Study Chullin folio 73A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is regarded as though it were cut. Therefore, it is regarded as though the foreleg had already been severed from the body of the fetus, and the point of contact between them is not considered to be a concealed area. Rather, it is regarded as if the foreleg and fetus were two separate items that cam
The Talmud asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakhic principle that Ravina cites? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, as we learned in a Mishnah (Mikvaot 10:5): When a vessel is immersed in a mikveh, it is purified only if all parts of the vessel are submerged at the same
And the Rabbis say that the vessel is not purified until he immerses all of it, including the handle. Apparently, the Rabbis do not hold that an item that stands to be cut is regarded as though it was already cut, and Ravina’s explanation is in accordance only with the opinion of R' Meir.
The Talmud responds: You may even say that Ravina’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The disagreement between the Rabbis and R' Meir concerns utensils, but even the Rabbis agree that the connections between two pieces of food are disregarded, and the item is considered a
The Talmud asks: Granted, according to the explanation of Ulla that the fetus was rendered impure at the time of separation of the flesh of the fetus from the limb, this explanation is consistent with that which the Mishnah teaches, that the foreleg was severed from the body of the fetus. But accor