Chullin Daf 117 (חולין דף קי״ז)
Daf: 117 | Amudim: 117a – 117b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (117a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The mishna’s stringencies of chelev over dam: me’ilah, piggul, notar, tumah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּדָּם.
English Translation:
one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And second, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if it was from an offering that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of it beyond its designated time, and due to the prohibition of notar, if it was from an offering whose period for consumption has expired. And third, if one is ritually impure, he is liable due to the prohibition of partaking of it while impure. This is not so with regard to blood, as one is not liable in these cases for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and partaking of offerings while impure, but rather is liable only for violating the prohibition of consuming blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the mishna from 116b, this lists the ways ḥelev (forbidden fat) is stricter than dam (blood). The fat of an offering is subject to me’ilah (misuse of consecrated property), and one is liable for eating it as piggul (invalid intent), notar (leftover past its time), or while ritually impure (tamei). Blood incurs none of these — only the prohibition of consuming blood itself. The mishna thus enumerates four stringencies unique to ḥelev.
Key Terms:
- מְעִילָה (me’ilah) = misuse of/deriving benefit from consecrated property
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = an offering invalidated by improper intent of time or place
- נוֹתָר (notar) = sacrificial meat left past its permitted time
- טָמֵא (tamei) = [eating an offering while] ritually impure
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The stringency of dam over chelev: blood applies to all animals and birds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחוֹמֶר בַּדָּם, שֶׁהַדָּם נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִים וּבֵין טְהוֹרִים, וְחֵלֶב אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד.
English Translation:
And the more stringent element in the prohibition of blood is that the prohibition of blood applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, both kosher and non-kosher, but the prohibition of forbidden fat applies only to a kosher domesticated animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna balances the comparison with dam’s unique stringency: the blood prohibition applies broadly — to domesticated animals (behema), wild animals (ḥaya), and birds (of), whether kosher or not. Ḥelev, by contrast, is forbidden only in a kosher domesticated animal. Thus each prohibition has stringencies the other lacks, the mishna’s central theme in comparing these two karet-level bans.
Key Terms:
- נוֹהֵג (noheg) = applies/is in force
- בְּהֵמָה / חַיָּה / עוֹף = domesticated animal / wild animal / bird
- טְמֵאִים וּטְהוֹרִים = non-kosher and kosher (species)
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yannai’s source for me’ilah on the fat of lesser offerings, from the peace-offering bull.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״, וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשּׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים מֵעַתָּה?
English Translation:
GEMARA: According to the mishna, one who consumes forbidden fat of an offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yannai said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states that the sacrificial portions of a bull brought for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest must be burned upon the altar: “As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering” (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of the peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well (see Leviticus 4:8–9).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks the source for me’ilah on the fat of offerings. Rabbi Yannai cites “ka’asher yuram mishor zevaḥ hashelamim” (“as it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering,” Leviticus 4:10). He notes a puzzle: the anointed priest’s bull already has all its portions specified — so what does comparing it to the peace-offering bull add? The answer, in the next segment, is that the comparison runs in reverse.
Key Terms:
- מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters (derived)?
- כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם = “as it is taken off” (the verse establishing the analogy)
- שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים = the bull of the peace offering
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
“Comes to teach, ends up learning”: the peace-offering bull derives me’ilah from the priest’s bull.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד, וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד, מַקִּישׁ שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים לְפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ: מָה פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף שׁוֹר זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
English Translation:
Rather, this phrase initially comes to teach a halakha about the bull brought as an offering for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, but it turns out that it actually derives a halakha from that case, as the verse juxtaposes the bull of the peace offering to the bull of the anointed priest. It teaches that just as the bull of the anointed priest, as an offering of the most sacred order, is subject to the prohibition on misuse of consecrated property, as offerings of the most sacred order are called “the sacred items of the Lord” (see Leviticus 5:15), so too the sacrificial portions of the bull of the peace offering, including its forbidden fat, are subject to misuse of consecrated property, even though it is an offering of lesser sanctity and is considered the property of the owner before slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse “comes to teach but ends up learning” (ba l’lamed v’nimtza lamed): though it appears in the passage of the anointed priest’s bull to describe how its portions are burned, it in fact draws a comparison back to it. The priest’s bull, an offering of the most sacred order (kodshei kodashim), is subject to me’ilah. By juxtaposition (hekesh), the peace-offering bull — an offering of lesser sanctity (kodashim kalim) — is also subject to me’ilah on its sacrificial portions, including its ḥelev.
Key Terms:
- בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד = “comes to teach, ends up learning” (a reversed derivation)
- פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ = the bull of the anointed priest (an offering of the most sacred order)
- קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = offerings of lesser sanctity (peace offerings)
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Chanina: why a new source, when Rabbi already derived it from “all fat is the Lord’s”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כְּעוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי, ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה?
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rabbi Yannai: Is that derivation that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught unattractive, that you derive a new one? He taught that when the Torah states with regard to peace offerings, which are of lesser sanctity: “All the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16), it serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though the prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to offerings of the most sacred order.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ḥanina challenges Rabbi Yannai (echoing the “ke’ura” rhetoric of 115b): why invent a new derivation when Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi) already taught one? Rabbi expounded “kol ḥelev la-Hashem” (“all the fat is the Lord’s,” Leviticus 3:16) as including the sacrificial portions (eimurim) of lesser offerings in me’ilah, even though me’ilah is stated explicitly only for the most sacred order. The next segments show why both sources are in fact needed.
Key Terms:
- כְּעוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי = “is that [derivation] Rabbi taught unattractive?” (a challenge to a redundant new source)
- כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳ = “all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16)
- אֵימוּרִים (eimurim) = the sacrificial portions burned on the altar
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: both verses are needed — one for the diaphragm/kidneys, the other for the fat-tail.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֵלֶב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֵלֶב – אִין, יוֹתֶרֶת וּשְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת – לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם״.
English Translation:
Abaye said: Rabbi Yannai’s derivation was necessary, as, if the Merciful One had written only the verse “All the fat is the Lord’s,” I would say that the fat of offerings of lesser sanctity, yes, they are included in the prohibition, but the diaphragm and the two kidneys of such offerings are not, even though they are also burned upon the altar. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering,” to teach that even these portions are subject to the prohibition of misuse.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye defends both derivations as necessary. From “kol ḥelev” alone one might include only the fat itself in me’ilah, but not the diaphragm (yoteret) and two kidneys (kelayot), which are also burned. Hence “ka’asher yuram” (Rabbi Yannai’s verse) is needed to extend me’ilah to those portions too. The two sources cover different components of the eimurim.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיךְ (itztrikh) = it is [genuinely] necessary
- יוֹתֶרֶת (yoteret) = the diaphragm/lobe (of the liver), a sacrificial portion
- שְׁתֵּי כְלָיוֹת (shtei kelayot) = the two kidneys (sacrificial portions)
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
And conversely: “all the fat” is needed to include the fat-tail, absent in a bull.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יוּרַם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֵלֶב אַלְיָה דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּשׁוֹר – לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב״.
English Translation:
And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only the phrase: “As it is taken off from the bull,” I would say that the prohibition applies only to those portions that are found in a bull, and that the fat of a sheep tail, which is not found in a bull, is not included. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “All the fat is the Lord’s,” to teach that the prohibition of misuse applies to all portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, including a sheep tail, which is referred to as fat in Leviticus 3:9.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse also holds. From “ka’asher yuram mishor” (the bull) alone, one might limit me’ilah to portions found in a bull, excluding the fat-tail (alya), which a bull does not have. Hence “kol ḥelev” (“all the fat”) is needed to include the fat-tail of a sheep-offering. Each verse supplies what the other would miss, so both are required — resolving Rabbi Ḥanina’s objection.
Key Terms:
- אַלְיָה (alya) = the fatty tail of a sheep (a sacrificial portion, absent in a bull)
- דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּשׁוֹר = which is not found in a bull
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If the fat-tail is called “chelev,” should it be forbidden to eat? No — only fat common to ox, sheep, goat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרִי לְרַב זְבִיד: אִי אַלְיָה אִיקְּרַאי ״חֵלֶב״, תִּיתְּסַר בַּאֲכִילָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ – דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה בְּשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז.
English Translation:
Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If a sheep tail is called “fat,” it should be prohibited for consumption, like forbidden fat. Rav Zevid said to Rav Mari: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat” (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that the Torah designates as forbidden fat only an item that is found equally in an ox, and a sheep, and a goat. Since the ox and goat do not have a tail that consists of a large amount of fat, the sheep’s fatty tail is not prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mari objects: if the fat-tail is called “ḥelev,” it should be forbidden to eat like ordinary forbidden fat. Rav Zevid answers from “kol ḥelev shor v’kesev va’ez” (“no fat of ox, sheep, or goat,” Leviticus 7:23): only fat found equally in all three species (davar hashaveh) is forbidden to eat. Since a substantial fat-tail exists only in sheep, not in oxen or goats, the alya is not forbidden for consumption — even though it counts as “fat” for me’ilah.
Key Terms:
- תִּיתְּסַר בַּאֲכִילָה = it should be forbidden to eat
- דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה בְּשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז = an item common to ox, sheep, and goat (the criterion for forbidden fat)
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Ashi’s alternative — “its fat, the tail” — is rejected; Rav Zevid’s answer stands.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״חֶלְבּוֹ הָאַלְיָה״ אִיקְּרַאי, ״חֵלֶב״ סְתָמָא לָא אִיקְּרַאי. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לֹא יִמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְרַב זְבִיד.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said a different explanation: It is called “the fat tail,” but it is not called simply: Fat, without specification. The Gemara objects: If that is so that the addition of a modifier indicates that the tail is not truly fat, then one who derives benefit from the tail should not be liable for misuse of consecrated property either. Rather, it is clear that the correct answer is as stated by Rav Zevid.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi proposes a different distinction: the tail is called “ḥelbo ha’alya” (“its fat, the tail”) — qualified — but never plain “ḥelev,” so it is not forbidden to eat. The Gemara rejects this: if the qualified name meant the tail is not truly “fat,” then it should not be subject to me’ilah either — yet it is. Since Rav Ashi’s distinction proves too much, the Gemara concludes that Rav Zevid’s answer (the “common to all three” criterion) is correct (meḥavarta).
Key Terms:
- חֶלְבּוֹ הָאַלְיָה = “its fat, the tail” (a qualified name, per Rav Ashi)
- מְחַוַּורְתָּא (meḥavarta) = it is clear/established (that the earlier answer is correct)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Why blood is exempt from me’ilah: three derivations — “to you,” “to atone,” “it is.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּדָּם, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לָכֶם״, שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ – לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: This is not so with regard to blood, as one who derives benefit from blood is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “to you” indicates that it shall be yours, rather than consecrated property, and is therefore not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different derivation. By using the term “to make atonement,” the verse teaches that God is saying: I gave it to achieve atonement, but not to be subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks why blood is exempt from me’ilah (a stringency of ḥelev the mishna denied to blood). Ulla derives it from “lakhem” (“to you,” Leviticus 17:11): the blood is given “to you,” i.e., it remains yours and is not consecrated property subject to me’ilah. The school of Rabbi Yishmael derives it from “l’khaper” (“to make atonement”): God gave the blood for atonement, not to be an object of me’ilah. Two of the verse’s three phrases each yield the exemption.
Key Terms:
- לָכֶם (lakhem) = “to you” (the blood remains yours, not consecrated)
- לְכַפֵּר (l’khaper) = “to make atonement” (its purpose, not me’ilah)
- וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה = and not for [the law of] misuse
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yochanan’s third derivation from “it is”: before atonement is like after atonement.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״, הוּא לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה כִּלְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, מָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this halakha is derived from the latter part of the verse, which states: “For it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is after atonement. As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that just as after atonement, i.e., after the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan derives the exemption from the word “hu” (“it is,” Leviticus 17:11): the blood’s status is the same before atonement as after. Since after the blood is sprinkled its mitzva is done and it is no longer subject to me’ilah (a general principle), “hu” teaches that even before atonement — before sprinkling — the blood is likewise exempt from me’ilah. The third phrase yields the exemption via this equivalence.
Key Terms:
- הוּא (hu) = “it is” (teaching the equivalence of before and after atonement)
- לִפְנֵי / לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה = before / after atonement (sprinkling)
- נַעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ = its mitzva has been performed (after which me’ilah lapses)
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not read it the reverse way? Because no item retains me’ilah after its mitzva is done.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא הוּא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה כְּלִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה: מָה לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה! אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But if the term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say just the opposite: It is after atonement as it is before atonement. Just as before atonement the blood is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, so too, after atonement it is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara responds: This cannot be the case, since as a rule, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed and is still subject to the prohibition of misusing of consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that “hu” could be read the opposite way: before atonement blood is subject to me’ilah, so after atonement it should be too. The Gemara rejects this: there is a general rule that no item remains subject to me’ilah once its mitzva has been performed (ein l’kha davar shena’asa mitzvato u’mo’alin bo). Since after-atonement blood must be exempt, the equivalence must run the other direction — before-atonement blood is exempt too. This rule is tested by an apparent exception next.
Key Terms:
- וְאֵימָא (v’eima) = “but say [the reverse]” (a proposed alternative reading)
- אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ = no item retains me’ilah once its mitzva is performed
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
But the ash-removal (terumat hadeshen) retains me’ilah after its mitzva — a counterexample.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן, דְּנַעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ, וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the mitzva of the daily removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar, the mitzva of which has been performed, and yet one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is written: “And he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). The ashes must be left there, where they are absorbed into the ground, and one who removes and derives benefit from them violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though their mitzva has been performed. This contradicts the principle posited above.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the principle from terumat hadeshen — the daily removal of altar-ashes. Its mitzva is complete once the ashes are placed beside the altar, yet one who benefits from them is liable for me’ilah (Leviticus 6:3). This seems to be an item whose mitzva is done but still subject to me’ilah, contradicting the rule just invoked. The resolution follows.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן (terumat hadeshen) = the daily removal of ashes from the altar
- וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ = “and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3)
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
The ash-removal and the priestly garments are “two verses as one” — they teach no general rule.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵאי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה (שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד), וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the matter of the four white priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which may not be used again, are both specified as exceptions to the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And as a rule, any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases. The principle therefore remains in place.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge: terumat hadeshen and the High Priest’s four white Yom Kippur garments (bigdei kehuna, which may not be reused) are two exceptions where me’ilah persists after the mitzva. Being “two verses that come as one” (shenei ketuvim haba’im k’eḥad), they do not teach their shared feature to other cases (ein melamdin). The general rule — no me’ilah after the mitzva — therefore stands, and these are isolated exceptions.
Key Terms:
- בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה (bigdei kehuna) = the priestly garments (the Yom Kippur white vestments, not reused)
- שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד = two verses that come as one
- אֵין מְלַמְּדִין (ein melamdin) = they do not teach [their common feature to other cases]
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
But per Rabbi Dosa, the garments aren’t an exception — so the ash-removal stands alone.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא דְּאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that these four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that the verse teaches only that the High Priest may not use the vestments on Yom Kippur in a different year, but they are fit for an ordinary priest and do not require interment, what is there to say? If the priestly vestments are not an exception to the halakha that there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva, the removal of the ashes remains as the only exception. Why, then, does it not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a difficulty. The “two verses” resolution works for the Rabbis, who read “v’hiniḥam sham” (Leviticus 16:23) as requiring the garments to be interred (genizah) — an exception. But Rabbi Dosa holds the verse means only that the High Priest may not reuse them on a future Yom Kippur, while an ordinary priest may use them; they need no genizah and are thus no exception. If so, terumat hadeshen stands alone as the sole exception — and a single exception should teach a general rule. A new pairing is needed.
Key Terms:
- הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן = “this works well for the Rabbis” (but is difficult for another view)
- גְּנִיזָה (genizah) = required interment (of the garments)
- רַבִּי דּוֹסָא = the tanna who holds the garments may be reused by an ordinary priest
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Instead, pair the ash-removal with the eglah arufah as “two verses as one.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵאי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rather, it is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken to atone for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1–9) are two verses that come as one, as it is also prohibited to derive benefit from the heifer after its mitzva is performed. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pairs terumat hadeshen instead with eglah arufah — the heifer whose neck is broken for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1–9), from which benefit is forbidden even after its mitzva is complete. These two form the “two verses that come as one,” which do not teach their common feature elsewhere. The general rule (no me’ilah after the mitzva) again holds, even without relying on the priestly garments. The last segment addresses the opinion that two-as-one do teach.
Key Terms:
- עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה (eglah arufah) = the heifer whose neck is broken (Deuteronomy 21:1–9)
- שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד = two verses that come as one
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
And for the view that two-as-one DO teach? The Gemara begins to answer with two exclusions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? תְּרֵי
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to apply to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution works only for the opinion that two-as-one do not teach a general rule. For the opinion that they do teach, the pairing of terumat hadeshen and eglah arufah would still yield a general rule, undermining the principle. The Gemara begins its answer — “two [exclusions]” — completed on 117b: each case has its own scriptural exclusion limiting it to itself.
Key Terms:
- הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר = “this works for the one who holds…” (but is difficult for the other view)
- מְלַמְּדִין / אֵין מְלַמְּדִין = they do teach / they do not teach (a general rule)
Amud Bet (117b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Two exclusions — “and he shall put it” and “whose neck was broken” — limit each to itself.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי: הָכָא כְּתִיב ״וְשָׂמוֹ״, הָתָם כְּתִיב ״הָעֲרוּפָה״.
English Translation:
exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: “And he shall put it” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this halakha applies to “it,” and nothing else. There, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: “Whose neck was broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). This superfluous description teaches that the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others.
קלאוד על הדף:
Completing the answer from 117a: even for those who hold two-verses-as-one do teach, here each case has its own limiting exclusion (mi’ut). “V’samo” (“and he shall put it,” Leviticus 6:3) restricts the ash-removal’s persistent me’ilah to itself; “ha’arufa” (“whose neck was broken,” Deuteronomy 21:6) restricts the heifer’s to itself. These exclusions prevent generalizing, so the rule — no me’ilah after the mitzva — holds universally, and blood is exempt from me’ilah.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּטֵי (mi’utei) = exclusions (scriptural limitations)
- וְשָׂמוֹ (v’samo) = “and he shall put it” (the ash-removal’s limiting term)
- הָעֲרוּפָה (ha’arufa) = “whose neck was broken” (the heifer’s limiting term)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Why three phrases exempt blood: from notar, from me’ilah, from tumah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי בְּדָם?
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the three phrases from Leviticus 17:11 cited above as teaching that the blood of offerings is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property: And why do I need all three verses stated with regard to blood?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the three phrases in Leviticus 17:11 (“lakhem,” “l’khaper,” “hu”) that Ulla, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Yoḥanan each used to exempt blood from me’ilah. It asks why all three are needed if each alone yields the exemption. The next segment shows that the three phrases actually exempt blood from three different stringencies, not merely me’ilah.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי (telata kra’ei) = three [scriptural] phrases
- לְמָה לִי (lama li) = why do I need [all of them]?
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Each phrase excludes blood from a different stringency: notar, me’ilah, and impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִנּוֹתָר, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִמְּעִילָה, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מִטּוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: One term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition of notar. If one consumed the blood of such an offering, he is not liable for consuming notar as one who consumed the flesh would be. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. And one term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and one other term serves to exclude it from the prohibition of consumption of offerings in a state of ritual impurity. If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not for consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The three phrases are not redundant: each exempts blood from a different stringency. One excludes blood from notar (eating it past its time is not a notar violation, only a blood violation), one from me’ilah, and one from tumah (eating it while impure is not that violation, only a blood violation). This accounts for the mishna’s list of stringencies that apply to ḥelev but not to blood, deriving each exemption from its own phrase.
Key Terms:
- לְמַעוֹטֵי (l’ma’utei) = to exclude (from a given liability)
- נוֹתָר / מְעִילָה / טוּמְאָה = notar / misuse / [eating while] impure
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Blood needs no verse to be exempt from piggul — it is itself the permitting factor.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל מִפִּגּוּל לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, דִּתְנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם וּבֵין לְמִזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, וְדָם גּוּפֵיהּ מַתִּיר הוּא.
English Translation:
But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, an offering sacrificed with intention to consume it beyond its designated time, consumption of which is punishable by karet, as this exception is already derived from another source. As we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 43a): Concerning any item that has permitting factors, either with regard to consumption by a person or with regard to burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. But the permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul, and the blood of an offering is itself a permitting factor, as consumption of the offering by a person or by the altar is only permitted after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the blood is not subject to the prohibition of piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna listed four stringencies of ḥelev over blood, but only three phrases were given — because piggul needs no verse. A mishna in Zevaḥim teaches that only an item with “permitting factors” (matirin) is subject to piggul; the permitting factor itself is not. Since blood is the matir — it is the sprinkling of blood that permits the offering to be eaten or burned — blood cannot itself be subject to piggul. Thus the piggul exemption is self-evident, and only the other three required scriptural sources. This completes the gemara on the ḥelev-dam comparison.
Key Terms:
- מַתִּירִין (matirin) = permitting factors (that render an offering fit to eat/burn)
- דָּם גּוּפֵיהּ מַתִּיר הוּא = blood is itself the permitting factor
- פִּגּוּל (piggul) = an offering invalidated by improper intent
Segment 5
TYPE: הדרן
The concluding formula of perek “Kol HaBasar.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַבָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
[Hadran] We shall return to you, “Kol HaBasar” [All the Flesh].
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the hadran — the traditional formula marking the completion of a chapter. It concludes perek “Kol HaBasar” (the eighth chapter of Chullin), which dealt with the laws of meat and milk, salting, and the ḥelev-dam comparison. The masechet now moves into a new chapter, “HaOr V’HaRotev,” beginning with the mishna on tumah in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alakh) = “we shall return to you” (the formula ending a chapter)
- כׇּל הַבָּשָׂר (Kol HaBasar) = “All the Flesh” — the name of the completed chapter
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
New perek: non-food appendages that join meat to reach an egg-bulk for food impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹר, וְהָרוֹטֶב, וְהַקֵּיפֶה, וְהָאָלָל, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַקַּרְנַיִם, וְהַטְּלָפַיִם –
English Translation:
MISHNA: All foods that became ritually impure through contact with a source of impurity transmit impurity to other food and liquids only if the impure foods measure an egg-bulk. In that regard, the Sages ruled that even if a piece of meat itself is less than an egg-bulk, the attached hide, even if it is not fit for consumption, joins together with the meat to constitute an egg-bulk. And the same is true of the congealed gravy attached to the meat, although it is not eaten; and likewise the spices added to flavor the meat, although they are not eaten; and the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying; and the bones; and the tendons; and the lower section of the horns, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the horn is removed; and the upper section of the hooves, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the hoof is removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The new chapter, “HaOr V’HaRotev,” opens with a mishna on food impurity (tumat okhlin). Impure food transmits impurity only if it measures an egg-bulk (k’beitza). The mishna lists eight non-food components — the hide (or), congealed gravy (rotev), spice-sediment (keifa), meat-residue on the hide (alal), bones (atzamot), tendons (gidin), lower horns (karnayim), and upper hooves (telafayim) — that, though not eaten, join with attached meat to complete the egg-bulk measure. The ruling continues in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- הָעוֹר (ha’or) = the hide/skin
- רוֹטֶב / קֵיפָה (rotev / keifa) = congealed gravy / spice-sediment
- אָלָל (alal) = meat-residue left on the hide after flaying
- גִּידִין / קַרְנַיִם / טְלָפַיִם = tendons / horns / hooves
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
These join for food impurity but not for the impurity of a carcass (nevelah).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
English Translation:
All these items join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. Although if any of them was an egg-bulk they would not impart impurity of food, when attached to the meat they complete the measure. But they do not join together to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna states the key distinction: these eight appendages join with the meat to complete the egg-bulk (k’beitza) for tumat okhlin (food impurity, the lighter form), but they do not join to complete the olive-bulk (k’zayit) required for tumat nevelot (carcass impurity, the more severe form). Because they protect or accompany the meat, they count toward the lighter impurity measure but not the stringent one. This asymmetry is the chapter’s central theme.
Key Terms:
- מִצְטָרְפִין (mitztarfin) = they join together (to complete a measure)
- טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין (tumat okhlin) = impurity of food (the lighter category, needs a k’beitza)
- טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת (tumat nevelot) = impurity of a carcass (the severe category, needs a k’zayit)
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
A parallel case: a non-kosher animal slaughtered for a gentile that is still twitching.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לְגוֹי וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת, מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיז אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ. רִיבָּה לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין מִמַּה שֶּׁרִיבָּה לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
English Translation:
Similarly, there is another item that imparts impurity of food but not impurity of animal carcasses: In the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, the animal becomes impure with impurity of food and imparts impurity of food to other food, but does not impart impurity of animal carcasses until it dies, or until one severs its head. The mishna summarizes: The Torah included certain items to impart impurity of food beyond those which it included to impart impurity of animal carcasses.
קלאוד על הדף:
A parallel case (kayotze bo): one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile while it is still twitching (mefarkeset). It contracts and imparts food impurity, but not carcass impurity until it actually dies or its head is severed. The mishna summarizes the chapter’s principle: the Torah “included more for food impurity than it included for carcass impurity” (riba l’tamei tumat okhlin) — the lighter impurity has a broader scope than the severe one.
Key Terms:
- כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ (kayotze bo) = similarly/a comparable case
- מְפַרְכֶּסֶת (mefarkeset) = twitching/convulsing (not yet fully dead)
- רִיבָּה (riba) = [the Torah] included/expanded (the scope of food impurity)
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Yehuda: collected alal of an olive-bulk in one place imparts carcass impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב עָלָיו.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and then eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it as meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda adds a qualification about alal (meat-residue). If the alal has been collected (hamekhunas) into one place and amounts to an olive-bulk (k’zayit), it does impart carcass impurity — because by gathering it the person shows he regards it as meat. One who becomes impure through it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to karet. Intent, expressed by the act of collecting, can elevate residue to the status of meat for the severe impurity.
Key Terms:
- הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס = the meat-residue that has been collected/gathered
- כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד = an olive-bulk in one place
- חַיָּיב עָלָיו = liable for it (to karet, via carcass impurity)
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna matches a baraita: protective coverings join for light impurity, not severe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה, וְלֹא שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the attached hide joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food even though it is not fit for consumption. This is because the hide acts as a protective cover for the meat. But it does not join to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses. The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: An appendage that serves as protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity, such as the impurity of food, which can be transmitted only to food but not to people or vessels. But protection attached to food does not join together with food with regard to a severe level of impurity, such as the impurity of an animal carcass, which can be transmitted even to people and vessels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that the mishna corresponds to an explicit baraita: shomrim (protective coverings, like the hide) join with food for the lighter impurity (tumah kala, food impurity — transmitted only to food) but not for the severe impurity (tumah ḥamura, carcass impurity — transmitted even to people and vessels). The mishna’s ruling about the hide is thus a known principle: a protective covering counts toward the light measure but not the severe one. The next segments source both halves from Scripture.
Key Terms:
- תְּנֵינָא (teneina) = “we have learned” (the mishna matches a baraita)
- שׁוֹמְרִים (shomrim) = protective coverings/guards (of food)
- טוּמְאָה קַלָּה / חֲמוּרָה = light impurity / severe impurity
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Source that protection joins for light impurity: “upon any sowing seed” — seed in its shell.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ״ – כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה: חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verse, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the halakhot of imparting impurity of food, the verse states: “And if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). The phrase “upon any sowing seed” indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells and other components that protect the food are considered part of the food with regard to a light level of impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sources the first half. The school of Rabbi Yishmael derives from “al kol zera zerua” (“upon any sowing seed,” Leviticus 11:37) that a seed is susceptible to food impurity in the state one sows it — wheat, barley, and lentils each in their shell (kelipa). Since the protective shell is included with the seed for food impurity, protective coverings (shomrim) join with food for the light impurity. The verse establishes the lenient side of the mishna’s ruling.
Key Terms:
- עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ = “upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37)
- קְלִיפָּה (kelipa) = the shell/husk (a protective covering)
- מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה = [as] one takes it out for sowing (its natural protected state)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Source that protection does NOT join for severe impurity: “its carcass” — flesh, not bare hide.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּנִבְלָתָהּ״ – וְלֹא בְּעוֹר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection does not join together with the food with regard to a severe level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the impurity of a carcass, the verse states: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the hide of the carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sources the second half. From “b’nivlatah” (“its carcass,” Leviticus 11:39) the Sages derive that only touching the flesh of a carcass conveys impurity — but touching bare hide that lacks an olive-bulk of flesh does not. Thus a protective covering like the hide does not join to complete the k’zayit for the severe carcass impurity. Together with the previous segment, this grounds both halves of the mishna’s principle in Scripture: shomrim count for the light impurity but not the severe.
Key Terms:
- בְּנִבְלָתָהּ (b’nivlatah) = “its carcass” (Leviticus 11:39), read as its flesh
- עוֹר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר = a hide that lacks an olive-bulk of flesh (does not convey carcass impurity)