Rabbi Meir says: If when one grasps the small piece, the large piece ascends with it, it is considered one and the same; but if it does not ascend with it, it is not considered one and the same. This statement of Rabbi Meir is not in accordance with his statement in the mishna that a partially severed limb is part of the body of the animal and is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body even if one lifts the partially severed limb and the body of the animal does not ascend with it.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolves the contradiction and says: The attribution of the opinions in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed. Indeed, Rabbi Meir holds that even if when one lifts the smaller piece, the larger piece does not ascend with it, it is still the same item. Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Yoḥanan explains the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna in accordance with the explanation of Abaye.

With regard to the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, the Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi Meir distinguishes between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity. The impurity of one who immersed that day is a more lenient type of impurity, because he has already immersed and need only wait until the end of the day in order to consume sacrificial offerings. Therefore, there is reason to be more lenient when he touches a partially severed piece of food and to rule that the entire food item does not become impure.

The Gemara answers: One cannot make such a distinction between different types of impurity because it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to both the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, the halakhot of contact are the same; whatever is considered contact that transmits impurity with regard to one type of impurity transmits impurity for all types of impurity.

The Gemara asks: But perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity and Rabbi Meir does distinguish in such a manner. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yoshiya said: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan meant to say: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who does not distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and other types of impurity, there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Meir, and the attribution of the opinions in the mishna in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed.

Rava said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood from the slaughter came into contact with the body of the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tanna’im agree that an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. They disagree with regard to the principle that there is a status of a handle, i.e., a handle is considered part of the item itself, with regard to transmitting impurity to the attached food, but there is no status of a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity, as in that regard the handle is considered a separate item.

One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that there is a status of a handle with regard to transmitting impurity, but there is no status of a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, although the body of the animal constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the limb, it does not render the limb susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that there is a status of a handle both with regard to transmitting impurity and with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the body of the animal renders the limb susceptible to impurity.

Rav Pappa said a different explanation of the dispute: Both tanna’im hold that a handle renders the attached food susceptible to impurity. Yet, the mishna is discussing a case where the slaughter took place before the owner of the animal designated its meat for the consumption of a gentile. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether an item can be rendered susceptible to impurity before intention, i.e., before one intends to use it as food. Rabbi Shimon holds that since the animal came in contact with the blood of the slaughter before the owner intended to use it as food, it is not rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir holds that the susceptibility to impurity takes effect such that when the owner considers it as food it will be susceptible to impurity.

This dispute is also found in that which we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva would teach this halakha: Fat forbidden in consumption for a Jew from an animal slaughtered in the villages requires intention, i.e., designation, for consumption, for it to become susceptible to impurity. This is because the population in such places is small and there is an abundance of meat, so people do not generally consume the fat. Consequently, unless the Jewish owner intends for a gentile to consume it, it is not considered food. But the fat does not require contact with a liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as it was already rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter even though it came into contact with the blood before the Jew designated it for consumption.

Rabbi Yehuda continues: I said before him: You taught us, our teacher, that in a case of endives that one picked and rinsed in water for the consumption of an animal, and one later reconsidered and decided to designate them for human consumption, the endives need to come into contact with liquid a second time in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as food designated for animal consumption does not contract impurity. Evidently, for a food item to become susceptible to impurity, its contact with liquid must occur after one designated it as food. And Rabbi Akiva then retracted his previous statement and taught the halakha in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rav Pappa concludes: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the same manner. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught originally, and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught after his retraction of his original statement.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said another explanation of the dispute: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of slaughter came into contact with a partially severed limb, and the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But slaughter is valid only if one cuts the two simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the tanna’im disagree with regard to a case where the blood in question was wiped off between the cutting of the first siman and the second siman.

One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that slaughter is defined from the beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that splashed on the limb is considered blood of slaughter. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that slaughter is defined only as the conclusion of its performance, and this blood from the first siman is considered the blood of a wound and does not render the limb susceptible to impurity.

Rav Ashi said another explanation of the dispute: The case is where the blood of slaughter came in contact with the partially severed limb, but Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to the principle that the slaughter itself renders the limb susceptible to impurity, and not the blood of slaughter. Rabbi Shimon holds that the blood of slaughter is not one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But the slaughter itself renders the meat of the animal susceptible to impurity, because it prepares the meat for consumption. Therefore, since a partially severed limb is not prepared for consumption by the slaughter, as it remains forbidden, the slaughter does not render it susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir maintains that the blood of slaughter is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, and therefore, the limb is rendered susceptible.

§Earlier (127b), Rabba explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the body of an animal constitutes a handle for its limb. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that it does constitute a handle, Rabba raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if an animal with a partially severed limb came into contact with a source of impurity during its lifetime? In such a case, where the animal is not susceptible to contract impurity because it is alive but the partially severed limb is susceptible to contract impurity as food, does the animal constitute a handle for its limb and transmit the impurity to the limb? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara introduces a similar dilemma. Abaye says: The Sages said in the mishna (Okatzin 2:9): In the case of an impure cucumber that one planted in an unperforated flowerpot, such that the cucumber is considered detached from the ground and susceptible to impurity as food, and the cucumber grew and went out beyond the edge of the flowerpot such that part of the cucumber is overlying the ground, the entire cucumber is considered attached to the ground and therefore becomes pure.

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the nature of the impurity of the cucumber that it is rendered pure in such a case? Rather, the part of the cucumber that is inside the flowerpot and impure remains in its state of impurity, and the part of the cucumber that is outside the flowerpot and pure remains in its state of purity.

Based on this mishna, Abaye raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: What is the halakha if the part of the cucumber outside of the flowerpot comes into contact with a source of impurity? Does the part of the cucumber outside the flowerpot constitute a handle for its counterpart inside the flowerpot and transmit impurity to it to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

The Gemara relates another dilemma based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yirmeya says: The Sages said that one who bows down to a half of a gourd, worshipping it as a divinity, renders that half of the gourd forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, because it was worshipped as an idol. The other half, though, is not forbidden. Based on this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: