Back
Chullin
Daf 117aמִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי, הָכָא כְּתִיב ״וְשָׂמוֹ״, הָתָם כְּתִיב ״הָעֲרוּפָה״.
exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: “And he shall put it” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this halakha applies to “it,” and nothing else. There, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: “Whose neck was broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). This superfluous description teaches that the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others.
TOSAFOT
תרי מיעוטי כתיבי תימה דבחד סגי וכן לעיל גבי העזים (דף קיג:):
וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי לָמָּה לִי בְּדָם?
The Gemara returns to the three phrases from Leviticus 17:11 cited above as teaching that the blood of offerings is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property: And why do I need all three verses stated with regard to blood?
חַד לְמַעוּטֵי מִנּוֹתָר, וְחַד לְמַעוּטֵי מִמְּעִילָה, וְחַד לְמַעוּטֵי מִטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara answers: One term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition of notar . If one consumed the blood of such an offering, he is not liable for consuming notar as one who consumed the flesh would be. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. And one term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and one other term serves to exclude it from the prohibition of consumption of offerings in a state of ritual impurity. If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not for consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.
TOSAFOT
חד למעוטי מנותר וחד למעוטי מטומאה תימה דלנותר וטומאה סגי בחד מיעוטא דילפינן מהדדי חלול חלול אף לקולא כדמוכח בסוף פרק בית שמאי בזבחים (דף מה:):
אֲבָל מִפִּגּוּל לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, דִּתְנַן: כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין בֵּין לָאָדָם וּבֵין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, וְדָם גּוּפֵיהּ מַתִּיר הוּא. הדרן עלך כל הבשר
But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul , an offering sacrificed with intention to consume it beyond its designated time, consumption of which is punishable by karet , as this exception is already derived from another source. As we learned in a mishna ( Zevaḥim 43a): Concerning any item that has permitting factors, either with regard to consumption by a person or with regard to burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul .
SUMMARY
This chapter primarily delineated the details of the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. These halakhot were discussed both with regard to the definition of the prohibition itself as well as with regard to practical guidelines. It is accepted that the phrase: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), is a general prohibition that includes the meat of both large and small animals, and that the milk need not be that of the animal’s mother. The Gemara concludes, though, that by Torah law, only the meat and milk of domesticated animals are prohibited, but not the meat and milk of undomesticated animals or birds. Nevertheless, since the meat of undomesticated animals, and even that of birds, is generally considered meat, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to cook them in milk, as is the case with the meat of domesticated animals. The flesh of other animals, such as fish and grasshoppers, is not classified as meat, and it is permitted to cook them in milk ab initio. The Sages taught that the prohibition of meat cooked in milk includes three separate prohibitions: One may not cook meat in milk, one may not eat meat and milk cooked together, and one may not derive benefit from such a dish. Since it is permitted to eat both meat and milk when they are separate from one another, the Sages were concerned that people might treat the prohibition lightly, and they enacted several decrees to distance people from sin. These include the prohibition against placing cooked dishes of meat and milk together on the table upon which one eats unless there is a clear separation between them. Additionally, one must wait a period of time between eating meat and consuming milk. The Gemara does not specify the length of this period, and to this day there are disparate customs with regard to the amount of time one must wait between eating meat and milk. The prohibition against mixing meat and milk does not apply by Torah law to the udders of animals and the milk they contain. Nevertheless, in practice one must remove the milk inside the udder before consuming the meat. The chapter also examined the similarly complicated case of curdling milk to make cheese using skin or rennet from an animal’s stomach. Although the skin is considered meat, rennet is considered a mere secretion and cannot itself render the cheese prohibited as would prohibited food. With regard to the scope of the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, the Gemara established that although the two are each permitted when separate, after they have been cooked together the mixture becomes prohibited in its own right, to the extent that if it is mixed into other dishes it renders them prohibited as well. In the terminology of the Gemara, the mixture is itself considered non-kosher meat. This led to a discussion of cases where a small quantity of milk was cooked with a piece of meat: Can that piece render an entire pot of meat prohibited due to the milk cooked with it? A similar inquiry was raised with regard to other items rendered prohibited by foreign substances. These are the main topics of the chapter. Numerous other matters were also examined concerning local customs, desirable habits, and table manners, all of which are related, to a greater or lesser extent, to the central halakhot addressed in the chapter.
INTRO
This chapter discusses issues related to the ritual impurity of dead animals. Ostensibly, it would have been more fitting for the chapter to be situated in one of the tractates of Seder Teharot, which discuss impurity, and not here in Seder Kodashim, which discusses sacrificial offerings. Nevertheless, this chapter is located in tractate Ḥullin due to its thematic connection to issues discussed in the tractate: Slaughter, flaying an animal’s hide, severing an animal’s limbs, and other themes that have implications with regard to impurity. When discussing the impurity of animals, it is necessary to define which parts of an animal are susceptible to impurity. The animal’s flesh is clearly susceptible to impurity, but what is the halakha with regard to its hide and bones? Can the hide or bones assume the status of flesh, e.g., if flesh is attached to them, or if they are soft enough? In addition, it is necessary to determine the halakha with regard to marrow and eggs, edible substances that are completely covered. Is a completely sealed food item susceptible to impurity, or must there be a perforation for impurity to be transmitted? These and many other questions concerning impurity are discussed in this chapter.
מתני׳ הָעוֹר וְהָרוֹטֶב וְהַקִּיפָה וְהָאֲלַל וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם
All foods that became ritually impure through contact with a source of impurity transmit impurity to other food and liquids only if the impure foods measure an egg-bulk. In that regard, the Sages ruled that even if a piece of meat itself is less than an egg-bulk, the attached hide, even if it is not fit for consumption, joins together with the meat to constitute an egg-bulk. And the same is true of the congealed gravy attached to the meat, although it is not eaten; and likewise the spices added to flavor the meat, although they are not eaten; and the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying; and the bones; and the tendons;
מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
All these items join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food.
TOSAFOT
מתני' העור והרוטב משום דתנן פרק בהמה המקשה (לעיל חולין דף עז.) אשליא ואינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין ולא טומאת נבלות תנא העור והרוטב ומאי דאפסקיה משום דתנא פרק בהמה המקשה (לעיל חולין דף עד.) מצא בה בן ט' חי טעון שחיטה וחייב באותו ואת בנו תנא אח"כ אותו ואת בנו ואיידי דאיירי ביה בשחיטה שאינה ראויה תנא בתריה כסוי הדם ואיידי דתנא בכסוי הדם ונוהג בחיה ובעוף תנא גיד הנשה דנוהג בחיה ולא בעוף ואיידי דאיירי ביה בירך שנתבשל בה גיד הנשה בבליעת איסור תנא כל הבשר ובתריה הדר לעניינא קמייתא:
האלל איכא דמפרש בגמרא אף מרטקא ופי' בקונטרס גיד הצואר ואי תנא גידין ולא מרטקא הוה אמינא דמרטקא שהיא קשה לא מצטרף דלא הוי בכלל שאר גידים ואי תנא אלל ה"א שאר גידים מטמו אפילו טומאת נבילות בצירוף:
הקרנים בגמרא מפרש מקום שחותכו ויוצא דם:
והטלפים ול"ג וצפרנים דלא שייכי אלא בעוף ומתניתין לא איירי במילי דעוף מדלא קתני והחרטום כדקתני במשנה דמייתי בגמרא (שם) ואפשר דגרס וצפרנים וחרטום דלא פירש הכא [פירש] במשנה אחריתי ועל צפרנים מפרש בגמרא מקום המובלע בבשר ועל טלפים לא מפרש מידי ואפשר דבטלפים אף מה שאין מובלע בבשר צריך לבשר טפי מבצפרנים:
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה לְגוֹי וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיז אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ. רִיבָּה לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין מִמַּה שֶּׁרִיבָּה לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
Similarly, there is another item that imparts impurity of food but not impurity of animal carcasses: In the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאֲלַל הַמְכוּנָּס, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כַּזַּיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב עָלָיו.
Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and then eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet .
גמ׳ תְּנֵינָא לְהָא, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹמְרִים – לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה, וְלֹא שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה.
The mishna teaches that the attached hide joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food even though it is not fit for consumption. This is because the hide acts as a protective cover for the meat. But it does not join to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses. The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita : An appendage that serves as protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity, such as the impurity of food, which can be transmitted only to food but not to people or vessels. But protection attached to food does not join together with food with regard to a severe level of impurity, such as the impurity of an animal carcass, which can be transmitted even to people and vessels.
שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כָּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ״ – כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה, חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verse, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the halakhot of imparting impurity of food, the verse states: “And if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). The phrase “upon any sowing seed” indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell,
TOSAFOT
שומר לטומאה קלה מנלן דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל וכו' ולהוציא ולהכניס לא אצטריך דמטמי דמיד נפיק כדמסיק וכי אצטריך לצירוף:
חטה בקליפתה והא דאמר בסוף כתובות (דף קיא:) חטה שנקברה ערומה ה"ק אף כשנקברה ערומה יוצאה בכמה לבושים:
וְלֹא שׁוֹמְרִים לְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בְּנִבְלָתָהּ״ – וְלֹא בְּעוֹר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection does not join together with the food with regard to a severe level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to the impurity of a carcass, the verse states: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the hide of the carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure.
TOSAFOT
ולא שומר לטומאה חמורה מנלן וא"ת ל"ל קרא דמזרעים לא אתי שכן טומאתן מרובה כדפריך בסמוך וי"ל דס"ד לרבויי מריבויא דיטמא וא"ת דאמר בפרק כל שעה (פסחים דף לג:) ענבים שנטמאו דורכן פחות פחות מכביצה דקסבר משקין מפקד פקידי ולא נטמאו המשקין עם האוכל ואמאי לא נטמאו בנגיעת הטומאה לקליפה משום שומר וי"ל דאין שם משקין עליהם עד שיצאו לחוץ: