Talmud Bavli Hullin 129a-b - translation by Tzvee

C.            He [Zira] said to him, “This problem also bothered me. And I asked R. Abba bar Mamal about it. And he said to me, `In accord with whose view is this? It is in accord with the view of R. Meir who said that uncleanness that is concealed from view does render unclean.”

D.            He [Assi] said to him, “And did he not many times state this before me? And I said to him that R. Meir differentiated uncleanness that requires preparation [i.e., our case here] from uncleanness that does not require preparation.” [The principle is stated earlier in the tractate at 72b, Zahavy, Hullin, vol. II, p. 181, to explain why the foetus in the case there is rendered unclean by the protruding limb.]

E.            Said Raba, “Why does this problem bother you? Perhaps [we are dealing with a case] where it was rendered susceptible [with liquid].”

F.             Said Rabbah bar Hanan to Raba, “Why do I need [to concern myself at all with] preparation? Lo, it is subject to a more severe form of uncleanness on account of its source [i.e., it was a father of uncleanness when still attached to the limb. And we have a principle that anything that will subsequently be subject to a more severe form of uncleanness does not need to be rendered susceptible to be subject to a less severe form of uncleanness (Rashi)].”

G.            He [Raba] said to him, “[The case here is one where the flesh on the limb] served as a piece of wood [i.e., as inert matter attached to sinews and bones. Afterward it becomes food and takes on a new identity. On account of that it is not subject to the stated principle.]”

H.            Said Abayye, “Behold they said: But a mass of yeast that one put aside for storage is treated as null, since the owner has nullified it [so Neusner, b. Pes. 45b; Freedman, ad loc.: He gave up the nominal use of it as leaven and hence it no longer counts as leaven]. Its uncleanness cannot be based on the authority of the Torah. For if you concluded that it is based on the authority of the Torah, then we find here [a case of] foodstuffs that will subsequently be subject to a more severe form of uncleanness [and yet that has no impact on our determination of its status]. [Accordingly, the same response serves this case:] It served as a piece of wood [i.e., it was inert matter and afterward becomes food and takes on a new identity. On account of that it is not subject to the stated principle.]”

I.             Said Abayye, “Behold they said: Foodstuffs that were offered up in service of idolatry render unclean by overshadowing [objects that are in the same enclosure]. Its uncleanness cannot be based on the authority of the Torah. For if you concluded that it is based on the authority of the Torah, then we find here [a case of] foodstuffs that will subsequently be subject to a more severe form of uncleanness [and yet that has no impact on our determination of its status]. [Accordingly, the same response serves this case:] It served as a piece of wood [i.e., it was inert matter and afterward becomes food and takes on a new identity. On account of that it is not subject to the stated principle.]”

J.             Said Abayye, “Behold they said: Foods attached to utensils have the same status as the utensils to which they are attached. Its uncleanness cannot be based on the authority of the Torah. For if you concluded that it is based on the authority of the Torah, then we find here [a case of] foodstuffs that will subsequently be subject to a more severe form of uncleanness [and yet that has no impact on our determination of its status]. [Accordingly, the same response serves this case:] It served as a piece of wood [i.e., it was inert matter and afterward becomes food and takes on a new identity. On account of that it is not subject to the stated principle.]”

K.            Said R. Pappa to Raba, “Lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority: Fat in the villages... lo, these require intention and preparation [M. Uqsin 3:2 C, I]. Its uncleanness incidental to its kidney [inside the fat] cannot be based on the authority of the Torah. For if you concluded that it is based on the authority of the Torah, then we find here [a case of] foodstuffs that will subsequently be subject to a more severe form of uncleanness [and yet that has no impact on our determination of its status]. [Accordingly, the same response serves this case:] It served as a piece of wood [i.e., it was inert matter and afterward becomes food and takes on a new identity. On account of that it is not subject to the stated principle.]”

L.            Said R. Matna, “Behold they said: A house whose roof was thatched with stalks [doing so renders them clean since they no longer serve as foodstuff]. Their uncleanness [resulting from a plague in the house] cannot be based on the authority of the Torah. For if you concluded that it is based on the authority of the Torah, then we find here [a case of] stalks that will subsequently be subject to a more severe form of uncleanness [and yet that has no impact on our determination of its status]. [Accordingly, the same response serves this case:] It served as a piece of wood [i.e., it was inert matter and afterward becomes food and takes on a new identity. On account of that it is not subject to the stated principle.]”

IV.1

A.            And R. Simeon declares clean [M. 9:7 H]. Any way you wish to look at the matter [the dangling limb should be unclean]. If you hold the view that regarding an animal that dies that [the dangling flesh] is considered to be detached [cf. b. ul. 73b, Zahavy, ullin, vol. II, p. 187] — let it be subject to uncleanness as a limb [severed] from a live animal. If you hold the view that regarding an animal that dies that [the dangling flesh] is not considered to be detached — let it be subject to uncleanness as a limb [severed] from carrion.

B.            [Accordingly we must say that the view of] R. Simeon pertains to the first text of the Mishnah-passage: The dangling limb and flesh in the case of cattle impart food uncleanness [when they are] in their place [attached]. And they require preparation [A-B]... And R. Simeon declares clean [H].

C.            Said R. Assi, said R. Yohanan, “What is the basis for the view of R. Simeon? Scripture said, `Any food in it which may be eaten, [upon which water may come, shall be unclean; and all drink which may be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean]' (Lev. 11:34). [From this language you infer that] food that you can feed to others [i.e., gentiles] is called food. Food that you cannot feed [129b] to others is not called food.”

D.            Said R. Zira to R. Assi, “Perhaps the basis for the view of R. Simeon is that there since it is attached in the slightest way, it is still deemed to be attached. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: 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” [M. Uqsin 3:8 E-G] it is clean; and if not it is unclean.

E.            And we said, “What is the basis for the view of R. Judah?” And he stated to us, `Since it is attached in the slightest way, it is still deemed to be attached.'”

F.             He said to him, “[The view of R. Simeon] pertains to the middle text of the Mishnah-passage: `[If] the cattle is slaughtered, they are deemed prepared through its blood [to receive uncleanness],' the words of R. Meir... R. Simeon says, `They are not deemed prepared.'”

G.            Said R. Assi, said R. Yohanan, “What is the basis for the view of R. Simeon? Scripture said, `Any food in it which may be eaten, [upon which water may come, shall be unclean; and all drink which may be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean]' (Lev. 11:34). [From this language you infer that] food that you can feed to others [i.e., gentiles] is called food. Food that you cannot feed to others is not called food.”

H.            And perhaps the basis for the view of R. Simeon in this matter is in accord with the opinion of Rabbah [as above, 127b, II.1 A] or in accord with the opinion of R. Yohanan [as above, 127b, II.1 C].

I.             Rather, invariably [the view of R. Simeon must] pertain to the last text of the Mishnah-passage. But it does not pertain to the [case of the] limb. Rather it pertains to the [subject of the] flesh.

J.             [If] the cattle died, the flesh requires preparation... And R. Simeon declares clean. Said R. Yohanan, “What is the basis for the view of R. Simeon? Scripture said, `Any food in it which may be eaten, [upon which water may come, shall be unclean; and all drink which may be drunk from every such vessel shall be unclean]' (Lev. 11:34). [From this language you infer that] food that you can feed to others [i.e., gentiles] is called food. Food that you cannot feed to others is not called food.”

Unit I.1 sets out the operative criteria for M.'s case of a dangling limb or flesh and contrasts the premises with the cases of picking from a tree on the Sabbath and with dangling foods.

                II.1 identifies the operative principle of the next lemma of the M.-passage. Contrasts this with the premises of several other Tannaite rules and aligns the opinions. II.2-5 raise second-level issues based on another M.-passage related to defining the status of a handle with regard to uncleanness. III.1 clarifies M.'s next rule and provides a scriptural basis for its premises. It expands further on the Tannaite views of the scriptural basis. III.2 states Amoraic views on the premises and principles related to the M.-passage and tries to align Tannaite views on these with the rule of the M.-passage. Finally, IV.1 works out the operative considerations for Simeon's rule.

                                                                         9:8

                A.            The dangling limb and flesh in the case of man are clean.

                B.            [If] the man died, the flesh is clean.

                C.            “The limb imparts uncleanness as a limb cut from a living creature, and it does not impart uncleanness as a limb of a corpse,” the words of R. Meir.

                D.            And R. Simeon declares clean.

I.1

A.            And R. Simeon [declares clean] [D]. Any way you wish to look at the matter [the dangling limb should be unclean]. If you hold the view that regarding a being that dies that [the dangling flesh] is considered to be detached [cf. b. ul. 73b, Zahavy, ullin, vol. II, p. 187] — let it be subject to uncleanness as a limb [severed] from a live being. If you hold the view that regarding a being that dies that [the dangling flesh] is not considered to be detached — let it be subject to uncleanness as a limb [severed] from a corpse. [Cf. above IV.1]

B.            R. Simeon's view pertains invariably [to all instances]. For the first Tanna stated: “The limb imparts uncleanness as a limb cut from a living creature, and it does not impart uncleanness as a limb of a corpse [C].” It seems [logical to conclude] that a limb of a corpse invariably imparts uncleanness. And R. Simeon said to him, “The limb of a corpse invariably does not impart uncleanness.”

C.            As it was taught on Tannaite authority: Said R. Eliezer, “I heard that a limb from a living creature imparts uncleanness.” Said to him R. Joshua, “From a living creature and not from a corpse? Let us deduce this matter a fortiori. What is the case with regard to a living creature that is [to begin with] clean? A limb that is severed from it is deemed unclean. With regard to a corpse that is [to begin with] unclean, certainly [a limb that is severed from it is deemed unclean].”

D.            [Analogously] it is written in Megillat Taanit: On the secondary Passover [in Iyar] one should not eulogize. Do they eulogize on the primary Passover [festival]? Rather, certainly [they do not]. Here too, certainly [a limb from a corpse is unclean]. He [Eliezer] said to him, “I have heard this.”

II.1

A.            And what difference is there [regarding the transmission of uncleanness] between a limb cut from a living creature and a limb from a corpse? The difference is in the case of an olive's bulk of flesh or a barley's bulk of bone that is severed from a limb cut from a living creature.

B.            As it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: An olive's bulk of flesh which separates from a limb from a living being — R. Eliezer declares unclean [in a Tent, as if it were from a corpse]. And R. Joshua and R. Nehunya declare it clean. A bone about a barley seed in bulk which separates from a limb from a living being — R. Nehunya declares unclean [in contact and carrying, like that from a corpse]. And R. Eliezer and R. Joshua declare [it] clean [M. Eduyyot 6:3 A-F].

C.            Let us now consider that we have come to this conclusion. The difference between the first Tanna and R. Simeon is in the case of an olive's bulk of flesh or a barley's bulk of bone.

Unit I.1 works out the operative considerations for Simeon's rule. II.1 gives a Tannaite complement to clarify our M.