Chullin Daf 127 (חולין דף קכ״ז)
Daf: 127 | Amudim: 127a – 127b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (127a)
Segment 1
TYPE: דרשה
‘That creep’ teaches impurity applies wherever they creep, sea included.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹרֵץ.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “That creep,” indicating that creeping animals impart impurity anywhere that they creep, including the sea, as these animals can float in the sea. Consequently, the phrase “upon the earth” is understood as indicating that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by completing the derasha broken off at the end of 126b. The word hashoretz is read to mean that creeping animals impart impurity in every place where they creep, and since these creatures can float, that includes the sea. With the sea already covered by hashoretz, the phrase al ha’aretz is freed to do different work — excluding the sea mouse from the category of achbar altogether.
Key Terms:
- הַשּׁוֹרֵץ (hashoretz) = that creeps — read as covering every place a creature creeps
- עַל הָאָרֶץ = upon the earth — the phrase excluding the sea mouse
- עַכְבָּר שֶׁבַּיָּם = a sea mouse — a marine creature bearing the same name
Segment 2
TYPE: הוה אמינא
Or perhaps only a creature that breeds imparts impurity — excluding the half-earth mouse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – יָכוֹל כׇּל הַמַּשְׁרִיץ יְטַמֵּא, שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁרִיץ לֹא יְטַמֵּא? אוֹצִיא עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה, שֶׁאֵין פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה.
English Translation:
The baraita raises an alternative interpretation: Or perhaps the term “that creep [hashoretz]” should not be interpreted in this manner, as it could rather be interpreted to mean that any creeping animal that breeds [hammashritz] imparts impurity, but a creeping animal that does not breed does not impart impurity. I shall therefore exclude a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth, i.e., that generates spontaneously from the earth, as it does not breed and therefore does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita floats an alternative reading of the same word. Hashoretz might be heard as hammashritz, one that breeds, so that only creatures reproducing in the ordinary way impart impurity. On that reading the mouse that is half flesh and half earth — understood as arising spontaneously from the ground rather than by generation — would be excluded, which is the reverse of the conclusion the mishna of 126b assumed.
Key Terms:
- הַמַּשְׁרִיץ (hammashritz) = that breeds / reproduces
- שֶׁאֵין פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה = that does not reproduce
- אוֹצִיא (otzi) = I shall exclude — removing a case from a category
Segment 3
TYPE: קל וחומר
A logical inference would include the half-earth mouse after all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִין הוּא: טִימֵּא בְּחוּלְדָּה וְטִימֵּא בְּעַכְבָּר, מָה חוּלְדָּה – כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמָהּ חוּלְדָּה, אַף עַכְבָּר – כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ עַכְבָּר, אָבִיא עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה.
English Translation:
But ostensibly, the halakha of a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth is subject to logical inference: Since the verse deems a weasel impure and deems a mouse impure, then just as “weasel” is referring to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, “mouse” is referring to any animal whose name is mouse, even a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth.
קלאוד על הדף:
Against that exclusion the baraita runs an inference from the verse’s own pairing. The Torah declares both the weasel and the mouse impure; and just as chulda covers anything bearing the name weasel, achbar should cover anything bearing the name mouse — the half-earth mouse included. The argument treats a name in a scriptural list as governing by itself, without a further test of how the creature came to be.
Key Terms:
- וְדִין הוּא = and it is a logical inference
- כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁמָהּ חוּלְדָּה = anything whose name is weasel
- אָבִיא (avi) = I shall include
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
But the inference cuts both ways — so ‘basheretz’ settles it by including.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: מָה חוּלְדָּה פָּרָה וְרָבָה, אַף עַכְבָּר פָּרֶה וְרָבֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּשֶּׁרֶץ״.
English Translation:
Or perhaps go this way: One might think that just as a weasel breeds, so too, “mouse” is referring to a mouse that breeds, excluding one that generates from the earth, which does not impart impurity. Therefore, the verse states: “And these are they which are impure to you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth.” The term “among the creeping animals” is interpreted as including a spontaneously generated mouse. Therefore, the term “that creep” is interpreted as indicating that creeping animals impart impurity on land and in the sea, and the phrase “upon the earth” teaches that a sea mouse is not included in the category of mouse and does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara immediately runs the inference in the opposite direction: just as a weasel reproduces, perhaps achbar means only a mouse that reproduces, excluding the spontaneously generated one. With logic pointing both ways, only the text can decide, and the word basheretz resolves it by including the half-earth mouse. The three terms thus divide their labor — basheretz includes the half-earth mouse, hashoretz extends to the sea, and al ha’aretz excludes the sea mouse.
Key Terms:
- אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ = or go this way — introducing the opposite inference
- בַּשֶּׁרֶץ (basheretz) = among the creeping animals — the term including the half-earth mouse
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
A Sage proposes a rival distribution of the three terms.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֵימָא ״בַּשֶּׁרֶץ״, לְאֵתוֹיֵי עַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה, ״הַשּׁוֹרֵץ״ – כֹּל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹרֵץ, וַאֲפִילּוּ עַכְבָּר שֶׁבַּיָּם, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – עַל הָאָרֶץ יְטַמֵּא, יָרַד לַיָּם – לֹא יְטַמֵּא.
English Translation:
One of the Sages said to Rava: Say the interpretation of the verse differently. The term “among the creeping animals” serves to include a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth among those that impart impurity. The term “that creep” teaches that any animal that creeps imparts impurity, and even a sea mouse. And if one should reject this interpretation due to the phrase “upon the earth,” which seems to indicate that a sea mouse does not impart impurity, that phrase teaches that a creeping animal imparts impurity only when it is on land, but if it descended to the sea it does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
One of the Rabbis challenges Rava with an alternative allocation. Let basheretz include the half-earth mouse as before, but let hashoretz include even the sea mouse, and let al ha’aretz mean something narrower — that a creature imparts impurity while on land but ceases to once it descends into the sea. The proposal is internally tidy and would give every phrase a job, which is why it needs an answer rather than a dismissal.
Key Terms:
- הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן = one of the Rabbis — an unnamed scholar of the academy
- יָרַד לַיָּם = it descended into the sea
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: having made the sea a place of impurity, it cannot switch off there.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמֵאַחַר דְּשַׁוִּיתֵיהּ לְיָם מְקוֹם טוּמְאָה, מָה לִי הָכָא, מָה לִי הָכָא.
English Translation:
Rava said to him: Your suggestion is not logical. According to your opinion, a sea mouse, which is in the sea, imparts impurity. And since you consider the sea a location of impurity, it is impossible to suggest that a mouse does not impart impurity when it is located in the sea. Since both land and sea are places of impurity, what difference does it make for me if the mouse is located here on land, and what difference does it make for me if it is located there in the sea?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s reply is a clean piece of reasoning rather than a counter-derasha. The proposal’s own first move treats the sea as a place where impurity operates, since that is how the sea mouse would be included. Having granted that, one cannot then say that a creature stops imparting impurity once it enters the sea — mah li hacha, mah li hacha, what difference is there between here and there? A position cannot make the sea a domain of impurity and a domain of exemption in the same breath.
Key Terms:
- מְקוֹם טוּמְאָה = a place of impurity — a domain where impurity operates
- מָה לִי הָכָא מָה לִי הָכָא = what difference to me here, what difference to me there?
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
But ‘upon the earth’ is needed to exclude uncertain floating impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַאי ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהוֹצִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ – לְהוֹצִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How can the baraita interpret the phrase “upon the earth” as teaching that a sea mouse does not impart impurity? Isn’t this phrase: “Upon the earth,” necessary to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity? If a person is uncertain whether he touched a source of impurity that is floating in the water, he remains pure even if the incident took place in a private domain, where a case of uncertain impurity is generally deemed impure. As Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: The phrase “upon the earth” is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
A different difficulty now presses on the whole derasha. Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi taught that al ha’aretz serves to exclude sfek tumah tzafa — a case where one is uncertain whether he touched an impure object that was floating in water. Ordinarily uncertain impurity in a private domain is resolved stringently, but a floating source is the exception and leaves one pure. If the phrase is already committed to that teaching, it cannot also exclude the sea mouse.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה = uncertain impurity with a floating source
- רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד = a private domain — where uncertain impurity is normally deemed impure
- רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי = a Babylonian amora who transmitted this derasha
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The phrase appears twice, so both derashot stand.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּרְתֵּי ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״ כְּתִיבִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The phrase “upon the earth” is written two times in the passage. One instance is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involving a source of impurity that is floating, and the other instance teaches that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is textual and economical: al ha’aretz occurs twice in the passage, so one occurrence excludes the floating-impurity doubt and the other excludes the sea mouse. Where two derashot compete for a single phrase, counting its occurrences is a standard and decisive move, and both readings survive intact.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְתֵּי כְּתִיבִי = two are written — the phrase appears twice in the passage
- דְּרָשָׁה (derasha) = an exegetical derivation from the wording of a verse
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
‘The great lizard after its kinds’ includes the arvad, the nefilim and the salamander.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ״ – לְהָבִיא הֶעָרוֹד, וְכֵן הַנְּפִילִים וְסָלָמַנְדְּרָא.
English Translation:
§With regard to the topic of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: “The great lizard after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:29) includes in the category of creeping animals the arvad, a type of snake, and also the creeping animals called nefilim and salamander [salamandera].
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita expands the roster of the eight creeping animals. The phrase hatzav leminehu — the great lizard after its kinds — is read as an inclusion, bringing in the arvad (a snake whose bite kills), the nefilim, and the salamandra. The salamander was understood in the ancient world to arise from fire, and its mention here is what prompts the celebrated passage that follows.
Key Terms:
- הַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ = the great lizard after its kinds — read as an inclusion
- עַרְוָד (arvad) = a venomous snake whose bite is lethal
- סָלָמַנְדְּרָא (salamandra) = the salamander, understood to be generated from fire
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדה
Rabbi Akiva’s exclamation: how manifold are Your works, O Lord.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְשֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַגִּיעַ לְפָסוּק זֶה, אוֹמֵר: ״מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה׳״! יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בַּיָּם, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. שֶׁבַּיָּם – אִילְמָלֵי עוֹלוֹת לַיַּבָּשָׁה מִיָּד מֵתוֹת, שֶׁבַּיַּבָּשָׁה – אִילְמָלֵי יוֹרְדוֹת לַיָּם מִיָּד מֵתוֹת.
English Translation:
Apropos the salamander, which was thought to generate from fire, the baraita continues: When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse in Leviticus, he would say in exclamation: “How great are Your works, O Lord” (Psalms 104:24). You have creatures that grow in the sea and you have creatures that grow on land. If those in the sea would ascend to the land they would immediately die. If those that are on land would descend to the sea they would immediately die.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf’s most quoted passage begins here. Whenever Rabbi Akiva reached this verse he would exclaim mah rabu ma’asecha Hashem (Tehillim 104:24) and dwell on the incompatibility of habitats: there are creatures that grow in the sea and creatures that grow on land, and each would die at once in the other’s element. That a list of impure creatures moves a sage to praise rather than revulsion is itself the point — the diversity catalogued by the law is read as testimony to the range of creation.
Key Terms:
- מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה׳ = how manifold are Your works, O Lord (Tehillim 104:24)
- בְּרִיּוֹת (beriyot) = creatures / created beings
- מִיָּד מֵתוֹת = they die immediately
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדה
And creatures of fire and of air, each fatal to the other.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בָּאוּר, וְיֵשׁ לְךָ בְּרִיּוֹת גְּדֵלוֹת בָּאֲוִיר. שֶׁבָּאוּר – אִילְמָלֵי עוֹלוֹת לָאֲוִיר מִיָּד מֵתוֹת, שֶׁבָּאֲוִיר – אִילְמָלֵי יוֹרְדוֹת לָאוּר מִיָּד מֵתוֹת. ״מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ ה׳״.
English Translation:
Similarly, you have creatures that grow in the fire and you have creatures that grow in the air. If those in the fire would ascend to the air they would immediately die. If those in the air would descend to the fire they would immediately die. Therefore, “how great are Your works, O Lord.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The exclamation reaches its climax with a second and more startling pair. Beyond sea and land there are creatures that grow in fire and creatures that grow in air, and each would perish instantly in the other’s element. The salamander of the previous segment is the fire-creature the passage has in view. Rabbi Akiva repeats the verse as a refrain, closing the passage where it began.
Key Terms:
- בָּאוּר (ba’ur) = in the fire
- בָּאֲוִיר (ba’avir) = in the air
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
Every land creature has a sea counterpart — except the weasel.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּיַּבָּשָׁה יֵשׁ בַּיָּם, חוּץ מִן הַחוּלְדָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״הַאֲזִינוּ כׇּל יֹשְׁבֵי חָלֶד״.
English Translation:
§The Gemara continues to discuss creatures living in a particular environment. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kilayim 5:10): For every animal that exists on land there is an equivalent animal in the sea, except for the weasel, which exists only on land. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse from which it is derived? It is written: “Listen all you inhabitants of the world [cheled]” (Psalms 49:2). Dry land is called cheled because it is the sole habitat for the weasel [chulda].
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita from the Tosefta states that every species found on land has a counterpart in the sea, with the weasel alone excepted. Rabbi Zeira finds a hint in Tehillim 49:2, which calls the world cheled: dry land bears that name because it alone is the habitat of the chulda. The wordplay is characteristic — a scriptural term is heard as encoding a fact about the natural order.
Key Terms:
- חוּלְדָּה (chulda) = a weasel — the one land creature with no marine counterpart
- חָלֶד (cheled) = world / duration — heard as related to chulda
- מַאי קְרָאָה = what is the verse? — asking for the scriptural hint
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
The beavers of Neresh live only in water and are not covered by the verse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בִּיבְרֵי דְּנָרֶשׁ אֵינָן מִן הַיִּשּׁוּב.
English Translation:
In continuation of the discussion of creatures living in a particular environment, Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: The beavers of the region of Neresh are not from the settled area, because they live only in the water and not on dry land. Consequently, one who eats their meat is not liable to receive lashes for violating the prohibition: “And every creeping animal that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua applies the land-versus-sea distinction to a practical question of forbidden foods. The beavers of the Neresh region live wholly in water and never on dry land, so they fall outside “every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Vayikra 11:41). One who eats their flesh therefore does not incur lashes under that prohibition — a ruling that turns the preceding zoological discussion into applied halacha.
Key Terms:
- בִּיבְרֵי (bivrei) = beavers
- אֵינָן מִן הַיִּשּׁוּב = they are not of the settled area — not land-dwelling
- נָרֶשׁ (Neresh) = a town in Babylonia near Sura
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדה
Rav Pappa’s sharp words about Neresh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּשַׁמְתָּא נָרֶשׁ, תַּרְבֵּיהּ מַשְׁכֵּיהּ וְאַלְיְתֵיהּ. ״אֶרֶץ אֶרֶץ אָרֶץ שִׁמְעִי דְּבַר ה׳״ – אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא אָבָה נָרֶשׁ שְׁמוֹעַ דְּבַר ה׳.
English Translation:
§Apropos the region surrounding Neresh, Rav Pappa said: The people of the city of Neresh shall be placed under excommunication, as they are all wicked, including its fat, its hide, and its tail, i.e., all types of people, both old and young. The Gemara continues to discuss Neresh. The verse states: “Oh land, land, land hear the word of the Lord” (Jeremiah 22:29). Rav Pappa said: This verse is appropriate with regard to the inhabitants of Neresh, as Neresh does not want to listen to the word of the Lord.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mention of Neresh draws in a cluster of pointed sayings about certain Babylonian towns. Rav Pappa declares Neresh under the ban, “its fat, its hide and its tail” — an idiom meaning the whole of it, young and old alike — and applies to it the triple cry of Yirmiyahu 22:29, “O land, land, land, hear the word of the Lord,” remarking that Neresh did not wish to hear it. These are recorded rebukes of particular communities in the amoraic period for dishonest dealing.
Key Terms:
- בְּשַׁמְתָּא (beshamta) = under the ban / excommunicated
- תַּרְבֵּיהּ מַשְׁכֵּיהּ וְאַלְיְתֵיהּ = its fat, its hide and its tail — an idiom for the whole of it
Segment 15
TYPE: אגדה
Rav Giddel’s traveller’s warnings about three towns.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: נַרְשָׁאָה נַשְּׁקָיךְ – מָנֵי כַּכָּיךְ; נְהַר פְּקוֹדָאָה לַוְיָיךְ – מִגְּלִימָא שַׁפִּירָא דְּחָזֵי עֲלָךְ; פּוּמְבְּדִיתָאָה לַוְיָיךְ – אַשְׁנִי אוּשְׁפִּיזָךְ.
English Translation:
Furthermore, Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If a resident of Neresh kisses you, count your teeth to make sure he did not steal one. And if a resident of the city of Nehar Pekod accompanies you on a journey, it is because of the beautiful jacket that he sees on you and wants to steal from you. If a resident of Pumbedita accompanies you on a journey, change your lodging place because there is a concern that he will rob you.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Giddel transmits in Rav’s name a set of proverbial cautions in the same register. If a man of Neresh kisses you, count your teeth; if a man of Nehar Pekod walks with you, it is on account of the fine cloak he has noticed; if a man of Pumbedita walks with you, change your lodging. The sayings are sharply worded folk warnings about theft, preserved as they were spoken about those specific places and generations.
Key Terms:
- נַשְּׁקָיךְ (nashkayich) = he kisses you
- מָנֵי כַּכָּיךְ = count your teeth
- אַשְׁנִי אוּשְׁפִּיזָךְ = change your lodging
Segment 16
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Huna bar Torta saw a snake bred with a great lizard, and an arvad emerged.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר תּוֹרְתָּא: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לַוַּועַד, וְרָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ שֶׁהוּא כָּרוּךְ עַל הַצָּב, לְיָמִים יָצָא עַרְוָד מִבֵּינֵיהֶם.
English Translation:
§The Gemara returns to discussing different types of creatures. Rav Huna bar Torta said: Once I went to the city of Va’ad and I saw that the locals were in the practice of placing a snake wrapped around a great lizard in order to breed the two. After a period of time, an arvad, a snake that bites and kills people, emerged from between them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to creatures with a first-person report. Rav Huna bar Torta relates that in the town of Va’ad he saw a snake deliberately coiled with a great lizard for breeding, and that in time an arvad — the lethal snake mentioned earlier in the baraita — emerged from between them. The account sets up the theological explanation that follows.
Key Terms:
- כָּרוּךְ (karuch) = wrapped / coiled around
- וַועַד (Va’ad) = the name of the town where the incident occurred
- לְיָמִים (leyamim) = after a period of days
Segment 17
TYPE: אגדה
Rabbi Shimon the Righteous: measure for measure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֶחָסִיד, אָמַר לִי: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הֵם הֵבִיאוּ בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי.
English Translation:
And when I came before Rabbi Shimon the Righteous, he explained why this crossbreeding created an arvad and said to me: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: These residents of Va’ad caused the emergence of a creature that I did not create in My world by crossbreeding a snake and a great lizard; so too, I will bring upon them a punishment, the hazard of this uniquely dangerous creature that I did not create in My world, i.e., an arvad.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon the Righteous supplies the interpretation, framed as words of the Holy One: they brought into being a creature I did not create in My world, so I will bring upon them a creature I did not create in My world. The reading is midda keneged midda, measure for measure — the punishment mirrors the transgression exactly, and the danger the townspeople now face is the very thing they made.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֶחָסִיד = Rabbi Shimon the Righteous
- בְּרִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרָאתִי בְּעוֹלָמִי = a creature I did not create in My world
- מִדָּה כְּנֶגֶד מִדָּה = measure for measure — punishment mirroring the act
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
But species with unlike mating and gestation cannot interbreed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר מָר: כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה – יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין תַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה – אֵין יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But didn’t the Master say: All different animals whose method of procreation and period of gestation are the same are able to reproduce and raise offspring together. But all animals whose method of procreation and period of gestation are not the same cannot reproduce and raise offspring together. And the gestation period for a great lizard and a snake are not equal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a difficulty from an accepted principle: only animals whose manner of mating and period of gestation correspond can produce offspring together. A snake and a great lizard do not correspond, so the reported crossbreeding should have been impossible in the first place.
Key Terms:
- תַּשְׁמִישָׁן וְעִיבּוּרָן שָׁוֶה = their mating and gestation are alike
- אֵין יוֹלְדִין וּמְגַדְּלִין זֶה מִזֶּה = they do not reproduce and rear offspring from one another
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav: a miracle within a miracle — for calamity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס! הַאי פּוּרְעֲנוּתָא הוּא? מַאי נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס – לְפוּרְעָנוּת.
English Translation:
Rav says: It was a miracle within a miracle that they were able to reproduce and a new creature was born. The Gemara asks: Why is this considered a miracle? It was a calamity because an arvad was born. The Gemara answers: What is meant by a miracle within a miracle? It was a miraculous calamity for the wicked people, to punish them for their actions.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav answers that it was nes betoch nes, a miracle within a miracle. The Gemara objects that the word hardly fits a disaster, and answers that this is precisely the point: it was a miracle within a miracle for calamity. The category of the miraculous is not reserved for deliverance — an extraordinary suspension of the natural order can serve as punishment, which is exactly what Rabbi Shimon’s measure-for-measure reading requires.
Key Terms:
- נֵס בְּתוֹךְ נֵס = a miracle within a miracle
- פּוּרְעֲנוּתָא (pur’anuta) = calamity / punishment
- לְפוּרְעָנוּת (lepur’anut) = for calamity — a miracle serving as punishment
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: a limb or flesh left hanging from a living animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בַּבְּהֵמָה, מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין בִּמְקוֹמָן, וּצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The limb of an animal, with flesh, sinews, and bones, and the flesh of an animal, that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal do not have the halakhic status of a limb severed from a living animal, which imparts impurity like an unslaughtered carcass, or of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure, respectively. If one had intent to eat the limb or the flesh, the limb or flesh becomes impure if it comes in contact with a source of impurity, and they impart impurity as food to other foods and liquids, although they remain in their place attached to the animal. But in order for them to become impure, they need to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with one of the seven liquids that facilitate susceptibility.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns to a new mishna and to the subject that will occupy the rest of the sugya. A limb (ever) — flesh, sinew and bone together — or a piece of flesh, partly cut and left dangling from a living animal, occupies neither of the categories one would expect: it is not ever min hachai, a limb severed from a living animal, nor is it ordinary detached flesh. Instead, if a person intended to eat it, it contracts and conveys tumat ochlin while still hanging in place — provided it has received hechsher, contact with one of the seven liquids.
Key Terms:
- הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין (hamedulddalin) = that are dangling — partially severed and left hanging
- אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי = a limb from a living animal, forbidden and imparting carcass impurity
- הֶכְשֵׁר (hechsher) = preparation — contact with one of seven liquids rendering food susceptible
Amud Bet (127b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
If the animal is slaughtered: Rabbi Meir accepts its blood as hechsher, Rabbi Shimon does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
English Translation:
If the animal was slaughtered, although this act of slaughter does not render it permitted for consumption by a Jew (see 73b), the limb and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to impurity by coming in contact with the blood of the slaughtered animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible to impurity through the animal’s own blood; they are rendered susceptible only once they have been wet with another liquid.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues into its first machloket. Where the animal is subsequently slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that its blood — blood being among the seven liquids — renders the dangling limb and flesh susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon holds that the animal’s own blood does not accomplish this, and that susceptibility requires wetting by some other liquid. The Gemara will devote its closing sugya to identifying what principle divides them.
Key Terms:
- הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ = they were rendered susceptible by its blood
- שִׁבְעָה מַשְׁקִין = the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
If the animal dies: Rabbi Meir says the limb conveys as ever min hachai; Rabbi Shimon purifies.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר נְבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
English Translation:
If the animal died without slaughter, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass. The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal but does not impart impurity as the limb of an unslaughtered carcass; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the limb ritually pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second clause takes the case where the animal dies without slaughter. The dangling flesh still requires hechsher, since flesh from a living animal is pure in itself. The dangling limb, on Rabbi Meir’s view, conveys impurity as a limb from a living animal but not as a limb of a neveila — it never joined the carcass. Rabbi Shimon rules the limb entirely pure, and the two clauses together set up the Gemara’s analysis.
Key Terms:
- מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה = the animal died — without valid slaughter
- אֵבֶר נְבֵלָה = a limb of an unslaughtered carcass
- מְטַהֵר (metaher) = he deems it pure
Segment 3
TYPE: דיוק
The mishna implies food impurity yes, carcass impurity no.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – אִין, טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה – לָא.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna states that the limb of an animal that was partially severed and remains hanging from the animal imparts impurity as food if one had intent to eat it. The Gemara infers: It imparts impurity as food, yes, but it does not impart the impurity of a carcass, which can be transmitted to people and utensils in addition to food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by reading the mishna’s silence. It grants the dangling limb tumat ochlin and says nothing of tumat neveila, the severer impurity that reaches people and vessels as well as food. That asymmetry is what the next segments interrogate.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין = food impurity — the lesser impurity carried by foodstuffs
- טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה = carcass impurity — conveyed to people and vessels as well
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Either it can heal and takes nothing, or it cannot and should take everything.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין נָמֵי לָא לִיטַּמּוּ, וְאִי דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה – טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limb can heal and reattach to the animal’s body then it should not be susceptible even to impurity as food. And if it cannot heal, it should impart the impurity of a carcass as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The difficulty is posed as a clean dilemma. If the limb can still heal and knit back to the body, it is simply part of a living animal and should not be susceptible even as food. If it cannot heal, it is effectively severed and ought to convey the full impurity of a carcass limb. The mishna’s middle position appears to have no ground to stand on.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה = they heal — the limb can knit back to the body
- אִי… וְאִי… = if… and if… — the structure of a two-horned objection
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Carcass impurity is different: ‘if it falls’ means not until it actually falls.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם, דְּאֵין מַעֲלִין אֲרוּכָה, וְשָׁאנֵי טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״כִּי יִפּוֹל״, עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is discussing a case where the limb will not heal, and the reason that the limb does not impart impurity of a carcass is that the impurity of a carcass is different and unique, as the Merciful One states with regard to the impurity of a carcass: “And if any of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of an animal is not considered a carcass until it completely falls from the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves by isolating what is peculiar to carcass impurity. The limb indeed cannot heal, so its food-status is intelligible; but tumat neveila is governed by its own scriptural condition. The verse says ki yipol (Vayikra 11:37), “if any of their carcass fall” — and that is read strictly: nothing counts as a carcass until it has actually fallen away. A limb still hanging, however irreversibly severed in fact, has not yet fallen in the verse’s sense.
Key Terms:
- כִּי יִפּוֹל (ki yipol) = if it falls (Vayikra 11:37) — read as requiring actual detachment
- עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל = until it falls — the operative condition for carcass impurity
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita confirms it, even where the limb hangs by a hair.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַמְדוּלְדָּלִין בִּבְהֵמָה וּמְעוֹרִין בְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה, יָכוֹל יְטַמְּאוּ טוּמְאַת נְבֵלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִפּוֹל״ – עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין מְטַמּוּ.
English Translation:
This explanation is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the limb and the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain hanging from the animal and are connected to the animal by a connector the size of a strand of hair, one might have thought that they impart the impurity of a carcass. Therefore, the verse states: “And if any of the carcass fall,” indicating that a severed limb does not impart the impurity of a carcass until it completely falls from the animal. And nevertheless, despite the fact that it is not considered severed with regard to the impurity of a carcass, such a limb is considered severed with regard to being susceptible to impurity as food.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita states the same rule in its most extreme form: a limb or flesh hanging by a connector no wider than a strand of hair still does not convey carcass impurity, because yipol requires actual falling — and nevertheless it does convey food impurity. The image of a hair’s-breadth attachment makes the point vividly: the halacha declines to round the case off in either direction.
Key Terms:
- מְעוֹרִין בְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה = connected by a strand of hair
- וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי = and even so — introducing the surviving consequence
Segment 7
TYPE: סיוע
Shmuel’s figs: detached for impurity, attached for Shabbat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תְּאֵנִים שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן – מְטַמְּאוֹת טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
English Translation:
This explanation supports the opinion of Rav Chiyya bar Ashi, as Rav Chiyya bar Ashi said that Shmuel said: With regard to figs that dried while still attached to their tree, despite the fact that they are still attached, they are considered as if they have been picked and are susceptible to impurity as food. But with regard to one who picks them on Shabbat they are considered attached, and he is liable to bring a sin offering. Just as a partially severed limb of an animal is considered both attached and severed with regard to different halakhot, so too this dried fruit is considered both attached and detached with regard to different halakhot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita is said to support a striking ruling of Shmuel, transmitted by Rav Chiyya bar Ashi. Figs that have dried while still on the tree are treated as already picked with regard to food impurity, yet one who picks them on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering, because for the laws of Shabbat they are still attached. A single object thus holds two contrary statuses at once, each answering to the question the particular halacha asks — exactly the structure of the dangling limb.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן = that dried while still attached to the tree
- חַיָּיב חַטָּאת = liable to bring a sin-offering
- רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי = the amora who transmitted Shmuel’s ruling
Segment 8
TYPE: סיוע
A Tosefta on cabbage and gourd is offered in support.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יְרָקוֹת שֶׁצָּמְקוּ בְּאִיבֵּיהֶן, כְּגוֹן הַכְּרוּב וְהַדַּלַּעַת – אֵין מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין; קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
English Translation:
Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 2:11) supports the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that dried figs still attached to the tree are considered as if they are detached with regard to susceptibility to impurity as food: Vegetables that dried while they are attached to their plant, such as cabbage and gourd, which become hard as wood and inedible when dried, are not susceptible to impurity as food. But if one cut them when they were still moist and then dried them in order to use them for fuel, or, in the case of gourds, to make utensils out of them, they are susceptible to impurity as food.
קלאוד על הדף:
A Tosefta is proposed as further support. Vegetables that dry on the plant — cabbage and gourd, which harden into something like wood — do not take food impurity; but if one cut them and dried them, they do. The apparent point is that the manner of drying, rather than mere attachment, determines susceptibility.
Key Terms:
- יְרָקוֹת (yerakot) = vegetables
- כְּרוּב וְדַלַּעַת = cabbage and gourd — which harden when dried on the plant
Segment 9
TYPE: ביאור
Rabbi Yitzchak: the case is cutting while moist with intent to dry.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קְצָצָן וְיִבְּשָׁן, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּעַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that if one cut them and dried them they are susceptible to impurity as food? Such a vegetable is merely wood, and it is inedible. And Rabbi Yitzchak says: The baraita is discussing a case where one cut the vegetables when they were still moist in order to dry them. The novelty of the baraita is that even though one intends to dry the vegetables and render them inedible, as long as they are still moist they are susceptible to impurity as food.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Tosefta as stated is puzzling, since a cut and dried gourd is etz b’alma, merely wood, and could hardly take food impurity. Rabbi Yitzchak resolves it: the case is one who cut them while still moist intending to dry them. The novelty is that the intention to render them inedible does not strip them of food status while they remain moist.
Key Terms:
- עַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן = in order to dry them — the intention at the time of cutting
- עֵץ בְּעָלְמָא = merely wood — inedible and outside the category of food
Segment 10
TYPE: דיוק
The inference: other produce, edible when dried, would take impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דִּכְרוּב וְדַלַּעַת הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּיִבְּשָׁן לָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ, הָא שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְטַמְּאִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara infers: The reason for this halakha in the baraita is that it is discussing cabbage and gourd: Since one dried them, they are inedible and consequently are not susceptible to impurity as food. But other types of produce, which are edible when dried, are susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The support is built on an inference from the Tosefta’s choice of examples. Cabbage and gourd are excluded specifically because drying renders them inedible; other produce, which remains edible when dried, would take food impurity even while attached. That is precisely Shmuel’s claim about figs.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דִּכְרוּב וְדַלַּעַת = the reason is cabbage and gourd — isolating the operative factor
- הָא שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת = but other produce — the implied contrasting case
Segment 11
TYPE: ביאור
The case must be produce dried without its stems.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיִבְּשָׁן הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּלֹא עוּקְצֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: What are the circumstances? If one dried both the produce itself and its stems, isn’t it obvious that the produce is no longer considered attached to the plant and is susceptible to impurity? If so, it would be unnecessary for the baraita to teach this. Rather, isn’t the baraita discussing a case where one dried the produce without drying its stems? Accordingly, in such a case the produce is considered detached with regard to impurity even though it is considered attached with regard to Shabbat, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the inference into a precise configuration. If both the produce and its stems dried, the produce is obviously no longer attached and the ruling would be trivial. So the Tosefta must mean produce dried while its stems remain green — still genuinely joined to the plant, yet detached for impurity. That is Shmuel’s position exactly.
Key Terms:
- עוּקְצֵיהֶן (uktzeihen) = their stems — the stalks joining produce to the plant
- פְּשִׁיטָא (peshita) = it is obvious — an objection that a ruling would be trivial
Segment 12
TYPE: דחייה
Rejected: the clause was needed only to introduce the latter ruling.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם הֵן וְעוּקְצֵיהֶן, וּקְצָצָן עַל מְנָת לְיַבְּשָׁן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: The baraita is not necessarily discussing that case. Actually, the baraita is discussing a case where both the produce itself and its stems were dried. And although it appears that the halakha is obvious in such a case, it was necessary for the baraita to mention it in order to teach the latter clause of the baraita: In a case where one cut the cabbage and gourd when they were still moist in order to dry them, they are susceptible to impurity as long as they are still moist.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara withdraws the support. The Tosefta may indeed be speaking of produce and stems both dried, trivial as that seems, because the clause exists only to set up the ruling that follows — the case of cutting while moist with intent to dry. A seemingly redundant clause is often retained as a foil for the one that carries the novelty, so it proves nothing for Shmuel.
Key Terms:
- אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ = it was necessary for him — a clause retained to set up another
- לְעוֹלָם (le’olam) = actually — reinstating the reading just set aside
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
A baraita on a broken branch is raised against Shmuel.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח וּבוֹ פֵּירוֹת – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּתְלוּשִׁין, יָבְשׁוּ – הֲרֵי הֵן כִּמְחוּבָּרִין. מַאי לָאו: מָה תְּלוּשִׁין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, אַף מְחוּבָּרִין לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: In the case of a tree from which a branch broke off, and the branch has fruit attached to it, even if the fruit is still moist it is considered detached from the tree. But if the branch did not break off, and the fruit dried on the tree, it is considered attached. What, isn’t the ruling of the baraita that just as in the first clause the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters, the halakhot of both Shabbat and impurity, so too in the latter clause the fruit that dried on the tree is considered attached to the tree with regard to all matters, even the transmission of impurity, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel?
קלאוד על הדף:
A challenge now comes from the other side. A baraita rules that fruit on a branch broken from its tree counts as detached, while fruit that dried on the tree counts as attached. Read as parallel clauses, the second would make dried fruit attached for every purpose, impurity included — flatly contradicting Shmuel’s figs.
Key Terms:
- אִילָן שֶׁנִּפְשַׁח = a tree from which a branch broke off
- כִּתְלוּשִׁין / כִּמְחוּבָּרִין = as detached / as attached
Segment 14
TYPE: דחייה
Rejected: ‘this case is as it is, and that case is as it is.’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this challenge: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. In the first clause of the baraita, the fruit on the detached branch is considered detached with regard to all matters. In the latter clause of the baraita, the dried fruit on the tree is considered attached with regard to Shabbat but detached with regard to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara denies that the clauses are parallel: midi iria? ha kid’ita veha kid’ita. The first clause means detached for all purposes; the second means attached for Shabbat but detached for impurity. Refusing to force two clauses into symmetry is a standard move, and here it leaves Shmuel’s principle standing after both the failed support and the failed refutation.
Key Terms:
- מִידֵּי אִירְיָא = are they comparable? — denying that two clauses are parallel
- הָא כִּדְאִיתָא וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא = this case is as it is and that case is as it is
Segment 15
TYPE: שאלה
What principle divides Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה [וְכוּ׳]. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that with the blood of the slaughtered animal the limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that they were not rendered susceptible with the animal’s own blood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s first machloket — whether the slaughtered animal’s blood renders the dangling limb susceptible — and asks what underlying principle the two tannaim are actually disputing. Two amoraic explanations follow, and both assume the same factual setting: the blood touched the animal’s body but not the limb itself.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי = with regard to what do they disagree?
Segment 16
TYPE: ביאור רבה
Rabba: they dispute whether an animal is a handle for its limb.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: בִּבְהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר, וּמָר סָבַר בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר.
English Translation:
Rabba said: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb. The tanna’im agree that if an appendage that constitutes a handle is rendered susceptible to impurity, the food to which it is attached is also rendered susceptible. But they disagree with regard to whether an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb, and therefore the limb is not rendered susceptible to contract impurity along with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb, and therefore the limb is rendered susceptible along with the body of the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba frames the dispute in terms of yad, the handle. Both tannaim accept that liquid reaching a handle renders the attached food susceptible; they differ over whether behema na’aseit yad le’ever, whether the animal’s body serves as a handle for the dangling limb. Rabbi Shimon holds it does not, so the blood on the body leaves the limb untouched; Rabbi Meir holds it does, so susceptibility passes along.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה נַעֲשֵׂית יָד לְאֵבֶר = an animal becomes a handle for its limb
- יָד (yad) = a handle — an appendage through which susceptibility and impurity pass
Segment 17
TYPE: ביאור אביי
Abaye: both agree it is no handle; they dispute a broader principle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
Abaye said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tanna’im agree that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb. But they also agree that if the liquid comes into contact with only part of the food it renders the entire item susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if the partially severed limb is considered part of the animal it is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the animal. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the limb is considered part of the animal, and generally speaking, with regard to any case where a small part of an item is hanging off the larger part such that if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does not ascend with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye rejects Rabba’s framing. Both tannaim agree the body is not a handle for the limb, and both agree that liquid touching part of a food renders the whole susceptible. What divides them is a general rule about partial attachment, stated in the next segment, of which the dangling limb is merely one instance.
Key Terms:
- אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן = one grasps the smaller part
- וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ = and the larger does not rise with it
Segment 18
TYPE: ביאור אביי
The principle: is the small part still one with the whole?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר סָבַר: אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ – הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ.
English Translation:
One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that although if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does not ascend with it, the small part is still considered one and the same with the large part. Therefore, a partially severed limb is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the small part is not considered one and the same with the large part in such a case, and therefore the partially severed limb is not rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rule is a test of unity by lifting. Where one takes hold of the smaller portion and the larger does not come up with it, is the smaller nonetheless harei hu kamohu, one and the same as the whole? Rabbi Meir says it is, so the limb is rendered susceptible along with the body; Rabbi Shimon says it is not, so it stands apart. The test is practical rather than conceptual — what happens when you actually pick the thing up.
Key Terms:
- הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ = it is like it — one and the same as the larger part
- אֵינוֹ כָּמוֹהוּ = it is not like it
Segment 19
TYPE: סיוע
Rabbi Yochanan too frames the dispute in those terms.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר, בְּאוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yochanan also holds in accordance with the explanation of Abaye that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the status of a small part of an item that is hanging off the larger part such that one grasps the small part and the large part does not ascend with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara adds that Rabbi Yochanan understood the machloket as Abaye did, resting it on the lifting test rather than on the law of handles. An amoraic reading endorsed independently by Rabbi Yochanan carries considerable weight, and the segments that follow show him working with it.
Key Terms:
- וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר = and Rabbi Yochanan also holds
- קָא מִיפַּלְגִי = they disagree
Segment 20
TYPE: רמי
Rabbi Yochanan raises a contradiction between two statements of Rabbi Meir.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אוֹחֵז בְּקָטָן וְאֵין גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?
English Translation:
As Rabbi Yochanan raises a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Meir and another statement of Rabbi Meir: Did Rabbi Meir actually say that even in a case where one grasps the small part of an item and the large part does not ascend with it, the small part is still considered one and the same with the large part?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan now turns the framing into a difficulty. Did Rabbi Meir truly hold that a small part remains one with the whole even when the whole does not rise with it? Another ruling of his appears to say otherwise, and the formula rami deRabbi Meir aderabbi Meir introduces the clash.
Key Terms:
- רָמֵי (rami) = he raises a contradiction — setting one statement against another
- מִי אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר = did Rabbi Meir actually say?
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא
The contradicting source is cited — and the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּפְרַס וּמְעוֹרֶה בְּמִקְצָת,
English Translation:
One can raise a contradiction to this statement from a mishna (Tevul Yom 3:1): With regard to a piece of food that was sliced from a larger piece of food and remains partially connected to the larger piece, the entire item is considered one and the same with regard to impurity. If one who was previously ritually impure and immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched either piece of the item, the entire item becomes impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradicting source is a mishna in Tevul Yom (3:1) about a piece of food sliced from a larger piece and still partly joined, where the whole is treated as one for impurity. The daf ends in the middle of the citation, and the resolution appears on 128a.
Key Terms:
- אוֹכֶל שֶׁנִּפְרַס = food that was sliced
- וּמְעוֹרֶה בְּמִקְצָת = and remains partly connected
- טְבוּל יוֹם = one who immersed that day and awaits nightfall to complete purification