Chullin Daf 122 (חולין דף קכ״ב)
Daf: 122 | Amudim: 122a – 122b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (122a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
Whose opinion is Rav Huna following when he says the hide nullifies?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by interrogating the ruling that closed 121b. Rav Huna had said that two half-olive-bulks of carcass flesh resting on a hide do not combine, because the hide nullifies them. The Gemara sets his statement against the mishna of 124a, where Rabbi Yishmael holds such a hide imparts carcass impurity by carrying (since one lifts both halves at once) though not by contact (since one touches each separately), while Rabbi Akiva holds it imparts impurity neither way. Rav Huna must be speaking for one of them, and the next segment shows that neither fits comfortably.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן = according to whose opinion? — the idiom demanding a statement’s attribution
- מַשָּׂא (masa) = carrying — a mode of contracting impurity by bearing the impure object
- מַגָּע (maga) = contact — contracting impurity by touching
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Neither attribution works: Rabbi Yishmael denies nullification, Rabbi Akiva makes it obvious.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הָאָמַר לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר. וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – פְּשִׁיטָא, הָאָמַר מְבַטֵּל עוֹר.
English Translation:
If one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didn’t Rabbi Yishmael say that the hide does not nullify the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? And if one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didn’t Rabbi Akiva say that the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not become impure?
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is stated sharply from both sides. If Rav Huna speaks for Rabbi Yishmael, he contradicts him outright, since Rabbi Yishmael holds the hide does not nullify and one who carries it does become impure. But if he speaks for Rabbi Akiva, his statement is peshita — self-evident and therefore pointless, since Rabbi Akiva has already said the hide nullifies. An amoraic statement must add something, and on this reading Rav Huna adds nothing.
Key Terms:
- לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר = the hide does not nullify — Rabbi Yishmael’s position
- פְּשִׁיטָא (peshita) = it is obvious — an objection that a statement is redundant
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
A distinction is proposed: knife-flayed hides nullify, animal-severed ones do not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא מְבַטֵּל עוֹר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי שֶׁפְּלָטַתּוּ חָיָה, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בָּטֵיל.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rav Huna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yishmael said that the hide does not nullify the flesh, that statement applies to a case where an animal severed the hide. But in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the attached flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s first resolution rescues the attribution to Rabbi Yishmael by narrowing his position. When Rabbi Yishmael denied nullification he was speaking only of a hide torn off by an animal (pelatatu chaya); where a person flayed the hide with a knife (pelatatu sakin), even he concedes that it nullifies. On this reading Rav Huna’s statement is a genuine addition, specifying the case Rabbi Yishmael left implicit.
Key Terms:
- פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה = an animal expelled it — a hide torn away by a beast
- פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין = the knife expelled it — a hide removed by human flaying
Segment 4
TYPE: תא שמע
A refutation is brought from Rabbi Yehuda’s collected alal with Rav Huna’s own gloss.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to this explanation of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna: 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. And Rav Huna says in explanation of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the new distinction from the very mishna Rav Huna himself glossed on the previous daf. Rabbi Yehuda ruled that collected alal imparts carcass impurity when an olive-bulk accumulates in one place, and Rav Huna qualified this to a halachically competent person having gathered it. That case necessarily involves knife-flaying, since the residue is what a knife leaves behind — which will now be turned against the proposed distinction.
Key Terms:
- הָאָלָל הַמְכוּנָּס = the collected alal — meat residue deliberately gathered
- וְהוּא שֶׁכִּנְּסוֹ = and that is when he collected it — Rav Huna’s condition
Segment 5
TYPE: ראיה
If the flesh still imparts impurity after knife-flaying, the hide clearly did not nullify it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי לָא בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
English Translation:
Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. Therefore, the Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, even in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh, accordingly, Rav Huna said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and therefore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected the pieces.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws out the implication. Since the collected residue does impart carcass impurity, the hide it came from evidently did not nullify it — for nullified flesh would not revive merely by being gathered. So on Rabbi Yishmael’s view a knife-flayed hide does not nullify after all, and Rav Huna’s gloss on Rabbi Yehuda would then be consistent with Rabbi Yishmael, not with the distinction just proposed.
Key Terms:
- לָא בָּטֵיל = it is not nullified
- כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
And if a knife-flayed hide did nullify, whose view could Rav Huna possibly represent?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בָּטֵיל, רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן?
English Translation:
But if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, in a case where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the flesh and therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then in accordance with whose opinion did Rav Huna say that the hide does not nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart the impurity of a carcass?
קלאוד על הדף:
The other horn is fatal to the proposed distinction. If Rabbi Yishmael held that a knife-flayed hide nullifies, then the collected residue in Rabbi Yehuda’s case should carry no impurity at all — yet the mishna says it does. Rav Huna’s gloss would then match no one’s position. The distinction between knife and animal cannot be sustained.
Key Terms:
- כְּמַאן (keman) = in accordance with whom? — demanding an attribution that the position can bear
Segment 7
TYPE: מסקנא
Conclusion: Rabbi Yishmael never nullifies, and Rav Huna speaks for Rabbi Akiva.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לֹא בָּטֵיל, וְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rather, it is necessary to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael differently. Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael even a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the attached flesh. And Rav Huna said his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of flesh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara abandons the distinction and returns to the simpler reading. Rabbi Yishmael holds that a hide never nullifies attached flesh, whether removed by knife or by animal. Rav Huna’s ruling that the hide nullifies therefore belongs to Rabbi Akiva — which revives the original objection that his statement is obvious, addressed next.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם (le’olam) = actually — the idiom reinstating a position after a failed refinement
- כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא = in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Not obvious after all: one might have limited Rabbi Akiva to knife-flaying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָנֵי מִילֵּי פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה – לָא בָּטֵיל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna’s statement is unnecessary. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement is necessary lest you say: When Rabbi Akiva said that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of flesh, that statement applies only to a case where a person used a knife to flay the animal. But if an animal severed the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers the redundancy charge by identifying what Rav Huna forecloses. Without his statement one might have supposed that Rabbi Akiva’s nullification applies only where a person flayed the hide with a knife, on the theory that deliberate human handling separates the flesh more decisively, while a hide torn off by an animal leaves the flesh attached enough to combine. Rav Huna rules out that narrowing.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא = lest you say — the idiom introducing the error a statement prevents
- הָנֵי מִילֵּי = these words apply — restricting a ruling to a particular case
Segment 9
TYPE: מסקנא
Rabbi Akiva’s reason — the hide nullifies them — applies however the hide came off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן, לָא שְׁנָא פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה, וְלָא שְׁנָא פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַהֵר בְּעוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.
English Translation:
Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is because the hide nullifies the flesh, and there is no difference whether an animal severed the hide, and there is no difference whether a person used a knife to flay the hide. This statement of Rav Huna is therefore in accordance with that which the latter clause of that mishna teaches: For what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna’s contribution is thus to identify the reason behind Rabbi Akiva’s ruling and let it govern the scope. Because Rabbi Akiva’s rationale is simply mipnei sheha’or mevatlan — the hide nullifies them — it makes no difference whether a knife or an animal removed the hide; either way the hide interposes and prevents the two halves from combining. The latter clause of the mishna states this rationale explicitly, confirming the reading and closing the sugya carried over from 121b.
Key Terms:
- מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן = because the hide nullifies them — the stated rationale of Rabbi Akiva
- לָא שְׁנָא = there is no difference — the two cases are governed alike
- סֵיפָא (seifa) = the latter clause of the mishna
Segment 10
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: human skin and pig skin have the status of flesh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן: עוֹר הָאָדָם, וָעוֹר חֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עוֹר חֲזִיר הַבָּר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh: The skin of a dead person, which imparts impurity like his flesh; and the skin of a domesticated pig, which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the skin of a wild boar has the same status.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new chapter of the mishna begins, cataloguing orotheihen kivsaran — skins whose halachic status is that of flesh. Ordinarily skin is a distinct substance that does not carry the impurity flesh carries; these are the exceptions, generally because the skin in question is unusually soft or undeveloped. The list opens with human skin and the skin of a domesticated pig, which is soft enough to be eaten; Rabbi Yehuda adds the skin of a wild boar.
Key Terms:
- עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן = their skins are like their flesh — skins that carry flesh-status for impurity
- חֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב = a domesticated pig — literally a pig of the settlement
- חֲזִיר הַבָּר = a wild boar
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
The full list: young camel hump, calf head, hooves, womb, fetus, tail, and four creeping animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וָעוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וָעוֹר הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת, וָעוֹר הַשְּׁלִיל, וְעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחוֹמֶט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַלְּטָאָה כְּחוּלְדָּה.
English Translation:
And the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is also like that of their flesh: The skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen; and the skin of the head of a young calf; and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin of an animal fetus in the womb of a slaughtered animal; and the skin beneath the tail of a ewe; and the skin of the gecko [anaka], and the desert monitor [ko’ach], and the lizard [leta’a], and the skink [chomet], four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death. Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic status of the skin of the lizard is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues with skins that are soft by virtue of youth, location, or species. A young camel’s hump before it toughens; a young calf’s head; the hide of the hooves; the skin of the womb; the skin of a fetus still in the womb; the skin beneath a ewe’s tail; and the skins of four of the eight creeping animals named in Vayikra — the gecko, desert monitor, lizard, and skink. Rabbi Yehuda dissents on the lizard, ranking its skin with the weasel’s, which is not flesh-like. The Gemara will examine nearly every item on this list.
Key Terms:
- חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל (chateret shel gamal) = a camel’s hump
- בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת = the womb
- שְׁלִיל (shalil) = a fetus found in the womb of a slaughtered animal
- תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה = beneath the tail — the soft skin under a ewe’s fat tail
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
Tanning or treading purifies them all — except human skin.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן, אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה – טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאָדָם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת.
English Translation:
And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: All eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah have skins whose halakhic status is not that of flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s closing clause supplies the mechanism by which these skins lose flesh-status. Tanning them (ibdan), or spreading them and treading on them for the time tanning would take, converts them into ordinary leather and renders them pure. One exception stands out: human skin never loses its status, a rule the Gemara will trace to a rabbinic decree rather than Torah law. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri dissents entirely, holding that all eight creeping animals have genuine skins.
Key Terms:
- עִבְּדָן (ibdan) = he tanned them — processing hide into leather
- הִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן (hilech bahen) = he trod upon them — treading as an equivalent to tanning
- כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה = the time required for tanning
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Ulla: human skin is pure by Torah law; the impurity is a rabbinic decree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that the skin of a dead person imparts impurity like his flesh. With regard to this, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s first comment on the mishna is its most striking. Ulla teaches that by Torah law human skin is pure, and the Sages imposed impurity only as a protective decree — shema ya’aseh adam orot aviv ve’imo shtichin, lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother. Rather than legislate the prohibition directly, the Sages made the material ritually impure, so that no one would ever wish to keep it. The decree protects the dignity of the dead by making misuse unthinkable.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה (gezeira) = a rabbinic decree enacted to prevent a feared outcome
- שְׁטִיחִין (shtichin) = mats or spreads
- דְּבַר תּוֹרָה (devar Torah) = by Torah law — as opposed to rabbinic enactment
Segment 14
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Others attach Ulla’s statement to the mishna’s closing clause about tanned skin.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר אָדָם. אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה עוֹר אָדָם שֶׁעִבְּדוֹ טָהוֹר, וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ טָמֵא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עוֹרוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שְׁטִיחִין.
English Translation:
And there are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. With regard to that clause, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records a second transmission. Some place Ulla’s teaching not on the mishna’s opening line but on its final clause, so that what is pure by Torah law is specifically tanned human skin — the case where a person has already processed the skin into usable material. On this version the decree addresses precisely the scenario it fears, since it is tanned skin that could be made into a mat.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ = there are those who teach it — an alternative transmission
- אַסֵּיפָא = on the latter clause
Segment 15
TYPE: נפקא מינה
The practical difference between the two transmissions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: The one who teaches the statement of Ulla that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not tanned, all the more so would teach it with regard to the latter clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches this statement with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that only the tanned skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, but does not teach it with regard to the first clause of the mishna because he holds that the impurity of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws out what turns on the choice. Whoever teaches Ulla’s statement on the opening clause — about untanned skin — would certainly say it of tanned skin, which is further removed from flesh. But whoever teaches it only on the closing clause holds that untanned human skin is impure by Torah law, and only the tanned variety depends on rabbinic decree. The two versions therefore disagree about how much of the impurity is scriptural.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן = all the more so — an a fortiori inference
- טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = impurity by Torah law
Segment 16
TYPE: ביאור המחלוקת
The pig dispute turns on whether a wild boar’s skin is tough or soft.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹר חֲזִיר [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: הַאי אַשּׁוּן וְהַאי רַכִּיךְ, וּמָר סָבַר: הַאי נָמֵי רַכִּיךְ.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches that according to the first tanna, the skin of a domesticated pig imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that this skin of a wild boar is tough and therefore its status is not that of flesh, but that skin of a domesticated pig is soft and therefore its status is that of flesh. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this skin of a wild boar is also soft and therefore its status is that of flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the mishna’s first machloket into a factual disagreement rather than a legal one. Both tannaim accept the governing principle that soft skin carries flesh-status and tough skin does not; they simply assess the wild boar differently. The first tanna judges its skin ashun, tough, in contrast to the domesticated pig’s soft hide; Rabbi Yehuda judges the boar’s skin soft as well. The criterion is texture, a theme that returns at length on 122b.
Key Terms:
- אַשּׁוּן (ashun) = tough / hardened
- רַכִּיךְ (rakich) = soft / tender
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא
A camel counts as young as long as it has not carried a burden.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוֹר חֲטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל הָרַכָּה, וְכַמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches that the skin of the hump of a young camel that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a camel considered young and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? Ulla says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as the camel has not carried a burden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to defining the mishna’s terms. Ulla, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, sets the boundary functionally rather than by age: a camel’s hump-skin retains flesh-status as long as the animal has never carried a load. Bearing weight is what toughens the hump, so the test tracks the physical reality the mishna cares about. That functional standard immediately invites edge cases.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה = as long as it has not carried a burden
- גָּמָל הָרַכָּה = a young / tender camel
Segment 18
TYPE: בעיא
Two dilemmas about camels that do not fit the standard — both left unresolved.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְלֹא טָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן וְטָעֲנָה, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time, i.e., age, to carry a burden has arrived, but it has not yet carried one? Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose time to carry a burden has not arrived, but it has nevertheless carried one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya and Abaye each probe a case where age and experience diverge. Rabbi Yirmeya asks about a camel old enough to bear loads that never has; Abaye asks about one too young that carried anyway. Each tests whether the criterion is really the load or the maturity the load stands for. The Gemara declares teiku — both questions stand unresolved, a standard outcome when no source or argument can decide.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = let it stand — an unresolved question left open
- הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ לִטְעוֹן = its time to carry a burden has arrived
Segment 19
TYPE: מעשה
Reish Lakish is answered and honors the one who answered him.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּיב לְקִבְלִי.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored him and said to him: Sit opposite me.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now records two parallel scenes that together make a point about character. Reish Lakish sat puzzling over the very question just discussed — how young is a young camel — and Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba supplied Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s answer. Reish Lakish responded by honoring him: tiv lekivli, sit opposite me, the seat of distinction. The famously severe scholar received his teacher graciously.
Key Terms:
- תִּיב לְקִבְלִי = sit opposite me — an invitation conferring honor
- קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ = he was raising a dilemma / puzzling over it
Segment 20
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Zeira is answered and rebukes the one who answered him.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה גָּמָל הָרַכָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנָה. הֲוָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲדָא הָוְיָא לָךְ אֲמַרְתְּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel considered young? Ravin bar Chinnana said to him: This is what Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not carried a burden. Ravin bar Chinnana then repeated his answer to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do you have only one halakha to say, and that is why you are repeating it?
קלאוד על הדף:
The parallel scene runs the opposite way. Rabbi Zeira sat puzzling over the same question, and Ravin bar Chinnana gave him the same answer in Ulla’s name — then repeated it. Rabbi Zeira snapped: do you have only one teaching, that you keep saying it? The gentle, saintly Babylonian responded with impatience where the harsh Galilean had responded with honor.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא הָוְיָא לָךְ = do you have only one — a sharp rebuke
- הֲוָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ = he was repeating it
Segment 21
TYPE: הערה
The Gemara draws the contrast between the harsh of Eretz Yisrael and the pious of Bavel.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא חֲזִי, מָה בֵּין תַּקִּיפֵי אַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לַחֲסִידֵי דְבָבֶל.
English Translation:
The Gemara points out: Come and see what the difference is between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael, such as Reish Lakish, and the saintly ones of Babylonia, such as Rabbi Zeira. Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira responded sharply to the one who taught him this halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara supplies its own commentary on the juxtaposition: come and see the difference between takifei ar’a deYisrael, the harsh ones of the Land of Israel, and chasidei deBavel, the pious ones of Babylonia. The line is pointedly ironic. Reish Lakish, whose reputation was for severity, behaved with grace; Rabbi Zeira, renowned for piety, spoke sharply. The daf preserves the exchange as a caution against reading a person’s character from their reputation.
Key Terms:
- תַּקִּיפֵי אַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל = the harsh ones of the Land of Israel
- חֲסִידֵי דְבָבֶל = the pious ones of Babylonia
- תָּא חֲזִי = come and see — the idiom introducing a moral observation
Segment 22
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
How young is a young calf? Ulla says first year; Rabbi Yochanan says while suckling.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ וְכוּ׳. וְכַמָּה עֵגֶל הָרַךְ? עוּלָּא אָמַר: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר עוּלָּא? בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק,
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: And the skin of the head of a young calf has the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The Gemara asks: And for how long is a calf considered young? Ulla says: It is considered young in its first year of age. Rabbi Yochanan says: For as long as the calf is suckling. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is Ulla speaking? Is he referring to a calf that is in its first year of age and is still suckling,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the next item on the mishna’s list. Ulla measures a calf’s youth by age — within its first year; Rabbi Yochanan measures it by nursing — as long as it still suckles. A dilemma is then raised about precisely what Ulla intended, whether both conditions or only the year, and the question runs over onto 122b where it is resolved.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ = in its first year
- כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק = as long as it is suckling
- עֵגֶל הָרַךְ = a young / tender calf
Amud Bet (122b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
The first reading: Ulla requires both conditions, Rabbi Yochanan only nursing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק.
English Translation:
and Rabbi Yochanan disagreed with Ulla and said to him: A calf is considered young as long as it is suckling, even after its first year of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi Yochanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma opened at the end of 122a is now laid out. On the first possibility, Ulla means a calf is young only if it is both within its first year and still nursing, and Rabbi Yochanan disagrees by extending youth to any nursing calf even past a year. The two Sages would then differ on whether age caps the definition.
Key Terms:
- הֵיכִי קָאָמַר = what exactly is he saying? — clarifying the terms of a statement
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא
The second reading reverses which Sage imposes the double condition.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא, עוּלָּא בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ קָאָמַר, בֵּין יוֹנֵק וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹנֵק, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק?
English Translation:
Or perhaps, does Ulla say that a calf is considered young if it is in its first year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no longer suckling, and Rabbi Yochanan said to him: The calf must be in its first year of age and it must also be suckling in order to be considered young?
קלאוד על הדף:
The alternative possibility inverts the picture: Ulla means the first year alone, whether the calf still nurses or not, and Rabbi Yochanan is the one adding that it must also be nursing. Each reading is internally coherent, so the Gemara needs a textual clue to decide between them.
Key Terms:
- אוֹ דִלְמָא = or perhaps — introducing the alternative horn of a dilemma
Segment 3
TYPE: פשיטות
Resolved from Rabbi Yochanan’s phrasing: he said ‘as long as,’ not ‘and provided.’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹנֵק, וְאִם אִיתַהּ – ״וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi Yochanan says: The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And if it is so that Rabbi Yochanan requires a calf to be both in its first year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yochanan should have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an additional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yochanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year, and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and suckling to be young.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the dilemma on a point of formulation. Rabbi Yochanan said kol zman sheyonek, as long as it is suckling — a phrase that states a criterion on its own. Had he meant to add a second condition to Ulla’s year, he would have said vehu sheyonek, and provided that it is suckling, the standard idiom for a supplementary requirement. The first reading is therefore correct: nursing alone is Rabbi Yochanan’s measure, and Ulla requires both.
Key Terms:
- וְהוּא שֶׁיּוֹנֵק = and provided that it is suckling — the idiom for an added condition
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = conclude from it — the formula accepting a proof
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
Reish Lakish asks whether a young calf’s head-skin really imparts impurity; Rabbi Yochanan says no.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא.
English Translation:
§The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether the skin of the head of a young calf that is still fit to be eaten imparts impurity? Is the status of the skin like that of flesh or not? Rabbi Yochanan said to him: It does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish puts a direct question to his teacher, and the answer is startling: the skin of a young calf’s head does not impart impurity. This flatly contradicts the mishna they have been analyzing, which lists that very skin among those whose status is like flesh. The confrontation that follows is one of the more personal exchanges preserved in the masechet.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא = what is the law — does it impart impurity?
Segment 5
TYPE: תשובה
Rabbi Yochanan: do not provoke me — I teach that mishna as an individual opinion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לִימַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, that it says in the mishna: These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf is included among them? Rabbi Yochanan said to Reish Lakish: Do not provoke me by asking such a question. I teach that mishna in the singular, i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the halakha is not in accordance with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish presses the obvious objection: our teacher himself taught us that mishna. Rabbi Yochanan’s reply is unusually personal — al takniteni, do not provoke me — followed by the substantive point: bilshon yachid ani shoneh otah, I teach it as an individual opinion. A mishna recorded anonymously is normally authoritative, but Rabbi Yochanan holds this one reflects a minority view, so the halacha does not follow it. The next segments produce the baraita that proves it.
Key Terms:
- אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי = do not provoke / vex me
- בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד = as an individual opinion — a minority view, not binding law
- לִימַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ = you taught us, our teacher — a formula of respectful challenge
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita on piggul: intent regarding the skin beneath the tail.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹלָה לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת; חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. Since this particular area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
The supporting baraita is drawn from the law of offerings. One who slaughters a burnt offering intending to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated place renders the offering unfit, though without karet; intending to burn it beyond its designated time renders it piggul, and eating it carries karet. That improper intent regarding this skin has any effect at all shows it is reckoned as flesh — but the Rabbis extend that only to the skin beneath the tail.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = an offering rejected through improper intent regarding its time, punishable by karet
- חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ = outside its designated place — intent that renders the offering unfit
- חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ = beyond its designated time — intent that creates piggul
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Individual tannaim extend the rule to the whole list of flesh-like skins.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ אֶבְלַיִם אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עִיכּוּם אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶחָד עוֹר פְּרָסוֹת, וְאֶחָד עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וְאֶחָד עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וְכׇל שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן, לְהָבִיא עוֹר שֶׁל בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת.
English Translation:
Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha applies both to the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all of the entities that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity that the halakhic status of their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita then records a dissenting position transmitted twice over: Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom in the name of Rabbi Shimon. They apply the piggul rule not only to the skin beneath the tail but to the hide of the hooves, the skin of a young calf’s head, and everything the Sages listed as flesh-like for impurity, including the skin of the womb. This is precisely the mishna’s list.
Key Terms:
- וְכֵן הָיָה אוֹמֵר = and so he would say — introducing a parallel transmission
- לְהָבִיא = to include — extending a rule to a further case
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
The extended position confirms that the mishna follows a minority view.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins outside its designated area renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. Therefore, the mishna is in accordance with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not in accordance with the Rabbis’ opinion that only the skin beneath the tail has the status of flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the dissenting view with the same consequences: wrong place renders the offering unfit without karet, wrong time renders it piggul with karet. The upshot vindicates Rabbi Yochanan. Since only these named individuals hold that all the listed skins count as flesh, while the Rabbis restrict it to the skin beneath the tail, the anonymous mishna indeed represents an individual opinion and does not establish the halacha.
Key Terms:
- וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת = and one is liable to karet for it
- פָּסוּל (pasul) = unfit — disqualified but without karet liability
Segment 9
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
What is beit haperasot? Rav says the hooves themselves; Rabbi Chanina says the knee.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת. מַאי בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת? רַב אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת מַמָּשׁ, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: רְכוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: And the hide of the hooves has the status of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To what is the term hooves referring? Rav says: It is literally referring to the hooves. Rabbi Chanina says: It is referring to the skin of the section of the knee at the top of the lower bone, which is sold with the head. This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it, has the status of flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s terms. Rav reads beit haperasot literally, as the hide of the hooves. Rabbi Chanina reads it as the rechuva, the knee section at the top of the lower leg bone — identifiable by the butcher’s practice of selling that cut together with the head. The disagreement is anatomical rather than conceptual, but it determines which cut of skin carries flesh-status.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת = the hooves / the area of the hooves
- רְכוּבָּה (rechuva) = the knee joint
- הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ = that is sold together with the head
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
The creeping animals’ skins are derived from the term ‘hatteme’im’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וָעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַטְּמֵאִים״ – לְרַבּוֹת עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: And the halakhic status of the skin of the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: “And these are they which are impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds. And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon. These are they which are impure for you among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead, shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:29-32). The term “they which are” in the expression “they which are impure” seems superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as having the same halakhic status as their flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages taught that the apparently superfluous term hatteme’im in Vayikra 11:29-32 — “these are they which are impure for you” — serves to include the skins of these creatures as having the status of their flesh. The same exegetical technique of reading a redundant word as an inclusion appeared on daf 120 regarding the juice and gravy of creeping animals, and the verse is now mined a second time.
Key Terms:
- הַטְּמֵאִים (hatteme’im) = they which are impure — the term read as an inclusion
- לְרַבּוֹת (leravot) = to include — the function of an apparently superfluous term
Segment 11
TYPE: דרשה
The word ‘these’ limits the rule to four of the eight creeping animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״.
English Translation:
One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states: “These,” indicating that this halakha applies only to these animals mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the lizard, and the skink.
קלאוד על הדף:
Left unqualified, the inclusion would sweep in all eight creeping animals the Torah names. The word elleh, these, restricts it — and the Gemara takes the restriction to isolate the four the mishna lists: the gecko, desert monitor, lizard, and skink. The pairing of an inclusive term with a limiting one to produce a precise subset is standard midrashic method.
Key Terms:
- אֵלֶּה (elleh) = these — a limiting term restricting the scope of an inclusion
- יָכוֹל (yachol) = one might have thought — introducing an overbroad reading to be corrected
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But ‘these’ covers all eight — Rav answers that ‘lemineihu’ interrupts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא ״אֵלֶּה״ אַכּוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיבִי! אָמַר רַב: ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the term “these” written with regard to all eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? Rav says: After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the verse states: “After its kinds.” Therefore, the verse interrupted the previous matter and taught that the status of the skin is like that of the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the latter part of the verse.
קלאוד על הדף:
The obvious objection is that elleh appears in a verse listing all eight creatures, so it cannot single out four. Rav answers that the phrase lemineihu, after its kinds, which follows the weasel, mouse, and great lizard, hifsik ha’inyan — interrupted the matter. The verse thereby divides into two units, and the limiting term governs only the creatures named after the break.
Key Terms:
- לְמִינֵהוּ (lemineihu) = after its kinds — the phrase that divides the verse
- הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן = it interrupted the matter — a textual break separating two units of a verse
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then the chameleon should count too — and Rav indeed teaches it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: רַב תְּנָא הוּא, וְתָנֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But since the chameleon is listed in the latter part of the verse, let the chameleon also be counted among the animals whose skin has the status of flesh. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: Rav, who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of a tanna, and unlike the mishna, he teaches that the skin of the chameleon has the status of flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the break is where Rav places it, the list after it contains five creatures, not four: the chameleon (tinshemet) belongs there as well. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak answers that Rav tanna hu — Rav has the standing of a tanna and may dispute a mishna — and Rav does in fact include the chameleon. The answer concedes the objection and reassigns Rav’s view to a tannaitic register rather than harmonizing it.
Key Terms:
- תִּנְשֶׁמֶת (tinshemet) = the chameleon — the eighth creeping animal
- רַב תְּנָא הוּא = Rav has the status of a tanna — and may therefore dispute a mishna
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Then why does our mishna omit the chameleon?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא תַּנָּא דִּידַן לָא תָּנֵי תִּנְשֶׁמֶת?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But the tanna of our mishna does not teach this halakha with regard to the chameleon. According to his opinion, why doesn’t the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?
קלאוד על הדף:
If Rav’s derivation from the verse is correct, the mishna’s silence about the chameleon becomes the problem. The tanna of the mishna evidently does not accept the derivation as Rav frames it, and the next segments explain that he is working from a different principle altogether.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא דִּידַן = the tanna of our mishna
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Our mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda, who goes by texture rather than derasha.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: תַּנָּא דִּידַן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר גִּישְׁתָּא.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The tanna of our mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the halakhic status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: “They which are impure.” Rather, he follows the texture of the skin of each creeping animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that of its flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet son of Rav Idi supplies the resolution. The mishna’s tanna follows Rabbi Yehuda, who does not derive the rule from hatteme’im at all but azil batar gishta — he goes after the texture of each creature’s skin. Softness, not scriptural inclusion, is the operative test, which is why his list need not track the verse’s divisions and why the chameleon can be absent.
Key Terms:
- אָזֵיל בָּתַר גִּישְׁתָּא = he goes after the texture — deciding by the physical quality of the skin
- גִּישְׁתָּא (gishta) = texture / feel
Segment 16
TYPE: ביאור
The remaining dispute is only about the texture of the lizard.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְגִישְׁתָּא דְּהַלְּטָאָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
The first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the texture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh; and they disagree with regard to the texture of the skin of the lizard. Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first tanna of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.
קלאוד על הדף:
With the principle established, the earlier machloket in the mishna comes into focus. The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the gecko, desert monitor, and skink have soft skins that count as flesh; they part ways only over the lizard, which Rabbi Yehuda judges tough and the first tanna judges soft. As with the wild boar on 122a, the disagreement is an empirical one about the material, not a legal one about the rule.
Key Terms:
- הַלְּטָאָה (leta’a) = the lizard
- חוּלְדָּה (chulda) = the weasel — whose skin Rabbi Yehuda takes as the tough benchmark
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Chiyya’s donkey ear suggests treading should not be necessary.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן [וְכוּ׳]. הִילֵּךְ אִין, לֹא הִילֵּךְ לָא? וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אוֹזֶן חֲמוֹר שֶׁטְּלָאָהּ לְקוּפָּתוֹ טְהוֹרָה, טְלָאָהּ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הִילֵּךְ!
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: And all of these skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara objects: The mishna indicates that if one trod upon them they are no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon them they do not cease being classified as flesh. But doesn’t Rabbi Chiyya teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classified as flesh once it is sewed into a basket, so too skin that is spread on the ground, even if one did not tread upon it, should no longer be classified as flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the mishna’s requirement of treading. Rabbi Chiyya taught that a donkey’s ear sewn into a basket becomes pure — and no treading was involved there. If sewing suffices to strip flesh-status, mere spreading on the ground should suffice as well, and the mishna’s insistence on treading looks excessive.
Key Terms:
- אוֹזֶן חֲמוֹר = a donkey’s ear
- שֶׁטְּלָאָהּ לְקוּפָּתוֹ = that he sewed / patched it into his basket
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ
Sewing is itself a decisive act; spreading is not, so treading is required.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא: טְלָאָהּ, הִילֵּךְ – אִין, לֹא הִילֵּךְ – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an action that nullifies the ear’s classification as flesh. But spreading skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin’s classification as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one trod upon the skin it is no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon it, it does not cease being classified as flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes the two cases by the character of the act. Sewing the ear into a basket repurposes it definitively — it has become part of a utensil, and nothing further is needed. Spreading a skin on the ground accomplishes nothing by itself; only treading on it for the duration of tanning works the change. The principle is that flesh-status is stripped by an act that genuinely transforms the material, not by mere placement.
Key Terms:
- טְלָאָהּ (tela’ah) = he sewed / patched it — an act that repurposes the material
- הִילֵּךְ אִין לֹא הִילֵּךְ לָא = if he trod, yes; if he did not tread, no
Segment 19
TYPE: מימרא
The time required for tanning is the time it takes to walk four mil.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּמָּה כְּדֵי עִבּוּד? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין.
English Translation:
The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: How long is the period required for tanning? Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yannai says: The time which it takes one to walk four mil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now fixes the duration the mishna left vague. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Yannai gives it as the time it takes to walk four mil. Setting a temporal measure by a walking distance is characteristic of talmudic quantification, and this particular measure turns out to govern several unrelated areas of halacha, which the Gemara proceeds to list.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי עִבּוּד = the time required for tanning
- אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין = four mil — a distance measure used to express a span of time
Segment 20
TYPE: מימרא
Four mil also bounds how far a kneader must go to immerse his vessel.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: לְגַבָּל.
English Translation:
§Since the period of time it takes to walk four mil was mentioned, the Gemara lists halakhot that employ this period of time. Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to a professional kneader who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four mil in order to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him pays for him to do so.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having invoked the four-mil measure, the Gemara collects its other applications. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Reish Lakish rules that a professional kneader who maintains ritual purity in his work must travel up to four mil to reach a mikveh for immersing his vessel; beyond that he is not obligated unless his employer pays for the extra effort. Four mil marks the outer limit of reasonable exertion.
Key Terms:
- גַּבָּל (gabbal) = a professional kneader of dough
- מִיל (mil) = a talmudic unit of distance, roughly a kilometer
Segment 21
TYPE: מימרא
The same measure governs prayer and washing the hands before eating.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִתְפִלָּה וְלִנְטִילַת יָדַיִם – אַרְבַּעַת מִילִין.
English Translation:
And similarly, with regard to prayer, one who is traveling may not pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four mil ahead of him, but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. And similarly, with regard to washing one’s hands before eating, one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there is water within four mil ahead of him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The measure extends to two obligations that bear on daily life. A traveler must continue up to four mil ahead to reach a synagogue for prayer rather than praying where he stands, and up to four mil ahead to reach water for netilat yadayim before eating bread. These are the most practically consequential rulings on the daf, and they are codified in the Shulchan Aruch.
Key Terms:
- נְטִילַת יָדַיִם (netilat yadayim) = the ritual washing of the hands before eating bread
- תְּפִלָּה (tefilla) = prayer
Segment 22
TYPE: סיום
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak begins to respond — and the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק:
English Translation:
With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said:
קלאוד על הדף:
The page ends mid-statement, with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak beginning a comment on Reish Lakish’s four-mil rulings. His qualification — distinguishing how far one must go forward from how far one must turn back — appears on 123a, where the sugya resumes.
Key Terms:
- אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק = Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said — the statement completed on the next daf