## Chullin Daf 128a

###### Chullin 128a:1
[Chullin 128a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:1)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אִם אוֹחֵז בַּקָּטָן וְגָדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: If** when one **grasps the small** piece, the **large** piece **ascends with it,** it **is** considered one and **the same; but if** it does **not** ascend with it, it **is not** considered one and **the same.** This statement of Rabbi Meir is not in accordance with his statement in the mishna that a partially severed limb is part of the body of the animal and is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body even if one lifts the partially severed limb and the body of the animal does not ascend with it.


###### Chullin 128a:2
[Chullin 128a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:2)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan** resolves the contradiction and **says: The** attribution of the **opinions** in tractate *Tevul Yom* **is reversed.** Indeed, Rabbi Meir holds that even if when one lifts the smaller piece, the larger piece does not ascend with it, it is still the same item. Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Yoḥanan explains the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.


###### Chullin 128a:3
[Chullin 128a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:3)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין טְבוּל יוֹם לִשְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, the Gemara asks: **What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir distinguishes between** the impurity of **one who immersed that day and other types of impurity.** The impurity of one who immersed that day is a more lenient type of impurity, because he has already immersed and need only wait until the end of the day in order to consume sacrificial offerings. Therefore, there is reason to be more lenient when he touches a partially severed piece of food and to rule that the entire food item does not become impure.


###### Chullin 128a:4
[Chullin 128a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:4)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד טְבוּל יוֹם וְאֶחָד שְׁאָר טוּמְאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: One cannot make such a distinction between different types of impurity because it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** With regard to **both** the impurity of **one who immersed that day and other types of impurity,** the *halakhot* of contact are the same; whatever is considered contact that transmits impurity with regard to one type of impurity transmits impurity for all types of impurity.


###### Chullin 128a:5
[Chullin 128a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:5)

וְדִילְמָא, לְרַבִּי לָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ, וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **does not distinguish** between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity **and Rabbi Meir does distinguish** in such a manner. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Meir.


###### Chullin 128a:6
[Chullin 128a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoshiya said: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan** meant to **say: According to the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, and **the** attribution of the **opinions** in the mishna in tractate *Tevul Yom* **is reversed.**


###### Chullin 128a:7
[Chullin 128a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:7)

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּיֵשׁ יָד לְטוּמְאָה, וְאֵין יָד לְהֶכְשֵׁר, קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood from the slaughter came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both *tanna’im* agree that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. **They disagree with regard to** the principle that **there is** a status of **a handle,** i.e., a handle is considered part of the item itself, **with regard to** transmitting **impurity** to the attached food, **but there is no** status of **a handle with regard to rendering** the attached food **susceptible** to impurity, as in that regard the handle is considered a separate item.


###### Chullin 128a:8
[Chullin 128a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:8)

מָר סָבַר יֵשׁ יָד לְטוּמְאָה וְאֵין יָד לְהֶכְשֵׁר, וּמָר סָבַר יֵשׁ יָד לְטוּמְאָה וּלְהֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **there is** a status of **a handle with regard to** transmitting **impurity, but there is no** status of **a handle with regard to rendering** the attached food **susceptible** to impurity. Therefore, although the body of the animal constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the limb, it does not render the limb susceptible to impurity. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **there is** a status of **a handle** both **with regard to** transmitting **impurity and with regard to rendering** the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the body of the animal renders the limb susceptible to impurity.


###### Chullin 128a:9
[Chullin 128a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:9)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: בְּהֶכְשֵׁר קוֹדֶם מַחְשָׁבָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** a different explanation of the dispute: Both *tanna’im* hold that a handle renders the attached food susceptible to impurity. Yet, the mishna is discussing a case where the slaughter took place before the owner of the animal designated its meat for the consumption of a gentile. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon **disagree with regard to** whether an item can be **rendered susceptible** to impurity **before intention,** i.e., before one intends to use it as food. Rabbi Shimon holds that since the animal came in contact with the blood of the slaughter before the owner intended to use it as food, it is not rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir holds that the susceptibility to impurity takes effect such that when the owner considers it as food it will be susceptible to impurity.


###### Chullin 128a:10
[Chullin 128a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:10)

דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כָּךְ הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שׁוֹנֶה – חֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה בַּכְּפָרִים צָרִיךְ מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר הוּכְשַׁר בַּשְּׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This dispute is also found in that **which we learned** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Okatzin* 3:2): **Rabbi Yehuda says** that **Rabbi Akiva would teach this** *halakha*: **Fat** forbidden in consumption for a Jew from an animal **slaughtered in the villages requires intention,** i.e., designation, for consumption, for it to become susceptible to impurity. This is because the population in such places is small and there is an abundance of meat, so people do not generally consume the fat. Consequently, unless the Jewish owner intends for a gentile to consume it, it is not considered food. **But** the fat **does not require** contact with a liquid in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity, **as it was already rendered susceptible by the** blood of **slaughter** even though it came into contact with the blood before the Jew designated it for consumption.


###### Chullin 128a:11
[Chullin 128a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:11)

אָמַרְתִּי לְפָנָיו: לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, עוּלְשִׁין שֶׁלִּקְּטָן וְהִדִּיחָן לַבְּהֵמָה, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן לָאָדָם – צְרִיכוֹת הֶכְשֵׁר שֵׁנִי. וְחָזַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹנֶה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda continues: **I said before him: You taught us, our teacher,** that in a case of **endives that one picked and rinsed** in water **for** the consumption of **an animal, and** one later **reconsidered** and decided to designate **them for human** consumption, the endives **need** to come into contact with liquid **a second** time in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity, as food designated for animal consumption does not contract impurity. Evidently, for a food item to become susceptible to impurity, its contact with liquid must occur after one designated it as food. **And Rabbi Akiva** then **retracted** his previous statement and **taught** the *halakha* **in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Chullin 128a:12
[Chullin 128a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:12)

מָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, וּמָר סָבַר לַהּ כַּחֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa concludes: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the same manner. One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds in accordance with** that which Rabbi Akiva taught **originally, and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds in accordance with** that which Rabbi Akiva taught after his **retraction** of his original statement.


###### Chullin 128a:13
[Chullin 128a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:13)

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: בְּנִתְקַנֵּחַ הַדָּם בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said** another explanation of the dispute: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of slaughter came into contact with a partially severed limb, and the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But slaughter is valid only if one cuts the two *simanim*, the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two *simanim*, and the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** a case where **the blood** in question **was wiped off between** the cutting of the first ***siman* and** the second ***siman*.**


###### Chullin 128a:14
[Chullin 128a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:14)

מָר סָבַר יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר אֵינָהּ לִשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא לְסוֹף, וְהַאי דַּם מַכָּה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **slaughter is** defined **from** the **beginning to** the **end** of its performance, **and this** blood that splashed on the limb **is** considered **blood of slaughter. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **slaughter is** defined **only** as **the conclusion** of its performance, **and this** blood from the first *siman* **is** considered the **blood of a wound** and does not render the limb susceptible to impurity.


###### Chullin 128a:15
[Chullin 128a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:15)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בִּשְׁחִיטָה מַכְשֶׁרֶת וְלֹא דָּם קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** another explanation of the dispute: The case is where the blood of slaughter came in contact with the partially severed limb, but Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon **disagree with regard to** the principle that the **slaughter** itself **renders** the limb **susceptible** to impurity, **and not** the **blood** of slaughter. Rabbi Shimon holds that the blood of slaughter is not one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But the slaughter itself renders the meat of the animal susceptible to impurity, because it prepares the meat for consumption. Therefore, since a partially severed limb is not prepared for consumption by the slaughter, as it remains forbidden, the slaughter does not render it susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir maintains that the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, and therefore, the limb is rendered susceptible.


###### Chullin 128a:16
[Chullin 128a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:16)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ, מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה יָד לְאֵבֶר? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§Earlier (127b), Rabba explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the body of an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that it does constitute a handle, **Rabba raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* if **an animal** with a partially severed limb came into contact with a source of impurity **during its lifetime?** In such a case, where the animal is not susceptible to contract impurity because it is alive but the partially severed limb is susceptible to contract impurity as food, does the animal **constitute a handle for** its **limb** and transmit the impurity to the limb? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 128a:17
[Chullin 128a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:17)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ, קִישּׁוּת שֶׁנְּטָעָהּ בְּעָצִיץ וְהִגְדִּילָה וְיָצָאת חוּץ לֶעָצִיץ – טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara introduces a similar dilemma. **Abaye says:** The Sages **said** in the mishna (*Okatzin* 2:9): In the case of an impure **cucumber that one planted in** an unperforated **flowerpot,** such that the cucumber is considered detached from the ground and susceptible to impurity as food, **and** the cucumber **grew and went out beyond** the edge of **the flowerpot** such that part of the cucumber is overlying the ground, the entire cucumber is considered attached to the ground and therefore becomes **pure.**


###### Chullin 128a:18
[Chullin 128a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מָה טִיבָהּ לְטַהֵר? אֶלָּא הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ, וְטָהוֹר בְּטׇהֳרָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says: What is the nature of** the impurity of the cucumber that it **is rendered pure** in such a case? **Rather, the** part of the cucumber that is inside the flowerpot and **impure** remains **in its** state of **impurity, and** the part of the cucumber that is outside the flowerpot and **pure** remains **in its** state of **purity.**


###### Chullin 128a:19
[Chullin 128a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:19)

בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה יָד לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on this mishna, **Abaye raises a dilemma** according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: **What is** the *halakha* if the part of the cucumber outside of the flowerpot comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the part of the cucumber outside the flowerpot **constitute a handle for its counterpart** inside the flowerpot and transmit impurity to it to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 128a:20
[Chullin 128a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128a:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַחֲצִי דַלַּעַת אֲסָרָהּ, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another dilemma based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. **Rabbi Yirmeya says:** The Sages **said** that **one who bows down to a half of a gourd,** worshipping it as a divinity, **renders** that half of the gourd **forbidden,** i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, because it was worshipped as an idol. The other half, though, is not forbidden. Based on this ruling, **Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:**