Chullin Daf 121 (חולין דף קכ״א)
Daf: 121 | Amudim: 121a – 121b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (121a)
Segment 1
TYPE: מסקנא
Completing the previous daf: orla is linked to bikkurim by a gezeira shava of ‘peri’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲדַר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ לְעׇרְלָה ״פְּרִי״ ״פְּרִי״ מִבִּכּוּרִים.
English Translation:
And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the word fruit and another instance of the word fruit. With regard to orla the verse states: “And you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden” (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by finishing the sentence broken off at the end of 120b. Rabbi Yehoshua, having derived bikkurim from teruma, now carries the result one step further to orla through a gezeira shava: the verse on orla speaks of “the fruit thereof” (Vayikra 19:23) and the verse on bikkurim of “the first of all the fruit of the ground” (Devarim 26:2). The shared term binds the two, so orla too yields lashes only for the liquid of olives and grapes, and the whole liquid-status sugya closes with wine and oil as the only true extensions of their fruit.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (gezeira shava) = a verbal analogy — an exegetical link between two verses sharing a common term
- עׇרְלָה (orla) = the fruit of a tree during its first three years, forbidden for all benefit
- פְּרִי (peri) = fruit — the term shared by the orla and bikkurim verses
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
What is alal? Rabbi Yochanan says the nuchal ligament; Reish Lakish says meat residue on the hide.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָלָל. מַאי אָלָל? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַרְטְקָא, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is referring to the nuchal ligament [marteka]. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s list of items that join with meat toward the egg-bulk and takes up the one term still undefined: alal. Rabbi Yochanan identifies it as the marteka, the tough nuchal ligament running along the animal’s neck. Reish Lakish identifies it as the scraps of flesh left clinging to the hide once the flaying knife has passed. Both readings fit the mishna’s premise that these are non-foods that nonetheless combine, but they point to very different substances, and the Gemara now tests each.
Key Terms:
- אָלָל (alal) = the mishna’s term for a marginal flesh-substance that joins with meat toward the requisite measure
- מַרְטְקָא (marteka) = the nuchal ligament — the tough sinew running along the back of the neck
- בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין = flesh that the knife expelled — residue left on the hide after flaying
Segment 3
TYPE: מיתיבי
An objection to Reish Lakish from Iyov: ‘physicians of no value’ fits a ligament, not meat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְאוּלָם אַתֶּם טֹפְלֵי שָׁקֶר רֹפְאֵי אֱלִל כֻּלְּכֶם״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַרְטְקָא – הַיְינוּ דְּלָאו בַּר רְפוּאָה הוּא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בַּר רְפוּאָה הוּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish from that which is written: “But you are plasterers of lies, you are all physicians of no value [elil]” (Job 13:4). The term “no value [elil]” stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, that is why Job accused his companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging from the hide is able to be healed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Reish Lakish from Iyov 13:4, where Iyov calls his companions “physicians of no value [elil]” — a word from the same root as alal. The image works if alal means the nuchal ligament, which no physician can heal, making the reproach cutting. But flesh hanging from a hide is perfectly healable, so on Reish Lakish’s reading the metaphor collapses. The objection is philological rather than halachic, testing a definition against the word’s biblical usage.
Key Terms:
- אֱלִל (elil) = of no value / worthless — the term in Iyov 13:4 sharing a root with alal
- בַּר רְפוּאָה = capable of being healed
- טֹפְלֵי שָׁקֶר = plasterers of lies — Iyov’s reproach to his companions
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The verse and the mishna use the word differently.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּאָלָל דִּקְרָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בָּאָלָל דְּמַתְנִיתִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse, everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the objection by separating the two usages. Everyone agrees that elil in Iyov’s verse denotes the nuchal ligament — Reish Lakish never claimed otherwise. The dispute concerns only the technical sense the Sages gave the word in the mishna, where a term can carry a narrower rabbinic meaning than its scriptural one. This is a standard move: biblical Hebrew and mishnaic terminology need not coincide.
Key Terms:
- אָלָל דִּקְרָא = the alal of the verse — its scriptural sense
- אָלָל דְּמַתְנִיתִין = the alal of the mishna — its technical rabbinic sense
Segment 5
TYPE: תא שמע
Rabbi Yehuda’s collected alal, with Rav Huna’s condition that a competent person gathered it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
English Translation:
Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but not if the alal was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a second test, this time from the mishna’s own continuation. Rabbi Yehuda rules that alal hamechunas — alal that has been gathered — imparts full carcass impurity if an olive-bulk accumulates in one place. Rav Huna adds the crucial qualification: only when a halachically competent adult deliberately collected it, not a child and not by accident. The act of gathering is itself the declaration that the substance is food, which is the same achshevei logic that governed congealed blood on the previous daf.
Key Terms:
- הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס = the alal that was collected — gathered deliberately into one place
- טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת (tumat neveilot) = the impurity of animal carcasses — a severe impurity carried by a k’zayit of carcass flesh
- וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ = and that is when he collected it — Rav Huna’s limiting condition
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
This fits Reish Lakish, but an olive-bulk of ligament is ‘merely wood’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מִיחַיַּיב, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַרְטְקָא, כִּי אִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מַאי הָוֵי? עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
English Translation:
Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who collected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge lands on Rabbi Yochanan. If alal is meat residue, Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling is intelligible: gathering the scraps makes them food, and an olive-bulk of food-flesh carries carcass impurity. But if alal is the nuchal ligament, gathering it accomplishes nothing, because a ligament is etz b’alma — merely wood, structurally inedible. No act of intent can make an inedible substance into food.
Key Terms:
- עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא (etz b’alma) = merely wood — a substance so inedible that intent cannot confer food status
- כְּזַיִת (k’zayit) = an olive-bulk, the measure at which carcass flesh imparts impurity
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
The dispute is relocated: they argue over the Rabbis’ view, not Rabbi Yehuda’s.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַרְטְקָא נָמֵי מִצְטָרֵף, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: דַּוְקָא בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל מַרְטְקָא לָא מִצְטָרֵף.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Rabbis maintain that the nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament does not join together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defuses the objection by narrowing the scope of the machloket. In Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling both amoraim agree that alal means meat residue; nobody claims a ligament can be gathered into food. Their disagreement concerns the anonymous Rabbis of the mishna’s first clause: Rabbi Yochanan holds the Rabbis include the ligament among the substances that join toward the egg-bulk, while Reish Lakish holds they include only the meat residue. Joining toward a measure is a lower bar than independently carrying impurity, which is why the ligament can qualify there and not here.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion
- רַבָּנַן (Rabbanan) = the Rabbis — the anonymous majority view of the mishna
- מִצְטָרֵף (mitztaref) = it joins together toward the requisite measure
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
A dilemma: if he intends to eat the residue it should stand alone; if not, he nullified it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי בָּשָׂר שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַנְפֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאִי דְּלָא חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ – בַּטּוֹלֵיה בַּטְּלֵיהּ!
English Translation:
What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna, that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but even by itself, like any other food. And if it is a case where one does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be susceptible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status as food.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having settled that the meat residue joins, the Gemara asks how that is even coherent. Susceptibility to food-impurity tracks intent. If a person intends to eat the residue, it is food outright and should be susceptible on its own without needing to join anything. If he does not intend to eat it, he has nullified it — batulei batlei — and it should be excluded entirely. The mishna’s middle position, joining but not standing alone, seems to have no room to occupy.
Key Terms:
- חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ = he considered it / intended it as food
- בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֵיהּ (batulei batlei) = he has completely nullified it — removed it from the category of food
- בְּאַנְפֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ = on its own / independently
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
One answer: he intends to eat part of it, but which part is uncertain.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, חַד אָמַר: מִקְצָתוֹ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו.
English Translation:
Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said: It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not susceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha offer two resolutions, and the Gemara does not say which said which. The first: the person intends to eat some of the residue but not all of it, and it is indeterminate which portion. That indeterminacy is exactly what produces the middle status — no identifiable piece is definitely food, so nothing is susceptible on its own, yet the intended portion is real enough to count toward the combined measure.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָתוֹ חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו = he intended part of it — partial intent producing indeterminate status
- מַחְשָׁבָה (machshava) = intent — the mental designation that renders a substance food for purity purposes
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
The other answer: part was severed by an animal, part by the knife.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחַד אָמַר: מִקְצָתוֹ פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה, וּמִקְצָתוֹ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין.
English Translation:
And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second resolution reaches the same middle status by a different route, without invoking intent at all. Some of the residue was torn away by an animal, which leaves its food status intact; some was scraped off by the flaying knife, which nullifies it. Because it is unknown which portion is which, the mixture is not independently susceptible, yet the animal-severed portion still contributes to the combined measure. Both answers exploit uncertainty to generate a status that is neither full food nor full non-food.
Key Terms:
- פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה = an animal expelled it — severed by a beast, retaining food status
- פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין = the knife expelled it — scraped off in flaying, nullifying its food status
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
A parallel problem: a bird’s beak and talons join, yet a beak is merely wood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: הַחַרְטוֹם וְהַצִּפׇּרְנַיִם מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וּמִצְטָרְפִין. חַרְטוֹם – עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!
English Translation:
§The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a bird that come into contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s inclusion of horns prompts the Gemara to cite a parallel mishna in Teharot (1:2) ruling that a bird’s beak and talons contract impurity, transmit it, and join toward the requisite measure. The same objection immediately arises: a beak is hard keratin, etz b’alma, and cannot be food by any stretch. The next several segments resolve this by reinterpreting each hard appendage as referring to a soft, fleshy portion at its base.
Key Terms:
- חַרְטוֹם (chartom) = the beak of a bird
- צִפׇּרְנַיִם (tzipornayim) = talons or claws
- מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין = they contract impurity and impart impurity
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Elazar narrows it to the lower beak; Rav Pappa to the soft membrane inside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּחַרְטוֹם תַּחְתּוֹן. תַּחְתּוֹן נָמֵי עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is referring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar first restricts the mishna to the lower mandible, but the Gemara objects that this is no softer than the upper. Rav Pappa gives the precise answer: the reference is to the underside of the upper mandible, the soft membrane lining the inside of the mouth. That tissue is genuinely fleshy and can carry impurity, so the mishna is speaking about the one part of a beak that is not wood.
Key Terms:
- חַרְטוֹם תַּחְתּוֹן = the lower beak / lower mandible
- תַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן = the lower part of the upper — the soft membrane on the underside of the upper mandible
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
The talons likewise mean the soft base embedded in the flesh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צִפׇּרְנַיִם, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מָקוֹם (המובלעים) [הַמּוּבְלָע] בַּבָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons themselves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed within the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar applies the same interpretive strategy to the talons. The mishna is not speaking of the hard claw but of the makom hamuvla babasar, the base of the talon subsumed within the surrounding flesh. The consistent principle emerging across these cases is that halachic food-status attaches to living tissue and stops precisely where the hard, dead material begins.
Key Terms:
- מָקוֹם הַמּוּבְלָע בַּבָּשָׂר = the place subsumed within the flesh — the soft base of the talon
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
And the horns mean the bleeding base where they are cut.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קַרְנַיִם, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחוֹתְכִין וְיוֹצֵא מֵהֶן דָּם.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa completes the pattern for the horns of the mishna itself. The reference is not to the hard horn but to the base where, if one cuts, blood flows — proof that the tissue there is living and vascular. With this, all three hard appendages have been resolved the same way, and the mishna’s list is shown to be internally consistent rather than including inedible material.
Key Terms:
- קַרְנַיִם (karnayim) = horns
- בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחוֹתְכִין וְיוֹצֵא מֵהֶן דָּם = at the place where one cuts and blood emerges — the living base of the horn
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: a twitching slaughtered animal imparts food impurity but not carcass impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ, הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: Similarly, 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, it imparts impurity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna moves to a new case with the phrase k’yotzei bo, “similarly.” A Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile; while the animal is still mefarkeset, twitching in its death throes, it imparts tumat ochlin (food impurity) but not tumat neveilot (carcass impurity). This split status — already food, not yet a carcass — is the seed of the entire remaining sugya, which will press on what such an animal actually is.
Key Terms:
- מְפַרְכֶּסֶת (mefarkeset) = twitching — convulsing in the moments after slaughter
- טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין (tumat ochlin) = food impurity — the lesser impurity carried by foodstuffs
- כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ = similarly — the mishna’s formula introducing an analogous case
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Asi: such an animal requires both intent and contact with liquid from elsewhere.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: שׁוֹנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּטְמֵאָה, וְגוֹי בִּטְהוֹרָה – צְרִיכִין מַחְשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר מַיִם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And furthermore, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impurity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Asi reports a teaching setting two conditions for such an animal to become susceptible: machshava, the slaughterer’s intent to designate the flesh as food, and hechsher, contact with a liquid originating elsewhere. The blood of the slaughter itself does not serve as the wetting agent, because it flowed from a valid act of slaughter rather than being applied to the meat. Both requirements will be challenged in the segments that follow.
Key Terms:
- הֶכְשֵׁר (hechsher) = preparation — contact with one of seven liquids that renders food susceptible to impurity
- מַחְשָׁבָה (machshava) = intent designating the flesh as food
- מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר = from another place — liquid originating outside the slaughter itself
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Why require hechsher at all? Food destined for severe impurity is exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶכְשֵׁר לְמָה לִי? סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְכֹל שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה – לָא בָּעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food? The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects to the second condition. There is an established rule that food whose ultimate fate is to carry a severer impurity does not need hechsher to become susceptible to the lesser one. This animal’s flesh will eventually be a carcass and carry tumat neveilot, so the exemption should apply and no wetting should be needed. The objection assumes the rule, and the next segment supplies its scriptural basis.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה (tumah chamura) = severe impurity — here, the carcass impurity that outranks food impurity
- סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא = its end is to impart impurity — its eventual halachic fate
Segment 18
TYPE: דרשה
The school of Rabbi Yishmael derives the rule from ‘if water is put upon seed’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע״, מָה זְרָעִים שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר.
English Translation:
The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The source is a derasha of the school of Rabbi Yishmael on Vayikra 11:38, “but if water is put upon the seed.” Seeds are the Torah’s paradigm case for requiring hechsher, and seeds can never reach severe impurity, since no severe impurity applies to non-meat foods. The verse is therefore read as defining the class: whatever cannot reach severe impurity needs wetting, and by implication whatever can reach it does not.
Key Terms:
- וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע = and if water is put upon seed (Vayikra 11:38) — the source verse for hechsher
- זְרָעִים (zera’im) = seeds — the paradigm of food that never reaches severe impurity
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yosei applies the rule to a kosher bird carcass — and the sentence breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר צְרִיכָה מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר? מִפְּנֵי
English Translation:
And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a kosher bird to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason is because
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita supplies a worked example. Rabbi Yosei asks why the carcass of a kosher bird requires machshava but not hechsher, and begins to answer — but the page ends mid-sentence. The completion, which opens 121b, is that such a carcass will eventually impart severe impurity in the throat of whoever eats it, so it falls on the exempt side of the rule the school of Rabbi Yishmael just established.
Key Terms:
- נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר (nivlat of tahor) = the carcass of a kosher bird, which renders impure the one who eats it
- מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ = for what reason did they say — the formula introducing a baraita’s explanation
Amud Bet (121b)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום
The completion: the bird carcass will impart severe impurity in the throat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה!
English Translation:
eventually the carcass of the bird will impart a more severe impurity when it is in the throat of the person who consumes it. Therefore, it is not necessary for the carcass of a kosher bird to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence broken off at the end of the previous amud finishes here. A kosher bird carcass needs no hechsher because its end is to impart severe impurity — specifically in the throat of the person swallowing it, the unique mechanism by which such a carcass defiles. Rabbi Yosei’s case thus confirms the rule rather than challenging it, and the Gemara can now return to the objection left open on 121a.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה = the throat / gullet — where a kosher bird carcass imparts its impurity
- שֶׁסּוֹפָהּ לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה = that its end is to impart severe impurity
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Chizkiyya: the animal could be chopped below an olive-bulk, so severe impurity is not certain.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְגוֹרְרָהּ, וּלְהַעֲמִידָהּ עַל פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת.
English Translation:
Ḥizkiyya says in response: The reason for the opinion of the Sages stated by Rabbi Asi is since the slaughterer is able to chop the animal into small pieces and thereby establish the volume of every piece of the animal as less than an olive-bulk. In such a scenario, the animal would not be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, it is not certain that the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Chizkiyya answers the objection of 121a. The exemption from hechsher applies only where severe impurity is a certainty, and here it is not: the slaughterer could chop the carcass into pieces each smaller than an olive-bulk, in which case no piece would ever carry carcass impurity. Because that outcome remains available, the animal’s future is undetermined and hechsher is still required. The answer preserves the rule by tightening what counts as a settled fate.
Key Terms:
- לְגוֹרְרָהּ = to chop / drag it into pieces
- פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת = less than an olive-bulk — below the threshold for carcass impurity
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yirmeya: but Chizkiyya elsewhere holds a twitching animal is already dead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וּמִי אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And did Ḥizkiyya actually say such a statement? But wasn’t it stated: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal in a valid manner by cutting the two simanim, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ḥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating the limbs from such a twitching animal. Therefore, a gentile, who is prohibited from consuming a limb from a living animal, may consume this animal. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya challenges Rabbi Zeira from a different statement of Chizkiyya. Where an animal has been validly slaughtered by cutting both simanim — the windpipe and gullet — or the majority of both, and is still twitching, Chizkiyya rules einah l’evarim: the prohibition of a limb from a living animal no longer applies, so a gentile may eat from it. Rabbi Yochanan rules yeshnah l’evarim, that it does apply. The two positions rest on opposite assessments of whether the animal is dead.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִים (simanim) = the windpipe and the gullet — the two organs severed in valid slaughter
- אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי (ever min hachai) = a limb from a living animal — forbidden to Jews and to the descendants of Noach
- אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים = it is not subject to the limb prohibition
Segment 4
TYPE: ביאור
The contradiction sharpened: if Chizkiyya deems it dead, it should carry carcass impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים: מֵתָה הִיא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים: לָאו מֵתָה הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the opinions: Ḥizkiyya says that there is no prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it was slaughtered in a valid manner it is considered dead. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that there is a prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it is twitching it is not yet dead. Therefore, since Ḥizkiyya maintains that a twitching animal is considered dead, it should have the impurity of a carcass, contrary to the opinion of the Sages cited by Rabbi Asi, as well as the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spells out the logic of each position. Chizkiyya exempts the limbs because a validly slaughtered animal is already considered dead; Rabbi Yochanan prohibits them because so long as it twitches it is not yet dead. But if Chizkiyya truly treats it as dead, it ought to carry full carcass impurity — contradicting both Rabbi Asi’s teaching and the mishna, which grant it only food impurity. The challenge is that Chizkiyya cannot hold both.
Key Terms:
- מֵתָה הִיא = it is dead
- לָאו מֵתָה הִיא = it is not dead
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira: it has left the category of living without entering the category of dead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָצְתָה מִכְּלַל חַיָּה, וְלִכְלַל מֵתָה לֹא בָּאת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: Ḥizkiyya maintains that such an animal has left the category of a living animal, but has not entered the category of a dead animal. Therefore, it is not prohibited for a gentile to consume such an animal, but the animal does not have the impurity of a carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira’s answer is the conceptual center of the daf. The animal yatz’ah mikelal chaya ulikelal meta lo ba’at — it has departed the category of the living without arriving in the category of the dead. Chizkiyya can therefore exempt the limbs, since the prohibition requires a living animal, while still withholding carcass impurity, which requires a dead one. Rather than forcing a binary, the halacha recognizes a genuine intermediate state, and the rest of the sugya explores what follows from it.
Key Terms:
- יָצְתָה מִכְּלַל חַיָּה = it has left the category of a living animal
- וְלִכְלַל מֵתָה לֹא בָּאת = and has not entered the category of a dead one — the liminal status
Segment 6
TYPE: גופא
The dispute taken up on its own; Rabbi Elazar endorses Rabbi Yochanan.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא: שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְפַרְכֶּסֶת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵינָהּ לְאֵבָרִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאֵבָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: נְקוֹט לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּיָדְךָ, דְּתָנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.
English Translation:
§The Gemara discusses the matter itself of the dispute between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered a non-kosher animal by cutting the two simanim, or the majority of the two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ḥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Elazar said: Take that opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan in your hand and accept it, as Rav Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having used the Chizkiyya-Rabbi Yochanan dispute as a challenge, the Gemara now examines it gufa, in its own right. Rabbi Elazar rules decisively: hold Rabbi Yochanan’s position firmly in hand, because Rav Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with it. A tannaitic source outranks amoraic argument, and the baraita is quoted at length in the segments that follow.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = the matter itself — the idiom returning to examine a cited statement on its own terms
- נְקוֹט לְהָא בְּיָדְךָ = take this in your hand — hold firmly to this ruling
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Rav Oshaya’s baraita: the twitching animal imparts food impurity but not carcass impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתָנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לְגוֹי, שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
English Translation:
As Rav Oshaya teaches (Tosefta, Oholot 2:1): In the case of a Jew who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for the consumption of a gentile, if he slaughtered it by cutting two simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts impurity of food; but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of animal carcasses.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita (Tosefta Oholot 2:1) opens with the mishna’s own case: a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile, cutting both simanim or the majority of both, and while it twitches it imparts food impurity but not carcass impurity. This restates the mishna, but the baraita’s continuation goes further and supplies the detail that decides the dispute.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה = a non-kosher animal
- רוֹב שְׁנַיִם = the majority of the two — the minimum valid cut of both simanim
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
A separating limb is like one from a living animal — the proof for Rabbi Yochanan.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וְאָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ.
English Translation:
A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart impurity. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs. This ruling of Rav Oshaya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the clause Rabbi Elazar relied on. A limb severed from the twitching animal is treated exactly like a limb from a living animal, and separating flesh like flesh from a living animal, which does not impart impurity. Most tellingly, the flesh remains forbidden to the descendants of Noach even after its soul departs — the prohibition attached while the animal still counted as living and does not lapse when it dies. That the limb prohibition operates at all is precisely Rabbi Yochanan’s yeshnah l’evarim.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי נֹחַ (bnei Noach) = the descendants of Noach, bound by the seven Noahide laws including ever min hachai
- הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה = that separates from it
- לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ = after its soul departs — once the animal is fully dead
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
An invalid cut yields no food impurity; stabbing yields no impurity at all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט בָּהּ אֶחָד, אוֹ רוֹב אֶחָד – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; נְחָרָהּ – אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites the continuation of the Tosefta: In the case where a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, if he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart the impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid. Similarly, if he did not perform a valid slaughter but rather stabbed the animal, the animal has no impurity whatsoever while it is still twitching.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita marks the lower boundary. Cutting only one siman, or the majority of one, is not a valid slaughter, so the animal never becomes food and carries no food impurity. And necharah — stabbing the animal rather than slaughtering it — is not an act of slaughter in any sense, leaving no impurity whatsoever while it twitches. Everything in this sugya depends on a technically valid shechita having occurred.
Key Terms:
- נְחָרָהּ (necharah) = he stabbed it — killing without a valid slaughter cut
- רוֹב אֶחָד = the majority of one siman — an insufficient cut
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
The mirror case: a gentile slaughtering a kosher animal for a Jew.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְגוֹי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה.
English Translation:
And similarly, in the case of a gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for the consumption of a Jew, and the animal is still twitching, the animal imparts the impurity of food because it is considered to be food, but so long as it is twitching it does not impart the impurity of an animal carcass.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now runs the parallel scenario. A gentile slaughters a kosher animal for a Jew’s consumption; while twitching it imparts food impurity but not carcass impurity. The symmetry is instructive: in the first case the animal is inherently non-kosher, in the second the slaughterer is disqualified, yet both produce flesh that counts as food for impurity while falling short of being a carcass.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה = a kosher animal
- שְׁחִיטַת גּוֹי = a gentile’s slaughter, which does not render an animal fit for a Jew
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
The same limb and flesh rules apply to the mirror case.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וּבָשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי, וְאָסוּר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ.
English Translation:
A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitching animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living animal, and as such it does not impart the impurity of food. And it is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even after its soul departs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita repeats the limb and flesh rulings verbatim for the second case, including the prohibition to the descendants of Noach that survives the animal’s death. The exact repetition is deliberate: the intermediate status is a property of the twitching animal itself, not of who slaughtered it or which species it belongs to.
Key Terms:
- אֵבֶר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ = a limb that separates — treated as from a living animal
- בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ = flesh that separates — which does not impart impurity
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
And the same lower boundary: one siman or stabbing yields nothing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט בָּהּ אֶחָד אוֹ רוֹב אֶחָד – אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, נְחָרָהּ – אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not impart impurity of food because the slaughter was not valid. Similarly, if he stabbed the animal rather than slaughtering it properly, it has no impurity whatsoever.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita closes the symmetry by repeating the invalid-slaughter clause for the gentile’s slaughter of a kosher animal. One siman or the majority of one gives no food impurity; stabbing gives no impurity at all. With both cases fully stated, the baraita turns to a different question about slaughter.
Key Terms:
- אֵין בָּהּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלוּם = it has no impurity whatsoever
Segment 13
TYPE: הלכה
A gentile may begin a cut that a Jew completes, and the animal is kosher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט גּוֹי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וּגְמָרָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
If a gentile partially slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, i.e., unfit for consumption due to a mortal wound, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then a Jew came and completed the slaughter, the animal is fit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita shifts to the practical law of shared slaughter. If a gentile made a partial cut in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa — say, half the windpipe — and a Jew then completed the slaughter, the animal is fit. The gentile’s incomplete act neither disqualifies the animal nor counts as a slaughter; the Jew’s cut is the operative one.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה (tereifa) = an animal with a mortal defect, unfit for consumption
- וּגְמָרָהּ = and he completed it — finishing the slaughter
- כְּשֵׁרָה (kesheira) = fit / valid for consumption
Segment 14
TYPE: הלכה
But if a Jew began and a gentile completed, the slaughter is invalid.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁחַט יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבֵין בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, וּבָא גּוֹי וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ – פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
But if a Jew slaughtered the animal, either in a place that renders the animal a tereifa, e.g., he cut the majority of the windpipe, or in a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., he only partially cut the windpipe, and then a gentile came and completed the slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reverse order fails, and in both variants: whether the Jew’s initial cut would have rendered the animal a tereifa or not, a gentile’s completion invalidates the slaughter. The asymmetry reflects that shechita is defined by its final, completing act. A slaughter is valid only if the qualified person performs the cut that actually kills.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּלָה (pesula) = invalid / unfit
- גָּמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ = he completed his slaughter — the decisive act
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
Eating before the soul departs: cut from the neck, salt well, rinse well, and wait.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִבְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָתָהּ, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לַהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ. אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One who wishes to eat from the meat of a slaughtered animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of its slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and blood, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then eat it. Both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it because the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is not applicable in such a case.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita gives a practical procedure for one who wishes to eat from the animal before it has fully died. He cuts an olive-bulk from the beit shechita, the slaughter site on the neck, salts it very thoroughly and rinses it very thoroughly to draw out the blood, then waits until the soul departs before eating. Both a Jew and a gentile may eat it, because the ever min hachai prohibition does not attach to flesh taken from the slaughter wound itself.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית שְׁחִיטָה (beit shechita) = the site of the slaughter cut on the neck
- מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה = he salts it very well — more thoroughly than ordinary koshering requires
- מְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה = he rinses it very well — washing off the salt and blood
Segment 16
TYPE: מסייע
This supports Rav Idi bar Avin: the same practice as a remedy for good health.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָין: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִים בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: One who wants to be healthy should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, and salt it very well and rinse it very well, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that the baraita supports Rav Idi bar Avin in the name of Rav Yitzchak bar Ashyan, who prescribed the identical procedure for haroetzeh sheyavri — one who wishes to be healthy. The overlap is significant: what the baraita presents as a permitted procedure, the amoraim present as a recommended one, and the baraita’s authority confirms that the practice raises no halachic problem.
Key Terms:
- הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא = one who wishes to become healthy
- מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ = it supports him — a source corroborating an amoraic statement
Segment 17
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Elazar asks whether pausing or pressing invalidate this slaughter too.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שָׁהָה בָּהּ, דָּרַס בָּהּ – מַהוּ?
English Translation:
§It was previously taught in the baraita that if a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, or a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for a Jew’s consumption, that animal imparts impurity of food when it is twitching after the slaughter. With regard to that halakha, Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case if one interrupted the slaughter or pressed on the knife during the slaughter? Do these acts, which normally invalidate slaughter, also invalidate this slaughter, or does the slaughter in this case not have to fulfill all of the halakhic requirements of valid slaughter in order to render the slaughtered animal as food with regard to imparting the impurity of food?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma about the standard of slaughter required here. If the slaughterer paused mid-cut (shehiya) or bore down on the knife (derasa) — defects that invalidate an ordinary shechita — do they invalidate this one as well? Or is a rougher act sufficient, given that the purpose here is only to render the animal food for impurity purposes rather than to permit it for eating?
Key Terms:
- שָׁהָה בָּהּ (shehiya) = he paused during the slaughter — one of the five disqualifications
- דָּרַס בָּהּ (derasa) = he pressed down on the knife instead of drawing it — another disqualification
Segment 18
TYPE: תשובה
A certain elder reports Rabbi Yochanan: a fully valid slaughter is required, including checking the knife.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: צְרִיכָה הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה כִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה. הֶכְשֵׁר לְמַאי? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּדִיקַת סַכִּין.
English Translation:
A certain elder resolved this dilemma and said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: This case requires a valid slaughter in every detail, just like a Jew slaughtering a kosher animal. The Gemara clarifies: To what requirement does valid slaughter just like a kosher animal refer? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: It is referring to the requirement of examining the knife before the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
An unnamed elder settles the dilemma with a ruling of Rabbi Yochanan: this slaughter must meet every requirement of slaughtering a kosher animal. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak specifies what the demanding phrase includes — bedikat sakin, examining the blade beforehand for nicks. Even where the object is only to confer food status, the halacha holds the act to the full standard of shechita.
Key Terms:
- הָהוּא סָבָא = a certain elder — an unnamed authority transmitting a ruling
- בְּדִיקַת סַכִּין (bedikat sakin) = examination of the knife for nicks before slaughtering
- הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה = the requirements of a valid slaughter
Segment 19
TYPE: בעיא
Does the twitching animal shield the items swallowed inside it from corpse-impurity?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַהוּ שֶׁתַּצִּיל עַל הַבְּלוּעִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ?
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: If a non-kosher animal slaughtered by a Jew is twitching under the same roof as a corpse, and the animal swallowed items before being slaughtered, what is the halakha with regard to those swallowed items that are inside the animal? Is the animal considered to be living and therefore it should save these items that are swallowed inside it from the impurity transmitted by the corpse to all items under the same roof? Or is the animal considered to be dead and therefore the items become impure?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira poses the sharpest test of the intermediate status to Rav Sheshet. A living animal shields whatever it has swallowed from the corpse-impurity that fills a room under one roof; a dead one does not. The twitching animal has swallowed items and lies under the same roof as a corpse. Since it is neither living nor dead, which rule applies to what is inside it?
Key Terms:
- בְּלוּעִין (bluin) = swallowed items — objects inside the animal’s body
- מַצֶּלֶת (matzelet) = it shields / saves — protecting contents from impurity
- טוּמְאַת אֹהֶל = tent-impurity — corpse impurity filling everything under one roof
Segment 20
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Each side presses the other with the animal’s opposite half-status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וּמַצֶּלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, וְלֹא תַּצִּיל?
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is established that such an animal is considered to be dead and imparts impurity of food, is it possible that it saves those items inside it from impurity? Certainly it does not. Rabbi Zeira said to him in response: It is also established that such an animal does not impart impurity of carcasses and is considered to be a living animal in that regard. How is it possible that the animal does not save those items inside it from impurity?
קלאוד על הדף:
The exchange is elegantly symmetrical. Rav Sheshet argues from the food-impurity side: an animal that imparts food impurity is being treated as dead, so how could it shield? Rabbi Zeira argues from the carcass side: an animal that does not impart carcass impurity is being treated as living, so how could it fail to shield? Each has taken one half of the mishna’s split ruling, and neither half alone resolves the case.
Key Terms:
- וּמַצֶּלֶת? = and it shields? — rhetorical incredulity
- וְלֹא תַּצִּיל? = and it should not shield? — the counter-challenge
Segment 21
TYPE: מסקנא
Abaye rules stringently in both directions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵינָהּ מַצֶּלֶת עַל הַבְּלוּעִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ, דְּהָא מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהָרוֹבְעָהּ חַיָּיב, דְּהָא אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה.
English Translation:
Abaye resolved the dilemma and said: It is proper to treat this case stringently. Therefore, such an animal does not save the items that are swallowed inside it because it imparts impurity of food. But one who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liable because the animal does not impart impurity of a carcass and is considered to be living in that regard.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves by refusing to choose. Where a status is genuinely intermediate, the halacha applies whichever side is stringent in each application: the animal does not shield the swallowed items, since it imparts food impurity, and one who commits bestiality with it is liable, since it does not impart carcass impurity and thus counts as living for that severe prohibition. The ruling is not inconsistent but principled — doubt about category resolves toward stringency in every direction it faces.
Key Terms:
- הָרוֹבְעָהּ חַיָּיב = one who commits bestiality with it is liable — a prohibition applying only to a living animal
- לְחוּמְרָא (lechumra) = stringently — the principle of resolving doubt toward the stricter ruling
Segment 22
TYPE: משנה
Return to the mishna: Rav Huna’s condition on the collected alal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches that 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 eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. Rav Huna says in explanation: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara circles back to Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling in the mishna about alal hamechunas and repeats Rav Huna’s qualification: the collected residue carries carcass impurity only where a halachically competent person deliberately gathered it, not a child and not by chance. Human intent is what converts scraps into a k’zayit of food, and without a competent actor there is no such conversion.
Key Terms:
- הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס = the collected alal
- וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ = and that is when he collected it — requiring deliberate gathering by a competent person
Segment 23
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Huna: a hide nullifies two half-olive-bulks resting on it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן עַל גַּבֵּי הָעוֹר – הָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן,
English Translation:
And Rav Huna says: In a case of two pieces of flesh of an animal carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the hide, the hide nullifies them, as the hide does not impart the impurity of a carcass. Consequently, these pieces do not impart impurity either.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes with a second ruling of Rav Huna running in the opposite direction from the first. Where two half-olive-bulks of carcass flesh lie on a hide, the hide mevatlan — nullifies them — so they do not combine into the olive-bulk that would impart carcass impurity. Just as deliberate gathering can create the measure, an intervening hide can prevent it from forming. The discussion continues on 122a.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים = two half-olive-bulks — which would together make a k’zayit if they combined
- הָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן = the hide nullifies them — preventing the halves from joining into a full measure