## Chullin Daf 123b

###### Chullin 123b:1
[Chullin 123b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:1)

עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִיגְזַר, דִּילְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
so too, with regard to **a bird burnt offering according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that one is required to pinch merely a majority of two *simanim* in the nape of the neck in order to prepare it for sacrifice, **let him decree** against pinching the majority of two *simanim* **lest one come to not perform** the pinching on **the majority of two** *simanim*, but rather on merely half of them.


###### Chullin 123b:2
[Chullin 123b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה – קִרְעָהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef** responded to Rabba’s two refutations and **said to him:** With regard to **that which you said,** that a rabbinic **decree** is necessary even with regard to a garment that was immersed that day **lest** onlookers **say** that **immersion** of a garment **on that** same **day is sufficient,** there is no reason for such a concern. This is because **its tear proves** that the garment is pure due to the tear, and not because one is allowed to wear an immersed garment while eating pure food before sunset.


###### Chullin 123b:3
[Chullin 123b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:3)

וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִיגְזַר – כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִים הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **that which you said,** that with regard to **a bird burnt offering according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, let him decree** against pinching the majority of the *simanim* lest one fail to pinch the majority, in fact there is no reason for such a concern. Rav Yosef explains: The reason there is no concern is that pinching is performed by **the priests,** who **are vigilant** with regard to mitzvot.


###### Chullin 123b:4
[Chullin 123b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּמֵאָה וּבִטְהוֹרָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ – כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a refutation to Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate *Kelim* from the mishna here: In the case of **one who flays a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually impure** animal **or a ritually pure** animal, **a small** animal **or a large** animal, if he is flaying the animal **for** the purpose of using the hide as **a carpet,** the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed **the measure of grasping** the hide.


###### Chullin 123b:5
[Chullin 123b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:5)

הָא יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה – טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לִיגְזַר, דִּילְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד אֶלָּא כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה, וְקָא נְגַע בְּטוּמְאָה, וְקָא מְטַהֲרִינַן לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **But** after one has flayed **more than a measure of grasping** the hide, the hide is **pure. Why** is this so? **Let** the Sages **decree** that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of grasping is susceptible to impurity **lest** one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping **come to complete only a measure of grasping, and he is** thereby **touching** a source of **impurity, and we** might mistakenly **deem him pure.**


###### Chullin 123b:6
[Chullin 123b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:6)

אִי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** the mishna were discussing **impurity by Torah law, indeed** the Sages would issue such a decree. But **here we are dealing with impurity by rabbinic law,** and therefore the Sages did not issue such a decree.


###### Chullin 123b:7
[Chullin 123b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:7)

תִּינַח טָמֵא בַּטְּהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר בִּטְמֵאָה – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! בִּטְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: According to this answer, the case in the mishna of **an impure** person who flays **a pure** animal **works out well.** That could be referring to a case of impurity by rabbinic law. But in every case of **a pure** person who flays **an impure** animal, i.e., an unslaughtered animal carcass, the **impurity** of the animal **is by Torah law.** Therefore, in such a case the Sages should have issued a decree. The Gemara explains: The case taught in the mishna of a person who flays an impure animal is referring **to** a pure animal that was properly slaughtered, but after the slaughter the animal was found to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, thereby rendering it **a *tereifa*.** Such an animal imparts impurity by rabbinic law.


###### Chullin 123b:8
[Chullin 123b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:8)

טְרֵפָה בַּת טַמּוֹיֵי הִיא? אִין, כְּדַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is** a pure animal that is found to be **a *tereifa* capable of imparting impurity?** The Gemara answers: **Yes, in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel’s father, as Shmuel’s father said: A *tereifa* that one slaughtered imparts impurity** by rabbinic law **if** it is **a sacrificial** animal. Accordingly, the mishna is referring to the case of a sacrificial animal that was found to be a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 123b:9
[Chullin 123b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בִּשְׁרָצִים – חִבּוּר, עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a refutation of Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate *Kelim* from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 8:19): **Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:** With regard to **one who flays creeping animals,** its hide is considered to have **a connection** with the flesh, and it imparts impurity of a creeping animal **until he flays** the animal in **its entirety.**


###### Chullin 123b:10
[Chullin 123b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:10)

הָא בְּגָמָל – אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: This *halakha* applies only with regard to creeping animals, **but with regard to a camel** or other non-kosher animals, when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it **is not** considered to have **a connection** with the flesh and is pure, even though when the measure of grasping is flayed it is impure. Apparently, there is no rabbinic decree that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of grasping imparts impurity lest one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping come to flay only a measure of grasping, contrary to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh.


###### Chullin 123b:11
[Chullin 123b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:11)

לָא תֵּימָא הָא בְּגָמָל אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּעוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Do not say** that **this** statement indicates that **with regard to a camel,** when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it **is not** considered to have **a connection** with the flesh. **Rather, say** that this statement indicates that only with regard to a creeping animal is the hide considered to have a connection with the flesh until one flays the animal in its entirety. But **with regard to** a camel carcass and other non-kosher animals, in a case where one seeks to fashion a jug and begins flaying from the legs, if he removed the entire hide except for **the hide over the neck, it is not** considered to have **a connection** to the flesh, **and** this statement **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri** stated in the mishna.


###### Chullin 123b:12
[Chullin 123b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:12)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara returns to discuss, and limit the scope of, the previously cited mishna (*Kelim* 28:8): In the case of a ritually impure garment that one began to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered to have a connection, and the garment is pure. **Rav Huna says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei:** The mishna **taught** that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, is no longer impure **only when one did not leave** untorn a part of the garment that is **the measure of a scarf. But** if **he left** an untorn piece that is **the measure of a scarf, it is** considered to have **a connection,** and the garment remains ritually impure.


###### Chullin 123b:13
[Chullin 123b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:13)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טַלִּית, אֲבָל עוֹר – חֲלִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר נָמֵי לָא חֲלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said:** The mishna **taught only** with regard to an impure **garment,** most of which has been torn, that it is no longer impure, **but** an impure **hide** that was torn in such a manner remains impure because it is **repairable. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hide** that was torn in such a manner is no longer impure because it **is not repairable.**


###### Chullin 123b:14
[Chullin 123b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:14)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר טָמֵא מִדְרָס, חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִרְצוּעוֹת וְסַנְדָּלִים – כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן בּוֹ אִיזְמֵל טָהוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּמְעִיטֶנּוּ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים. כִּי מְמַעֵיט לֵיהּ מִיהָא טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲלִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to** the opinion of **Reish Lakish** from a mishna (*Kelim* 26:9): In the case of **a hide** that is **impure** with impurity imparted by **treading,** if the owner **intended with regard to** the hide to make it **into straps and sandals, when he applies a scalpel [*izmel*] to** the hide, the hide becomes **pure;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say:** The hide does not become pure **until he reduces** the size of the hide to a measure of less **than five handbreadths. In any event, when he reduces** the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it becomes **pure. Why** is this so? **Let us say** according the opinion of Reish Lakish that the hide should not become pure, as it is **repairable.**


###### Chullin 123b:15
[Chullin 123b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:15)

כִּי קָאָמְרִי דַּחֲלִים, הֵיכָא דְּקָא צָרֵי לֵיהּ לְהֶדְיָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּמְקַצֵּעַ וּבָא לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ סְבִיבוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish responded to Rabbi Yoḥanan: **When I said that** a torn hide is **repairable,** I was referring to a case **where one cut** the hide in a **straight** line. By contrast, **here we are dealing with** a case **where one cut** the hide **in a circular manner.** In such a case, the hide is not repairable.


###### Chullin 123b:16
[Chullin 123b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:16)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה – הָא יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה טָהוֹר, וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲלִים! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי אָבִין: רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן עוֹשֶׂה נִיפּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection** to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: In the case of **one who flays** either **a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure** animal **or a ritually impure** animal, **a small** animal **or a large** animal, if he is flaying the animal **for** the purpose of using the hide as **a carpet,** the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed **the measure of grasping.** Rabbi Yirmeya infers: **But** once one has flayed **more than the measure of grasping,** the hide is **pure. But** according to Reish Lakish, **why** is this so? **Let us say** that the hide is **repairable,** i.e., it can be sewn back on. **Rabbi Avin interpreted** the mishna and explained that **one** piece after **one** piece, i.e., each piece that is flayed is **rendered fallen** and disconnected from the flesh, as it will never be reattached to the flesh, unlike the case of a torn hide, which may be sewn back together.


###### Chullin 123b:17
[Chullin 123b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:17)

מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: עוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר. אַמַּאי? הָא חֲלִים וְקָאֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raises an objection** to the opinion of Reish Lakish from another ruling in the mishna: With regard to **the hide over the neck, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: It is not** considered to have **a connection** to the flesh, as the hide is merely loosely connected to the neck itself, and it is pure. According to Reish Lakish, **why** is this so? **Doesn’t** the hide **exist** in its **repaired** state, i.e., isn’t it still connected to the neck itself? If an impure hide that was torn and can be repaired remains impure, this should certainly be the *halakha* with regard to hide that was never moved from its initial state.


###### Chullin 123b:18
[Chullin 123b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא סֵיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: Instead of objecting to the opinion of Reish Lakish due to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, **say the latter clause** of the mishna: **And the Rabbis say:** The hide covering the neck is considered to have **a connection** to the flesh, a statement that supports the opinion of Reish Lakish according to your reasoning.


###### Chullin 123b:19
[Chullin 123b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:19)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּשׁוֹמֵר הֶעָשׂוּי לִנָּתֵק מֵאֵלָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: הָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said:** The dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan is irrelevant to the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. In the mishna, **they disagree with regard to** whether an appendage, such as the hide of the neck, that **protects** the flesh but is **prone to become detached by itself** is considered to be protection. One **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds** that **it is** considered to be **protection, and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, **holds** that **it is not** considered to be **protection.**


###### Chullin 123b:20
[Chullin 123b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/123b:20)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תַּנּוּר שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אוֹתוֹ? חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְגוֹרֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection** to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (*Kelim* 5:7): With regard to **an oven that has become impure, how does one purify it? One divides** the oven **into three** parts **and scrapes off the** layer of **plaster** that surrounds the oven