Question: The Gemara answers that this is impurity from a hidden area. Why is this significant? When the limb is cut it becomes impure! The Gemara there cannot be talking about a case where the limb was cut with all of his strength (as stated in Kerisus 15b), as it says that the meat must be peeled from on top of the bone until the joint.

Answer: The case is where he cut with a wide knife that separates the part that is outside the Mikdash and the part that is inside the Mikdash. The two parts are not touching each other when they are cut. The case later (128b) also must be when a wide knife is used.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara here ask a question on Ula similar to the question asked on Shmuel in Kerisus (15b)?

Question (cont.): Shmuel addresses the Mishnah in Machshirin (1:5) that says that if someone squeezes leeks, the water in them does not cause things to contract impurity (known as "Ki Yutan," the Pasuk from which we derive that the liquid must be wanted by the owner to cause an object to be able to contract impurity), while what comes out of them does cause things to contract impurity. Shmuel says that the leeks themselves have become able to contract impurity. Why? When the water came out them, they became able to contract impurity (as the owner wanted this water to come out them).

Question (cont.): The Gemara asks a question on Shmuel from a Mishnah in Kerisus (ibid.). The Mishnah states that a person can go to a doctor on Erev Pesach to have a limb that was hanging off of him cut off until it is hanging by a hair (i.e. small amount of skin). He then puts this skin on a thorn and pulls away from it. Both the patient and the doctor can do their Korban Pesach later that day.

Question (cont.): If the leeks contract impurity when the water leaves them, why don't we say in this case that when the limb separates the patient should become impure? The Gemara answers that the case is where he cuts it with all his might.

Question (cont.): Now, our Gemara should certainly have asked a question on Ula from this case of impurity on his case of impurity, as it is a more direct question (impurity on impurity) than the Gemara's question there which is from impurity to being able to contract impurity!

Answer: The Gemara is not able to ask a question from that case on Ula, as the cases are not similar. In our Gemara, even if one cuts with all his might the cloth is impure when it is separated, as before it is totally separated it certainly touches the larger piece of clothing.

Answer (cont.): However, in Kerisus (ibid.) regarding a limb from a live person, as long as it was not totally separated it does not become impure. One does not have to suspect that the two parts touched before they were separated.

Answer (cont.): However, the Gemara's question on Shmuel is a good question. Shmuel is discussing water that fell on the leeks to the dismay of the owner. This is why he is squeezing the water out of them. He wants the water to be totally separated from the leeks. When the water goes back and touches the leeks, they cause the leeks to be able to contract impurity, even though he does not want the water to touch the leeks.

Answer (cont.): This is as the Mishnah in Machshirin (1:1) states, "Any liquid that was not originally wanted by the owner and it ends up being wanted by the owner causes the ability to contract impurity." This is similar to a doctor who totally cuts off a limb.

Question: We say later (123a) that if a Talis started to tear, once most of it has been torn away it is not considered a connection to the rest of the Talis if it becomes impure, and therefore the rest of the Talis would remain pure. This indicates it would be totally pure.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Zevachim (94b) similarly implies this when it discusses an article of clothing (that had blood of a Korban on it) that went out of the Azarah and became impure. We say that one should tear it, bring it back in, and wash it in a holy place. If it was still impure, how could we say that he should bring it back in? It is still impure! Why isn't it impure with Maga Medras as stated by Ula in our Gemara?

Answer #1: Rashi answers there that where there are two types of impurity, both Medras and Maga Medras, tearing it will help for Medras, as it is no longer able to be used for Medras. Even if the torn piece is three by three Tefachim it is considered pure from Medras, being that it is no longer fit for its original job of being an article of clothing. The only impurity left is Maga which is fit for clothing that is three by three fingers. However, the case in Zevachim (ibid.) is where it only had Maga. In such a case, tearing it helps to remove the Maga and it therefore remains without any impurity.

Question: It does not seem that there is any reason to differentiate between tearing in a case of Medras and Maga or just a case of Maga. After all, being that there is three by three fingers of clothing left which is the amount relative to impurity of Maga, the Maga should not leave the clothing (even if there was only Maga to begin with).

Answer: Rashi brings a proof there that even though there is an amount that can have Maga, the Maga becomes nullified through the tearing. This is as we find that an earthenware vessel that is broken becomes pure, although its pieces can become impure as stated in earlier (54b), "them and their parts."

Question: This is not a proof at all, as the Gemara there is discussing a case where a person gathered all of the broken pieces afterwards. However, without doing so they do not become impure, as is explained there.

Answer #1: Some explain that a Talis is called a vessel, and therefore when it is torn it loses its status of being a vessel and becomes completely pure. However, here the case is regarding a small piece of clothing which is not pure from Maga Medras even though it is pure from Medras.

Answer #2: It also appears to me that the case is where the Talis was ripped in many places until there was indeed not an area that was three fingers wide without a rip. This is why it says the Talis is completely pure, as even though all of the rips connect it is not considered as if they are all connected. This is because each rip is along most of the Talis, and it is as if each rip reaches until the end of the Talis.

Answer #2 (cont.): The case is where the small amount of the Talis that is not ripped is not the size of a Mafores, meaning a head scarf. This is as stated there that if the size of a Mafores is left it is impure according to Rabbinic law, as stated in Zevachim (94b).

Question: Why isn't the rest of the handle a Chatzitzah? It should have the law of a small amount which one does not want which is considered a Chatzitzah regarding vessels just as it is regarding people, as implied in Mikvaos (9:7).

Answer: The case is regarding handles of vessels that are made in links, similar to metal chains that are made up of rings (of metal linked to each other). (Accordingly, all of each link that must be immersed will be immersed, as water gets through to all of the area that is immersed.)

Implied Question: The second part of the Mishnah in Mikvaos(10:5) states that the chain of a big pail is four Tefachim and the chain of a small pail is ten Tefachim, and one should immerse the chain until this length (even if the chain attached to the pail is longer). Rebbi Tarfon says that he must immerse all of the rings of the chain. This indicates that the Tana Kama does not require all of the rings to be immersed. (Perhaps, here as well, it does not have to be totally immersed!)

Answer: The case there is also when the ring is made up of many small rings, and therefore there is no Chatzitzah.

Question: It is difficult to understand why the Gemara later (128b) does not give this answer when it discusses why a person who thought to eat a limb of a live animal before he cut it off causes it to become impure. The Gemara asks, why isn't this a case of impurity through a hidden area? It is difficult to say that the Gemara there is according to Rebbi Meir.

Answer: We do not say that a connection of food is as if it is separated unless it is supposed to be cut off as in our case where the limb is forbidden and the rest is permitted.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, in Pesachim (85a) regarding a limb that went partially out of the Mikdash, we say that whatever went out is forbidden and what is inside is permitted. However, regarding a limb from a live animal where everything is forbidden and not supposed to be cut, we do not say that it is as if it is already separated.

Question: This is slightly difficult, as the limb of an animal is different being that it is even permitted to be eaten according to Torah law, as stated later (74a) that this only a Rabbinic commandment.

Question: Even so the Gemara asks that being that the Rabbanan decreed it should not be eaten, they also should have decreed that it is impure.

Question: This is difficult. Instead of asking that we already learned this, we should ask a question on Reish Lakish!

Implied Question: One should not deduce that being that the blood causes the limb to contract impurity, it must be that the limb is not considered to fall off during Shechitah, as this would not be an answer (see (c) below regarding why this is not an answer). (What is the deduction meant by the Gemara?)

Answer: Rather, the deduction is from the fact that it requires being made able to contract impurity as food contracts impurity, as Rashi explains. This indicates that the limb is not impure like a limb from a live animal.

Observation: The reason why the blood of the animal would cause the limb to become impure even if it was considered to have fallen off is because the animal is like a handle of the limb.

Question: Being that according to Torah law Rebbi Yochanan holds that one can eat the limb as we state later, why does the blood of the animal have to cause it to be able to contract impurity? Rebbi Yochanan himself holds (74b) that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Shimon that Shechitah causes it to be able to become impure.

Question (cont.): Rebbi Shimon who says that the limbs are not made able to contract impurity does not mean it cannot contract impurity at all. This is as Rav Ashi explains (128a) that Rebbi Shimon means that the blood does not generally cause the ability to contract impurity, but rather the Shechitah has this effect. In this case the Shechitah does not have this effect because the limb is not permitted to eat. Why is this so? According to Torah law, it indeed permits the limb to be eaten!

Answer: According to Torah law, the Shechitah does not cause it to be able to contract impurity even according to Rebbi Shimon. This is as the Gemara says earlier (36b) that they considered it as if it was touched by water according to Rabbinic law. Being that the limb is prohibited according to Rabbinic law the Shechitah does not help it to contract impurity, as it causing this ability is only a Rabbinic law.

Question: According to those (Rabah and Abaye) who say that the argument later (127b) between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon is regarding whether or not the animal becomes a handle for the limb to cause it to contract impurity, or that it is in a case where he picks up the small part and the big part does not come along with it that according to Rebbi Shimon indicates that it is not a handle, how do they know this?

Question (cont.): They could say instead that Rebbi Shimon's reasoning is because blood does not cause the ability to become impure! Why do they argue on Rav Ashi (who indeed says that this is the subject of their argument)?

Answer: They deduce from Rebbi Shimon's terminology when he says, "They do not become able to contract impurity" as opposed to saying, "The blood does not cause ability to contract impurity" that even if the blood were to normally cause this ability, in this case it would not be effective.

Explanation: Shechitah in fact does cause the limb to have the status of having fallen off.

Question: Rav Shmuel from Vardun asked that if this is correct, how can Rebbi Shimon say that they did not become able to contract impurity, implying that while they did not get this ability through the animal, they would be able to contract impurity in another fashion?

Question (cont.): This is considered food that one cannot feed to anyone, being that the Shechitah gives it the status as if it has fallen off. Therefore, it is considered flesh from a live animal which is not food according to Rebbi Shimon (129a), and it cannot contract impurity in any way!

Answer: Rebbi Shimon is saying this according to the opinion of the Rabbanan. He is saying that according to me, it is food that cannot be fed to others and therefore it cannot contract impurity in any way. However, according to you, admit to me at least that this ability to contract impurity cannot be obtained through the animal.

Explanation: This is as we say in Nidah (51a) that just as seeds are not designated to eventually (have a stringent impurity and they require being given the ability to accept impurity, so too everything that is not designated etc.). This teaches us that the law (that an item does not need to be given the ability to become impure) is only regarding items that will eventually have a stringent impurity. However, if they are originally supposed to become seriously impure but are not supposed to have this status later, they require contracting the ability to become impure. This is Rashi's explanation.

Proof: Rashi's explanation is correct. Only when it separates it requires receiving the ability to contract impurity. However, when it is attached, it does not require receiving this ability in order to be put together with less than a k'Beitzah, even though it serves a purpose similar to that of wood (i.e. it is merely part of an animal and not considered a limb from a live animal until it is no longer attached) as stated later (129a, which would be a possibly reason why it does not cause impurity).

Proof (cont.): We say in Zevachim (105a) that a cow (i.e. red heifer) and bulls (i.e. the Parim ha'Nisrafin) cause food and drink to become impure because they themselves will become seriously impure. We do not say there that they are just serving the function of wood.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that their serious impurity is not because they are fit to be eaten, as even the person who deals with burning their skin and bones causes his clothes to become impure. (Why don't we say they are just like wood?)

Answer: It must be that the reason that it is like wood only helps when it will eventually separate from the animal, as it will no longer end up with serious impurity.

Implied Question: In Pesachim (18a), we say that a cow that drinks from Mei Chatas has the Mei Chatas become nullified in its stomach. The Gemara there explains that while they do not have stringent impurity, they do have light impurity. The Gemara there does not consider the water to be like wood. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the Mei Chatas originally have to be able to be drunk. The reason they can have a stringent impurity is because they can be drunk. If they would not be able to be drunk, they would not be able to be used for the sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah. This is why they do not need to be made able to receive impurity from a Sheretz, even though they are no longer going to be seriously impure.