Chulin 122
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on Maseches Chullin 122 begins from 121b at רבי יהודה אומר העלל and defines *alal* as leftover shreds of meat on the hide that can combine to a *kezayis* for *tum’as neveilah* according to רבי יהודה when they are intentionally gathered, while Rav Huna’s additional rule about two half-*kezayis* pieces on hide leads into the רבי ישמעאל–רבי עקיבא dispute over whether hide nullifies the meat. The *Gemara* resolves the tension by assigning Rav Huna’s nullification rule to רבי עקיבא and clarifying that רבי עקיבא holds the hide nullifies regardless of whether an animal or knife detached the meat, then transitions to the *Mishnah* of אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן, its exceptions, and how tanning or use affects *tumah*, with a major focus on עור האדם being *tamei* by rabbinic decree. The *Gemara* continues through definitions of “tender” animals for these laws, narratives contrasting Reish Lakish and רבי זירא, and *derashos* from פסוקים about שרצים to derive when skins are treated like flesh, concluding with a distinction between skin that is designated as an attachment versus merely stepped on or processed.
- Today begins from 121b two lines from the bottom at רבי יהודה אומר העלל, with *alal* defined as pieces of meat left on the hide that may combine with other meat for *tum’as neveilah* according to תוספות and רש״י, and for the איסור of eating *neveilah* according to רש״י. Rabbi Yehudah holds that when the leftover pieces equal a *kezayis* they can combine, and Rav Huna explains that this applies only והוא שכינסו, when a person intentionally gathers them, showing they are *chashuv* to him.
- Rav Huna states that two half-*kezayis* pieces on the hide are nullified because העור מבטלן, and the *Gemara* asks אליבא דמאן in light of the later *Mishnah* where רבי ישמעאל says the hide does not nullify and רבי עקיבא says it does. The *Gemara* initially fits Rav Huna to רבי ישמעאל by distinguishing דפלטתיה חיה from פלטתיה סכין, but this creates a conflict with רבי יהודה’s rule of כינסו because once something is *batel* it cannot be revived by gathering.
- The *Gemara* retracts and concludes that לעולם פלטתו סכין לרבי ישמעאל לא בטל, keeping רבי ישמעאל’s view that hide does not nullify even when detached by a knife. The *Gemara* then assigns Rav Huna’s “two half-*kezayis*” rule to רבי עקיבא and explains the *chidush* as rejecting the mistaken thought that רבי עקיבא nullifies only when cut by a knife, teaching instead that רבי עקיבא’s reason משום שעור מבטל applies equally לא שנא פלטת חיה ולא שנא פלטת סכין, as supported by the later *Mishnah* phrasing מפני מה אמר רבי עקיבא טהור משום שעור מבטל.
- The *Mishnah* states that while *tum’as neveilah* ordinarily applies to flesh and not skin, certain skins are treated as flesh: עור האדם, עור חזיר של יישוב, and רבי יהודה adds אף עור חזיר הבר, along with עור תחתיה של גמלא הרכה, עור הראש של עגל הרך, עור הפרסות, עור בית הבושת, עור השליל, and עור של תחת האליה. The *Mishnah* also lists among the שרצים that the skins of האנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט are כבשרן, and רבי יהודה holds הטחא כחולדה so its skin is not treated like flesh.
- A תשובה, שאלות ותשובות מראי כהן, is cited as using the *Mishnah* about עור חזיר as a ראיה that when establishing a *rov* the behavior of עכו"ם is included, because Jews do not eat חזיר yet the softness and usage of pig skin is treated as halachically significant based on common use.
- The *Mishnah* rules that all these skins become טהורים if they were tanned or walked on for the measure of use, וכולן שעבדן או שהלך בהן כדי עבודה טהורים, except for עור האדם which remains טמא. רבי יוחנן בן נורי says שמונה שרצים יש להם עורות, presenting a broader disagreement with the תנא קמא, and a *vart* is offered that his dissent appears at the end because the תנא קמא has already been interrupted repeatedly.
- Ulla states דבר תורה עור אדם טהור and explains that it is declared טמא by גזירה שמא יעשה אדם עורות אביו ואמו שטיחין. Multiple explanations are brought for why the *Gemara* speaks of “father and mother,” including that it is illustrative rather than exclusive, that it adds the עבירה of violating כיבוד אב ואם, and the רדב״ז’s view that people used such items for perceived good מזל in business or war.
- The question is raised how a טומאה decree deters someone already violating the basic rule that one may not benefit from a corpse, and approaches are recorded that the עור might have been taken from a living parent, or that עור of a מת is not אסור בהנאה even if flesh is, requiring a separate טומאה decree. Tosafos is presented as explaining that people were less deterred by איסור הנאה but were frightened by *tumah*, so labeling it טמא effectively prevented the act.
- The *Gemara* brings a second tradition that Ulla’s statement is taught on the סיפא, saying דבר תורה עור אדם שעבדו טהור and the טומאה is still due to the same גזירה. The *Gemara* concludes that one who teaches it on the רישא will certainly hold it on the סיפא, while one who teaches it on the סיפא can still hold that the unprocessed עור האדם is טמא מדאורייתא.
- The *Gemara* explains the תנא קמא–רבי יהודה dispute about wild pig skin as whether domesticated pig skin is soft and wild pig skin is hard versus wild pig skin also being soft, with the מפרשים clarifying that the disagreement is not factual but about whether the degree of softness is halachically classified as soft or hard.
- On עור תחתיה של גמלא הרכה, Ulla בשם רבי יהושע בן לוי defines a tender camel as כל זמן שלא טענה, as long as it has not yet carried a load. רבי ירמיה asks about a camel that is old enough to carry but has not carried, and Abaye asks about one not yet of age that did carry, and both questions end with תיקו.
- Reish Lakish asks the definition and, upon receiving the answer, honors the responder with תיב לקבלי, while רבי זירא asks and responds sharply when the answer is repeated, leading to the line תא חזי בין תקיפי דארעא דישראל לחסידי דבבל. The חתם סופר reinterprets the exchange as Reish Lakish and רבי זירא asking a more nuanced question about age-versus-carrying, with רבי זירא’s frustration arising from thinking the responder missed the point until the answer was properly aligned.
- On עור הראש של עגל הרך, Ulla says בן שנתו and רבי יוחנן says כל זמן שיונק, and the *Gemara* frames two possible readings before concluding from רבי יוחנן’s wording that רבי יוחנן is lenient, meaning nursing alone suffices regardless of age, implying Ulla requires both first-year and nursing.
- Reish Lakish asks רבי יוחנן whether the skin of a tender calf’s head is מטמא, and explanations are given that a *Mishnah* knowledge differs from *psak* in practice and that people still observed *tumah* and *taharah* even after the חורבן. רבי יוחנן answers אינו מטמא and, when challenged that this contradicts the סתם משנה of אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן, responds אל תקניטני בלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה and supports this by citing a ברייתא where only אלעזר בן יהודה איש אבלום and רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו בשם רבי שמעון treat these skins as flesh for *pigul* scenarios, while the תנא קמא does not.
- The ברייתא includes להביא עור של בית הבושת within “all that the sages counted,” and the ראשונים explain it is singled out because the example begins with a קרבן עולה which is male and lacks a בית הבושת, so that עור applies only to other korbanos such as חטאת ושלמים.
- The *Gemara* asks מאי בית הפרסות and records Rav’s view that it means the hoof itself and Rav Chanina’s view that it means ארכובה הנמכרת עם הראש, the lower leg portion sold with the head to provide more meat.
- On the שרצים, the *Gemara* derives from הטמאים that their skins are included as flesh, and רש״י notes that הטמאים is also used for other derashos like ציר, רוטב, and קיפה, with the principle that equally valid derashos are both learned. The *Gemara* limits the inclusion with אלה and explains the textual division by למינהו הפסיק הענין, assigning a category split between the lists in the pesukim.
- The *Gemara* asks why תנשמת is not included in the *Mishnah*’s list and answers that Rav is a תנא and includes it, stated as רב תנא ופליג על תנשמת. Rav Moshe in אגרות משה explains that this does not make Rav both תנא and אמורא, but that Rav could report a Tannaitic tradition he personally heard due to his closeness to that era.
- The *Gemara* explains that the תנא of the *Mishnah* follows רבי יהודה דאזיל בתר גישתא, deciding based on practical softness rather than textual derivation, and that uncertainty about softness applies to those three creatures referenced.
- The *Mishnah* implies that only actual walking-on or processing changes status, but a ברייתא of רבי חייא teaches that an אוזן חמור placed on a basket is טהורה even without being stepped on. The *Gemara* distinguishes between טפלה, where attachment and designation suffice even without הילוך, and לא טלא, where without attachment the עור becomes טהור only through הילוך or processing and otherwise remains טמא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions