## Chullin Daf 128b

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

מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה יָד לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Rabbi Shimon, an item that is forbidden due to idol worship is not susceptible to impurity as food (see 129a). **What is** the *halakha* if the forbidden part of the gourd comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the forbidden part **constitute a handle for its** permitted **counterpart** and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יִחוּר שֶׁל תְּאֵנָה שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּמְעוֹרֶה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִם יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת – טָהוֹר, וְאִם לָאו – טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a similar dilemma. **Rav Pappa says:** The Sages **said** in a mishna (*Okatzin* 3:8): In the case of **a branch of a fig** tree **that was** mainly **detached** from the tree **and** which remains **attached** only **to the bark of** the tree, **Rabbi Yehuda** holds that the figs on the branch are considered as if they are still attached to the tree. Therefore, he **deems** them **not susceptible to impurity. And the Rabbis say: If** one is **able** to reattach the branch to the tree such that the branch can continue **to live** and produce fruit, then it is considered as if it is attached to the tree and the fruit on it is **not susceptible to impurity. But if not,** then the fruit is **susceptible to impurity.**


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

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה יָד לַחֲבֵירוֹ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this mishna, **Rav Pappa raises a dilemma:** According to the Rabbis, who distinguish between a branch that can be reattached and one that cannot, **what is** the *halakha* in the case of a branch that is mainly detached from a tree but can be reattached, and a second branch grows out from that branch, and is mainly detached from it and cannot be reattached? In such a case, the branch that can be reattached to the tree is not susceptible to contracting impurity, but the branch attached to it is. If the branch that is not susceptible to contract impurity comes into contact with a source of impurity, does it **constitute a handle for the other** branch and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: אֶבֶן שֶׁבַּזָּוִית, כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵץ – חוֹלֵץ אֶת כּוּלָּהּ, וּכְשֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵץ – נוֹתֵץ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ וּמַנִּיחַ אֶת שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses another similar dilemma. **Rabbi Zeira says:** The Sages **said** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 13:2): In the case of a large **stone that** is situated **in the corner** of a wall shared by two houses, where the stone is visible from inside both houses, if a leprous mark appears in one of the houses on the stone, **when one extracts** the stone **he must extract the entire** stone, even the part of the stone that is part of the neighbor’s wall. **But when one destroys** his house, after a reappearance of the leprous mark, **he must destroy** only the part of a stone that is in **his** house, **and leaves** the part of a stone **that belongs to his neighbor.**


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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַהוּ שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה יָד לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this mishna **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* in such a case with regard to the transmission of impurity from the leprous house to the adjacent house? Does half of the stone in the adjacent house **constitute a handle for the other** half and impart impurity such that one who enters the neighbor’s house becomes impure just as one who enters the leprous house? Or perhaps there is no *halakha* of a handle with regard to the impurity of a leprous house. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לְאֵבֶר (שֶׁל) [מִן] הַנְּבֵלָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The mishna teaches: If **the animal died,** the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity via contact with a liquid 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. The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between** the impurity of **a limb from a living** animal **and** the impurity of **a limb from a carcass?**


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

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ (מֵאֵבֶר בְּהֵמָה), דְּאִילּוּ בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי – לֹא מְטַמֵּא, מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַנְּבֵלָה – מְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The difference **between them** is with regard to **flesh that separates from the limb of an animal, as flesh that separates from a limb** severed **from the living does not impart impurity,** just like flesh that separates directly from a living animal. By contrast, an olive-bulk of flesh that separates **from the limb of a carcass imparts impurity** like the flesh of a carcass.


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

אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי דִּמְטַמֵּא, מַאי קְרָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the verse** from which it is derived **that a limb** severed **from the living imparts impurity? Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** With regard to the impurity of a carcass it is written: **“And if some animal [*min habehema*]** of which you may eat **dies,** he who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The phrase “some animal [*min habehema*],” which also means: From an animal, is interpreted as indicating that a limb torn from an animal is included in the impurity discussed in the verse.


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

וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – מִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה מְטַמְּאָה, וּמִקְצָת בְּהֵמָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה, וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? זוֹ טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can Rav interpret this verse in such a manner? **This** verse **is necessary for** another *halakha* **that Rav Yehuda** said that **Rav said,** as **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said, and some say it was taught in a *baraita*:** In the verse: **“And if some animal [*min habehema*]** of which you may eat **dies,** he who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening,” the phrase “some animal [*min habehema*]” indicates that **some** dead **animals impart impurity** as a carcass, **and some** dead **animals do not impart impurity** as a carcass. **And which is that** animal that does not impart impurity as a carcass? **That is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*] that one slaughtered.** Even though slaughter does not render the animal permitted to be eaten, it removes the animal from the category of a carcass with regard to impurity.


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

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״מִבְּהֵמָה״, מַאי ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if the verse teaches only one of the two *halakhot*, **let the Merciful One write *mibehema*,** in one Hebrew word. **What** is the verse teaching when it states: **“*Min habehema*,”** with two Hebrew words? It is teaching that one should **conclude two** conclusions **from it.**


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

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בָּשָׂר נָמֵי? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי טָמֵא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – מָה מִיתָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה חֲלִיפִין, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** if this verse teaches that a limb from a living animal imparts impurity, one can **also** derive from it that **even flesh** from a living animal imparts impurity. The Gemara responds: **It should not enter your mind** to derive this, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **flesh that separates from a living** animal **is impure** like a carcass. Therefore, **the verse states: “And if some animal** of which you may eat **dies.” Just as death does not generate a replacement,** i.e., life is not regenerated from the dead, **so too any** element of an animal **that** dies and **does not generate a replacement** assumes the impurity of a carcass. An animal does not replace a severed limb but it does replace severed flesh; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei.**


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּהֵמָה״, מָה בְּהֵמָה – גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת, אַף כֹּל – גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״בְּהֵמָה״ מָה בְּהֵמָה – בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת, אַף כֹּל – בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** One can derive this *halakha* from the word **“animal”** in the verse. **Just as an animal** contains **sinews and bones, so too, any** element of an animal that contains **sinews and bones** imparts impurity. Therefore, a limb, which contains sinews and bones, imparts impurity, but flesh, which does not contain sinews and bones, does not impart impurity. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** One can derive this *halakha* from the word **“animal”** in the verse. **Just as an animal** contains **flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any** element of an animal that contains **flesh, sinews, and bones** imparts impurity.


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אַרְכוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between** the opinions of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabbi Akiva?** The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them is** with regard to the **leg joint,** which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it does not impart impurity when it separates from a living animal, but according to Rabbi Akiva it does.


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

בֵּין רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כּוּלְיָא וְנִיב שְׂפָתַיִם אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** practical difference **is there between** the opinions of **Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said:** The practical difference **between them is** with regard to the **kidney and** the **upper lip** that separate from a living animal. According to Rabbi Yosei these parts of the animal impart impurity because the animal does not generate a replacement for them; according to Rabbi Akiva they do not impart impurity, because they do not contain bones.


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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי שְׁרָצִים כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא: יָכוֹל בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַשְּׁרָצִים יְהֵא טָמֵא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״ – מָה מִיתָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה חֲלִיפִין, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה חֲלִיפִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states a different *halakha* where these three *tanna’im* express the same opinions. **So too, it is taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to creeping animals like this case:** One **might** have thought that **flesh that separates from a creeping animal** during its lifetime **should be impure** like a creeping animal carcass. Therefore, **the verse states** with regard to creeping animal carcasses: “And upon whatever any of them falls **when they are dead** shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). The word “dead” teaches that **just as death does not generate a replacement, so too any** element of a creeping animal **that** dies and **does not generate a replacement** imparts the impurity of a creeping animal carcass, excluding flesh; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.**


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁרֶץ״, מָה שֶׁרֶץ – גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת, אַף כֹּל – גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״שֶׁרֶץ״, מָה שֶׁרֶץ – בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת, אַף כֹּל – בָּשָׂר גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** One can derive this *halakha* from the term **“creeping animal.” Just as a creeping animal** contains **sinews and bones, so too any** element of a creeping animal that contains **sinews and bones** imparts impurity. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** One can derive this *halakha* from the term **“creeping animal.” Just as a creeping animal** contains **flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any** element of a creeping animal that contains **flesh, sinews, and bones** imparts impurity.


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

בֵּין רַבִּי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אַרְכוּבָּה. בֵּין רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כּוּלְיָא וְנִיב שְׂפָתַיִם אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: The practical difference **between** the opinions of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabbi Akiva is** with regard to **the leg joint,** which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. **What** difference **is there between** the opinions of **Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said:** The practical difference **between them is** with regard to **the kidney and the upper lip,** which contain no bones and which are not regenerated by the creeping animal.


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

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהֵמָה – הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּלֹא מְטַמֵּא מֵחַיִּים, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא מְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אֲבָל שֶׁרֶץ דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה – אֵימָא לְטַמֵּא מֵחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is necessary** to teach this *halakha* both with regard to flesh that separates from a living animal and with regard to flesh that separates from a creeping animal. **As if** the *baraita* **had taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to **an animal,** one might have said that **this is the reason that** flesh that separates **from a living** animal **does not impart impurity:** It is **because** an animal carcass **does not impart impurity in** the measure of **a lentil-bulk,** but rather only in the measure of an olive-bulk. **But** with regard to **a creeping animal, which imparts impurity** even **in** the measure of **a lentil-bulk, say** that flesh that separates **from** it while it is **living should impart impurity.**


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

וְאִי אַשְׁמְועִינַן שֶׁרֶץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא – לֹא מְטַמֵּא מֵחַיִּים, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה, דִּמְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא – אֵימָא תְּטַמֵּא מֵחַיִּים, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the *baraita* **had taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to **a creeping animal,** one might have said that flesh that separates from a creeping animal does not impart impurity **because** a creeping animal **does not impart impurity via carrying,** and therefore flesh that separates from it **while it is living does not impart impurity. But** with regard to **an animal, which imparts impurity via carrying, say** that flesh that separates from it **while it is living should impart impurity.** Therefore, **it is necessary** to teach this *halakha* in both cases.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַחוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, חֲתָכוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו – טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara continues to discuss flesh that separates from a living animal. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who severs an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb** severed **from the living,** the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass but it does impart impurity as food if one designated it as food before it came into contact with a source of impurity. Therefore, if **one severed** the flesh from the limb **and afterward intended it** to be used for the consumption of a gentile, the flesh remains **pure** because at the time he designated the flesh as food it was not in contact with a source of impurity.


###### Chullin 128b:21
[Chullin 128b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128b:21)

חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכוֹ – טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if **he intended it** to be used for the consumption of a gentile **and afterward severed** the flesh, the flesh is **impure,** because it came into contact with a source of impurity, i.e., the limb, after it was designated as food.


###### Chullin 128b:22
[Chullin 128b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/128b:22)

רַבִּי אַסִּי לָא עָל לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֲמוּר בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קַשְׁיָא לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: חִישֵּׁב וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכוֹ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One day **Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira,** and **said to him: What was said** today **in the study hall?** Rabbi Zeira **said to him: What** matter is **difficult for you** that you think may have been discussed in the study hall? Rabbi Asi **said to him:** I find difficult that **which is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one intended** flesh from a limb that was severed from a living animal to be used for the consumption of a gentile, **and afterward he severed** the flesh from the limb, the flesh is **impure.**