## Chullin Daf 127b

###### Chullin 127b:1
[Chullin 127b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:1)

נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the animal was slaughtered,** although this act of slaughter does not render it permitted for consumption by a Jew (see 73b), the limb and the flesh **were** thereby **rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming in contact **with the blood of** the slaughtered animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible** to impurity through the animal’s own blood; they are rendered susceptible only once they have been wet with another liquid.


###### Chullin 127b:2
[Chullin 127b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:2)

מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר נְבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the animal died** without slaughter, **the** hanging **flesh needs** to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity in order to become impure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass. **The** hanging **limb imparts impurity as a limb** severed **from a living** animal **but does not impart impurity as the limb of** an unslaughtered **carcass;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems** the limb **ritually pure.**


###### Chullin 127b:3
[Chullin 127b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – אִין, טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna states that the limb of an animal that was partially severed and remains hanging from the animal imparts impurity as food if one had intent to eat it. The Gemara infers: It imparts **impurity as food, yes,** but it does **not** impart **the impurity of a carcass,** which can be transmitted to people and utensils in addition to food.


###### Chullin 127b:4
[Chullin 127b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:4)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין נָמֵי לָא לִיטַּמּוּ, וְאִי דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** the limb **can heal** and reattach to the animal’s body then **it should not be susceptible even to impurity as food. And if it cannot heal, it should impart the impurity of a carcass as well.**


###### Chullin 127b:5
[Chullin 127b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:5)

לְעוֹלָם, דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה, וְשָׁאנֵי טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״כִּי יִפּוֹל״, עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna is discussing a case **where** the limb **will not heal, and** the reason that the limb does not impart impurity of a carcass is that **the impurity of a carcass is different** and unique, **as the Merciful One states** with regard to the impurity of a carcass: “And **if** any of their carcass **fall** upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of an animal is not considered a carcass **until it** completely **falls** from the animal.


###### Chullin 127b:6
[Chullin 127b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:6)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּמְעוֹרִין בְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה, יָכוֹל יְטַמְּאוּ טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִפּוֹל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין מְטַמּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** explanation **is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **the limb and the flesh** of an animal **that** were partially severed and remain **hanging from the animal and are connected** to the animal **by** a connector the size of **a strand of hair,** one **might** have thought that **they impart the impurity of a carcass.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “And if any of the carcass **fall,”** indicating that a severed limb does not impart the impurity of a carcass **until it** completely **falls** from the animal. **And nevertheless,** despite the fact that it is not considered severed with regard to the impurity of a carcass, such a limb is considered severed with regard to **being susceptible to impurity as food.**


###### Chullin 127b:7
[Chullin 127b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:7)

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּאֵנִים שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן – מְטַמְּאוֹת טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This explanation **supports** the opinion of **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **figs that dried** while still attached to **their tree,** despite the fact that they are still attached, they are considered as if they have been picked and **are susceptible to impurity as food. But** with regard to **one who picks them on Shabbat** they are considered attached, and **he is liable** to bring **a sin offering.** Just as a partially severed limb of an animal is considered both attached and severed with regard to different *halakhot*, so too this dried fruit is considered both attached and detached with regard to different *halakhot*.


###### Chullin 127b:8
[Chullin 127b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:8)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יְרָקוֹת שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכְּרוּב וְהַדַּלַּעַת – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us say** that a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Okatzin* 2:11) **supports** the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that dried figs still attached to the tree are considered as if they are detached with regard to susceptibility to impurity as food: **Vegetables that dried** while they are attached to **their plant, such as cabbage and gourd,** which become hard as wood and inedible when dried, **are not susceptible to impurity as food.** But if **one cut them** when they were still moist **and** then **dried them** in order to use them for fuel, or, in the case of gourds, to make utensils out of them, **they are susceptible to impurity as food.**


###### Chullin 127b:9
[Chullin 127b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:9)

קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּעַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Does it enter your mind** that if **one cut them and dried them** they are susceptible to impurity as food? Such a vegetable **is merely wood,** and it is inedible. **And Rabbi Yitzḥak says:** The *baraita* is discussing a case **where** one cut the vegetables when they were still moist **in order to dry them.** The novelty of the *baraita* is that even though one intends to dry the vegetables and render them inedible, as long as they are still moist they are susceptible to impurity as food.


###### Chullin 127b:10
[Chullin 127b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:10)

טַעְמָא דִּכְרוּב וְדַלַּעַת הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּיִבְּשָׁן לָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ, הָא שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְטַמְּאִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** for this *halakha* in the *baraita* is **that it is** discussing **cabbage and gourd: Since one dried them, they are inedible** and consequently are not susceptible to impurity as food. **But other** types of **produce,** which are edible when dried, **are susceptible to impurity.**


###### Chullin 127b:11
[Chullin 127b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:11)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיִבְּשָׁן הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּלֹא עוּקְצֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: **What are the circumstances? If one dried** both the produce **itself and its stems,** isn’t it **obvious** that the produce is no longer considered attached to the plant and is susceptible to impurity? If so, it would be unnecessary for the *baraita* to teach this. **Rather, isn’t** the *baraita* discussing a case where one dried the produce **without** drying **its stems?** Accordingly, in such a case the produce is considered detached with regard to impurity even though it is considered attached with regard to Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel.


###### Chullin 127b:12
[Chullin 127b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:12)

לְעוֹלָם הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן, וּקְצָצָן עַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: The *baraita* is not necessarily discussing that case. **Actually,** the *baraita* is discussing a case where both the produce **itself and its stems** were dried. **And** although it appears that the *halakha* is obvious in such a case, **it was necessary for** the *baraita* to mention it in order to teach the latter clause of the *baraita*: In a case where one **cut** the cabbage and gourd when they were still moist **in order to dry them,** they are susceptible to impurity as long as they are still moist.


###### Chullin 127b:13
[Chullin 127b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּבוֹ פֵּירוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין, יָבְשׁוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְחוּבָּרִין. מַאי לָאו: מָה תְּלוּשִׁין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, אַף מְחוּבָּרִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a challenge to the opinion of Shmuel from a *baraita*: In the case of **a tree from which a branch broke off, and** the branch **has fruit** attached to it, even if the fruit is still moist **it is considered detached** from the tree. But if the branch did not break off, and the fruit **dried** on the tree, **it is considered attached. What, isn’t** the ruling of the *baraita* that **just as** in the first clause the fruit on the detached branch is considered **detached with regard to all matters,** the *halakhot* of both Shabbat and impurity, **so too** in the latter clause the fruit that dried on the tree is considered **attached** to the tree **with regard to all matters,** even the transmission of impurity, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel?


###### Chullin 127b:14
[Chullin 127b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:14)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this challenge: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is.** In the first clause of the *baraita*, the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters. In the latter clause of the *baraita*, the dried fruit on the tree is considered attached with regard to Shabbat but detached with regard to impurity.


###### Chullin 127b:15
[Chullin 127b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:15)

נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: If **the animal was slaughtered,** Rabbi Meir holds that with the blood of the slaughtered animal the limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that they were not rendered susceptible with the animal’s own blood. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do** Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon **disagree?**


###### Chullin 127b:16
[Chullin 127b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:16)

אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר, וּמָר סָבַר בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb. The *tanna’im* agree that if an appendage that constitutes a handle is rendered susceptible to impurity, the food to which it is attached is also rendered susceptible. But **they disagree with regard to** whether **an animal constitutes a handle for** its **limb.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **an animal does not constitute a handle for** its **limb,** and therefore the limb is not rendered susceptible to contract impurity along with the body of the animal. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **an animal constitutes a handle for** its **limb,** and therefore the limb is rendered susceptible along with the body of the animal.


###### Chullin 127b:17
[Chullin 127b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:17)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both *tanna’im* agree that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb. But they also agree that if the liquid comes into contact with only part of the food it renders the entire item susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if the partially severed limb is considered part of the animal it is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the animal. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon **disagree with regard to** whether the limb is considered part of the animal, and generally speaking, with regard to any case where a small part of an item is hanging off the larger part such that if one **grasps** and lifts the **small** part the **large** part **does not ascend with it.**


###### Chullin 127b:18
[Chullin 127b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:18)

מָר סָבַר: אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that although if one **grasps** and lifts the **small** part the **large** part **does not ascend with it,** the small part **is** still considered one and **the same** with the large part. Therefore, a partially severed limb is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that the small part **is not** considered one and **the same** with the large part in such a case, and therefore the partially severed limb is not rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal.


###### Chullin 127b:19
[Chullin 127b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:19)

וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds** in accordance with the explanation of Abaye that the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** the status of a small part of an item that is hanging off the larger part such that one **grasps** the **small** part **and** the **large** part **does not ascend with it.**


###### Chullin 127b:20
[Chullin 127b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:20)

דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a contradiction** between one statement **of Rabbi Meir and** another statement **of Rabbi Meir: Did Rabbi Meir** actually **say** that even in a case where one **grasps** the **small** part of an item **and** the **large part does not ascend with it,** the small part **is** still considered one and **the same** with the large part?


###### Chullin 127b:21
[Chullin 127b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/127b:21)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: אוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּפְרַס וּמְעוֹרֶה בְּמִקְצָת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can **raise a contradiction** to this statement from a mishna (*Tevul Yom* 3:1): With regard to a piece of **food that was sliced** from a larger piece of food **and** remains **partially connected** to the larger piece, the entire item is considered one and the same with regard to impurity. If one who was previously ritually impure and immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched either piece of the item, the entire item becomes impure.