Talmud - Hullin 121a חולין קכ״א א׳

And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the word fruit and another instance of the word fruit. With regard to orla the verse states: “And you shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden” (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.

§The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is referring to the nuchal ligament [marteka]. And Reish Lakish says: It is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh.

The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish from that which is written: “But you are plasterers of lies, you are all physicians of no value [elil]” (Job 13:4). The term “no value [elil]” stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, that is why Job accused his companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging from the hide is able to be healed.

The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse, everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.

Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but not if the alal was collected by a child or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it to be food.

Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who collected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal collected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Rabbis maintain that the nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament does not join together.

What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna, that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but even by itself, like any other food. And if it is a case where one does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be susceptible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status as food.

Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said: It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not susceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.

And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.

§The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a bird that come into contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is referring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.

Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons themselves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed within the flesh.

Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.

§The mishna teaches: Similarly, in the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, it imparts impurity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.

Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And furthermore, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impurity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food? The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a kosher bird to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason is because

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 121a explores the legal link between orla and first fruits regarding forbidden liquids, then debates the meaning of alal in impurity laws.