9/7/11

Talmud Bavli Hullin 73a-b - translation by Tzvee

In accord with whose view is this? In accord with the view of R. Meir. As it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: All handles of utensils that are [too] long and that one is going to cut off — one immerses them up to the place of their proper measure [the Talmud here gives these attributions: — the words of R. Meir. And sages say... ]. R. Judah says, “[They are not clean] until one will immerse the whole object” [M. Miq. 10:5 A-C].

F.             You could even maintain [that the rule of our Mishnah accords with] the view of the rabbis [i.e., Judah] that regarding the connections in [a bulk of solid] foods, we treat it as if it was a conglomeration of separate portions that touch one another.

G.            According to the view of Ulla [C] it makes perfect sense why [the Mishnah] taught that he cut it off. [For if he did not, then it would not become unclean since this is a case of uncleanness that is concealed from view that does not render unclean (Rashi)].

H.           But according to the view of Rabina [D] why [does Mishnah state] he cut it off? Since the former text of the Mishnah taught he cut it off, the latter text also taught he cut it off.

II.1
A.            And sages say, “[It is in the status of that which has] touched terefah that has been slaughtered” [M. 4:4 E]. Does a terefah-animal that has been slaughter render unclean? Yes. In accord with the view of the father of Samuel. For said the father of Samuel, “A terefah-animal that was slaughtered renders Holy Things unclean” (b. 123b).

III.1
A.            [They said to R. Meir], “Just as we find in the case of the terefah that slaughtering it renders it clean, so the slaughtering of a beast should render the limb clean” [M. 4:4 F]. It was taught on Tannaite authority: Said to them R. Meir, “And what rendered this limb [of the offspring] clean from the uncleanness of carrion? The slaughter of its mother. If this is so, then let us permit it for eating.” They said to him, “[In some instances, through the act of slaughter,] you can more effectively save what is not [a primary part of] the body than what is [a primary part of] the body. For we learned: [If] one cuts off part of the offspring which is in its womb — it [what is cut off] is permitted to be eaten. [If he cut off] part of the spleen or kidneys [of the beast itself], it is prohibited to be eaten [M. 4:1 D-F].

B.            What is the implication of what is stated? Said Raba, and some say [said] Kadi, “There is a lacuna in the text. And this is how you should teach the matter [of our Mishnah]: Said to them R. Meir, `And what rendered this limb [of the offspring] clean from the uncleanness of carrion? The slaughter of its mother. If this is so, then let us permit it for eating.' They said to him, `Let the rule of a terefah-animal prove the matter. For by slaughtering it you render it clean from the uncleanness of carrion, but you do not render it permitted for eating. [The slaughter therefore should render clean the limb.]'

C.            “He said to them, `No, [your argument is not consistent]. If the slaughter of a terefah-animal renders clean something that is part of the body [of the animal], should it render clean the limb, something that is not part of the body?' They said to him, `[In some instances, through the act of slaughter,] you can more effectively save what is not [a primary part of] the body than what is [a primary part of] the body.' For we learned: [If] one cuts off part of the offspring which is in its womb — it [what is cut off] is permitted to be eaten. [If he cut off] part of the spleen or kidneys [of the beast itself], it is prohibited to be eaten [M. 4:1 D-F].

D.            There is a Tannaite teaching that was taught also in this regard: Said to them R. Meir, `And what rendered this limb [of the offspring] clean from the uncleanness of carrion? The slaughter of its mother. If this is so, then let us permit it for eating.' They said to him, `Let the rule of a terefah-animal prove the matter. For by slaughtering it you render it clean from the uncleanness of carrion, but you do not render it permitted for eating. [The slaughter therefore should render clean the limb.]'

E.            “He said to them, `No, [your argument is not consistent]. If the slaughter of a terefah-animal renders clean it and a limb that is dangling from it, [that is,] something that is part of the body [of the animal], should it render clean the [protruding limb of the] foetus, something that is not part of the body?' They said to him, `[In some instances, through the act of slaughter,] you can more effectively save what is not [a primary part of] the body than what is [a primary part of] the body.' For we learned: [If] one cuts off part of the offspring which is in its womb — it [what is cut off] is permitted to be eaten. [If he cut off] part of the spleen or kidneys [of the beast itself], it is prohibited to be eaten [M. 4:1 D-F].

IV.1
A.            Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “Just as the dispute [between Meir and sages in M. 4:4 D-E] pertains to the [protruding limbs of] foetuses, so the dispute pertains to [dangling] limbs [of the animal itself].”

B.            And R. Yohanan said, “The dispute [between them] pertains to the [protruding] limb of a foetus. But regarding the [dangling] limb of the animal itself, all agree that as far as the act of slaughter is concerned, it is considered to be detached.”

C.            Said R. Yosé b. R. Haninah, “What is the basis for the view of R. Yohanan? According to sages' view [the limb of a foetus is rendered clean from the uncleanness of carrion by the slaughter of the mother and the dangling limb of the mother is not, because] there is a redress for this one. [The limb of the foetus can be] put back [inside the mother]. But this one [for the dangling limb of the animal], there is no redress of putting it back.”

D.            They posed an objection: R. Meir said to them, “If the slaughter of a terefah-animal renders clean it and a limb that is dangling from it, [that is,] something that is part of the body [of the animal], should it render clean the [protruding limb of the] foetus, something that is not part of the body?” [III.1 E, above].

E.            [73b] This makes perfect sense according to the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish [who says in A that Meir and sages dispute with regard to both matters] that he [Meir] is stating matters in accord with their [sages] view. [Meir would say], according to my view there is no difference [with regard to the law] between the protruding limb of the foetus and the dangling limb of the animal itself. They have the same status.

F.             But according to the view of R. Yohanan [who says in B that Meir and sages do not dispute over the case of a dangling limb of the animal itself] this [statement of R. Meir] leads to a contradiction.

G.            But if you wish to state the matter, this is how you should state the matter: Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “Just as the dispute [between Meir and sages in M. 4:4 D-E] pertains to the [protruding limbs of] foetuses, so the dispute pertains to [dangling] limbs [of the animal itself].”

H.           And R. Yohanan said, “The dispute [between them] pertains to the [protruding] limb of a foetus. But regarding the [dangling] limb of the animal itself, all agree that as far as the act of slaughter is concerned, it is not considered to be detached.”

I.              Said R. Yosé b. R. Haninah, “What is the basis for the view of R. Yohanan? According to R. Meir's view this [dangling limb] is part of the body of the animal and this [foetus] is not part of the body of the animal.

IV.2
A.            Said R. Yohanan, “All agree that as far as an animal that dies is concerned, it is considered to be detached. As far as the act of slaughter [is concerned], it is not considered to be detached.”

B.            What situation are we dealing with? If you say [we are dealing] with the protruding limb of the foetus, we have a dispute [between Meir and sages] over this! Rather it must be we are dealing with the dangling limb of the animal itself. But it was taught on Tannaite authority [explicitly] regarding the case of the animal that died and it was taught on Tannaite authority regarding the animal that was slaughtered.

C.            It was taught on Tannaite authority [explicitly] regarding the case of the animal that died: “[If in the case of an animal with a dangling limb] the cattle died, the flesh requires preparation [to receive uncleanness]. The limb imparts uncleanness as a limb cut from a living beast, and it does not impart uncleanness as a limb of carrion,” the words of R. Meir [M. 9:7 E-G].

D.            It also was taught on Tannaite authority regarding the animal that was slaughtered: [The dangling limb and flesh in the case of cattle impart food uncleanness [when they are] in their place [attached]. And they require preparation [i.e., wetting down, to receive uncleanness].] “[If] the cattle is slaughtered, they are deemed prepared through its blood [to receive uncleanness],” the words of R. Meir. And R. Simeon says, “They are not deemed prepared [to receive uncleanness, since the act of slaughter, not blood, renders meat susceptible, and these are unaffected by slaughter (M. 2:5)]” [M. 9:7 A-D].

E.            If I were to derive matters from this source I might have reasoned what does it mean, they are deemed prepared? [It refers only to dangling] flesh. But lo, it was taught, they [plural] are deemed prepared. [You could say that] one case refers to flesh that separates [and dangles] from the animal itself, and one case refers to flesh that separates from the dangling limb [of the animal itself].

F.             And why would one case be more definite than the other? It might have made sense to maintain that since [the flesh that hangs from a dangling limb] would render unclean with a stronger form of uncleanness on account of its derivation [i.e., the limb itself], I would say that you should not need preparation [so as to become unclean]. It makes the novel point [that they do need it].

IV.3
A.            Said R. Joseph, “Take in hand the ruling of R. Yitzhak bar Joseph because Rabbah bar bar Hannah upholds his view.”

B.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field” (Exod. 22:31) — this brings [under the rule] the limb and the flesh that are dangling from a beast, or a wild animal, or a bird that he slaughtered [to tell us] that they [the dangling parts] are prohibited. And said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Yohanan, [74a] “For these entities, there is a duty only to avoid them.” [This implies that with regard to slaughter they are deemed attached to the animal and in fact permitted.]

No comments: