Talmud su Hullin 9:9

HALAKHAH: “The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute¹⁶The statement that injury to one of the eight kinds of vermin constitutes a Sabbath violation is in one tradition a unanimous opinion, in another the object of a dispute between R. Joḥanan ben Nuri and the anonymous majority. As explained later, the problem really is which tradition of the statement of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri is correct.. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeˋira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there¹⁷Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. The Mishnah implies that leather or fur is not subject to impurity of food or animals (but is subject to ṣoraat, Lev. 13:47–59). But the epidermis of animals whose hide cannot be turned into leather is treated as like the rest of the body and is subject to all impurities spelled out in Lev. 11. The Mishnah singles out not only humans and pigs but later reports a disagreement about one of the eight species of vermin, with agreement about three others that their hides are subject to impurity; it ends with the statement of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri that all eight species of vermin have hides in this sense. The relevance for the discussion here is that if the hide is separate from the flesh, causing an ecchymosis under the skin is a Sabbath violation as derivative of threshing.: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rebbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat¹⁸If somebody eats the hide of a forbidden animal without any flesh attached, he cannot be accused of eating forbidden food since what he ate was no food; the prohibition of hide is purely rabbinical. If one agrees with this point of view then the statement of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri also refers only to impurity and rabbinic prohibition and the majority will agree that for biblical prohibitions, including the Sabbath, the eight kinds of vermin have hides. This is R. Joḥanan’s position. Babli 107a in the name of Rav.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.¹⁹Cf. Tosephta Ḥulin 8:17.” A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides²⁰Babli 107b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said²¹Cf. Tosephta 12:5 (ed. Liebermann); Babli 106b., “he who caught crickets²²In Brelot’s Arabic Dictionary (Beirut 1898), زيز is noted as Syrian dialect word for cricket., flies, ḥagazin²³An unexplained hapax. Probably misspelled for חגבים “locusts” mentioned in the Tosephta., mosquitoes is liable, but Rebbi Jehudah declares not liable, for so did Rebbi Jehudah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters²⁴Explanation of Rashi. Also R. Ḥananel explains that according to Eleazar ben Aḥbai locusts may be taken on the Sabbath if they do not fly and can be caught effortlessly.. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable²⁵Tosephta 12:4 (ed. Liebermann)., for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one²⁶Cant. rabba 8(16) also mentions the belief that deer sleep with one eye open (and, therefore, a healthy deer cannot easily be caught even when sleeping.).

He is guilty only it he ate it rare²¹Superficially grilled. Eating grilled meat rare is not human. In the Babli (70a) this is called “cooked and uncooked”.. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage²²The word הסוקים is a hapax and probably corrupt. It is translated as if it were written חסוכים., what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? ²³This text to the end of the paragraph is a shortened form of a discussion in Pesahim7:11 (35a l. 62); the final result there and here is that the discussion is irrelevant for the rules regarding the deviant and rebellious son, which implies that for the fourfold portion nothing can be included that is not regularly counted as food.
The paschal lamb may be eaten only by persons who had subscribed to it, i. e., who were part of the group for whom the lamb was slaughtered during the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan. The lamb should be eaten in small quantities at the end of the meal; the minimum quantity per person is the volume of an average olive (כְּזַיִת). The question now arises whether barely edible parts, such as cartilage and soft sinews, can be used to fulfill the duty of eating from the paschal lamb and the number of subscribers increased accordingly. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there²⁴Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects (general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs.) R. Johanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity²⁵In Pesaḥim it is stated explicitly that the differences among the rabbis are about whipping offenders.. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat²⁶“There” is Ḥulin, “here” is Pesaḥim.. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden²⁷Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking., not so much more? Rebbi Abbahu²⁸In Pesaḥim” R. Abun”. said, the reason of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi is: they shall eat the meat in that night²⁹Ex. 12:8, a verse about the paschal lamb, irrelevant for the rules about the deviant and rebellious son., not sinews.

HALAKHAH: ²⁷⁴This paragraph also is in Sanhedrin 8:2, Note 23–29. What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there²⁷⁵Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects; general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs. R. Joḥanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. ²⁷⁶The text in brackets, the remainder of the Mishnah, was added by the corrector; it is neither in K nor in Sanhedrin and is not relevant for the discussion here.[The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards.²⁷⁷The lizards in the list of “crawling animals”, Lev. 11:29–30, whose carcasses are severely impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides²⁷⁸None of the animals mentioned in Lev.11:29–30 fall under the exceptions of Mishnah 9:2..”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden²⁷⁹Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking., not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night²⁸⁰Ex. 12:8., not sinews.