According to Rabbi Shimon, an item that is forbidden due to idol worship is not susceptible to impurity as food (see 129a). What is the halakha if the forbidden part of the gourd comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the forbidden part constitute a handle for its permitted counterpart and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara discusses a similar dilemma. Rav Pappa says: The Sages said in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): In the case of a branch of a fig tree that was mainly detached from the tree and which remains attached only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the figs on the branch are considered as if they are still attached to the tree. Therefore, he deems them not susceptible to impurity. And the Rabbis say: If one is able to reattach the branch to the tree such that the branch can continue to live and produce fruit, then it is considered as if it is attached to the tree and the fruit on it is not susceptible to impurity. But if not, then the fruit is susceptible to impurity.

With regard to this mishna, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: According to the Rabbis, who distinguish between a branch that can be reattached and one that cannot, what is the halakha in the case of a branch that is mainly detached from a tree but can be reattached, and a second branch grows out from that branch, and is mainly detached from it and cannot be reattached? In such a case, the branch that can be reattached to the tree is not susceptible to contracting impurity, but the branch attached to it is. If the branch that is not susceptible to contract impurity comes into contact with a source of impurity, does it constitute a handle for the other branch and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara discusses another similar dilemma. Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages said in a mishna (Nega’im 13:2): In the case of a large stone that is situated in the corner of a wall shared by two houses, where the stone is visible from inside both houses, if a leprous mark appears in one of the houses on the stone, when one extracts the stone he must extract the entire stone, even the part of the stone that is part of the neighbor’s wall. But when one destroys his house, after a reappearance of the leprous mark, he must destroy only the part of a stone that is in his house, and leaves the part of a stone that belongs to his neighbor.

With regard to this mishna Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in such a case with regard to the transmission of impurity from the leprous house to the adjacent house? Does half of the stone in the adjacent house constitute a handle for the other half and impart impurity such that one who enters the neighbor’s house becomes impure just as one who enters the leprous house? Or perhaps there is no halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a leprous house. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§The mishna teaches: If the animal died, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible to impurity via contact with a liquid in order to become impure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass. The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal but does not impart impurity as the limb of an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the impurity of a limb from a living animal and the impurity of a limb from a carcass?

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to flesh that separates from the limb of an animal, as flesh that separates from a limb severed from the living does not impart impurity, just like flesh that separates directly from a living animal. By contrast, an olive-bulk of flesh that separates from the limb of a carcass imparts impurity like the flesh of a carcass.

The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which it is derived that a limb severed from the living imparts impurity? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to the impurity of a carcass it is written: “And if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The phrase “some animal [min habehema],” which also means: From an animal, is interpreted as indicating that a limb torn from an animal is included in the impurity discussed in the verse.

The Gemara asks: How can Rav interpret this verse in such a manner? This verse is necessary for another halakha that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: In the verse: “And if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening,” the phrase “some animal [min habehema]” indicates that some dead animals impart impurity as a carcass, and some dead animals do not impart impurity as a carcass. And which is that animal that does not impart impurity as a carcass? That is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] that one slaughtered. Even though slaughter does not render the animal permitted to be eaten, it removes the animal from the category of a carcass with regard to impurity.

The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse teaches only one of the two halakhot, let the Merciful One write mibehema, in one Hebrew word. What is the verse teaching when it states: “Min habehema,” with two Hebrew words? It is teaching that one should conclude two conclusions from it.

The Gemara challenges: If so, if this verse teaches that a limb from a living animal imparts impurity, one can also derive from it that even flesh from a living animal imparts impurity. The Gemara responds: It should not enter your mind to derive this, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a living animal is impure like a carcass. Therefore, the verse states: “And if some animal of which you may eat dies.” Just as death does not generate a replacement, i.e., life is not regenerated from the dead, so too any element of an animal that dies and does not generate a replacement assumes the impurity of a carcass. An animal does not replace a severed limb but it does replace severed flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the word “animal” in the verse. Just as an animal contains sinews and bones, so too, any element of an animal that contains sinews and bones imparts impurity. Therefore, a limb, which contains sinews and bones, imparts impurity, but flesh, which does not contain sinews and bones, does not impart impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can derive this halakha from the word “animal” in the verse. Just as an animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any element of an animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts impurity.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it does not impart impurity when it separates from a living animal, but according to Rabbi Akiva it does.

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip that separate from a living animal. According to Rabbi Yosei these parts of the animal impart impurity because the animal does not generate a replacement for them; according to Rabbi Akiva they do not impart impurity, because they do not contain bones.

The Gemara states a different halakha where these three tanna’im express the same opinions. So too, it is taught in a baraita with regard to creeping animals like this case: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a creeping animal during its lifetime should be impure like a creeping animal carcass. Therefore, the verse states with regard to creeping animal carcasses: “And upon whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). The word “dead” teaches that just as death does not generate a replacement, so too any element of a creeping animal that dies and does not generate a replacement imparts the impurity of a creeping animal carcass, excluding flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the term “creeping animal.” Just as a creeping animal contains sinews and bones, so too any element of a creeping animal that contains sinews and bones imparts impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One can derive this halakha from the term “creeping animal.” Just as a creeping animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any element of a creeping animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts impurity.

The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. What difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip, which contain no bones and which are not regenerated by the creeping animal.

And it is necessary to teach this halakha both with regard to flesh that separates from a living animal and with regard to flesh that separates from a creeping animal. As if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to an animal, one might have said that this is the reason that flesh that separates from a living animal does not impart impurity: It is because an animal carcass does not impart impurity in the measure of a lentil-bulk, but rather only in the measure of an olive-bulk. But with regard to a creeping animal, which imparts impurity even in the measure of a lentil-bulk, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart impurity.

And if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to a creeping animal, one might have said that flesh that separates from a creeping animal does not impart impurity because a creeping animal does not impart impurity via carrying, and therefore flesh that separates from it while it is living does not impart impurity. But with regard to an animal, which imparts impurity via carrying, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart impurity. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this halakha in both cases.

§The Gemara continues to discuss flesh that separates from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who severs an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb severed from the living, the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass but it does impart impurity as food if one designated it as food before it came into contact with a source of impurity. Therefore, if one severed the flesh from the limb and afterward intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile, the flesh remains pure because at the time he designated the flesh as food it was not in contact with a source of impurity.

But if he intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile and afterward severed the flesh, the flesh is impure, because it came into contact with a source of impurity, i.e., the limb, after it was designated as food.

One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira, and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: What matter is difficult for you that you think may have been discussed in the study hall? Rabbi Asi said to him: I find difficult that which is taught in a baraita: If one intended flesh from a limb that was severed from a living animal to be used for the consumption of a gentile, and afterward he severed the flesh from the limb, the flesh is impure.