דַּף יוֹמִי · חֻלִּין · דַּף נ״ה

שִׁיעוּרָן בִּכְדֵי סִיכַת קָטָן וְעַד לוֹג.

The Mishnah states regarding broken clay vessels: their measure to remain susceptible to impurity is if they can hold enough oil for the anointing of a small child, and this applies to a vessel that held up to a log when whole.

מַאי לָאו לוֹג כִּלְמַטָּה?

What, is it not teaching that a vessel of exactly a log is treated as though it were below that measure, meaning the term 'up to' includes the log itself?

לֹא, לוֹג כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara answers: No, a vessel of exactly a log is treated as though it were above that measure, and 'up to' means up to but not including.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִלּוֹג עַד סְאָה – בִּרְבִיעִית,

Come and hear a proof from the next clause: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se'ah, its broken pieces must hold a quarter-log to be tamei.

מַאי לָאו סְאָה כִּלְמַטָּה?

What, is it not teaching that a vessel of exactly a se'ah is treated as though it were below that measure?

לָא, סְאָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara answers: No, a vessel of exactly a se'ah is treated as though it were above that measure.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִסְּאָה וְעַד סָאתַיִם – בַּחֲצִי לוֹג,

Come and hear another proof: If it held from a se'ah up to two se'ah, its pieces must hold half a log to be tamei.

מַאי לָאו סָאתַיִם כִּלְמַטָּה?

What, is it not teaching that a vessel of exactly two se'ah is treated as though it were below that measure?

לָא, סָאתַיִם כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara answers: No, a vessel of exactly two se'ah is treated as though it were above that measure.

וְהָתַנְיָא: לוֹג – כִּלְמַטָּה, סְאָה – כִּלְמַטָּה, סָאתַיִם – כִּלְמַטָּה.

The Gemara objects: But isn't it taught explicitly in a braisa: A vessel of exactly a log is treated as below that; a se'ah is treated as below that; two se'ah is treated as below that? This proves that 'up to' includes the limit!

הָתָם לְחוּמְרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַחְמִיר, חוּץ מִכִּגְרִיס שֶׁל כְּתָמִים לְהָקֵל.

The Gemara resolves this: There it is interpreted stringently, as Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All measures of the Sages are interpreted stringently, except for the measure of like a split-bean regarding blood stains, which is interpreted leniently. Here, treating the exact limit as 'below' makes the vessel more easily susceptible to tumah, which is a stringency.

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא: חֲמִשָּׁה – כִּלְמַעְלָה, עֲשָׂרָה – כִּלְמַטָּה.

The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, as it teaches on that same Mishnah regarding a bed-rope: exactly five handbreadths is treated as above that, and exactly ten handbreadths is treated as below that, showing we always rule stringently.

נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל,

We learned in the Mishnah: If the spleen was removed, the animal remains kosher.

אָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִיטַּל, אֲבָל נִיקַּב – טְרֵפָה.

Rav Avira said in the name of Rava: They only taught that it is kosher when it was removed, but if it was merely perforated, it is a tereifah.

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא: חוֹתֵךְ מֵעוּבָר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, challenged this from a Mishnah: If one cuts from a fetus that is in its mother's womb, the cut piece is permitted for eating when the mother is slaughtered; but if one cuts from the spleen or from the kidneys of the mother, the cut piece is forbidden for eating.

הָא בְּהֵמָה גּוּפַהּ שַׁרְיָא!

We infer: But the animal itself is permitted! Even though its spleen was cut, it is not a tereifah, which contradicts Rava's ruling that a damaged spleen makes it a tereifah.

הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי אֲסירָא, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה״, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה״.

The Gemara answers: The same law applies that even the animal itself is also forbidden as a tereifah; but since the first clause taught 'permitted for eating', the last clause also taught 'forbidden for eating' to maintain a parallel structure.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: נִיקַּב לְחוֹד, וְנֶחְתַּךְ לְחוּד.

And if you wish, say instead: A perforated spleen is a separate case which makes it a tereifah, and a cut spleen is a separate case which does not make it a tereifah.

נִיטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת.

We learned in the Mishnah: If the kidneys were removed, the animal remains kosher.

אָמַר רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת – טְרֵפָה.

Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If it was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifah.

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: וְהוּא דִּמְטַאי לָקוּתָא

They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: And this applies only when the disease reached the white area inside the kidney.

לִמְקוֹם חָרִיץ.

The previous statement regarding a kidney defect refers to the location of the crevice.

וְהֵיכָא מְקוֹם חָרִיץ?

The Gemara asks: And where is the location of the crevice on the kidney?

לְחִיוָּרָא דְּתוּתֵי מׇתְנֵי.

The Gemara answers: This is a reference to the white matter of fat under the loins where the kidney is attached.

אָמַר רַב נְחוּנְיָא: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ טָרוֹפָאֵי דְּמַעְרְבָא, וְאָמְרִי לִי הִלְכְתָא כְּרָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב עַוִּירָא.

Rav Nechunya said: I asked all the experts on tereifos of the West, Eretz Yisrael, and they said to me: The halacha is in accordance with the opinion of Rachish bar Pappa in the name of Rav that a diseased kidney renders the animal a tereifah, but the halacha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Avira that a perforated spleen renders the animal a tereifah.

דְּרַב עַוִּירָא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא בְּקוּלְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל בְּסוּמְכֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה,

The Gemara notes: And even with regard to the opinion of Rav Avira, we said that the halacha is not in accordance with his opinion only if the spleen was perforated in its thin, narrow end; but if it was perforated in its thick, upper end, the animal is indeed a tereifah.

וְאִי אִישְׁתְּיַיר בֵּיהּ כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב – כְּשֵׁרָה.

And even if it was perforated in its thick end, if there remained in it an intact layer of the spleen like the thickness of a gold dinar, the animal is kosher.

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בָּרֵיאָה – כָּשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶקֶב פָּסוּל בָּרֵיאָה, וְכָשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הֵיכָא דְּכָשֵׁר בָּרֵיאָה – כָּשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא.

They say in the West: Any injury that renders an animal unfit in the lung is kosher in the kidney; for behold, a perforation renders the animal unfit in the lung, but is kosher in the kidney. And all the more so, where an injury is kosher in the lung, it is kosher in the kidney.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא: וּכְלָלָא הוּא?

Rabbi Tanchuma objects to this: And is this an established rule?

הֲרֵי מוּגְלָא, דְּכָשֵׁר בָּרֵיאָה וּפָסוּל בַּכּוּלְיָא!

But what about pus, which is kosher in the lung since the lung can discharge it, but renders the animal unfit in the kidney?

וַהֲרֵי מַיִם זַכִּין, דִּכְשֵׁרִים הָכָא וְהָכָא,

And what about clear water, which is kosher here in the lung and there in the kidney, which does not fit the rule that what is kosher in the lung is all the more so kosher in the kidney, as it is equal in both?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּית לַהֲדָדֵי?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing the laws of tereifos to one another?

אֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחָיְתָה.

We do not say with regard to tereifos: This is similar to that; for behold, one cuts an organ from here and the animal dies, and one cuts an organ from there and it lives. Therefore, we cannot derive the laws of one organ from another.

וּמַיִם זַכִּין כְּשֵׁרִים, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּצִילִּי, אֲבָל עֲכִירִי – טְרֵפָה.

The Gemara notes: And with regard to clear water found in the lung or kidney, which we said is kosher, we said so only where they are clear, but if they are cloudy, the animal is a tereifah.

וְכִי צִילִּי נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא סְרִיחַ, אֲבָל סְרִיחַ – טְרֵפָה.

And even when they are clear, we said so only where they are not foul-smelling, but if they are foul-smelling, the animal is a tereifah.

הַכּוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה, בַּדַּקָּה – עַד כְּפוֹל, בַּגַּסָּה – עַד כַּעֲנָבָה בֵּינוֹנִית.

With regard to a kidney that shrank: In a small animal like a sheep, it is a tereifah if it shrank until the size of a bean; in a large animal like a cow, it is a tereifah if it shrank until the size of an average grape.

נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן,

The Mishnah stated: If the lower jaw was removed, the animal is kosher.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת עַל יְדֵי לְעִיטָה וְהַמְרָאָה, אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת עַל יְדֵי לְעִיטָה וְהַמְרָאָה – טְרֵפָה.

Rabbi Zeira said: They only taught this where the animal is able to live by means of stuffing food into its mouth and cramming it down its throat; but if it is not able to live by means of stuffing and cramming, it is a tereifah.

נִיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ,

The Mishnah stated: If its womb was removed, the animal is kosher.

תָּנָא: הִיא הָאֵם, הִיא טַרְפַּחַת, וְהִיא שַׁלְפּוּחִית.

A Sage taught in a Braisa: This is the womb, this is the tarpachat, and this is the shalpuachit; they are all names for the same organ.

וַחֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה.

The Mishnah stated: Or if the lung was shriveled by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹהִי חֲרוּתָה? כֹּל שֶׁצָּמְקָה רֵיאָה שֶׁלָּהּ.

The Rabbis taught in a Braisa: Which is a shriveled lung? Any animal whose lung has shriveled.

בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּידֵי אָדָם – טְרֵפָה.

If it shriveled by the hand of Heaven, such as from fright of thunder, the animal is kosher; but if it shriveled by the hand of man, such as if a person frightened it, it is a tereifah.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hand of any creature, such as the roar of a lion.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי וּלְקוּלָּא, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי וּלְחוּמְרָא?

A dilemma was raised before them: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar refer to the first clause of the Braisa, and his ruling is for leniency, meaning that even the roar of a lion is considered like the hand of Heaven and the animal is kosher? Or does he refer to the latter clause, and his ruling is for stringency, meaning that if it was shriveled by any creature, it is like the hand of man and the animal is a tereifah?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי אָדָם – טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.

Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in a Braisa: A lung shriveled by the hand of man renders the animal a tereifah; Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hand of any creature it is a tereifah. This proves he refers to the latter clause for stringency.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּמַדְבְּרָא, אַשְׁכַּח הָנְהוּ דִּיכְרֵי דִּצְמִיק רֵיאָה דִּידְהוּ.

The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Chana was traveling in the desert, and he found certain rams whose lungs were shriveled.

אֲתָא שְׁאֵיל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ:

He came and asked in the study hall how to determine the cause of the shriveling. They said to him as follows:

בְּקַיְיטָא – אַיְיתִי מְשִׁיכְלֵי חִיוָּרֵי, וּמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא קָרִירֵי, וְאַנְּחִינְהוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

In the summer, bring white basins, and fill them with cold water, and place the lungs in them for twenty-four hours.

אִי הָדְרָן בָּרְיָין – בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הִיא וּכְשֵׁרָה, וְאִי לָא – טְרֵפָה.

If they return to their healthy state and expand, it was by the hand of Heaven and the animal is kosher; but if not, it is a tereifah.

בְּסִיתְוָא – אַיְיתִי מְשִׁיכְלֵי שִׁיחוּמֵי, וּמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי, וְאַנְּחִינְהוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

In the winter, bring dark basins, and fill them with lukewarm water, and place the lungs in them for twenty-four hours.

אִי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי לָא – טְרֵפָה.

If it returns to its healthy state, the animal is kosher; but if not, it is a tereifah.

הַגְּלוּדָה:

The Mishnah stated: An animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher and the Sages deem it a tereifah.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגְּלוּדָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים,

The Rabbis taught in a Braisa: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher and the Sages deem it unfit,

וּכְבָר הֵעִיד אֶלְעָזָר סָפְרָא וְיוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה.

and Elazar the scribe and Yochanan ben Gudgeda already testified concerning the flayed animal that it is unfit.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his view and agreed with the Sages.

מִכְּלָל דִּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר פְּלִיג רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּגְלוּדָה?

The Gemara asks: By inference, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, did Rabbi Meir initially disagree regarding a flayed animal?

וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה,

But isn't it taught in a different Braisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree concerning a flayed animal, for all agree that it is unfit,

וּכְבָר הֵעִיד רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַבַּשָּׂם לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה,

and Rabbi Oshaya the son of Rabbi Yehuda the spice merchant already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon concerning a flayed animal that it is unfit,

וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע – כְּשֵׁרָה.

and if there remained on it a piece of hide the size of a sela, the animal is kosher. This implies they never disagreed at all!

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ״? לֹא עָמַד רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמַחֲלוֹקְתּוֹ.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: What is the meaning of "they did not disagree"? It means Rabbi Meir did not persist in his disagreement, but rather retracted.

אָמַר מָר: אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע – כְּשֵׁרָה.

The Gemara analyzes the Braisa: The Master said above: If there remained on it a piece of hide the size of a sela, the animal is kosher.

הֵיכָא?

The Gemara asks: Where must this piece of hide be located?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It must be along the entire spine.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּאֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין, דְּכִי מְצָרֵף לַהּ הָוֵי כְּסֶלַע, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרוֹחַב סֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ?

A dilemma was raised before them: Does this mean a strip of hide that is long and thin, which when you combine it together it has the total area of a sela? Or perhaps it must be the width of a sela along the entire spine?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּפָרֵישׁ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: בְּרוֹחַב כְּסֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי כׇּל הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ.

Come and hear, as Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: It must be the width of a sela along the entire spine.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים.

Rabba bar bar Chana said: The remaining hide must be on the tips of the joints of the limbs.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ.

Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus said in the name of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Yannai: It must be on the place of its navel.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נִיטַּל מְקוֹם הַשִּׁדְרָה וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, נִיטַּל מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, נִיטְּלוּ רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, מַאי?

Rabbi Yannai the son of Rabbi Yishmael raised a dilemma: If the place of the spine was removed but all the rest of the hide remained, or if the place of its navel was removed but all the rest remained, or if the tips of the joints were removed but all the rest remained, what is the law?

תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הָעוֹר כּוּלּוֹ מַצִּיל בִּגְלוּדָה, חוּץ מֵעוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת,

Rav said: Any part of the hide saves the animal from being a flayed animal if it remains, except for the hide of the hooves.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת נָמֵי מַצִּיל.

And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even the hide of the hooves also saves the animal.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל בִּגְלוּדָה?

Rabbi Assi asked Rabbi Yochanan: What is the law regarding the hide of the hooves, whether it saves in the case of a flayed animal?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַצִּיל.

He said to him: It saves.

אֲמַר לֵיה, לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן – עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת!

Rabbi Assi said to him: But did you not teach us, our Rabbi, in a Mishnah regarding the laws of ritual impurity: These are the animals whose hides are like their flesh, and among them is listed the hide of the hooves? Since it is considered flesh, it should not count as hide to save the animal!

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, שֶׁבִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.

Rabbi Yochanan said to him: Do not provoke me, for I learn that Mishnah as the view of a single Tanna, which is not the accepted halacha.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹלָה לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵאין בּוֹ כָּרֵת;

As it is taught in a Braisa: One who slaughters an olah-offering with the intention to burn an olive's bulk of the hide under the tail outside its proper place, the offering is unfit, but there is no punishment of kares for it;

חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

if he intended to burn it outside its proper time, it is piggul, and one is liable to kares for it. This is because this hide is considered like flesh.

אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ אֶיבְלַיִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ [כְּפַר] עִיכּוּס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן:

Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evelayim said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Akos would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

אֶחָד עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְאֶחָד עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וְאֶחָד עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וְכֹל שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן,

Both the hide of the hooves, and the hide of the head of a tender calf, and the hide under the tail, and all those that the Sages enumerated regarding impurity as 'those whose hides are like their flesh' are indeed considered hide for all other matters, showing that the view equating them to flesh is only a minority opinion.