Disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the requisite amount needed in the food in order for the handle or the item protecting it to be considered a handle or protective item that can transfer impurities. Sources are brought to question Rav’s opinion and are resolved. Is a protective coating on top of a protective coating considered a protection for impurities? Can two protective coatings combine for one amount to get to a minimum amount required?
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Chullin 119
וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא!
The Gemara explains the objection: And according to Rav, who holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food or protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food is not considered a handle or protection with regard to imparting impurity, in what manner does he interpret this baraita? If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone without marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, which measures less than an olive-bulk, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because it indicates that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting impurity.
אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא.
If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone containing marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes protection for food measuring less than an olive-bulk, then the last clause of the baraita is difficult because Yehuda ben Nekosa apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is not considered protection with regard to imparting impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav, who holds that it is protection unless it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection. If you wish, say instead that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.
The Gemara explains its answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who maintains that the house is impure because he holds that protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity if the flesh measures at least a bean-bulk.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who maintains that the house becomes impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food imparts impurity. But he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוּלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה.
Come and hear another objection to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from the Tosefta (Okatzin 2:5): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a femur that has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, the flesh draws the entire femur into ritual impurity if any part of the femur comes into contact with a dead creeping animal. The Sage referred to as Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh upon the femur, it draws the entire femur into impurity.
וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא, אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.
The Gemara asks: In what manner does Rav interpret this baraita? If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, then the latter clause of the baraita is difficult, because Aḥerim apparently maintains that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav. If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד – וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר – כַּאֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And if you wish, say instead that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion introduced with the words: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is referring to case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.
אֲחֵרִים, הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי!
The Gemara asks: How is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion consistent with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says? Don’t they say that protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity?
אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.
The Gemara answers: Aḥerim agrees that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk imparts impurity. Nevertheless, since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.
אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דִּבְשׁוֹמֵר עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוּלִית״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, indicating that we are dealing with protection and not a handle, as it teaches the case of a femur, which contains marrow, and therefore the bone provides protection for the food inside. If the baraita were discussing a handle, it would have taught this halakha with regard to any other bone that is attached to flesh and not specifically a femur. Conclude from it that the baraita is discussing the halakha of protection.
אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר.
§The baraita cited above teaches that Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh attached to the femur it causes the entire femur to become impure. A dispute was stated with regard to this opinion. Rabbi Ḥanina says: When Aḥerim stated the measure of a bean-bulk, this is a specific measure, and Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies to an appendage only if a bean-bulk of food is attached to it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not a specific measure. Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies even if it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.
אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.
The Gemara asks: How is it possible for Rabbi Yoḥanan to hold that this is not a specific measure? But doesn’t the baraita explicitly teach the measure of a bean-bulk? The Gemara answers: Indeed, Aḥerim holds that protection that is attached to even less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity. But since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof against the opinion of Rav from that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. Since beans are large and do not require the protection of the pod, the pod is not considered protection for the beans and therefore does not impart impurity. But he deems a pod containing smaller legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually impure if even only one grain is attached to the pod, because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them, and it is therefore considered protection, which imparts impurity. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.
The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation of that mishna is in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in the context of a different discussion: That mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came into contact with the stalk to which the pod is attached, but not with the pod itself. And therefore the halakha in the mishna is not with regard to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain.
הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״? בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.
Here, too, with regard to this proof one can respond that the mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came in contact with the stalk and therefore the halakha in the mishna is with regard to the matter of a handle. Since the mishna is referring to a stalk, and the stalk has many pods on it, it serves as a handle to more than an olive-bulk of food, and is consistent with the opinions of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן!
Come and hear proof from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food are considered part of the food. Since wheat, barley, and lentil grains are smaller than a bean-bulk, this statement indicates that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.
בְּרִיָּה – שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof: A grain is a distinct entity, and therefore its status is different. The halakha of protection is applicable to a distinct entity even if it measures less than a bean-bulk.
בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא:
§Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:
שְׁנֵי שׁוֹמְרִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?
As the Gemara stated, protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. What is the halakha with regard to two protections joining together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart impurity?
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזֶה עַל גַּב זֶה – וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּב שׁוֹמֵר?
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the dilemma? If we say that it is referring to a case where a food item has two layers of protection, and this outer protection is on top of that inner protection, is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection?
וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ קְלִיפּוֹת בְּבָצָל – פְּנִימִית, בֵּין שְׁלֵמָה בֵּין קְדוּרָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת; אֶמְצָעִית, שְׁלֵמָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת, קְדוּרָה – אֵין מִצְטָרֶפֶת; חִיצוֹנָה, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – טְהוֹרָה.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Okatzin 2:4) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are three peels surrounding an onion. The inner peel is considered like the food itself, and therefore, whether whole or punctured, it joins together with the onion to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impurity of food. With regard to the middle peel, when it is whole it provides protection and therefore joins together with the onion, but when it is punctured it does not provide protection and therefore does not join together with the onion. The outer peel does not join together with the onion at all, and both in this case, when it is whole, and in that case, when it is punctured, it remains ritually pure. Evidently, the halakha of protection is not applied to a protection that surrounds another protection.
רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, שׁוֹמֵר אוֹכֶל שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Rav Oshaya does not raise the dilemma with regard to a food item that has two layers of protection. Rather, he raises the dilemma with regard to protection of food that one divided such that the food is whole but the protection is divided into separate sections.
כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, וְהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, לָא מִצְטָרֵף.
The dilemma is as follows: Since this section of the protection is protecting this part of the food but does not provide protection for that other part of the food, and that other section of the protection is protecting another part of the food but does not provide protection for this part of the food, must one conclude that the two protections do not join together to constitute the requisite measure for the impurity of food?
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, מִצְטָרְפִין.
Or perhaps, should one reason that since this section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and that section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and the two parts of the food are joined together, therefore the entire entity is considered unified and the two sections of the protection join together to constitute the requisite measure?
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן.
Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna cited previously (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. But he deems a pod containing legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal impure because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them. Since the requisite volume for a food item to be susceptible to impurity is an egg-bulk, and the volume of one pod and its legumes is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple pods joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״ – בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in rejection of this resolution: That mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal touched the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And the halakha in that mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ (אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ)״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.
Come and hear a resolution from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the measure of one grain and its shell is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple grains and their shells joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to impart impurity.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.
The Gemara rejects this resolution: One can explain this statement in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said with regard to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that was cited previously: The mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal came in contact with the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And therefore, the halakha in the mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle.
הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּשִׁדְרָה, וּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר.
Here too, the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not referring to independent grains of wheat and barley, but rather to the stem to which the grains are attached, and it is with regard to the status of all the shells of the grains on one stem as protection. All of the grains surrounding the stem protect each other, since if one shell with its grain falls it causes all of the other shells and their grains to fall as well. Therefore, this case is not similar to Rav Oshaya’s dilemma, where each protection protects only part of the food.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עִילִּיָּתָא צְרִיכִי לְתַתָּיָתָא, אֶלָּא תְּתַּיָּתָא מַאי צְרִיכִי לְעִילִּיָּתָא? בְּחַד דָּרָא.
The Gemara asks: Granted, the grains located higher on the stem need the grains located lower on the stem to remain in place in order to not fall. But for what purpose do the grains located lower on the stem need the grains located higher on the stem? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the grains are all positioned tightly around the stem in one row in such a manner that if even one located higher up on the stem were to fall, the remaining grains would fall too.
מִי אִיכָּא כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין בְּחַד דָּרָא בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח?
The Gemara asks: Is there a volume of an egg-bulk of food in one row of grain? The Gemara answers: Yes, this baraita is stated with regard to large grains of wheat, such as those grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, חֲדָא חִטָּה נָמֵי בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח.
The Gemara points out: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, it is not necessary to interpret the baraita as referring to many grains tightly packed around the stem. It is even possible to explain that the baraita is discussing the case of one grain of wheat, such as the large grains of wheat grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
גּוּפָא: שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת וַעֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים, וְהִכְנִיס רָאשֵׁיהֶן שְׁנַיִם לְבַיִת, וְהַבַּיִת מַאֲהִיל עֲלֵיהֶן – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא.
§The Gemara proceeds to discuss the Tosefta itself that was cited earlier (118b): In a case of two bones upon which there are two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside the house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself and the house is impure.
יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: הֵיאַךְ שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת?
Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk? It may be inferred from here that according to all, if the end of a bone that is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh is outside the house, and the other end that is not directly attached to any flesh is inside the house, the house becomes impure with the ritual impurity of a corpse.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֶצֶם, דְּהָוֵי יָד, אֲבָל נִימָא לָא הָוְיָא יָד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִימָא נָמֵי הָוְיָא יָד.
With regard to this matter Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a bone, as it constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, but if one hair of a corpse is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh at one end, and the other end of the hair is inside a house, it does not render the house impure, because the hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hair constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, and therefore the house is rendered impure.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּצִיב הַיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו, מִשּׁוּם יָד?
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case of the hide of an unslaughtered animal carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh, or touches a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh, is ritually impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, even though he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh. What is the reason that one who touches the strand of flesh or the hair becomes impure? Is it not because they constitute a handle for the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Reish Lakish with regard to a hair?
לָא, מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר. וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹמֵר? חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחֵל.
The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of that mishna is not because the hair serves as a handle for the flesh. Rather, it is because the hair serves as protection for the flesh. The Gemara asks: But the hide protects the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide; is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection? The Gemara answers: The hair penetrates through the hide and touches the flesh, thereby providing protection directly for the flesh.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תְּפִילִּין הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? הָא בָּעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וְלֵיכָּא!
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this answer: If that is so, that there are perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, how can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require phylacteries to be written with a perfect writing, with no perforations in the letters? And that is not possible if there are perforations in the hide.
אִשְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.
The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov overlooked that halakha which they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any perforation over which the ink passes and which it covers is not considered a perforation that invalidates the writing.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם יָד, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
And if you wish, say instead a different answer to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s objection to Reish Lakish: The entire mishna teaches that one who touches either a strand of flesh or a hair becomes impure because these appendages serve the flesh as a handle and not as protection. Nevertheless, that statement does not contradict the opinion of Reish Lakish that a hair does not constitute a handle for the flesh, because one can explain this mishna as Rabbi Ela stated with regard to a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
הָכִי נָמֵי, בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.
So too, the mishna taught later is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair. Therefore, the hair constitutes a handle for the flesh because one can hold the hair and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.
וְהֵיכָא אִתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא? אַהָא: מְלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:3): An awn [melai] that is on top of a stalk constitutes a handle for the stalk. Therefore, it can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai, i.e., Rabbi Ela, said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns and not the case of a single awn. Therefore, the awns constitute a handle for the stalk because one can hold the awns and lift the stalk without the awns becoming detached from it.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ.
Some say another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish and the ensuing discussion with regard to the status of hairs vis-à-vis the flesh: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that a single hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh connected to it, but they disagree with regard to several hairs. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion that hair is not considered a handle from the mishna taught later, which states that one who touches a hair emerging from the hide of an animal carcass opposite the flesh is impure, indicating that hair constitutes a handle.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם יָד – נִימָא אַחַת לְמַאי חֲזֵי?
Reish Lakish answers that one who touches the hair is impure not because it is considered a handle, but rather because it is considered protection for the flesh. The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain that the person is impure because hair is considered protection and not because it is considered a handle, as, if it enters your mind that it is because hair is considered a handle, for what function is one hair fit such that it is considered a handle?
כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין, הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.
The Gemara responds: One can explain that that mishna considers hair to constitute a handle, as Rabbi Ela stated in explanation of a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns. Here too, that mishna is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair.
וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אַהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמְּלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: An awn that is on top of a stalk can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ
And there are those who teach another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Hullin 44: Resolved by a Bat Kol/Heavenly Voice (Or Not)
June 15, 2026 | ל׳ בסיון תשפ״ו
Hullin 43: Even for Unusual Healing, Don’t Rely on Miracles
June 14, 2026 | כ״ט בסיון תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Chullin 119
וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא!
The Gemara explains the objection: And according to Rav, who holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food or protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food is not considered a handle or protection with regard to imparting impurity, in what manner does he interpret this baraita? If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone without marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, which measures less than an olive-bulk, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because it indicates that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting impurity.
אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא.
If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone containing marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes protection for food measuring less than an olive-bulk, then the last clause of the baraita is difficult because Yehuda ben Nekosa apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is not considered protection with regard to imparting impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav, who holds that it is protection unless it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection. If you wish, say instead that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.
The Gemara explains its answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who maintains that the house is impure because he holds that protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity if the flesh measures at least a bean-bulk.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who maintains that the house becomes impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food imparts impurity. But he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוּלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה.
Come and hear another objection to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from the Tosefta (Okatzin 2:5): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a femur that has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, the flesh draws the entire femur into ritual impurity if any part of the femur comes into contact with a dead creeping animal. The Sage referred to as Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh upon the femur, it draws the entire femur into impurity.
וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא, אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.
The Gemara asks: In what manner does Rav interpret this baraita? If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, then the latter clause of the baraita is difficult, because Aḥerim apparently maintains that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav. If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד – וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר – כַּאֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And if you wish, say instead that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion introduced with the words: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is referring to case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.
אֲחֵרִים, הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי!
The Gemara asks: How is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion consistent with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says? Don’t they say that protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity?
אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.
The Gemara answers: Aḥerim agrees that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk imparts impurity. Nevertheless, since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.
אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דִּבְשׁוֹמֵר עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוּלִית״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, indicating that we are dealing with protection and not a handle, as it teaches the case of a femur, which contains marrow, and therefore the bone provides protection for the food inside. If the baraita were discussing a handle, it would have taught this halakha with regard to any other bone that is attached to flesh and not specifically a femur. Conclude from it that the baraita is discussing the halakha of protection.
אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר.
§The baraita cited above teaches that Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh attached to the femur it causes the entire femur to become impure. A dispute was stated with regard to this opinion. Rabbi Ḥanina says: When Aḥerim stated the measure of a bean-bulk, this is a specific measure, and Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies to an appendage only if a bean-bulk of food is attached to it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not a specific measure. Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies even if it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.
אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.
The Gemara asks: How is it possible for Rabbi Yoḥanan to hold that this is not a specific measure? But doesn’t the baraita explicitly teach the measure of a bean-bulk? The Gemara answers: Indeed, Aḥerim holds that protection that is attached to even less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity. But since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן!
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof against the opinion of Rav from that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. Since beans are large and do not require the protection of the pod, the pod is not considered protection for the beans and therefore does not impart impurity. But he deems a pod containing smaller legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually impure if even only one grain is attached to the pod, because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them, and it is therefore considered protection, which imparts impurity. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.
The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation of that mishna is in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in the context of a different discussion: That mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came into contact with the stalk to which the pod is attached, but not with the pod itself. And therefore the halakha in the mishna is not with regard to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain.
הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״? בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.
Here, too, with regard to this proof one can respond that the mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came in contact with the stalk and therefore the halakha in the mishna is with regard to the matter of a handle. Since the mishna is referring to a stalk, and the stalk has many pods on it, it serves as a handle to more than an olive-bulk of food, and is consistent with the opinions of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן!
Come and hear proof from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food are considered part of the food. Since wheat, barley, and lentil grains are smaller than a bean-bulk, this statement indicates that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.
בְּרִיָּה – שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof: A grain is a distinct entity, and therefore its status is different. The halakha of protection is applicable to a distinct entity even if it measures less than a bean-bulk.
בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא:
§Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:
שְׁנֵי שׁוֹמְרִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?
As the Gemara stated, protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. What is the halakha with regard to two protections joining together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart impurity?
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזֶה עַל גַּב זֶה – וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּב שׁוֹמֵר?
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the dilemma? If we say that it is referring to a case where a food item has two layers of protection, and this outer protection is on top of that inner protection, is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection?
וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ קְלִיפּוֹת בְּבָצָל – פְּנִימִית, בֵּין שְׁלֵמָה בֵּין קְדוּרָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת; אֶמְצָעִית, שְׁלֵמָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת, קְדוּרָה – אֵין מִצְטָרֶפֶת; חִיצוֹנָה, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – טְהוֹרָה.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Okatzin 2:4) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are three peels surrounding an onion. The inner peel is considered like the food itself, and therefore, whether whole or punctured, it joins together with the onion to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impurity of food. With regard to the middle peel, when it is whole it provides protection and therefore joins together with the onion, but when it is punctured it does not provide protection and therefore does not join together with the onion. The outer peel does not join together with the onion at all, and both in this case, when it is whole, and in that case, when it is punctured, it remains ritually pure. Evidently, the halakha of protection is not applied to a protection that surrounds another protection.
רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, שׁוֹמֵר אוֹכֶל שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Rav Oshaya does not raise the dilemma with regard to a food item that has two layers of protection. Rather, he raises the dilemma with regard to protection of food that one divided such that the food is whole but the protection is divided into separate sections.
כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, וְהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, לָא מִצְטָרֵף.
The dilemma is as follows: Since this section of the protection is protecting this part of the food but does not provide protection for that other part of the food, and that other section of the protection is protecting another part of the food but does not provide protection for this part of the food, must one conclude that the two protections do not join together to constitute the requisite measure for the impurity of food?
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, מִצְטָרְפִין.
Or perhaps, should one reason that since this section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and that section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and the two parts of the food are joined together, therefore the entire entity is considered unified and the two sections of the protection join together to constitute the requisite measure?
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן.
Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna cited previously (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. But he deems a pod containing legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal impure because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them. Since the requisite volume for a food item to be susceptible to impurity is an egg-bulk, and the volume of one pod and its legumes is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple pods joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״ – בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in rejection of this resolution: That mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal touched the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And the halakha in that mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ (אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ)״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.
Come and hear a resolution from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the measure of one grain and its shell is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple grains and their shells joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to impart impurity.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.
The Gemara rejects this resolution: One can explain this statement in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said with regard to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that was cited previously: The mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal came in contact with the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And therefore, the halakha in the mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle.
הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּשִׁדְרָה, וּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר.
Here too, the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not referring to independent grains of wheat and barley, but rather to the stem to which the grains are attached, and it is with regard to the status of all the shells of the grains on one stem as protection. All of the grains surrounding the stem protect each other, since if one shell with its grain falls it causes all of the other shells and their grains to fall as well. Therefore, this case is not similar to Rav Oshaya’s dilemma, where each protection protects only part of the food.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עִילִּיָּתָא צְרִיכִי לְתַתָּיָתָא, אֶלָּא תְּתַּיָּתָא מַאי צְרִיכִי לְעִילִּיָּתָא? בְּחַד דָּרָא.
The Gemara asks: Granted, the grains located higher on the stem need the grains located lower on the stem to remain in place in order to not fall. But for what purpose do the grains located lower on the stem need the grains located higher on the stem? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the grains are all positioned tightly around the stem in one row in such a manner that if even one located higher up on the stem were to fall, the remaining grains would fall too.
מִי אִיכָּא כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין בְּחַד דָּרָא בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח?
The Gemara asks: Is there a volume of an egg-bulk of food in one row of grain? The Gemara answers: Yes, this baraita is stated with regard to large grains of wheat, such as those grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, חֲדָא חִטָּה נָמֵי בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח.
The Gemara points out: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, it is not necessary to interpret the baraita as referring to many grains tightly packed around the stem. It is even possible to explain that the baraita is discussing the case of one grain of wheat, such as the large grains of wheat grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
גּוּפָא: שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת וַעֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים, וְהִכְנִיס רָאשֵׁיהֶן שְׁנַיִם לְבַיִת, וְהַבַּיִת מַאֲהִיל עֲלֵיהֶן – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא.
§The Gemara proceeds to discuss the Tosefta itself that was cited earlier (118b): In a case of two bones upon which there are two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside the house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself and the house is impure.
יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: הֵיאַךְ שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת?
Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk? It may be inferred from here that according to all, if the end of a bone that is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh is outside the house, and the other end that is not directly attached to any flesh is inside the house, the house becomes impure with the ritual impurity of a corpse.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֶצֶם, דְּהָוֵי יָד, אֲבָל נִימָא לָא הָוְיָא יָד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִימָא נָמֵי הָוְיָא יָד.
With regard to this matter Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a bone, as it constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, but if one hair of a corpse is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh at one end, and the other end of the hair is inside a house, it does not render the house impure, because the hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hair constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, and therefore the house is rendered impure.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּצִיב הַיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו, מִשּׁוּם יָד?
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case of the hide of an unslaughtered animal carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh, or touches a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh, is ritually impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, even though he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh. What is the reason that one who touches the strand of flesh or the hair becomes impure? Is it not because they constitute a handle for the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Reish Lakish with regard to a hair?
לָא, מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר. וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹמֵר? חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחֵל.
The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of that mishna is not because the hair serves as a handle for the flesh. Rather, it is because the hair serves as protection for the flesh. The Gemara asks: But the hide protects the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide; is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection? The Gemara answers: The hair penetrates through the hide and touches the flesh, thereby providing protection directly for the flesh.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תְּפִילִּין הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? הָא בָּעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וְלֵיכָּא!
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this answer: If that is so, that there are perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, how can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require phylacteries to be written with a perfect writing, with no perforations in the letters? And that is not possible if there are perforations in the hide.
אִשְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.
The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov overlooked that halakha which they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any perforation over which the ink passes and which it covers is not considered a perforation that invalidates the writing.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם יָד, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
And if you wish, say instead a different answer to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s objection to Reish Lakish: The entire mishna teaches that one who touches either a strand of flesh or a hair becomes impure because these appendages serve the flesh as a handle and not as protection. Nevertheless, that statement does not contradict the opinion of Reish Lakish that a hair does not constitute a handle for the flesh, because one can explain this mishna as Rabbi Ela stated with regard to a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
הָכִי נָמֵי, בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.
So too, the mishna taught later is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair. Therefore, the hair constitutes a handle for the flesh because one can hold the hair and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.
וְהֵיכָא אִתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא? אַהָא: מְלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:3): An awn [melai] that is on top of a stalk constitutes a handle for the stalk. Therefore, it can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai, i.e., Rabbi Ela, said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns and not the case of a single awn. Therefore, the awns constitute a handle for the stalk because one can hold the awns and lift the stalk without the awns becoming detached from it.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ.
Some say another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish and the ensuing discussion with regard to the status of hairs vis-à-vis the flesh: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that a single hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh connected to it, but they disagree with regard to several hairs. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion that hair is not considered a handle from the mishna taught later, which states that one who touches a hair emerging from the hide of an animal carcass opposite the flesh is impure, indicating that hair constitutes a handle.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם יָד – נִימָא אַחַת לְמַאי חֲזֵי?
Reish Lakish answers that one who touches the hair is impure not because it is considered a handle, but rather because it is considered protection for the flesh. The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain that the person is impure because hair is considered protection and not because it is considered a handle, as, if it enters your mind that it is because hair is considered a handle, for what function is one hair fit such that it is considered a handle?
כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין, הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.
The Gemara responds: One can explain that that mishna considers hair to constitute a handle, as Rabbi Ela stated in explanation of a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns. Here too, that mishna is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair.
וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אַהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמְּלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: An awn that is on top of a stalk can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ
And there are those who teach another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish,
Follow
