D. It
was cited in contradiction to this: Produce
which was severed but which is attached in part — [128a] R. Meir says, “If one holds the larger
part and the smaller part is pulled up with it, lo, this is deemed equivalent
to it.” R. Judah [b. here: Meir] says, “If one holds the smaller part and the
larger is pulled up with it, lo, it is deemed equivalent to it” [M. Tebul Yom
3:1 B-D]. [And the implication is] if not, it is not deemed equivalent to
it.
E. And
said R. Yohanan, “Reverse the opinions [of Meir and Judah so there is no
contradiction].”
F. But
what is the problem [if you do not reverse the opinions]? Perhaps R. Meir
differentiated [the uncleanness of a] tebul yom from other forms of uncleanness.
G. It
was taught on Tannaite authority [that this is not the case]: Rabbi says,
“The same goes for a tebul yom as for
other forms of uncleanness.”
H. But
perhaps Rabbi did not differentiate and R. Meir did differentiate. Said R. Josiah,
“Here is what R. Yohanan said, `In accord with the words of Rabbi, reverse the
opinions.'”
I. Raba
said, “[They agree that the animal is a handle of the limb.] They dispute
concerning whether a handle imparts uncleanness [to an attached object] and [preparation
of a] handle does not serve as preparation [for an attached object]. One
authority [Simeon] reasons in accord with the view that a handle imparts
uncleanness [to an attached object] and [preparation of a] handle does not
serve as preparation [for an attached object]. And one authority [Meir] reasons
in accord with the view that a handle imparts uncleanness [to an attached
object] and [preparation of a handle does serve as] preparation [for an
attached object].”
J. R.
Pappa said, “They dispute concerning whether there can be preparation [for
uncleanness for the limb] before there is deliberation [that it is food].”
K. For
it was taught on Tannaite authority: [Fat
of a slaughtered beast in the villages requires deliberation and preparation.]
Said R. Judah, “This is how R. Aqiba taught: Fat of a slaughtered beast in the
villages requires deliberation but does not require preparation because it was
already prepared [to be susceptible to uncleanness] when it was slaughtered. I
said before him, `Rabbi you have taught us: Endives that one gathered and
washed for cattle and afterward one gave
thought [concerning them] for human consumption do [b. omits: not] require a
second preparation...' And R. Aqiba reverted to teach in accord with the
opinion of R. Judah [T. Uqsin 3:1 E-3:2].
L. One
authority [Meir] reasons in accord with the original [opinion of R. Aqiba that
there can be preparation without deliberation]. And one authority [Simeon]
reasons in accord with the revised [opinion of R. Aqiba that there cannot be
preparation without deliberation].
M. R.
Aha the son of R. Iqa said, “They dispute concerning [the status of the animal]
where the blood was wiped off [the throat] between [the slaughter of one] organ
and [the slaughter of the other] organ. One authority [Meir] reasons in accord
with the view that we call it `slaughtering' from the start to the finish. And
this [liquid has the status of] blood produced by the act of slaughter [that
renders susceptible]. And one authority [Simeon] reasons in accord with the
view that we do not call it `slaughtering' until the finish [of the act]. And
this [liquid has the status of] blood produced by a wound [that does not render
susceptible].”
N. Said
R. Ashi, “They dispute [whether] they
are rendered susceptible to uncleanness by the act of slaughter itself [=M. 2:5
E] and not by the blood.” [Simeon holds the view in M. that the act must be
completed. And the act of slaughter does not serve this limb. Meir would hold
that the blood rendered it susceptible.]
II.2
A. Rabbah
posed a question: Does a live animal serve as a handle [to convey uncleanness]
to its limb? The question stands unresolved.
B. Said Abayye, “Behold they said: A cucumber which one planted in a pot and
which grew and [the root of which] went outside of the pot is insusceptible to
uncleanness. Said R. Simeon, `What is its character that it should be
insusceptible to uncleanness? But that which is susceptible to uncleanness
remains in its status of susceptibility to uncleanness, and that which is insusceptible
to uncleanness is eaten' [M. Uqsin 2:9].” [b's text varies.]
C. Abayye
posed a question [based on that view of Simeon]: Does it serve as a handle [to
convey uncleanness] to the remainder [of the plant]? The question stands
unresolved.
II.3
A. Said R. Jeremiah, “Behold they said:
One who bows down to half a gourd rendered it prohibited [as idolatry].”
B. R.
Jeremiah posed a question [based on this]: [128b] Does it serve as a
handle [to convey the uncleanness of idolatry] to the remainder [of the gourd]?
The question stands unresolved.
II.4
A. Said R. Pappa, “Behold they said: The branch of a fig tree which was broken
off but was still attached by its bark — R. Judah declares clean. And sages
say, `If it can live [it is clean; and if not it is unclean]' [M. Uqsin 3:8
E-G].”
B. R.
Pappa posed a question [based on this]: Does it serve as a handle [to convey
uncleanness] to the remainder [of the tree]? The question stands unresolved.
II.5
A. Said R. Zira, “Behold they said: The stone [with a plague] which is in the
corner [shared by two walls, one serving one house, the other serving the
neighbor's house — when he takes [it] out, he takes the whole [stone] out. And
when he tears [it] down, he tears down that which is his, but leaves that which
belongs to his neighbor [M. Neg. 13:2 A-C].”
B. R.
Zira posed a question [based on this]: Does it serve as a handle [to convey
uncleanness] to the remainder [of the house]? The question stands unresolved.
III.1
A. [If]
the cattle died, [the flesh requires preparation to receive uncleanness] [M.
9:7 E-F]. What distinction is there
[with regard to rules of uncleanness] between a limb [severed] from a live
animal and a limb [severed] from carrion. The difference between them is
[apparent in the status of] flesh that is separated from them, from the limb of
an animal. Flesh that is separated from a limb [severed] from a live animal
does not render unclean [other objects]. [Flesh that is separated] from a limb
[severed] from carrion does render unclean.
B. What
is the source in scripture that a limb [severed] from a live animal renders
unclean? Said R. Judah, said Rab, “And if from among any animal of which
[you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the
evening]” (Lev. 11:39) [i.e., the language implies a limb severed from it]. But this [language in the verse] is needed
for another inference of R. Judah in the name of Rab [as follows].
C. For
said R. Judah, said Rab, and some say that this was taught in a Tannaite
teaching: Scripture stated, “And if from among any animal [of which you may
eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening (Lev.
11:39). “From among” implies] some of the animals render unclean and some of
the animals do not render unclean. And which is it [that does not render
unclean]? It is a terefah-animal that
was slaughtered [cf. b. ul. 74a,
Zahavy, ullin, vol.
II, pp. 188-89 and 85b, p. 258].
D. If
this is the case [that scripture wished to teach only this rule] it should have
written, “From any animal.” Why [does
it write], “From among any animal”? We
can derive from this two inferences [i.e., those of both B and C].
E. If
this is the case, then flesh [separated from it] also [should be included in
the inference]. No, you cannot have concluded that. For it was taught on
Tannaite authority: “You might infer that flesh that is separated from a
live animal is unclean. It comes to teach, `And if from among any animal [of
which you may eat dies.' What is the case with regard to death? It cannot be
reversed. So anything that cannot be reversed [comes under the rule of
scripture]. [The flesh may grow back,]” the words of R. Yosé [the Galilean].
F. R. Aqiba says, “[The word] `Animal'
[implies as follows]: What is the case with regard to an animal? It is made up
of sinews and bones, so too all [parts of an animal made up of] sinews and
bones [are subject to uncleanness].”
G. Rabbi says, “[The word] `Animal'
[implies as follows]: What is the case with regard to an animal? It is made up
of flesh and sinews and bones, so too all [parts of an animal made up of] flesh
and sinews and bones [are subject to uncleanness].”
H. What
is the case in dispute between Rabbi and R. Aqiba? The dispute between them is
in regard to the joint [Cashdan: the nethermost joint of the leg, the
metatarsus or the metacarpus, i.e. without flesh].
I. What
are the cases in dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Yosé the Galilean? Said R.
Pappa, “The kidney and the upper lip are the cases in dispute between them.”
[They do not have bones but will not heal back.]
J. It
was taught on Tannaite authority also with regard to [the uncleanness of]
creeping things in the same matter: “You might infer that flesh that
separates from [the unclean] creeping things is unclean. It comes to teach,
`[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). What is the
case with regard to death? It cannot be reversed. So anything that cannot be
reversed [comes under the rule of scripture]. [The flesh may grow back,]” the
words of R. Yosé [the Galilean].
K. R. Aqiba says, “[The language]
`Creeping thing' [implies as follows]: what is the case with regard to a
creeping thing? It is made up of sinews and bones, so too all [parts of an
creeping thing made up of] sinews and bones [are subject to uncleanness].”
L. Rabbi says, “[The language]
`Creeping thing' [implies as follows]: what is the case with regard to a
creeping thing? It is made up of flesh and sinews and bones, so too all [parts
of a creeping thing made up of] flesh and sinews and bones [are subject to
uncleanness].”
M. What
is the case in dispute between Rabbi and R. Aqiba? The dispute between them is
in regard to the joint [Cashdan: the nethermost joint of the leg, the
metatarsus or the metacarpus, i.e. without flesh].
N. What
are the cases in dispute between R. Aqiba and R. Yosé the Galilean? Said R.
Pappa, “The kidney and the upper lip are the cases in dispute between them.”
[They do not have bones but will not heal back.]
O. And
it was necessary [to teach the dispute regarding both the flesh of an animal
and of a creeping thing]. For if we had been instructed regarding an animal [we
might have concluded that] the basis for holding the view that [flesh
separated] from a live animal does not render unclean is because [flesh of an
animal] does not render unclean in the quantity the size of a lentil. But
[because the flesh of] a creeping thing does render unclean in the quantity the
size of a lentil it makes sense to maintain that [flesh separated] from a live
creeping thing does render unclean.
P. And
if we had been instructed regarding a creeping thing [we might have concluded
that] because it does not render unclean through carrying, [flesh separated]
from a live creeping thing does not render unclean. But regarding an animal
that does render unclean through carrying it makes sense to maintain that
[flesh separated] from it when it is alive does render unclean. It is therefore
necessary [to state both disputes].
III.2
A. Our
rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: One who cuts an olive's bulk of flesh
from a limb [severed] from a live animal — if he cut it and afterward
deliberated on it [as food for a gentile], it is clean; if he deliberated on
it, and afterward cut it, it is unclean.
B. R.
Assi did not attend the House of Study. He met R. Zira. He said to him, “What
was stated in the House of Study?” He said to him, “What problem bothers you?
He said to him, “That which was taught on Tannaite authority: If he
deliberated on it, and afterward cut it, it is unclean. [129a] This should come under
the principle of uncleanness that is concealed from view. And uncleanness that
is concealed from view does not render unclean.”
No comments:
Post a Comment