Daf 128 — Chullin 128 Summary

Chullin 128 – Good Morning Raboisai Dried Fruit – Attached or Detached? A Branch That Became Detached The Gemara continues with a branch containing fruit which became detached from the tree, or is effectively no longer connected to the ground. The Beraisa says: • Harei hein k’telushin – they are considered detached. This has two practical effects: • Shabbos – removing the fruit from the detached branch is not considered plucking from the ground. • Tumah – the fruit can receive Tum’as Ochlin, because it is no longer attached to the ground. What If the Fruit Dried While Still Attached? The Beraisa then says that if the fruit dried while still on the tree: • Harei hein k’mechubarin – they are considered attached. The Gemara initially understands this to apply in both directions: • Removing it on Shabbos would still be considered detaching. • It would not receive Tumah because it remains attached to the ground. Maybe the Two Halves Are Different The Gemara rejects the proof. Just because the first part of the Beraisa uses “detached” for: • Shabbos • And Tumah does not necessarily mean that “attached” in the second part refers to: • Both halachos. It could be: • Attached for one halachah • But treated differently for another. This continues yesterday’s theme that: • “Attached” and “detached” can have different definitions for different halachos. The Dangling Limb After Shechita Does the Shechita Blood Provide Hechsher? We return to an animal with: • A limb hanging by a small connection. The animal is then: • Shechted. The Shechita produces blood, and blood is one of the liquids that can provide: • Hechsher – making food susceptible to Tumah. Rebbe Meir says: • The blood provides Hechsher for the dangling limb. Rebbe Shimon says: • It does not. The Gemara gives several different explanations for their machlokes. Explanation 1 – Is the Animal a Yad? Can the Whole Animal Be a Handle for the Limb? One explanation is whether: • The animal itself can serve as a Yad – a handle – for the dangling limb. Rebbe Meir holds: • The connection allows the Shechita blood affecting the animal to affect the limb as well. Rebbe Shimon disagrees. The question is whether such a large animal can function as: • A Yad for one relatively small dangling limb. Explanation 2 – Will It Break Away? Testing the Connection Another explanation depends on: • How strong the connection is. Imagine holding the object by: • The small dangling piece. If the weight of the larger section causes: • The connection to break Does that mean they are already considered: • Two separate pieces? Rebbe Shimon treats the weak connection as insufficient. Rebbe Meir can still treat them as: • Connected in their present state. A Difficulty from Tevul Yom The Gemara challenges this understanding of Rebbe Meir from: • Terumah touched by a Tevul Yom. A Tevul Yom is someone who: • Was tamei • Immersed in a mikvah • But is still waiting until nightfall for complete taharah. His Tumah is weak, but: • He can still passul Terumah. Two Pieces of Terumah Where two pieces of Terumah are barely connected, Rebbe Meir appears to distinguish based on whether: • One can lift the larger piece by holding the smaller one without it breaking away. If it breaks: • They are treated as separate. This appears to contradict the explanation that Rebbe Meir considers a weak connection sufficient. Tevul Yom May Be Different The Gemara considers distinguishing: • Tevul Yom • From ordinary Tumah. Since Tevul Yom has: • A weaker level of Tumah Its rules of connection may be different. The discussion depends on how the Tannaim understand: • The special status of Tevul Yom. Explanation 3 – Yad for Tumah vs Yad for Hechsher A Handle May Work for One but Not the Other Another explanation is that everyone can agree there is: • A Yad for Tumah. The disagreement is whether there is also: • A Yad for Hechsher. Meaning: If liquid touches: • The handle or connected part Does that make the actual food: • Susceptible to Tumah? One opinion says: • Yes. The other says: • Yad transfers Tumah, but not Hechsher. Tumah Is Not Necessarily Like Hechsher Tumah can travel through: • A halachic connection or Yad. But perhaps Hechsher is different. The liquid may need to: • Reach the food itself Rather than merely: • Its handle. This is therefore another possible explanation of Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon. A Change of Intention Produce Washed for an Animal The Gemara discusses produce that was: • Washed while intended for animal food. Later, the owner changed his mind and decided: • To eat it himself. The question is: Does the earlier washing now count as: • Hechsher for human food? The discussion depends on: • The intention present when the liquid originally touched the produce. Explanation 4 – Rebbe Akiva’s Position Yad for Tumah but Not Hechsher Another way of understanding the machlokes depends on: • Which version of Rebbe Akiva’s opinion is accepted. The key possibility is: • Yesh Yad l’Tumah • V’ein Yad l’Hechsher. Meaning: • A handle can transmit Tumah • But does not necessarily transmit Hechsher. This directly affects: • The dangling limb and the Shechita blood. Explanation 5 – When Does Shechita Begin? The Blood Was Wiped Away The Gemara gives another case. During Shechita: • Blood comes out after cutting the first siman. • That blood is then wiped away. • The second siman is subsequently cut. The question becomes: When does Shechita halachically take effect? Yesh Shechita MiTechilah V’Ad Sof One possibility is: • Shechita is a process from beginning to end. If so: • Blood produced during the first siman is already Dam Shechita. It can therefore potentially: • Provide Hechsher. Ein Shechita Ela LaSof Alternatively: • Shechita only takes effect at the completion. If so, blood that appeared earlier and was wiped away: • Was not yet Dam Shechita at the time. By the time Shechita was completed: • That blood was gone. Therefore: • It cannot provide the necessary Hechsher. Explanation 6 – Shechita Itself Does Shechita Make It Susceptible? The final explanation considers whether: • The Shechita itself can create the relevant susceptibility to Tumah, rather than relying solely on: • The blood. This completes the Gemara’s multiple explanations of: • Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon. A New Series of Questions Can Something Tahor Carry Tumah to Something Tamei? The Basic Question The Gemara now asks the same fundamental question in several different cases. There are two connected objects: • One cannot itself receive Tumah. • The other can. Tumah touches: • The part that cannot become tamei. Can that part nevertheless act as: • A conduit and transfer Tumah to: • The susceptible part? Case 1 – A Living Animal Tumah Touches the Animal A living animal itself: • Does not receive Tumah. But its nearly detached limb: • Can receive Tum’as Ochlin. Suppose Tumah touches: • The main body of the living animal. Can the Tumah travel through: • The animal to the dangling limb? The Gemara leaves the question: • Teiku. Case 2 – A Plant in a Pot Part Attached, Part Detached The Gemara discusses a plant growing in: • A pot without a hole. Normally, without a hole: • It is considered detached from the ground • And can receive Tumah. But part of the plant extends: • Outside the pot and can draw nourishment from: • The ground. That portion can therefore be considered: • Attached to the ground. Can Tumah Travel Through the Attached Part? We now have: • One part susceptible to Tumah • One part considered attached and not susceptible. If Tumah touches: • The attached portion Can it travel through the plant to: • The susceptible portion? Again, this is the same underlying question: Can something which cannot itself receive Tumah: • Serve as a Yad or conduit for Tumah? Case 3 – Half a Pumpkin Is Assur One Half Can No Longer Be Eaten The Gemara discusses a pumpkin where: • One portion has become forbidden in benefit. That portion is no longer treated as: • Ordinary food for Tum’as Ochlin. The other portion remains: • Susceptible to Tumah. If Tumah touches the non - susceptible half: • Can it transfer Tumah to the other half? Rebbe Yirmiyah asks the question. The answer: • Teiku. Case 4 – A Damaged Branch A Branch That Can Still Survive Rebbe Papa asks about: • A branch that has partially broken from a tree • But remains sufficiently attached to survive. Because it can still live: • It retains the status of attached to the ground • And cannot itself receive Tumah. But can that attached portion: • Transfer Tumah to another part which can receive it? Again: • Teiku. Case 5 – A Stone Shared by Two Houses Tzaraas in a Shared Wall The Gemara brings another version of the same question involving: • A stone shared between two houses • With Tzaraas affecting one side. In certain stages of Tzaraas: • The affected stone must be removed. When an entire house must ultimately be demolished: • Only the affected owner’s portion is destroyed • Not automatically the neighbour’s portion. Can the Unaffected Portion Transfer Tumah? The question is again: Can the portion which does not itself have the relevant Tumah: • Serve as a connection to transmit Tumah to: • The affected portion? The Gemara again leaves it: • Teiku. One Question – Several Applications The repeated underlying question is: Can something which cannot itself receive Tumah: • Nevertheless serve as a conduit for Tumah? The Animal Dies Eiver Min HaChai vs Eiver Min HaNeveilah The Gemara returns to the dangling limb. If the animal: • Dies without Shechita the Mishnah distinguishes between: • Eiver Min HaChai • Eiver Min HaNeveilah. The Gemara asks: Why does the distinction matter? Both can produce Tumah. Flesh vs a Complete Limb Basar Min HaChai The difference appears with: • Ordinary flesh • As opposed to a complete limb. A complete Eiver Min HaChai: • Has Tumah. But ordinary Basar Min HaChai: • Does not have that same Tumah. By contrast, flesh from a Neveilah: • Can itself transmit Tumah. The Source for Tum'as Eiver Min HaChai “V’Chi Yamus Min HaBehemah” Rav derives Tum'as Eiver Min HaChai from: • V’chi yamus min habehemah. The word: • Min – from the animal indicates that even: • Part of an animal can have Tumah. But We Already Need This Pasuk The Gemara objects: This wording is already used to teach another important halachah. An animal which underwent valid Shechita but was discovered to be: • Treifah does not transmit: • Tum'as Neveilah. Valid Shechita removes: • Neveilah Tumah even though the animal remains: • Forbidden to eat. Two Derashos The Gemara explains that the wording can support: • Two separate teachings. One teaches: • A shechted Treifah does not have Tum'as Neveilah. The other teaches: • Part of an animal can itself transmit Tumah. Why Not Basar Min HaChai? Maybe Ordinary Flesh Should Also Be Tamei If “min habehemah” includes: • Part of the animal why limit this to: • A complete limb? Perhaps even: • A piece of flesh from a living animal should transmit Tumah. The Gemara therefore needs to define: • What type of “part” resembles the animal itself. Three Opinions First Opinion – Something That Does Not Regenerate One opinion compares the detached part to: • Death. Just as a dead animal: • Cannot regenerate the Tumah of Eiver Min HaChai applies to something: • Which cannot regenerate. Ordinary flesh: • Can regenerate. Therefore: • Basar Min HaChai is excluded. Rebbe Akiva – Gidin V’Atzamos Rebbe Akiva gives a different definition. The limb must resemble an animal by containing: • Gidin – sinews • Atzamos – bones. Therefore: • A complete limb can have Tum'as Eiver Min HaChai. • Plain flesh does not. Rebbe – Basar, Gidin V’Atzamos Rebbe requires all three: • Basar • Gidin • Atzamos. So the limb must contain: • Flesh • Sinews • Bones. This is stricter than Rebbe Akiva. The Practical Difference A major difference is: • The lower part of a leg which contains bones and sinews • But does not contain flesh. According to Rebbe Akiva: • It can qualify because it has Gidin and Atzamos. According to Rebbe: • It does not qualify because Basar is also required. Other cases discussed include: • A kidney and similar tissue • In relation to whether the tissue can regenerate. The Same Derashah by Sheratzim Eiver Min HaChai of a Sheretz The Gemara applies a similar discussion to: • Sheratzim. Again, the question is: What type of part from a living sheretz can transmit Tumah? The same basic approaches appear: • Whether it can regenerate • Whether it has Gidin and Atzamos • Whether Basar is also required. Why Do We Need Both Sources? Neveilah and Sheretz Are Different The Gemara asks: Why does the Torah need separate teachings for: • An animal • And a sheretz? Could one be learned from the other? No. A sheretz has a special stringency: • It transmits Tumah with the tiny shiur of an adashah – a lentil. But a Neveilah has another stringency: • It transmits Tumah through Masa – carrying. Therefore: • Neither can simply be learned from the other. Both sources are necessary. Key Chazarah • Fruit on a detached branch is considered detached for Shabbos and Tum’as Ochlin. • The Gemara questions whether dried fruit still attached to a tree is considered attached for both Shabbos and Tumah. • Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon disagree whether Shechita blood provides Hechsher for a dangling limb. • The Gemara gives several explanations of their machlokes, including the strength of the connection, Yad for Tumah vs Yad for Hechsher, and when Shechita halachically begins. • If Shechita only takes effect at the end, blood wiped away earlier may not qualify as Dam Shechita. • The Gemara then repeatedly asks whether something that cannot itself receive Tumah can nevertheless serve as a conduit to transfer Tumah to something connected to it. • This is asked regarding a living animal and its dangling limb, different parts of a plant, a partially forbidden pumpkin, a damaged branch, and a stone associated with Tzaraas. Several questions remain Teiku. • A complete Eiver Min HaChai can transmit Tumah, while ordinary Basar Min HaChai does not. • “V’chi yamus min habehemah” provides the source for Tumah of part of a living animal. • Valid Shechita prevents a Treifah from having Tum'as Neveilah. • One opinion defines Eiver Min HaChai by whether the part can regenerate. • Rebbe Akiva requires Gidin and Atzamos. • Rebbe requires Basar, Gidin and Atzamos. • Similar rules are discussed regarding Eiver Min HaChai of a sheretz. • Both the animal and sheretz sources are necessary: sheretz has the stringency of a tiny shiur, while Neveilah has Tumah through Masa. Catch up, review, download previous Dafim & more: https://www.dafchazarah.co.uk Now available as an app (Apple, Google & Amazon): https://dafchazarah.co.uk/download Sponsor a day: https://dafchazarah.co.uk/sponsor לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת הרב מנחם מנדל