Chullin 122a:15
[Chullin 122a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:15)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The one who teaches** the statement of Ulla that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law **with regard to the first clause** of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not tanned, **all the more so** would teach it **with regard to the latter clause** of the mishna. **But the one who teaches** this statement **with regard to the latter clause** of the mishna holds that only the tanned skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, **but** does not teach it **with regard to the first clause** of the mishna because he holds that the **impurity** of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is **by Torah law.**


###### Chullin 122a:16
[Chullin 122a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:16)

וְעוֹר חֲזִיר [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: הַאי אַשּׁוּן וְהַאי רַכִּיךְ, וּמָר סָבַר: הַאי נָמֵי רַכִּיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches that according to the first *tanna*, **the skin of** a domesticated **pig** imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yehuda **disagree?** The Gemara answers: One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **this** skin of a wild boar **is tough** and therefore its status is not that of flesh, **but that** skin of a domesticated pig **is soft** and therefore its status is that of flesh. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that **this** skin of a wild boar **is also soft** and therefore its status is that of flesh.


###### Chullin 122a:17
[Chullin 122a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:17)

עוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְכַמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches that the **skin of the hump of a young camel** that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh. The Gemara asks: **And for how long is a camel** considered **young** and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? **Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as** the camel **has not carried** a burden.


###### Chullin 122a:18
[Chullin 122a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:18)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְלֹא טָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְטָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* with regard to the skin of a camel **whose time,** i.e., age, **to carry** a burden **has arrived, but it has not** yet **carried** one? **Abaye raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* with regard to the skin of a camel **whose time to carry** a burden **has not arrived, but it has** nevertheless **carried** one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 122a:19
[Chullin 122a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:19)

יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּיב לְקִבְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma:** For **how long is a camel** considered **young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as** the camel **has not carried** a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored him and **said to him: Sit opposite me.**


###### Chullin 122a:20
[Chullin 122a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:20)

יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. הֲוָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא הָוְיָא לָךְ אֲמַרְתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma:** For **how long is a camel** considered **young? Ravin bar Ḥinnana said to him: This is what Ulla said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as** the camel **has not carried** a burden. Ravin bar Ḥinnana then **repeated** his answer to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira **said to him: Do you have** only **one** *halakha* to **say,** and that is why you are repeating it?


###### Chullin 122a:21
[Chullin 122a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:21)

תָּא חֲזִי, מָה בֵּין תַּקִּיפֵי אַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לַחֲסִידֵי דְבָבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out: **Come** and **see what** the difference is **between the harsh** scholars **of Eretz Yisrael,** such as Reish Lakish, **and the saintly ones of Babylonia,** such as Rabbi Zeira. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira responded sharply to the one who taught him this *halakha*.


###### Chullin 122a:22
[Chullin 122a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/122a:22)

וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ וְכוּ׳. וְכַמָּה עֵגֶל הָרַךְ? עוּלָּא אָמַר: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר עוּלָּא? בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: **And the skin of the head** of a young calf has the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The Gemara asks: **And** for **how long is a calf** considered **young? Ulla says:** It is considered young in **its** first **year of age. Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** For **as long as** the calf is **suckling. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **what** case **is Ulla speaking?** Is he referring to a calf that is in **its** first **year of age and is** still **suckling,**