Chullin Daf 123 (חולין דף קכ״ג)
Daf: 123 | Amudim: 123a – 123b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (123a)
Segment 1
TYPE: הגהה
Correcting the attribution: it was Aivu, and he taught four applications, not three.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַיְבוּ אַמְרַהּ, וְאַרְבְּעֵי אֲמַר בַּהּ, וַחֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲבוֹדָה.
English Translation:
It was Aivu who said this statement in the name of Reish Lakish and not Rabbi Abbahu, and he said four halakhot, not three, with regard to the measure of four mil, and the fourth one of them is the halakha mentioned in the mishna: Skins that one spread on the ground and trod upon for the period required for tanning, i.e., the amount of time it takes to walk four mil, are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by amending the transmission that closed 122b. The four-mil teaching came from Aivu rather than Rabbi Abbahu, and it comprised four applications rather than three — the fourth being the mishna’s own case, the span of treading required to count as tanning a skin. Precision about who said what and how many items a tradition contained is characteristic of the Talmud’s care with transmission, and here it also restores the connection between the four-mil measure and the sugya it arose from.
Key Terms:
- אַיְבוּ (Aivu) = the amora who transmitted the teaching in Reish Lakish’s name
- אַרְבְּעֵי אֲמַר בַּהּ = he said four with regard to it — four applications of the measure
- עֲבוֹדָה (avoda) = the tanning process — here the fourth application of the four-mil span
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא
The four-mil obligation runs forward only; one need not turn back even a mil.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל לְאַחֲרָיו – אֲפִילּוּ מִיל אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר, וּמִינַּהּ: מִיל הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, הָא פָּחוֹת מִמִּיל – חוֹזֵר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Chanina, says: With regard to prayer and washing one’s hands, the Sages taught that one must travel four mil to find a synagogue or water only if the synagogue or the water is ahead of him, in the direction that he is traveling. But if it is behind him, he need not return even one mil. Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: From this statement one may infer that it is specifically a mil that one need not return; but one must return for a synagogue or water that is at a distance of less than one mil.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina supplies the qualification that makes the four-mil rule livable. The obligation to travel for a synagogue or for water applies only lefanav, when the destination lies ahead on one’s route; if it lies behind, one need not retrace even a single mil. Rav Acha bar Yaakov then reads the formulation precisely: it is a full mil one need not retrace, which implies that for less than a mil one must turn back. The resulting forward-four / backward-one asymmetry is the form in which this halacha is codified and practiced.
Key Terms:
- לְפָנָיו (lefanav) = ahead of him — in his direction of travel
- לְאַחֲרָיו (le’acharav) = behind him — requiring backtracking
- וּמִינַּהּ (uminah) = and from it — deriving a further inference from the same statement
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
A Tosefta on corpse impurity carried by a passing legion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִיגְיוֹן הָעוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְנִכְנַס לְבַיִת – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאֵין לָךְ כׇּל לִיגְיוֹן וְלִיגְיוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּמָּה קַרְקִפְלִין. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי קַרְקִפְלוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מוּנָּח בְּרֹאשׁ מְלָכִים.
English Translation:
§The mishna states that the skin of a human corpse is impure like its flesh. The Sages taught in the Tosefta (8:16): In the case of a legion traveling for warfare from place to place, and one member of the legion enters a house, the house is impure, as there is no legion that does not have several scalps that its soldiers carry around for witchcraft. And you should not be surprised that they do so, as the scalp [karkefal] of Rabbi Yishmael was placed on the heads of kings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the ruling of 122a that human skin imparts impurity, and cites a Tosefta with a sombre application: a house entered by a member of a passing legion becomes impure, because such troops carried human remains with them. The Tosefta adds, as its proof that this was no exaggeration, that the remains of Rabbi Yishmael — among the sages martyred under Roman rule — were displayed by kings. The halachic point is that a portion of a corpse conveys tumat ohel to everything under a roof; the historical note is recorded with grief rather than detail.
Key Terms:
- לִגְיוֹן (ligyon) = a legion — a Roman military unit
- קַרְקִפְלִין (karkefalin) = scalps — portions of human remains
- טוּמְאַת אֹהֶל = tent impurity — corpse impurity filling everything under one roof
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: during flaying the hide still counts as flesh in some circumstances.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה –
English Translation:
MISHNA: The halakhic status of the hide of an animal after it was flayed is no longer like its flesh in terms of becoming impure and imparting impurity. Nevertheless, in the case of one who flays either a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal; a ritually pure animal that was slaughtered properly and afterward came in contact with impurity, e.g., the one flaying it is impure, or a ritually impure unslaughtered carcass; a small animal, e.g., sheep, or a large animal, e.g., cattle; and even after flaying the animal’s hide is still partially attached to the flesh, the hide’s halakhic status remains that of flesh in some circumstances.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna opens a fresh subject. A fully removed hide is ordinary leather and carries no impurity, but while flaying is under way the hide remains chibur — connected — and retains flesh-status both to contract and to impart impurity. The mishna’s opening clause sweeps in every combination: domesticated or wild animal, one properly slaughtered or an unslaughtered carcass, small livestock or large. What varies is not the animal but the flayer’s purpose, which the next clauses set out.
Key Terms:
- חִבּוּר (chibur) = connection — attachment sufficient to transmit impurity between two parts
- הַמַּפְשִׁיט (hamafshit) = one who flays
- דַּקָּה וְגַסָּה = small livestock (sheep, goats) and large livestock (cattle)
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Flaying for a carpet: connected until the measure of grasping is flayed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְשָׁטִיחַ, כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה.
English Translation:
These circumstances are: If he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, a tablecloth, or to drape over a couch, in which case he would cut the hide along the length of the animal from head to tail and then remove the hide from both sides, its halakhic status remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide, i.e., two handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first purpose is a shatiach, a hide destined to be a carpet, tablecloth, or couch covering. This is flayed by slitting the hide lengthwise from head to tail and peeling it back on both sides. The hide keeps flesh-status until the flayer has removed kedei achiza, the measure of grasping — the amount he can take hold of, which the Gemara will later quantify. The threshold is functional: connection ends when the hide has become something one handles rather than something covering the animal.
Key Terms:
- שָׁטִיחַ (shatiach) = a carpet or spread — a hide flayed to lie flat
- כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה (kedei achiza) = the measure of grasping — enough hide to take hold of
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Flaying for a jug: connected until the breast is flayed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְחֵמֶת – עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הֶחָזֶה.
English Translation:
And if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of crafting a leather jug, in which case he cuts a circle near the animal’s neck and removes the hide in a downward movement, its halakhic status remains that of flesh until he flays the animal’s entire breast.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second purpose is a chemet, a leather jug or waterskin, which requires the hide to come off whole and tubular. The flayer cuts a circle at the neck and works the hide downward, and the mishna sets the threshold at the breast: until the chazeh is flayed, the hide remains connected. The differing thresholds reflect differing techniques, since each method reaches the point of practical detachment at a different stage.
Key Terms:
- חֵמֶת (chemet) = a leather jug or waterskin, requiring the hide removed intact
- חָזֶה (chazeh) = the breast of the animal
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
Flaying from the legs keeps the whole hide connected; a dispute over the neck.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמַּרְגִּיל – כּוּלּוֹ חִבּוּר לַטּוּמְאָה, לִיטַּמֵּא וּלְטַמֵּא. עוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חִבּוּר עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
In the case of one who seeks to fashion a jug and begins flaying from the legs, until he removes the animal’s hide in its entirety, the entire hide is considered as having a connection with the flesh and its halakhic status remains that of flesh with regard to impurity, i.e., with regard to becoming impure and with regard to imparting impurity. If one removed the entire hide except for the hide over the neck, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: It is not considered to have a connection to the flesh, and the Rabbis say: It is considered to have a connection to the flesh until he removes the animal’s hide in its entirety, including the neck.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third case is hamargil, flaying from the legs upward, where the mishna sets no partial threshold at all: the entire hide stays connected until it is wholly removed. The mishna then closes with a machloket over the last piece to come off. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds the hide over the neck is not a connection; the Rabbis hold it remains one until the animal is completely flayed. Abaye will later reframe this dispute in terms of a protection prone to detach on its own.
Key Terms:
- הַמַּרְגִּיל (hamargil) = one who flays beginning from the legs
- לִיטַּמֵּא וּלְטַמֵּא = to become impure and to impart impurity — connection working in both directions
- עוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר = the hide over the neck
Segment 8
TYPE: שאלה
What is the status of the portion already flayed?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ מַאי?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If one flays an animal for the purpose of making a carpet out of it, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide. The Gemara asks: From that point forward, i.e., when one has flayed more than the measure of grasping of the hide, what is the status of the hide?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens its analysis with the question the mishna leaves unaddressed. The mishna states when the hide ceases to be connected, but says nothing about the hide already peeled back. Does that portion retain any status, or has it become inert leather the moment it separates? The answer divides two amoraim.
Key Terms:
- מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ = from this point onward — beyond the stated threshold
- מוּפְשָׁט (mufshat) = the flayed portion — hide already removed from the flesh
Segment 9
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Rav: the flayed portion is pure. Rabbi Asi: the handbreadth nearest the flesh is impure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: טָהוֹר הַמּוּפְשָׁט, רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: טֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר טָמֵא.
English Translation:
Rav says: The entire section of the hide that has been flayed is pure because it no longer serves the flesh as a handle. But the hide that is still attached to the flesh serves the flesh as protection, and therefore it transmits impurity to the flesh and from the flesh, and joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impurity of food. Rabbi Asi says: One handbreadth of the flayed hide that is next to the flesh is susceptible to impurity. Since the one who flays the hide holds this handbreadth of the hide while flaying, this section of the hide serves the flesh as a handle.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav rules that the flayed portion is entirely pure, since it no longer performs any function for the flesh; only the still-attached hide, which protects the flesh, carries status. Rabbi Asi carves out an exception grounded in how flaying actually works: the flayer grips the handbreadth of loosened hide closest to the flesh in order to pull, so that strip functions as a yad, a handle. A handle conveys impurity by contact even though it is not itself food, and on that basis Rabbi Asi holds the near handbreadth impure.
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר = the handbreadth adjacent to the flesh
- יָד (yad) = a handle — an appendage by which one holds the item, conveying impurity
- שׁוֹמֵר (shomer) = a protection — a covering that guards the flesh
Segment 10
TYPE: מיתיבי
A baraita says the flayed hide is pure — answered as excluding the near handbreadth.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּפְשִׁיט כְּשִׁיעוּר הַזֶּה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בַּמּוּפְשָׁט טָהוֹר. מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ בְּטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר? לָא, לְבַר מִטֶּפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from a baraita: In the case of one who flays an unslaughtered animal carcass, once he has cut the hide along the length of the animal from head to tail and then removed this measure of the hide from both sides, then from that point forward, a person who touches the flayed hide is pure, because the flayed hide does not impart impurity of a carcass. What, is it not discussing even the handbreadth of hide next to the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi? The Gemara answers: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may be discussing the flayed hide except for the handbreadth next to the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first challenge to Rabbi Asi is a baraita ruling that once flaying passes the threshold, one who touches the flayed hide remains pure. Read plainly it covers every part of the flayed hide, including the strip nearest the flesh. The Gemara deflects the proof by reading the baraita as speaking of the flayed hide apart from that handbreadth, which Rabbi Asi treats as a separate category.
Key Terms:
- הַנּוֹגֵעַ בַּמּוּפְשָׁט = one who touches the flayed portion
- לְבַר מִן = apart from / excluding
Segment 11
TYPE: תא שמע
A second baraita is deflected by reading its phrase ‘the hide opposite the flesh’ broadly.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּעוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר – טָמֵא. עוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר – טָמֵא, הָא בְּטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר – טָהוֹר. תָּנָא: כׇּל טֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר, עוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר קָרֵי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Asi from a baraita: Once an animal carcass has been flayed more than the measure of grasping the hide, if one touches the hide opposite the flesh before that hide was flayed he is impure. This statement indicates that the attached hide opposite the flesh is impure, but one handbreadth of the flayed hide that is next to the flesh is pure, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara answers: There is no proof from this baraita. The tanna who taught this baraita was referring to the entire handbreadth of flayed hide next to the flesh by calling it the hide opposite the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second challenge is sharper: a baraita rules impure specifically “the hide opposite the flesh,” which by implication leaves the adjacent flayed handbreadth pure. The Gemara answers that the tanna used that phrase loosely, applying it to the whole handbreadth beside the flesh rather than only to hide still lying against it. The answer is a reading of terminology rather than a substantive distinction, and the Gemara moves on to a third source.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַבָּשָׂר = the hide opposite the flesh — still lying against it
- קָרֵי לֵיהּ = he calls it — the tanna’s loose usage of a term
Segment 12
TYPE: תא שמע
A Tosefta states outright that the near handbreadth is pure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ – כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה, וְטֶפַח הַסָּמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Asi from a baraita (Tosefta 8:18): In the case of one who flays a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure animal or a ritually impure unslaughtered carcass, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping it, and one who touches one handbreadth of the flayed hide next to the flesh remains pure, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third challenge is the most direct. A Tosefta reproduces the mishna’s opening clause and then adds explicitly that one who touches the handbreadth of flayed hide next to the flesh remains pure — exactly the case Rabbi Asi rules impure. Unlike the previous two sources, this one cannot be deflected by rereading a phrase, so the Gemara must limit its scope instead.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹסֶפְתָּא (Tosefta) = a tannaitic collection supplementing the Mishna
- טָהוֹר (tahor) = pure — not susceptible to or conveying impurity
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
The Tosefta speaks of the first handbreadth, before one grips the near strip.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטֶפַח רִאשׁוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the first handbreadth of hide that is flayed in addition to the measure of grasping. In a case where only one handbreadth of hide has been flayed in addition to the measure of grasping, it is more comfortable for the one flaying the hide to grasp the edge of the hide rather than the handbreadth of hide that is nearest to the flesh. Furthermore, the most comfortable way to continue flaying is to do so with a knife without grasping the flayed hide at all. Therefore, Rabbi Asi concedes that the hide in this case does not serve the flesh as a handle and consequently does not impart impurity. But afterward, when one has already flayed more than three handbreadths of hide, one holds the handbreadth of hide next to the flesh while continuing to flay the animal, and since it serves the flesh as a handle it imparts impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves by attending to the physical stages of the work. When only one handbreadth has been peeled beyond the measure of grasping, the flayer naturally grips the outer edge, or simply keeps cutting with the knife without gripping at all — so at that stage the near strip serves no function and Rabbi Asi agrees it is pure. Only once three or more handbreadths hang loose does the flayer take hold of the strip beside the flesh, and only then does it become a yad. The answer preserves Rabbi Asi by grounding his rule in a real change in how the work is performed.
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח רִאשׁוֹן = the first handbreadth — the earliest stage of flaying
- בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן = with what are we dealing? — the idiom narrowing a source to a specific case
Segment 14
TYPE: סתירה
Two baraitot conflict: is the measure of grasping one handbreadth or two?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: כַּמָּה כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה? טֶפַח. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: טִפְחַיִים!
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches that the hide’s halakhic status remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide. It was taught in a baraita: How much is the measure of grasping? It is one handbreadth. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: The measure of grasping is two handbreadths?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to quantifying kedei achiza, the measure the mishna left undefined, and finds the tannaitic sources at odds. One baraita gives a single tefach, another gives two. Since both purport to define the same term, the conflict requires resolution rather than a choice between them.
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח (tefach) = a handbreadth, roughly 8-10 centimeters
- טִפְחַיִים (tifchayim) = two handbreadths
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: a doubled handbreadth — two handbreadths folded to grip as one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טֶפַח כָּפוּל. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כַּמָּה כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה? טֶפַח כָּפוּל.
English Translation:
Abaye says: The first baraita is referring to one who grasps a double handbreadth by folding the first two handbreadths together and grasping them. This explanation of Abaye is also taught in the Tosefta (8:18): How much is the measure of grasping? It is a double handbreadth.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye reconciles the sources with a single observation about how one actually holds hide: the flayer folds the loosened flap back on itself and grips the doubled thickness. That requires two handbreadths of material producing one handbreadth of grip, so both baraitot are correct from different vantage points. A Tosefta stating tefach kaful outright confirms the reading.
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח כָּפוּל (tefach kaful) = a doubled handbreadth — two handbreadths folded over to be grasped as one
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it is also taught thus — a source corroborating a proposed answer
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
A parallel case from Kelim: a torn garment becomes pure once most of it is torn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: טַלִּית שֶׁהִתְחִיל בָּהּ לְקוֹרְעָהּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוּבָּהּ – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וּטְהוֹרָה.
English Translation:
§The Gemara discusses a matter similar to the previous discussion of a partially flayed hide. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Kelim 28:8): A ritually impure garment that tears is rendered pure because it is no longer considered a useable garment. In the case of a ritually impure garment that one began to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered as having a connection, and since it is no longer considered a useable garment, it is pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now opens a parallel sugya that will occupy the rest of the daf. A mishna in Kelim (28:8) rules that an impure garment one has begun to tear becomes pure once the majority is torn, since the two sections no longer constitute a connection and the garment is no longer usable. The structural parallel to a half-flayed hide is exact: in both cases an object is being progressively destroyed, and the question is at what point the parts cease to be one thing.
Key Terms:
- טַלִּית (tallit) = a garment or cloak
- נִקְרַע רוּבָּהּ = its majority is torn
- שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר = it is no longer a connection
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Nachman quoting Rabba bar Avuh limits the rule to a garment immersed that day.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּטַלִּית טְבוּלַת יוֹם.
English Translation:
Rav Nachman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to an impure garment that was already immersed in a ritual bath that day, but one must wait until nightfall for the purification process to be completed in order to wear the garment while eating ritually pure food. In such a case, tearing the majority of the garment renders it pure, and the Sages did not apply the requirement that the entire garment be torn.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman transmits a sharp limitation from Rabba bar Avuh: the Kelim rule applies only to a tallit tevulat yom, a garment immersed in a mikveh that day and awaiting nightfall to complete its purification. For an ordinary impure garment, a majority tear does not purify. The reasoning, given next, turns on the owner’s demonstrated attitude toward the garment.
Key Terms:
- טְבוּלַת יוֹם (tevulat yom) = immersed that day — purified except for awaiting nightfall
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא = they taught this only with regard to — restricting a ruling
Segment 18
TYPE: טעמא
The reasoning: one who did not spare the garment from immersion will not spare it from tearing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּלָא חַס עֲלַהּ וְאַטְבְּלַהּ, לָא חָיֵיס עֲלַהּ וְקָרַע לַהּ רוּבַּהּ. אֲבָל טַלִּית שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְבוּלַת יוֹם – לָא, גְּזֵרָה דִּלְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמִיקְרְעַהּ רוּבַּהּ.
English Translation:
This is because the reason for this rabbinic decree is lest one tear only half of it out of concern for the damage to the garment. And since in this case, the owner of the garment showed that he was not concerned about damage to the garment by immersing it in a ritual bath, an act which damages the garment, so too he is presumably not concerned about the garment with regard to tearing it, and he will certainly tear the majority of it. But a garment that was not immersed that day is not rendered pure by tearing the majority of the garment due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to not tear the majority of the garment but only half of it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The concern behind the decree is that a person reluctant to ruin a valuable garment will stop tearing at the halfway point and wrongly treat it as pure. But an owner who has already immersed the garment — an act that damages fabric — has shown he does not spare it, so he can be trusted to tear the majority through. For an ordinary garment no such demonstration exists, and the decree stands.
Key Terms:
- מִיגּוֹ דְּלָא חַס עֲלַהּ = since he did not spare it — an inference from demonstrated conduct
- גְּזֵרָה (gezeira) = a rabbinic decree guarding against a foreseeable error
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Rabba raises two objections, the second running onto the next page.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא – שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה, וְעוֹד –
English Translation:
Rabba said: There are two refutations of this statement. One is that the decree should apply even to a garment that was immersed that day, lest people who see one eating ritually pure food while wearing such a garment say that immersion of a garment on the same day is sufficient for the garment to be worn while eating ritually pure food, and there is no need to wait until nightfall. And furthermore, if a garment that was not immersed that day is rendered pure only by tearing the entire garment and not by tearing merely a majority of the garment, due to a decree lest one tear less than a majority of the garment,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba attacks the limitation from two directions. First, a decree should be needed even for an immersed garment, lest onlookers who see it worn with pure food conclude that same-day immersion suffices and nightfall may be skipped. Second, if we decree wherever a person might fall short of a majority, then the same concern should apply to the pinching of a bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon — a thought the page break interrupts and 123b completes.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר = there are two refutations of the matter
- טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה = a same-day immersion suffices — the mistaken conclusion feared
Amud Bet (123b)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום קושיא
Rabba’s second objection completed: the same decree should apply to pinching.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִיגְזַר, דִּילְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד רוֹב שְׁנַיִם.
English Translation:
so too, with regard to a bird burnt offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is required to pinch merely a majority of two simanim in the nape of the neck in order to prepare it for sacrifice, let him decree against pinching the majority of two simanim lest one come to not perform the pinching on the majority of two simanim, but rather on merely half of them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence broken off at the end of 122a-b concludes here. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that a bird burnt offering requires pinching only the majority of the two simanim. If the Sages decree wherever a person might stop short of a majority, they should decree here too, lest the priest pinch only half. The objection tests whether Rabba bar Avuh’s principle can be confined to garments.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלַת הָעוֹף = a bird burnt offering
- מְלִיקָה (melika) = pinching the nape — the sacrificial procedure for birds
- רוֹב שְׁנַיִם = the majority of the two simanim
Segment 2
TYPE: תשובה
Rav Yosef: the tear itself proves why the garment is pure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ טְבִילָה בַּת יוֹמָא עוֹלָה – קִרְעָהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef responded to Rabba’s two refutations and said to him: With regard to that which you said, that a rabbinic decree is necessary even with regard to a garment that was immersed that day lest onlookers say that immersion of a garment on that same day is sufficient, there is no reason for such a concern. This is because its tear proves that the garment is pure due to the tear, and not because one is allowed to wear an immersed garment while eating pure food before sunset.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef dismantles the first objection with a point about what an observer actually sees. A torn garment carries its own explanation — kir’ah mochiach aleha, its tear testifies about it — so no one watching could conclude that same-day immersion had sufficed. The visible damage forecloses the misunderstanding the decree was meant to prevent.
Key Terms:
- קִרְעָהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ = its tear proves about it — the object visibly explains its own status
- מוֹכִיחַ (mochiach) = proves / demonstrates
Segment 3
TYPE: תשובה
Rav Yosef: the priests are vigilant, so no decree is needed for pinching.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לִיגְזַר – כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִים הֵן.
English Translation:
And with regard to that which you said, that with regard to a bird burnt offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, let him decree against pinching the majority of the simanim lest one fail to pinch the majority, in fact there is no reason for such a concern. Rav Yosef explains: The reason there is no concern is that pinching is performed by the priests, who are vigilant with regard to mitzvot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second objection falls to a principle used throughout the Talmud: kohanim zerizin hen, the priests are vigilant. Rabbinic decrees guard against ordinary carelessness, and the priesthood’s trained precision in the Temple service removes the premise. A safeguard designed for the general public need not be extended to a class of practitioners whose care can be relied upon.
Key Terms:
- כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִים הֵן = the priests are vigilant — a principle exempting them from certain safeguards
- זָרִיז (zariz) = vigilant, alert, meticulous in performance
Segment 4
TYPE: תא שמע
A challenge to Rabba bar Avuh from our own mishna’s flaying rule.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּמֵאָה וּבִטְהוֹרָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ – כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate Kelim from the mishna here: In the case of one who flays a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually impure animal or a ritually pure animal, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns Rabba bar Avuh’s logic against him using the mishna at hand. The mishna rules that once flaying passes the measure of grasping the hide is pure, with no protective decree attached. If decrees are issued wherever someone might stop short, this case should have one too.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a source as a challenge
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Why no decree lest one flay only the measure of grasping and be wrongly deemed pure?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה – טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לִיגְזַר, דִּילְמָא לָא אָתֵי לְמֶעְבַּד אֶלָּא כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה, וְקָא נְגַע בְּטוּמְאָה, וְקָא מְטַהֲרִינַן לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara infers: But after one has flayed more than a measure of grasping the hide, the hide is pure. Why is this so? Let the Sages decree that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of grasping is susceptible to impurity lest one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping come to complete only a measure of grasping, and he is thereby touching a source of impurity, and we might mistakenly deem him pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge is spelled out. A person intending to flay past the threshold might stop exactly at the measure of grasping, touch the hide while it is still connected and impure, and be mistakenly treated as pure. That is precisely the structure of error Rabba bar Avuh’s decree was built to prevent, so its absence here demands explanation.
Key Terms:
- לִיגְזַר (ligzar) = let him decree — the challenge that a safeguard should apply
- וְקָא מְטַהֲרִינַן לֵיהּ = and we would deem him pure — the erroneous result feared
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna concerns rabbinic impurity, where the Sages did not decree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – הָכִי נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: If the mishna were discussing impurity by Torah law, indeed the Sages would issue such a decree. But here we are dealing with impurity by rabbinic law, and therefore the Sages did not issue such a decree.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers by grading the stakes. Where Torah-level impurity is at issue the Sages would indeed erect such a safeguard, but the mishna deals with tumah derabbanan, impurity that is itself rabbinic. A decree built upon a decree is not enacted, so the absence of a safeguard here is principled rather than inconsistent.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן = impurity by rabbinic law
- טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = impurity by Torah law
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But a carcass is Torah-level impurity — so the mishna’s ‘impure animal’ means a tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּינַח טָמֵא בַּטְּהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר בִּטְמֵאָה – טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! בִּטְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: According to this answer, the case in the mishna of an impure person who flays a pure animal works out well. That could be referring to a case of impurity by rabbinic law. But in every case of a pure person who flays an impure animal, i.e., an unslaughtered animal carcass, the impurity of the animal is by Torah law. Therefore, in such a case the Sages should have issued a decree. The Gemara explains: The case taught in the mishna of a person who flays an impure animal is referring to a pure animal that was properly slaughtered, but after the slaughter the animal was found to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, thereby rendering it a tereifa. Such an animal imparts impurity by rabbinic law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is immediately pressed. The mishna’s clause about a pure person flaying an impure animal would ordinarily mean an unslaughtered carcass, whose impurity is scriptural. The Gemara narrows the reading: the mishna means an animal properly slaughtered but then found to be a tereifa, bearing a mortal defect. Such an animal’s impurity is rabbinic, so the whole mishna stays within the category the previous answer requires.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה (tereifa) = an animal with a mortal defect, unfit for consumption
- נְבֵלָה (neveila) = an unslaughtered carcass, imparting impurity by Torah law
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Does a slaughtered tereifa impart impurity? Shmuel’s father: yes, among sacrificial animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טְרֵפָה בַּת טַמּוֹיֵי הִיא? אִין, כְּדַאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: טְרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is a pure animal that is found to be a tereifa capable of imparting impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel’s father, as Shmuel’s father said: A tereifa that one slaughtered imparts impurity by rabbinic law if it is a sacrificial animal. Accordingly, the mishna is referring to the case of a sacrificial animal that was found to be a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrowing raises a further difficulty, since a properly slaughtered animal would seem to carry no impurity at all. The Gemara invokes Shmuel’s father, who taught that a slaughtered tereifa does impart impurity bemukdashin, in the case of a consecrated animal — a rabbinic impurity attaching to sacrificial contexts. The mishna is therefore speaking of a consecrated animal found to be a tereifa, and the chain of answers holds.
Key Terms:
- בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין (bemukdashin) = among consecrated animals — in sacrificial contexts
- אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל = Shmuel’s father, an early Babylonian amora
Segment 9
TYPE: תא שמע
A Tosefta on flaying creeping animals is raised against Rabba bar Avuh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בִּשְׁרָצִים – חִבּוּר, עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation of Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate Kelim from a baraita (Tosefta 8:19): Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: With regard to one who flays creeping animals, its hide is considered to have a connection with the flesh, and it imparts impurity of a creeping animal until he flays the animal in its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further challenge comes from a Tosefta in which Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, citing Rabbi Shimon, rules that when flaying a creeping animal the hide remains connected until the whole is removed. The stringency stated for creeping animals invites an inference about what is not said for other animals.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בֶּן יְהוּדָה = a tanna transmitting in the name of Rabbi Shimon
- שְׁרָצִים (sheratzim) = creeping animals, whose carcasses impart impurity
Segment 10
TYPE: דיוק
The inference: for a camel the hide is not connected beyond the measure of grasping.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא בְּגָמָל – אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara infers: This halakha applies only with regard to creeping animals, but with regard to a camel or other non-kosher animals, when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it is not considered to have a connection with the flesh and is pure, even though when the measure of grasping is flayed it is impure. Apparently, there is no rabbinic decree that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of grasping imparts impurity lest one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping come to flay only a measure of grasping, contrary to the opinion of Rabba bar Avuh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The implied contrast is that for a camel or other large non-kosher animal, the hide ceases to be connected once flaying passes the measure of grasping — with no protective decree. That is exactly what Rabba bar Avuh’s reasoning should have prevented, so the Tosefta appears to refute him.
Key Terms:
- הָא בְּגָמָל = but with regard to a camel — the implied contrasting case
- דִּיּוּק (diyuk) = an inference drawn from what a source omits
Segment 11
TYPE: דחייה
The inference is redirected: the contrast concerns the neck hide, not the camel generally.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא תֵּימָא הָא בְּגָמָל אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּעוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that this statement indicates that with regard to a camel, when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it is not considered to have a connection with the flesh. Rather, say that this statement indicates that only with regard to a creeping animal is the hide considered to have a connection with the flesh until one flays the animal in its entirety. But with regard to a camel carcass and other non-kosher animals, in a case where one seeks to fashion a jug and begins flaying from the legs, if he removed the entire hide except for the hide over the neck, it is not considered to have a connection to the flesh, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri stated in the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara refuses the inference. What the Tosefta contrasts is not the camel as a whole but the hide over the neck: for a creeping animal even that last piece stays connected until everything is off, whereas for a camel it does not. So read, the Tosefta simply restates Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s position from our mishna and says nothing about decrees, leaving Rabba bar Avuh untouched.
Key Terms:
- לָא תֵּימָא = do not say — rejecting a proposed inference
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הִיא = it is Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s opinion — attributing an anonymous source
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Huna: a scarf’s worth left untorn keeps the garment connected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר.
English Translation:
§The Gemara returns to discuss, and limit the scope of, the previously cited mishna (Kelim 28:8): In the case of a ritually impure garment that one began to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered to have a connection, and the garment is pure. Rav Huna says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei: The mishna taught that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, is no longer impure only when one did not leave untorn a part of the garment that is the measure of a scarf. But if he left an untorn piece that is the measure of a scarf, it is considered to have a connection, and the garment remains ritually impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna, in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Yosei, adds a further limitation to the Kelim rule. A majority tear purifies only if nothing of consequence remains intact; if an untorn piece the size of kedei ma’aporet, a scarf, is left, that remnant is still a usable garment in its own right and the whole remains connected and impure. The test is not the proportion torn but whether anything serviceable survives.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת = the measure of a scarf — a remnant still usable as a garment
- שִׁיֵּיר (shiyer) = he left over / left remaining
Segment 13
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan dispute whether a torn hide is repairable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טַלִּית, אֲבָל עוֹר – חֲלִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר נָמֵי לָא חֲלִים.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish said: The mishna taught only with regard to an impure garment, most of which has been torn, that it is no longer impure, but an impure hide that was torn in such a manner remains impure because it is repairable. And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even a hide that was torn in such a manner is no longer impure because it is not repairable.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new machloket opens on the boundary of the Kelim rule. Reish Lakish confines it to cloth: a torn hide remains impure because it is chalim, repairable — leather can be stitched back into a serviceable whole, so tearing does not end its usefulness. Rabbi Yochanan holds that leather too is beyond genuine repair and becomes pure. The disagreement is about the durability of a material, with the halacha following from it.
Key Terms:
- חֲלִים (chalim) = repairable — capable of being restored to use
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טַלִּית = they taught this only with regard to a garment
Segment 14
TYPE: איתיביה
Rabbi Yochanan objects from a midras-impure hide cut for straps and sandals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר טָמֵא מִדְרָס, חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִרְצוּעוֹת וְסַנְדָּלִים – כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן בּוֹ אִיזְמֵל טָהוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּמְעִיטֶנּוּ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים. כִּי מְמַעֵיט לֵיהּ מִיהָא טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲלִים!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yochanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Kelim 26:9): In the case of a hide that is impure with impurity imparted by treading, if the owner intended with regard to the hide to make it into straps and sandals, when he applies a scalpel [izmel] to the hide, the hide becomes pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: The hide does not become pure until he reduces the size of the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths. In any event, when he reduces the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it becomes pure. Why is this so? Let us say according the opinion of Reish Lakish that the hide should not become pure, as it is repairable.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan challenges from a mishna in Kelim (26:9) about a hide bearing midras impurity that its owner decides to cut into straps and sandals. Rabbi Yehuda rules it pure as soon as the scalpel touches it; the Rabbis require reducing it below five handbreadths. Both agree it eventually becomes pure — which should be impossible on Reish Lakish’s view that a cut hide remains repairable.
Key Terms:
- מִדְרָס (midras) = impurity imparted by the treading or pressure of a zav
- אִיזְמֵל (izmel) = a scalpel or cutting blade
- חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים = five handbreadths — the Rabbis’ threshold for purification
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish: repairability applies to a straight cut, not a circular one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי קָאָמְרִי דַּחֲלִים, הֵיכָא דְּקָא צָרֵי לֵיהּ לְהֶדְיָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּמְקַצֵּעַ וּבָא לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ סְבִיבוֹתָיו.
English Translation:
Reish Lakish responded to Rabbi Yochanan: When I said that a torn hide is repairable, I was referring to a case where one cut the hide in a straight line. By contrast, here we are dealing with a case where one cut the hide in a circular manner. In such a case, the hide is not repairable.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish narrows his claim to fit the objection. A hide cut in a straight line can be stitched back together, and there he maintains it stays impure; the Kelim case involves cutting around in a circle (mekatze’a uva lo derech sevivotav), which removes material irrecoverably and leaves nothing to rejoin. The distinction is craftsmanlike — what a leatherworker could actually restore — and it preserves his position.
Key Terms:
- מְקַצֵּעַ (mekatze’a) = trimming or cutting around in a circular fashion
- צָרֵי לֵיהּ לְהֶדְיָא = he cuts it in a straight line
Segment 16
TYPE: מתיב
Rabbi Yirmeya objects from our mishna, and Rabbi Avin answers.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הַמַּפְשִׁיט בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה, בַּטְּהוֹרָה וּבַטְּמֵאָה, בַּדַּקָּה וּבַגַּסָּה, לְשָׁטִיחַ כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה – הָא יָתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה טָהוֹר, וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲלִים! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי אָבִין: רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן עוֹשֶׂה נִיפּוּל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna: In the case of one who flays either a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure animal or a ritually impure animal, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping. Rabbi Yirmeya infers: But once one has flayed more than the measure of grasping, the hide is pure. But according to Reish Lakish, why is this so? Let us say that the hide is repairable, i.e., it can be sewn back on. Rabbi Avin interpreted the mishna and explained that one piece after one piece, i.e., each piece that is flayed is rendered fallen and disconnected from the flesh, as it will never be reattached to the flesh, unlike the case of a torn hide, which may be sewn back together.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya presses from the flaying mishna: past the measure of grasping the hide is pure, yet a flayed hide could in principle be sewn back onto the flesh, so on Reish Lakish’s logic it should remain impure. Rabbi Avin resolves with a phrase that captures the physical process — rishon rishon oseh nippul — each successive piece, as it comes free, is rendered fallen and permanently detached. A torn garment can be rejoined because both halves remain; a peeled hide never returns to the animal.
Key Terms:
- רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן עוֹשֶׂה נִיפּוּל = each successive piece is rendered fallen — permanently detached as it separates
- נִיפּוּל (nippul) = a falling away — irreversible detachment
Segment 17
TYPE: מתיב
Rav Yosef objects from the neck hide, which is intact yet ruled not connected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: עוֹר שֶׁעַל הַצַּוָּאר, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר. אַמַּאי? הָא חֲלִים וְקָאֵי!
English Translation:
Rav Yosef raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from another ruling in the mishna: With regard to the hide over the neck, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: It is not considered to have a connection to the flesh, as the hide is merely loosely connected to the neck itself, and it is pure. According to Reish Lakish, why is this so? Doesn’t the hide exist in its repaired state, i.e., isn’t it still connected to the neck itself? If an impure hide that was torn and can be repaired remains impure, this should certainly be the halakha with regard to hide that was never moved from its initial state.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef raises a still sharper difficulty. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri rules the neck hide not a connection even though it has never been cut at all and remains in place. If Reish Lakish holds that even a torn hide stays impure because it could be repaired, an intact one should certainly stay impure. The objection targets the coherence of grounding status in repairability.
Key Terms:
- חֲלִים וְקָאֵי = it stands in its repaired state — intact and never severed
- מֵתִיב (metiv) = he raises an objection
Segment 18
TYPE: דחייה
Abaye first turns the objection around by citing the mishna’s other clause.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא סֵיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חִבּוּר.
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Instead of objecting to the opinion of Reish Lakish due to the statement of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say: The hide covering the neck is considered to have a connection to the flesh, a statement that supports the opinion of Reish Lakish according to your reasoning.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye’s initial reply is a debater’s move rather than a resolution: if Rav Yosef will read Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s clause against Reish Lakish, let him read the Rabbis’ clause, which holds the neck hide is connected and would then support Reish Lakish by the same reasoning. Since the mishna contains both positions, it cannot decide the amoraic dispute either way — which sets up the real answer.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא סֵיפָא = say the latter clause — redirecting an objection to the other half of a source
- לְטַעְמָיךְ = according to your reasoning — turning an argument back on its author
Segment 19
TYPE: מסקנא
Abaye: the mishna disputes whether a protection prone to detach counts as protection.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּשׁוֹמֵר הֶעָשׂוּי לִנָּתֵק מֵאֵלָיו קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: הָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי שׁוֹמֵר.
English Translation:
Rather, Abaye said: The dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan is irrelevant to the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. In the mishna, they disagree with regard to whether an appendage, such as the hide of the neck, that protects the flesh but is prone to become detached by itself is considered to be protection. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it is considered to be protection, and one Sage, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, holds that it is not considered to be protection.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye then supplies the substantive resolution by severing the two disputes entirely. The mishna’s machloket has nothing to do with repairability; it concerns shomer he’asui linatek me’elav, a protective covering liable to come away by itself. The Rabbis hold such a covering still qualifies as a shomer; Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that its instability disqualifies it. Reish Lakish is therefore not refuted, and the mishna is understood on its own terms.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹמֵר הֶעָשׂוּי לִנָּתֵק מֵאֵלָיו = a protection prone to detach on its own
- מָר סָבַר וּמָר סָבַר = one Sage holds and the other Sage holds — framing a two-sided dispute
Segment 20
TYPE: מתיב
A final objection from the impure oven — and the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תַּנּוּר שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אוֹתוֹ? חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְגוֹרֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a mishna (Kelim 5:7): With regard to an oven that has become impure, how does one purify it? One divides the oven into three parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster that surrounds the oven
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya opens one more challenge to Reish Lakish, from a mishna in Kelim (5:7) on purifying an impure oven: one divides it into three and scrapes away the tefeila, the plaster coating around it. The parallel is that an object is being dismantled to end its impurity, raising again whether reparability should prevent purification. The page ends mid-sentence, and the argument resumes on 124a.
Key Terms:
- תַּנּוּר (tanur) = an oven, here an earthenware oven susceptible to impurity
- טְפֵילָה (tefeila) = the plaster or clay coating surrounding an oven
- חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה = he divides it into three — the procedure for purifying an oven