Talmud Bavli Hullin 122a-b - translation by Tzvee

C.            [122a] In accord with which authority [did Huna state his view]? If we say in accord with R. Ishmael, lo he said that the hide does not nullify them [viz., “If there were on it two half-olive's bulks, it imparts uncleanness to the one who carries it, but not to the one who touched it,” the words of R. Ishmael (M. 9:4 C)].

D.            And if in accord with R. Aqiba, this is obvious. Lo he says [explicitly] that the hide nullifies them [viz., R. Aqiba says, “Neither to the one who touches it nor to the one who carried it...” And on what account does R. Aqiba declare clean in the case of hide? Because the hide nullifies them (M. 9:4 D-H)].

E.            Invariably it must be in accord with R. Ishmael. And where Ishmael said that the hide does not nullifiy them, that concern applies where a wild beast tore off [the hide with the flesh attached]. But where a knife removed [the hide, the pieces attached to it] are nullified.

VII.2

A.            Come and take note: R. Judah says, “The flayed-off meat which was collected together, if there is the volume of an olive's bulk in one place — one is liable on its account [if one touched it and entered the Temple]” [M. 9:1 H]. Said R. Huna, “And only if he collected it.”

B.            If you wish you may say it makes perfect sense [if you hold the view that] where a knife removed it, according to R. Ishmael it also is not nullified. R. Huna then states the matter in accord with the view of R. Ishmael. But if you wish to say that [you hold the view that] where a knife removed it, according to R. Ishmael it is nullified, then in accord with whose view does R. Huna state the matter?

C.            But invariably [you hold the view that] where a knife removed it, according to R. Ishmael it also is not nullified. And R. Huna states the matter in accord with the view of R. Aqiba. But this is obvious! [No.] What might you have maintained? When did R. Aqiba state [his view]? His concern applies only where a knife removed it. But where a wild beast tore off [the hide] it is not nullified. It comes to teach us the novel point that the basis for the view of R. Aqiba is that the hide nullifies them. It makes no difference whether a knife removed it or whether a wild beast tore off [the hide]. [It is nullified]. As it is taught in the latter text of the Mishnah: And on what account does R. Aqiba declare clean in the case of the hide? Because the hide nullifies them.

I.1 identifies the operative principle of the M.-passage and its scriptural basis. I.2 contrasts the premise of the M. with a different rule and investigates its scriptural basis in a sustained inquiry. I.3 clarifies the premise of the M.-passage and contrasts it with a different rule. I.4 exposits the principle of handles of uncleanness independent of the M.-passage. It then presents a dispute between Rab and R. Yohanan. Unit I.5 cites a T.-passage to work through the issue of handles and aligns it with another dispute of Rab and R. Yohanan. I.6 aligns the relevant T.-passage with the views of Rab.

                Units I.7-8 probe the topic of the minimum quantity for protectors of uncleanness. The Talmud then cites relevant T.-passage and analyzes its implications. I.9 extends the preceding discussion to the issue of whether hair can be a protector with regard to conveying uncleanness. II.1 defines the next term in the M.-passage. III.1-3 define the next term in the M.-passage and continue on a second level issue in a large scale composite regarding inferences. IV.1 defines the next term in the M.-passage. IV.2-3 comment directly on the latter text of the M., then discuss its implications. V.1 cites a related rule from M. Tohorot and defines the next terms in the M.-passage. VI.1 provides an inquiry into the premises of B-G of M. Unit VI.2 has no bearing on the elucidation of M. but develops an issue out of the foregoing materials and cites a lengthy text from T. Ahilot. Finally, VII.1-2 spell out the implications of rules and premises related to the last text of the M.

                                                                         9:2

                A.            [In the case of] these, their skin [hide] is deemed equivalent to their meat:

                B.            (1) the skin of man, and (2) skin of a domesticated pig —

                C.            R. Yosé says, “Also: The hide of a wild boar” —

                D.            and (3) skin of the hump of a young camel, and (4) the skin of the head of a young calf, and (5) the skin of the hooves, and (6) the skin of the genitals, and (7) the skin of the foetus, and (8) the skin which is under the fat tail, and (9) the skin of the hedgehog, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail.

                E.            R. Judah says, “The lizard is equivalent to the weasel.”

                F.            And all of them which one tanned, or on which one trampled so [that they are fit for] use are clean [and do not impart food uncleanness],

                G.            except for the skin of man.

                H.            R. Yohanan b. Nuri says, “The eight creeping things (Lev. 11:29-30) have hides.”

I.1

A.            Lo, in this connection it has been stated, said Ulla, “As a matter of the law of the Torah, the skin of a human being is insusceptible to uncleanness. And what is the consideration that led sages to declare it unclean? It is a decree to take account of the possibility that someone will turn the skin of his father and mother into spreads for an ass [Rashi: for a bed or a chair].”

B.            And there are those who taught [that when the statement of Ulla was made, it was made] in connection with the concluding passage of the same Mishnah-paragraph: and all of them which one tanned, or on which one trampled so that they are fit for use, are clean, and do not impart food uncleanness, except for the skin of man [M. Hul. 9:2 F-G]. And said Ulla, “As a matter of the law of the Torah, the skin of a human being if one has worked it is insusceptible to uncleanness. And what is the consideration that led sages to declare it unclean? It is a decree to take account of the possibility that someone will turn the skin of his father and mother into spreads for an ass” [b. Nid. 55a, Neusner].

C.            The authority who taught that it pertains to the former text of the Mishnah-paragraph most certainly applies the same principle to the latter text of the Mishnah-paragraph. But the authority who taught that it pertains to the latter text of the Mishnah-paragraph [would say that only there is prohibition based on the declaration of the sages]. But in the case of the former text of the Mishnah-paragraph, the uncleanness is based on the authority of the Torah itself.

II.1

A.            The skin of a domesticated pig — R. Yosé says, “Also: The hide of a wild boar” [M. 9:2 B-C]. What is the basis for this dispute? One master [the anonymous Tanna] reasons in accord with the view that [the skin of] this one [the wild boar] is hard and [the skin of] this one [a domesticated pig] is soft. And one master [Yosé] reasons in accord with the view that [the skin of] this one [the wild boar] is also soft.

III.1

A.            [The] skin of the hump of a young camel [M. 9:2 D]: And until when is it a young camel? Said Ulla, said R. Joshua b. Levi, “As long as it has not carried [a load].”

B.            R. Jeremiah posed a question: If it matured to the stage where it could carry and it did not yet actually carry [a load], what is the law [with regard to the status of its skin]? Abayye posed a question: If it had not matured to the stage where it could carry and it did actually carry [a load], what is the law [with regard to the status of its skin]? The questions stand unresolved.

C.            Resh Laqish sat in session and posed the question: And until when is it a young camel? Said to him R. Ishmael bar Abba, “This is what R. Joshua b. Levi said, `As long as it has not carried [a load].'” He [Resh Laqish] said to him, “Sit next to me.”

D.            R. Zira sat in session and posed the question: And until when is it a young camel? Said to him Rabin bar Hinnena, “This is what Ulla said that R. Joshua b. Levi said, `As long as it has not carried [a load].'” He [Rabin] then repeated this [to Zira]. He [Zira] said to him, “You've got one [rule to teach us] and you've already said it!” Come and see [from the contrast between the actions of these masters] what is the difference between [Resh Laqish who supposedly was one of] the brawny men of the Land of Israel [who acted properly] and [R. Zira who supposedly was one of] the pious men of Babylonia [who acted improperly].

IV.1

A.            The skin of the head of a young calf [M. 9:2 D]: And until when is it A young calf? Ulla said, “Until it is one year old.” R. Yohanan said, “As long as it suckles.”

B.            A question was posed to him: What did Ulla mean to say? Until it is one year old and only if it suckles? [122b] And R. Yohanan said to him [age makes no difference] as long as it suckles [it is a young calf]. Or perhaps [Ulla meant] until it is one year old whether or not it continues to suckle? And R. Yohanan said to him [it can be deemed young] until it is one year old, only if it suckles [but not if it stops suckling before a year passed].

C.            Come and take note: R. Yohanan said, “As long as it suckles.” And if it were [in accord with the latter that he requires both], then he should have stated, “Only if it suckles.” We may derive from this the conclusion [that the interpretation accords with the former view that the only criterion for Yohanan is whether it suckles].

IV.2

A.            Resh Laqish posed a question to R. Yohanan, “The skin of the head of a young calf — what is its status regarding the transfer of uncleanness?” He said to him, “It does not render unclean [other objects through contact].” He said to him, “Did not our rabbi teach us [in the Mishnah-passage], [In the case of] these, their skin [hide] is deemed equivalent to their meat: ... the skin of the head of a young calf?

B.            He said to them, “Stop annoying me. For I teach this as my personal view.”

C.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority, He who slaughters the burnt-offering [with the intention] to eat an olive's bulk of the hide from under the tail outside of its proper place [M. Zeb. 2:2 E], it is unfit and there is for this no punishment of extirpation. [If he did so with intention to eat it] after its proper time, it is refuse. And they are liable on its account to the punishment of extirpation [T. Zeb. 2:3 A-D].

D.            Eliezer b. Judah of Eiblayim said in the name of R. Jacob, and so R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Akkum says in the name of R. Simeon, “The same applies to the hide of the hooves, or the soft skin of the head of a calf, or the skin under the tail, or all [the places] that were listed by the sages regarding uncleanness whose hide has the same status as the flesh [of those places][cf. T. Zeb. 2:3 F-G].”

E.            This includes [by inference] the skin of the pudenda [of an animal that he slaughtered with intention to eat it] outside of its proper place, it is invalid but there is for this no punishment on account of extirpation. [If he did so with intention to offer it] after its proper time, it is refuse and they are liable to punishment on account of extirpation [cf. T. Zeb. 2:3 H-I]. [B-E = b. Hul. 55b-56a, Zahavy, Hullin, vol. II, pp. 93-94.]

V.1

A.            The skin of the hooves [M. 9:2 D] — What is the skin of the hooves? Rab said, “The actual skin of the hooves.” R. Hanina said, “The metatarsus which is sold with the head [as offal] (Cashdan).”

VI.1

A.            And the skin of the hedgehog [M. 9:2 D] — Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “[These] are unclean [to you among all that swarm; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:31) — which encompasses their hides in the classification of their flesh. You might infer [that this inference applies to] all of them [i.e., the creatures mentioned in verses 29-30: “And these are unclean to you among the swarming things that swarm upon the earth: the weasel, the mouse, the great lizard according to its kind, the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon.”] It comes to inform us that, “These” [mentioned in verse 30 are subsumed under the rule].

B.            But lo “These” is written concerning all of them [mentioned in verses 29-30]. Said Rab, [The language] “According to its kind” separates the matters [in the two verses from one another].

C.            But why not treat the chameleon as a member of the same class [of creatures]? Said R. Samuel bar Yitzhak, “Rab has the authority of a Tanna and he taught [that we include] the chameleon.” But lo, our Tanna did not teach [that we include] the chameleon!

D.            Said R. Sheshet the son of R. Idi bar Abin [Arukh: said R. Ashi], “Our Tanna reasons in accord with the view of R. Judah who bases his view on the texture [of the skin]. And they disputed regarding the texture of the lizard.” [M. 9:2 D-E: And the lizard, and the snail. R. Judah says, “The lizard is equivalent to the weasel.”]

VII.1

A.            And all of them which one tanned, or on which one trampled so [that they are fit for] use are clean [and do not impart food uncleanness], except for the skin of man. R. Yohanan b. Nuri says, “The eight creeping things (Lev. 11:29-30) have hides” [M. 9:2 F-H]. [This implies that] If he trampled upon them, yes [they are clean]. If he did not trample on them, no [they are not clean]. But lo taught R. Hiyya, “The ear of an ass that he patched onto his basket is clean.” [This implies that] if he patched it on, it is clean even though he did not trample upon it. If he did not patch it on, then if he trampled upon it, yes [it is clean]. If he did not trample upon it, no [it is not clean, in accord with our rule].

B.            How much trampling constitutes processing? Said R. Huna, said R. Yannai, “Four miles worth [of trampling].”

VII.2

A.            Said R. Abbahu, said Resh Laqish, “For [the purposes of] kneading dough [in cleanness], praying [together with a congregation], and [procuring water for] washing one's hands [one must go out of his way up to] four miles.”