Talmud Bavli Hullin 128a-b - translation by Tzvee

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.”