Chulin 123
Summary
- The שיעור begins מסכת חולין דף קכג from דף קכב עמוד ב and defines when עור that is ordinarily כבשר loses that status through עיבוד, establishing a שיעור of ארבע מילין and extending that measure to related הלכות of לגבל, לתפילה, and נטילת ידים with major מחלוקות between רש"י, תוספות, and other ראשונים. The text applies the four-mil rule to modern travel by debating time versus distance and presents practical נפקא מינות in תפילה בציבור, including approaches of רב משה in אגרות משה and the עמק ברכה, and a reading of certain פסקי משנה ברורה. The sugya then shifts to טומאה caused by traveling גייסות carrying human skin objects and ties it to the story of רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע, followed by a return to יד ושומר in הפשטת עור from animals and שרצים with disputes between רב and רב אסי and clarifications of כדי אחיזה as טפח כפול. The later section treats tearing a טלית as a form of טהרה through שבירה, contrasts רש"י and תוספות as framed by ר' אהרן קוטלר, introduces interpretations from תוספות and the משנה למלך, and tests gzeiros and assumptions through parallels to עולת העוף and the principle כהנים זריזין הם, while also analyzing when leather remains חלים and how רבי יוחנן בן נורי and חכמים argue over a שומר that is about to detach.
- The גמרא asks כמה כדי עיבוד to define when stepping on hide removes its status of כבשר, and רב הונא אמר רב ינאי sets the measure as ארבע מילין of walking. The שיעור is presented as roughly 72 minutes and more, depending on a מחלוקת whether a מיל is 18, 22, or 24 minutes. The sugya then treats the ארבע מילין measure as a broader שיעור used in other הלכות.
- Rabbi Abahu in the name of Reish Lakish applies the ארבע מילין measure to לגבל, with a מחלוקת ראשונים about what לגבל means. Rashi defines it as a hired dough-maker who must go four mil out of his way to produce dough בטהרה even without an explicit stipulation, while מפרשים add that if he explicitly accepted to do it בטהרה and later discovers it requires more than ארבע מילין he can back out. Tosafos defines it as making dough for oneself and sets four mil as the amount one should exert to make it בטהרה.
- Rashi defines לתפילה as traveling to daven, commonly explained as going to a shul to daven במנין for ארבע מילין, while other מפרשים read Rashi as requiring four mil even to daven in a בית הכנסת without a מנין because it remains preferable. Tosafos defines לתפילה as traveling to a מקווה for טבילת עזרא before davening or learning. Other ראשונים interpret לתפילה as the threshold for תפילת הדרך, and the text records debate which תפילות are included, with פוסקים generally limiting the rule to תפילה and not to קריאת שמע, leading to a suggestion that it may practically apply primarily to מנחה because of timing constraints and סמיכת קריאת שמע לתפילה in שחרית and מעריב.
- The text raises the question why one is not obligated to stop in the middle of davening or even in the middle of קריאת שמע to join תפילה בציבור if traveling for it is required. Rav Moshe in אגרות משה is presented as holding תפילה בציבור is a full-fledged חיוב with governing rules, including that one need not interrupt קריאת שמע to fulfill it. The עמק ברכה from Rav Mordechai Foberntchik is presented as explaining, based on a near-explicit Rambam, that תפילה בציבור is not an independent obligation but a means to have תפילות answered, and it is not pursued at the cost of interrupting קריאת שמע. The text connects this to certain rulings of משנה ברורה, including allowing davening כותיקין ביחידות in some cases and permitting davening before שקיעה without a מנין when necessary, framing both ותיקין and תפילה בציבור as means toward answered תפילות rather than absolute overrides of core הלכה.
- The text states that many ראשונים apply ארבע מילין to finding water for נטילת ידים before eating bread, and if water is unavailable within four mil one may eat by wrapping the hands in a towel as earlier in the מסכת. Other opinions apply the four-mil measure to washing for תפילה. All versions use the same שיעור of ארבע מילין.
- The text asks whether four mil is measured by distance or by the time it takes to traverse four mil in an era of cars and trains. Mishnah Berurah is stated as ruling that the measure follows time, so one must travel up to the time it takes to walk ארבע מילין, described as about 72 minutes, subject to exceptions. Aruch HaShulchan is stated as limiting it to distance, while most פוסקים are said to agree with Mishnah Berurah that the operative factor is time.
- Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that איבא said this halacha and that he said four cases, one being עבודה regarding processing leather. The text explains why a previous תנא did not mention עבודה, either because it is not obligatory like תפילה and נטילת ידים or because it does not reflect personal טהרה. The text adds that some מפרשים explain why the halacha was not initially quoted in איבא’s name by citing a tradition that איבא ate פת עכו"ם and therefore was not quoted by name.
- Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina limits the obligation to travel to fulfill these הלכות to a case where it is before him in the direction he is already going, while if it is behind him he does not return even one mil. Rav Acha bar Yaakov qualifies that he need not return a mil, but if it is less than a mil he should return. A later מחלוקת הפוסקים addresses someone at home rather than traveling, with Mishnah Berurah treating him like one with no intended direction and therefore obligated only up to a mil, while Shulchan Aruch HaRav applies the four-mil rule to one at home and limits the mil rule to actual travelers who must backtrack.
- A ברייתא states that an army traveling from place to place that enters a home renders the house טמא because every such unit has flasks made from human skin, and the גמרא says this is not surprising because the *krifla* of Yishmael is placed at the head of kings. The text recounts the story of רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע as one of the עשרה הרוגי מלכות whose skin was stripped and preserved due to his beauty at the king’s daughter’s urging. מפרשים reconcile the הבית טמא ruling with earlier versions about טומאת עור אדם by explaining that under the view of ספק דאורייתא it is treated לחומרא, and under the view that it is a גזירת חכמים the רבים scalps increase the likelihood of Jewish skin and therefore require stringency. The text connects this to the Chanukah phrase יונים נקבצו עלי אזי בימי חשמנים ופרצו חומות מגדלי וטמאו כל השמנים by explaining that entering homes with such קרקפלין creates טומאה in the house and thus in the oils.
- The משנה returns to יד and שומר, ruling about one who skins a בהמה or חיה, whether טהורה or טמאה, and whether דקה or גסה, with different rules depending on the purpose of the hide. For לשטיח, a method of cutting lengthwise and stripping creates a יד only up to כדי אחיזה, beyond which the remaining stripped hide is not a יד. The text presents a מחלוקת between Rav, who ties the יד status to how one would hold the animal for moving it, and Rav Asi, who ties it to how one holds the hide to continue stripping, leaving the last טפח closest to the flesh as טמא as a יד.
- For a flask use, the משנה rules that the hide is a יד until one skins up to the breast, after which it is no longer a יד, explained as based on whether the job is difficult enough that one might stop before finishing. For המרגיל, described either as starting the cut at the foot or as stripping without a cut, the משנה rules that the entire hide remains חיבור לטומאה until fully removed, both to be מטמא and to be מיטמא.
- The case of stripping from the leg upward until only neck hide remains yields a מחלוקת, with רבי יוחנן בן נורי ruling the remaining neck hide is not חיבור because it is insignificant after most is removed, while חכמים rule it remains חיבור until all the hide is removed. The later sugya aligns this dispute with whether a שומר that is destined to detach by itself retains status as a שומר.
- Rav rules that once one skins beyond כדי אחיזה the stripped hide is טהור as a יד, while Rav Asi holds that the טפח closest to the flesh remains טמא as a יד. The גמרא challenges Rav Asi from a ברייתא stating הנוגע במופשט טהור and Rav Asi answers it excludes the last טפח. The גמרא then brings a ברייתא saying עור שכנגד הבשר טמא and Rav Asi explains that term includes the last טפח, and a further ברייתא stating טפח הסמוך לבשר טהור is answered by limiting it to a case of only stripping a first טפח that is too small to grip for continued skinning.
- The גמרא asks how much is כדי אחיזה and answers טפח, then challenges from a ברייתא of טפחיים and resolves through Abaye that it means טפח כפול, a folded-over טפח equaling two טפחים. A supporting ברייתא explicitly defines כדי אחיזה as טפח כפול.
- The text frames the next concept through כלי חרס where שבירתן זו היא טהרתן and applies the breaking principle broadly to any כלי. A משנה in מסכת כלים states that if a טלית that is טמא has been torn such that most is torn it is no longer חיבור and becomes טהור. Rashi is presented as holding that tearing most suffices even if a significant piece remains, while Tosafos requires evaluating the remaining piece as the result rather than the act.
- R' אהרן קוטלר explains Rashi as treating the act of tearing as the legally defining act of טהרה once it reaches רוב, while Tosafos evaluates the status based on the remaining intact portion. Tosafos derives from the wording טלית שהתחיל בה לקרוע that once one began tearing and eventually tore most, it is טהור למפרע from when he began. The משנה למלך, as read into the Rambam, interprets the phrase as requiring intention to tear as part of the act.
- Rav Nachman אמר רבה בר אבוה limits the tearing-טהרה rule to a טלית טבול יום, explaining that immersion shows the owner does not care about the garment and will indeed tear רוב, while for a non–טבול יום a gzeira applies that he may not tear רוב. Rava objects that people might conclude טבילת בת יומא עולה and that a similar concern should apply to עולת העוף according to רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. The text explains two ראשונים approaches to the עולת העוף question, including an approach that because one must do רוב but not sever completely, fear of doing too much can lead to doing too little, which is contrasted with ordinary שחיטה where cutting more than רוב poses no problem.
- Rav Yosef answers that קרע מוכח ליה because the tear is visible, and answers the עולת העוף concern with כהנים זריזין הם. Rashi in Shabbos is quoted as defining this as חרדים ובני תורה who know the halacha, removing concern. The פרי חדש is cited for a מנהג that by melikah the כהנים do רוב confidently, while by ordinary שחיטה people cut fully to avoid doubts about רוב. A story is brought about Rav Chaim Shmulevitz explaining that זריזות includes knowing what not to do with care, not merely acting quickly.
- The גמרא questions why the משנה treats stripping beyond כדי אחיזה as immediately removing יד status, suggesting a gzeira that one might stop at exactly כדי אחיזה and remain connected. Tosafos asks why such concern applies when the person’s goal is to strip the hide, and an answer is given that fatigue or improper completion could occur. The גמרא answers that the case is טומאה דרבנן, where such a gzeira is not imposed, and resolves the apparent דאורייתא case by explaining the animal is a טרפה whose טומאה is דרבנן, with Rav and Shmuel stating טרפה ששחטה מטמאה במקדשים in differing interpretations.
- A ברייתא בשם רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה משום רבי שמעון states that when skinning שרצים it remains חיבור until fully skinned, and a דיוק about a גמל is rejected in favor of reading the distinction as applying to עור הצוואר. The text explains this as following רבי יוחנן בן נורי, who treats the remaining neck hide as not חיבור once the rest has been removed.
- Rav Huna בשם רבי שמעון בן יוסי limits tearing-based טהרה to cases without leaving כדי מעפורת, while leaving that amount preserves חיבור. Reish Lakish limits the tearing-טהרה rule to a טלית and holds leather is חלים and fixable, while רבי יוחנן says leather is also not fixable in this sense. רבי יוחנן challenges Reish Lakish from a משנה about עור טמא מדרס where planning it for straps or shoes makes it טהור once cut begins, and the גמרא answers that Reish Lakish’s fixability concern applies to a direct tear but not to cutting in a circular fashion.
- A challenge from the law of skinning beyond כדי אחיזה is answered by Rav Avin that each piece becomes detached sequentially and is treated as fallen away from connection. A challenge from עור שעל הצואר is answered by Abaye by pointing to the חכמים who treat it as חיבור and reframing the מחלוקת as whether a שומר העומד לנתק מאליו retains status, with חכמים treating it as a שומר and רבי יוחנן בן נורי denying that status in the unique case where it is destined to detach. The conclusion presented is that this framing reconciles רבי יוחנן בן נורי with Reish Lakish’s general notion that leather remains fixable, while still allowing the neck-hide exception due to imminent detachment.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions