## Chullin Daf 73b

###### Chullin 73b:1
[Chullin 73b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:1)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, לְדִבְרֵיהֶם קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי לָא שְׁנָא אֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר וְלָא שְׁנָא אֵבֶר דִּבְהֵמָה, כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Meir’s statement appears inconsistent with his opinion, as he holds that a hanging limb is not rendered pure by slaughtering the animal. The Gemara suggests that this difficulty can be resolved only according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s version of the Rabbis’ opinion, but not according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s version. **Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,** one can explain that Rabbi Meir **was speaking in accordance with the statement of** the Rabbis, as follows: **According to my** own opinion, there **is no difference** with regard to **the limb of a fetus, and** there **is no difference** with regard to **a limb** hanging **from an animal; they are the same** in that the slaughter of the animal does not render either of them pure. Accordingly, Rabbi Meir must have been speaking in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that a limb hanging from an animal is rendered pure by the animal’s slaughter.


###### Chullin 73b:2
[Chullin 73b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:2)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who holds that both the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir agree that a limb hanging from an animal is not rendered pure by the animal’s slaughter, Rabbi Meir’s statement is **difficult,** as it is inconsistent with both his opinion and the Rabbis’ opinion. The Gemara concedes the challenge.


###### Chullin 73b:3
[Chullin 73b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:3)

אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּעוּבָּרִים, כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּאֵיבָרִין, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּאֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר, אֲבָל בְּאֵבֶר דִּבְהֵמָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** such a dispute **was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Just as** there is **a dispute** between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **with regard to fetuses** whose limbs emerged from the womb, **so** too, they have a parallel **dispute with regard to limbs** hanging from an animal. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Their **dispute is** only **with regard to the limb of a fetus** that emerged from the womb; **but with regard to a limb** hanging **from an animal, everyone agrees** that the **slaughter** of the animal **does not render** such a limb as though it had already **fallen off** prior to the slaughter, and does not impart the impurity of a carcass. According to this version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s understanding of the dispute, Rabbi Meir’s statement is consistent even with his own opinion.


###### Chullin 73b:4
[Chullin 73b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? הַאי גּוּפָהּ, וְהַאי לָאו גּוּפָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason** for the distinction made **by Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir,** that the slaughter of an animal does not render pure the limb of its fetus, but it does render pure a limb hanging from the animal itself? It is that **this** hanging limb is part of the animal’s **body, but that,** the limb of the fetus, is **not** part of **its body.**


###### Chullin 73b:5
[Chullin 73b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:5)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁמִּיתָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל, וְאֵין שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה נִיפּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to elucidate the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. **Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone agrees that** the **death** of an animal by means other than slaughter **renders** a limb as though it had already **fallen off** prior to the animal’s death. Therefore, it will not have the impurity of a carcass, but it will have the impurity of a limb taken from a living animal. **And** likewise, everyone agrees that the **slaughter** of the animal **does not render** a limb as though it had already **fallen off** prior to the slaughter, and therefore it will not have the impurity of a carcass.


###### Chullin 73b:6
[Chullin 73b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:6)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּאֵבֶר דְּעוּבָּר – מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! אֶלָּא בְּאֵבֶר דִּבְהֵמָה – מִיתָה תְּנֵינָא, שְׁחִיטָה תְּנֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are we dealing with** here? **If we say** we are dealing **with a limb of** its **fetus** that emerged from its womb, Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis explicitly **disagree** with regard to this case. **Rather,** we are dealing **with a limb** hanging **from an animal.** But if so, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is unnecessary. With regard to a hanging limb, **we** already **learn** about the effect of the **death** of the animal in a mishna elsewhere, and **we** already **learn** about the effect of the **slaughter** of the animal in a mishna elsewhere.


###### Chullin 73b:7
[Chullin 73b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:7)

מִיתָה תְּנֵינָא: מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, וְהָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַנְּבֵלָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **We** already **learn** about the effect of the **death** of an animal in the mishna (127b): If **the animal died** without slaughter, any hanging **flesh needs** to be rendered **susceptible** to contracting ritual impurity in order to become impure. This is accomplished by coming in contact with liquid, with the owner’s approval. The reason is that 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. **And** a hanging **limb imparts impurity as a limb** severed **from a living** animal, **but does not impart impurity as a limb from a carcass;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** Evidently, Rabbi Meir holds that upon the animal’s death, anything hanging from the animal is considered as though it had already fallen off before the animal’s death. Since the mishna does not record that the Rabbis disagree, it would appear that they agree.


###### Chullin 73b:8
[Chullin 73b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:8)

שְׁחִיטָה נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **we** already **learn** about the effect of the **slaughter** of an animal in the same mishna: If **the animal is slaughtered, they,** the limb and the flesh hanging from it, **are** thereby **rendered susceptible** to impurity, by coming in contact **with its blood.** Blood is one of the seven liquids that render foods susceptible to impurity and its presence is considered to be with the approval of the owner, as it makes the meat look redder and fresher; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible** to impurity through the animal’s own blood, but only once they were wet with another liquid, with the owner’s approval. It is apparent that both opinions in that mishna agree that the limb does not have the impurity of a limb severed from a living animal. Evidently, they hold that the slaughter does not render the hanging limb as though it had already fallen off beforehand.


###### Chullin 73b:9
[Chullin 73b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:9)

אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי ״הוּכְשְׁרוּ״ – אַבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Given that the mishna has already taught both *halakhot*, what was the necessity of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement? The Gemara answers: **If** these *halakhot* were derived only **from that** mishna, **I would say** that actually, slaughter does render a hanging limb as though it had already fallen off beforehand, and such a limb would have the impurity of a limb severed from a live animal. If so, **what** does the mishna mean when it states: **They are rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming in contact with its blood? Ostensibly, the intention is that both the limb and the flesh must be rendered susceptible to impurity, which indicates that the limb does not have any impurity of its own. The Gemara explains: One would have explained that the need to be rendered susceptible to impurity is referring only **to the flesh,** as flesh severed from a living animal does not have any impurity of its own.


###### Chullin 73b:10
[Chullin 73b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:10)

וְהָא ״הוּכְשְׁרוּ״ קָתָנֵי, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: חַד לְבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַבְּהֵמָה, וְחַד לְבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָאֵבֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** the mishna **teaches: They are rendered susceptible,** in the plural, which is apparently referring to both the flesh and the limb, which were mentioned previously in the mishna. The Gemara explains: **You might say** that the plural is used because the statement is referring to two types of hanging flesh that upon slaughter are considered to have been separated from a living animal: **One** is **for flesh that separates from** the body of **the animal, and** the other **one** is **for flesh that separates from the** hanging **limb.** Neither type has its own impurity, so they must be rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with liquid.


###### Chullin 73b:11
[Chullin 73b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:11)

וּמַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּהַאי מֵהַאי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה אַגַּב אָבִיו, אֵימָא לָא לִיבְעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** in **what** way **is** it **more compelling** to apply the *halakha* **to this** type of flesh **than** to **that** type, making it necessary to state the *halakha* with regard to both? The Gemara answers: It might **enter your mind to say** that **since** flesh that is attached to a limb severed from a living animal **imparts** the same **severe** form of **ritual impurity** as the limb **on account of being a part of** it, one might **say** that once the flesh is separated from the limb it does **not need to** then **be rendered susceptible** to impurity. To reject this possibility, the mishna uses the plural form to **teach us** that this type of flesh does need to be rendered susceptible to impurity.


###### Chullin 73b:12
[Chullin 73b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/73b:12)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נְקוֹט דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף בִּידָךְ, דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה קָאֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – לְהָבִיא הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה וּבְעוֹף, וּשְׁחָטָן, שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yosef said: Take** the statement **that Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef** says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, i.e., that the slaughter of an animal does not render a hanging limb as though it had already fallen off prior to the slaughter, **in your hand,** i.e., accept it as correct, **as Rabba bar bar Ḥana** also **holds in accordance with** this opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“And flesh that is torn in the field, you shall not eat”** (Exodus 22:30). This serves **to include** the case of **the limb or the flesh that was** partially cut off but was still **hanging on a domesticated animal or on an undomesticated animal or on a bird, and one slaughtered** them; it is derived **that they are prohibited** as limbs severed from a living animal. **And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** with regard to the ruling of this *baraita*: