## Chullin Daf 122b

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

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and Rabbi Yoḥanan** disagreed with Ulla and **said to him:** A calf is considered young **as long as it is suckling,** even after its first year of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.


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

אוֹ דִלְמָא, עוּלָּא בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ קָאָמַר, בֵּין יוֹנֵק וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹנֵק, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps, does Ulla say** that a calf is considered young if it is in **its** first **year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no** longer **suckling, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him:** The calf must be in **its** first **year of age and it** must also be **suckling** in order to be considered young?


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק, וְאִם אִיתַהּ – ״וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The calf is considered young **the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so** that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yoḥanan **should have** said: **And** provided the calf **is suckling,** indicating an additional condition. **Conclude from it** that Rabbi Yoḥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year, and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and suckling to be young.


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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. **Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is** the *halakha* with regard to whether **the skin of the head of a young calf** that is still fit to be eaten **imparts impurity?** Is the status of the skin like that of flesh or not? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: It does not impart impurity.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לִימַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish **said to him:** But didn’t **you teach us, our teacher,** that it says in the mishna: **These** are the entities **whose skin** has the same halakhic status **as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf** is included among them? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** Reish Lakish: **Do not provoke me** by asking such a question. **I teach that** mishna **in the singular,** i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the *halakha* is not in accordance with it.


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

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹלָה לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת; חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One who slaughters a burnt offering** with the intention **to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its** designated **area,** i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering **unfit, but there is no** liability for ***karet*** for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it **beyond its** designated **time,** i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered ***piggul*, and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** partaking of **it.** Since this particular area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.


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

אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ אֶבְלַיִם אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עִיכּוּם אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶחָד עוֹר פְּרָסוֹת, וְאֶחָד עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וְאֶחָד עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וְכׇל שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, לְהָבִיא עוֹר שֶׁל בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:** This *halakha* applies **both** to **the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all** of the entities **that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity** that the halakhic status of **their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.**


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

חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins **outside its** designated **area** renders the offering **unfit, but there is no** liability for ***karet*** for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it **beyond its** designated **time,** then it is rendered ***piggul*, and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** eating **it.** Therefore, the mishna is in accordance with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not in accordance with the Rabbis’ opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.


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

וְעוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת. מַאי בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת? רַב אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רְכוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: **And the hide of the hooves** has the status of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To **what** is **the** term **hooves** referring? **Rav says:** It is **literally** referring to **the hooves. Rabbi Ḥanina says:** It is referring to the skin of the section of **the knee** at the top of the lower bone, **which is sold with the head.** This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it, has the status of flesh.


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

וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לְרַבּוֹת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: **And** the halakhic status of **the skin of the gecko,** and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is written: “And these are they which are impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds. And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon. These are **they which are impure** for you among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:29–32). The term “they which are” in the expression “they which are impure” seems superfluous, and serves **to include the skins of** these animals as having the same halakhic status **as their flesh.**


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

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that this *halakha* applies **even** to **all** of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, **the verse states: “These,”** indicating that this *halakha* applies only to these animals mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the lizard, and the skink.


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

וְהָא ״אֵלֶּה״ אַכּוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיבִי! אָמַר רַב: ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t** the term **“these” written with regard to all** eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? **Rav says:** After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the verse states: **“After its kinds.”** Therefore, the verse **interrupted the** previous **matter** and taught that the status of the skin is like that of the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the latter part of the verse.


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

וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: רַב תְּנָא הוּא, וְתָנֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** since the chameleon is listed in the latter part of the verse, **let** the **chameleon also be counted** among the animals whose skin has the status of flesh. **Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: Rav,** who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of **a *tanna*, and** unlike the mishna, **he teaches** that the skin of the **chameleon** has the status of flesh.


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

וְהָא תַּנָּא דִּידַן לָא תָּנֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But the *tanna* of our** mishna **does not teach** this *halakha* with regard to the **chameleon.** According to his opinion, why doesn’t the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?


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

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: תַּנָּא דִּידַן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר גִּישְׁתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The *tanna* of our** mishna **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda that** the halakhic status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: “They which are impure.” Rather, he **follows the texture** of the skin of each creeping animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that of its flesh.


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

וּבְגִישְׁתָּא דְּהַלְּטָאָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The first *tanna* of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the texture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh; **and they disagree with regard to the texture** of the skin **of the lizard.** Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first *tanna* of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.


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

וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן [וְכוּ׳]. הִילֵּךְ אִין, לֹא הִילֵּךְ לָא? וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אוֹזֶן חֲמוֹר שֶׁטְּלָאָהּ לְקוּפָּתוֹ טְהוֹרָה, טְלָאָהּ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הִילֵּךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: **And all of these** skins, in a case **where one tanned them** or spread them on the ground and trod upon them, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara objects: The mishna indicates that if one **trod** upon them they **are** no longer classified as flesh, but if one **did not tread** upon them they do **not** cease being classified as flesh. **But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure** and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classified as flesh once it is **sewed** into a basket, so too skin that is spread on the ground, **even if** one **did not tread** upon it, should no longer be classified as flesh.


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

לֹא: טְלָאָהּ, הִילֵּךְ – אִין, לֹא הִילֵּךְ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **No,** this is not difficult. **Sewing** the ear is an action that nullifies the ear’s classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin’s classification as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one **trod** upon the skin it **is** no longer classified as flesh, but if one **did not tread** upon it, it does **not** cease being classified as flesh.


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

כַּמָּה כְּדֵי עִבּוּד? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: **How long is the period** required **for tanning? Rav Huna says** that **Rabbi Yannai says:** The time which it takes one to walk **four *mil*.**


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

רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְגַבָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§Since the period of time it takes to walk four *mil* was mentioned, the Gemara lists *halakhot* that employ this period of time. **Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to** a professional **kneader** who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four *mil* in order to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him pays for him to do so.


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

וְלִתְפִלָּה וְלִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם – אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, **with regard to prayer,** one who is traveling may not pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four *mil* ahead of him, but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. **And** similarly, **with regard to washing** one’s **hands** before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within **four *mil*** ahead of him.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:**