Chullin 124

Chullin 124

עד שיהא בארץ רבי מאיר אומר אינו צריך לא לגרור את הטפילה ולא עד שיהא בארץ אלא ממעטו מבפנים מארבע טפחים

until the oven itself merely rests on the ground and is not held in place by plaster.Breaking the oven in such a manner renders the oven pure because it is no longer considered a vessel. Rabbi Meir says: It is unnecessary to scrape off the layer of plaster, and it is certainly not necessary to remove it until the oven rests on the ground. Rather, one makes cuts in the oven itself, reducing its size from within the layer of plaster, i.e., without removing the layer of plaster, until the unbroken part is less than four handbreadths.

כי ממעט לה מד’ מיהא טהור אמאי לימא הא חלים וקאי

Rabbi Meir holds that although breaking off a minority of the structure of the oven is insufficient, in any event when one reduces the size of the oven to less than four handbreadths in height the oven is rendered pure. Why is this so, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish? Let us say that this oven exists in a repairable state, as the plaster holds it together, and according to Reish Lakish it should therefore be considered connected and remain impure.

אמר ליה רבא ואימא מדרבנן גורר את הטפילה עד שיהא בארץ

Rava said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Instead of objecting to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the statement of Rabbi Meir, state a proof for his opinion from the statement of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that the oven becomes pure only if one scrapes off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that the oven is rendered pure only if it is completely and irreparably broken, which supports the opinion of Reish Lakish according to your reasoning.

אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר תנור שנטמא כיצד מטהרין אותו דברי הכל חולקו לשלשה וגורר את הטפילה עד שיהא בארץ

Rather, Rava said: Not only is there no proof against the opinion of Reish Lakish from this mishna, as the statement of the Rabbis supports his opinion, but Rabbi Meir may even accept the opinion of Reish Lakish; as this is what the mishna is saying: How does one purify an oven that became impure? Everyone, even Rabbi Meir, agrees that one divides it into three parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground.

והרוצה שלא יבא תנורו לידי טומאה כיצד הוא עושה חולקו לשלשה וגורר את הטפילה עד שיהא בארץ רבי מאיר אומר אינו צריך לא לגרור את הטפילה ולא עד שיהא בארץ אלא ממעטו מבפנים מארבע טפחים

And anyone who wishes that his oven not become susceptible to impurity, how does he act? The Rabbis hold that he goes through the same process as is necessary in order to purify an impure oven: From the outset, he divides the oven into three parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to an oven that has not yet become impure, it is unnecessary to scrape off the layer of plaster, and it is certainly not necessary to remove it until the oven rests on the ground. Rather, one reduces the size of the oven from within the layer of plaster until the unbroken part is less than four handbreadths in height.

אמר מר חולקו לשלשה

§The Gemara discusses the mishna in tractate Kelim cited above. The Master said: An impure oven is rendered pure when one divides it into three parts, such that no one part contains the majority of the oven. But one cannot purify the oven by dividing it into two parts because one of the parts would contain the majority of the oven.

ורמינהו תנור תחלתו ארבעה ושיריו ארבעה דברי רבי מאיר

The Gemara raises a contradiction to this mishna from another mishna (Kelim 5:1): A clay oven in its original state, once it is finished being built, is susceptible to ritual impurity if it is four handbreadths tall. And with regard to an oven that became impure and was subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece four handbreadths tall, that piece remains impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים במה דברים אמורים בגדול אבל בקטן תחלתו כל שהוא משתגמר מלאכתו שיריו ברובו

And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a large oven, but in the case of a small oven, in its original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to impurity. Once its construction is completed, if the oven became impure and was subsequently broken, its remains are still impure in a case where they contain the majority of the oven.

וכמה כל שהוא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי טפח שכן עושים תנורים בנות טפח

The Gemara explains: And how small is the size defined by the mishna as any size? The school of Rabbi Yannai says: One handbreadth, as people make toy ovens one handbreadth tall.

טעמא דאיכא שיריו ד’ הא ליכא שיריו ד’ טהור

The Gemara infers: The Rabbis in that mishna hold that with regard to a large impure oven that breaks, any remaining piece that measures four handbreadths remains impure. Evidently, the reason that the oven remains impure is because there are pieces of its remains that measure four handbreadths, but if there are no remains of the oven measuring four handbreadths, even if a piece contains the majority of the oven, the oven is rendered pure. This opinion is not consistent with the opinion of the Rabbis in the previously cited mishna.

אמרי התם דצלקיה מצלק הכא דעבדיה גיסטרא

The Sages said in response: There, with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis that if there are no remains measuring four handbreadths then the oven is pure, that mishna is discussing a case where one cut the oven horizontally such that the pieces do not stand one on top of the other in a stable manner. Here, with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis that an impure oven is rendered pure only when no one piece constitutes the majority of the oven, the mishna is discussing a case where one rendered the oven a shard [gistera] by cutting it in half vertically, in which case a piece that contains the majority of the oven can stand on its own.

אמר מר שיריו ברובו רובו דטפח למאי הוי

§The Gemara discusses the previously cited mishna in tractate Kelim. The Master said: In the case of a small oven, in its original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to impurity. And once its construction is completed, if the oven became impure and was subsequently broken, its remains are still impure if they contain the majority of the oven. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yannai explained that the phrase: Any size, is referring to a measure of one handbreadth. For what purpose is a piece of an oven the size of the majority of one handbreadth usable? Since such a small piece is not functional; why should it remain impure?

אמר אביי שירי גדול ברובו והאמרי רבנן ארבעה לא קשיא הא בתנורא בר תשעה הא בתנורא בר שבעה

Abaye said: The statement of the mishna: Its remains are still impure if they contain the majority of the oven, is not discussing a small oven, but rather is teaching that the remains of a large oven remain impure if they contain the majority of the oven. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the Rabbis say in the mishna that any remaining piece of a large oven measuring four handbreadths remains impure? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. That statement of the Rabbis that the remains of a large oven remain impure if they contain the majority of the oven is referring to an oven measuring nine handbreadths. That statement of the Rabbis that any remaining piece of a large oven measuring four handbreadths remains impure is referring to an oven measuring seven handbreadths.

ל”א אמרי לה אמר רב הונא משום רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ואפילו שייר בה כדי מעפורת

§The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna in tractate Kelim (28:8) previously mentioned in the Gemara (123a–b): In the case of a ritually impure garment that one begins to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered to have a connection, and the garment is pure. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, that even if the majority of the garment is torn, if a part of the garment the measure of a scarf is left intact, the garment remains impure. Some say another version of Rav Huna’s statement: Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: If the majority of the garment is torn, the garment is rendered pure even if one left an untorn piece the measure of a scarf.

אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא טלית אבל עור חשיב ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו עור נמי לא חשיב

With regard to that statement of Rav Huna, Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught that the garment is pure even if one left an untorn piece the measure of a scarf only with regard to a torn garment. But with regard to a hide, if the majority was torn and a piece the measure of a scarf remains, the piece is considered significant and the hide remains impure. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even with regard to a torn hide, if a piece the size of a scarf remains it is not considered significant and the hide is therefore rendered pure.

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש עור טמא מדרס חישב עליו לרצועה וסנדלין כיון שנתן בו איזמל טהור דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים עד שימעיטנו מחמשה טפחים

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from that which is taught in the mishna (Kelim 26:9): With regard to a hide that is impure with impurity imparted by treading, if the owner intended with regard to the hide to fashion it into straps and sandals, then when he applies a scalpel to the hide, the hide becomes pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: The hide does not become pure until he reduces the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths.

כי ממעט מיהא טהור אמאי לימא חשיב הכא במאי עסקינן דקא בעי ליה למושב זב:

In any event, when one reduces the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it becomes pure. Why is this so? Let us say that the hide is considered significant and therefore remains impure. Reish Lakish answered: Here, we are dealing with a case where one needs the cut hide for a seat that he wishes to designate for a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. Since a piece of hide measuring less than five handbreadths cannot be used for a seat, it is not considered significant in such a case.

מתני׳ עור שיש עליו כזית בשר הנוגע בציב היוצא ממנו ובשערה שכנגדו טמא

MISHNA: In the case of a hide of an unslaughtered carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh or a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh is ritually impure. Although he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh, he is rendered impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. The reason is that the strand of flesh has the same status as the flesh itself, and the hair is considered protection to the flesh, which also has the same status as the flesh with regard to one who touches it.

היו עליו כשני חצאי זיתים מטמא במשא ולא במגע דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר לא במגע ולא במשא ומודה רבי עקיבא בשני חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם והסיטן שהוא טמא ומפני מה רבי עקיבא מטהר בעור מפני שהעור מבטלן:

If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying, because one moves them together, but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The hide does not impart impurity, neither by means of contact nor by means of carrying. And Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide, as in that case, too, he moved them together? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.

גמ׳ אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא פלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין בטיל

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of a hide of an unslaughtered carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, the flesh is not nullified by the hide, and therefore one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh is ritually impure. With regard to this section of the mishna, Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where an animal severed the piece of flesh, e.g., a dog bite. But if a person used a knife to sever the flesh, the flesh is nullified by the hide because the person nullified the flesh via his action.

אמר ליה רב נחמן לעולא אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו כתרטא אמר ליה אין ואפילו כנפיא א”ל אין א”ל האלהים אם אמר לי רבי יוחנן מפומיה לא צייתנא ליה

Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this halakha even with regard to a large piece of flesh the size of a tarta, i.e., a quarter of a kav? Ulla said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman was surprised and asked: And did he say it even with regard to a piece of flesh the size of a sifter? Ulla said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman swore and said to him: By God! Even if Rabbi Yoḥanan had said this statement to me directly from his mouth, I would not have listened to him.

כי סליק רב אושעיא אשכחיה ליה לרבי אמי אמרה לשמעתיה קמיה הכי אמר עולא והכי אהדר ליה רב נחמן א”ל ומשום דרב נחמן חתניה דבי נשיאה הוא מזלזל בשמעתיה דר’ יוחנן

When Rav Oshaya ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Ami, and he said this halakha before him: This is what Ulla said and this is what Rav Naḥman responded to him. Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: And just because Rav Naḥman is the son-in-law of the family of the Nasi, can he demean the halakhic statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

זמנין אשכחיה דיתיב וקאמר לה אסיפא היו עליו שני חצאי זיתים מטמאים במשא ולא במגע דברי ר’ ישמעאל ר”ע אומר לא במגע ולא במשא

Another time Rav Oshaya found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because he touches them separately and moves them together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It imparts impurity neither by means of contact nor by means of carrying.

א”ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא פלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין בטיל

With regard to this section of the mishna, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages taught Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying only in a case where an animal severed the half olive-bulks of flesh from the animal. But if a person used a knife to sever the half olive-bulks of flesh, the flesh is nullified. If Rav Naḥman had heard that the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan was stated with regard to a case of half olive-bulks of flesh, he would not have been surprised that this halakha also applies to pieces of flesh that amount together to the size of a tarta or a sifter.

א”ל מר אסיפא מתני לה א”ל אין ואלא עולא ארישא אמרה ניהליכו א”ל אין א”ל האלהים אי אמר לי יהושע בן נון משמיה לא צייתנא ליה

Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: Does the Master teach this halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna but not with regard to the first section of the mishna that discusses the case of a complete olive-bulk of flesh? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes. But did Ulla say to you this halakhic statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan in Babylonia with regard to the first clause of the mishna? Rav Oshaya said to him: Yes. Rabbi Ami said to him: If so, Rav Naḥman was justified in his surprise at the halakha of Rabbi Yoḥanan. By God, even if Joshua, son of Nun, had said this halakha to me in his name, i.e., from his own mouth, I would not have listened to him.

כי אתא רבין וכל נחותי אמרוה ארישא ואלא קשיא כדאמר רב פפא

When Ravin and all those descending from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they stated this halakha of Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to the first clause of the mishna. The Gemara objects: But the matter is difficult. If an olive-bulk of flesh is nullified by being severed with a knife, the same should be true for larger measurements, such as a tarta, which is unreasonable, as people would not usually disregard such a large amount. The Gemara resolves this difficulty in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said with regard to a different matter:

במרודד הכא נמי במרודד:

The reference is to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. Here, too, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is referring to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. When a person severs such a piece of flesh along with the hide, even if the total volume of the flesh is an olive-bulk, or even a much larger measure, it is insignificant and is nullified by the hide.

היו עליו:

§The mishna teaches: If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

אמר בר פדא לא שנו אלא מאחריו אבל מלפניו יש נוגע וחוזר ונוגע

Bar Padda says: The Sages taught that Rabbi Yishmael holds that that hide does not impart impurity by means of contact only with regard to one who touched the hide on the outside. But if one directly touched the pieces of flesh inside the hide, even though he did not touch any one piece measuring an olive-bulk, he is impure. This is because there is a principle that if one touches an impure item measuring less than an olive-bulk and again touches another impure item measuring less than an olive-bulk, he becomes impure, as the two instances of contact join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אין נוגע וחוזר ונוגע ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן רבי ישמעאל ורבי דוסא בן הרכינס אמרו דבר אחד

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is no such principle that if one touches an impure item and again touches another impure item that the two instances of contact join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said the same thing, i.e., maintained the same principle.

רבי ישמעאל הא דאמרן רבי דוסא בן הרכינס דתנן כל המטמאין באהל שנחלקו והכניסן לתוך הבית ר’ דוסא בן הרכינס מטהר וחכמים מטמאים

The statement of Rabbi Yishmael is that which we said: Two instances of contact do not join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of impurity. The statement of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas is that which we learned in a mishna (Oholot 3:1): With regard to any part of a corpse that imparts impurity in a tent, i.e., that imparts impurity to any other item that is under the same roof, if that body part was divided into two pieces, each measuring less than an olive-bulk, but together they constitute an olive-bulk, and one placed both pieces inside the house,Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas rules that the two pieces do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. Therefore, he deems everything inside the house pure. And the Rabbis rule that the two pieces of the corpse join together to constitute an olive-bulk, and therefore they deem everything inside the house impure.

או אמר רבי דוסא בן הרכינס התם אין מאהיל וחוזר ומאהיל הכא נמי אין נוגע וחוזר ונוגע

Didn’t Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas say in that mishna there that there is no such principle that a tent overlies an impure item and again overlies another impure item such that the two instances join together to constitute the requisite measure for impurity imparted in a tent? Here, too, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas would agree with Rabbi Yishmael that there is no such principle that if one touches an impure item and again touches another impure item that the two instances join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.

ומדרבי דוסא בן הרכינס כרבי ישמעאל רבנן כרבי עקיבא והא ר’ עקיבא טהורי קא מטהר

The Gemara objects to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Since the opinion of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, so too, the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael. But doesn’t Rabbi Akiva rule more leniently than Rabbi Yishmael, as he deems one pure in both cases of contact and carrying, whereas the Rabbis rule more stringently than Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and deem everything in the house impure?

עד כאן לא קא מטהר רבי עקיבא אלא בעור אבל בעלמא מטמא כדקתני סיפא ומודה רבי עקיבא בב’ חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם והסיטן שהוא טמא ומפני מה ר”ע מטהר בעור מפני שהעור מבטלן

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva deems one who touches or carries the pieces of flesh pure only because they are nullified by the hide. But in general he holds that items join together to impart impurity, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.

מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא בנבלתם ולא בעור שיש עליו ב’ חצאי זיתים

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objection to the statement of bar Padda that Rabbi Yishmael maintains that two instances of contact with two pieces measuring less than an olive-bulk join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. His objection is based on that which is taught in a baraita: It is written: “And by these you shall become impure; whoever touches their carcass shall be impure until evening. And whoever carries the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:24–25). It is derived from the term “their carcass” that one who touches the carcass itself becomes impure, but one who touches a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh does not become impure.

יכול אף במשא ת”ל (ויקרא יא, כה) והנושא יטמא דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר הנוגע והנושא את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע לא בא לכלל משא

One might have thought that a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh does not impart impurity even by means of carrying. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “And whoever carries the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening,” from which it is derived that one who carries a carcass, even by means of the hide, becomes impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse juxtaposes “whoever touches” with “and whoever carries,” indicating that that which enters the category of impurity via contact, enters the category of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via contact, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying.

ואם איתא הרי בא לכלל מגע מלפניו

Based on this baraita, one can object to the statement of bar Padda: And if it is so that Rabbi Yishmael maintains that two instances of contact with two pieces of flesh measuring less than an olive-bulk join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk, then the case of a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh also enters the category of impurity transmitted by means of contact when one directly touches the flesh inside the hide. Therefore, why does Rabbi Akiva disagree with Rabbi Yishmael by stating that in this case there is no transmission of impurity by means of carrying because there is no transmission of impurity by means of contact?

אמר רבא הכי קאמר את שבא לכלל מגע בכל צד בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע בכל צד לא בא לכלל משא

Rava said that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: That which enters the category of impurity via contact in every manner, even by touching the hide on the outside, enters the category of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via contact in every manner, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying.

בעא מיניה רב אויא סבא מרבה בר רב הונא קולית סתומה לרבי ישמעאל מהו שתטמא

§The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Rav Avya the Elder asked Rabba bar Rav Huna: The mishna below teaches that with regard to a sealed thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and of a creeping animal, where the bone is intact to the extent that there is no access to the marrow, which contains marrow inside but no flesh outside, one who touches it remains ritually pure because it does not enter the category of impurity via contact. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, what is the halakha as to whether it imparts impurity via carrying?

אית ליה לר’ ישמעאל את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע לא בא לכלל משא והכא היינו טעמא משום דבא לכלל מגע מלפניו

Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael maintains the principle: That which enters the category of impurity via contact, enters the category of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via contact, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying. And therefore, here, in the baraita cited above, this is the reason that Rabbi Yishmael taught that one who carries a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh becomes impure even though it does not enter the category of impurity via contact if one touched the outside of the hide: It is because it enters the category of impurity via contact if one directly touched the flesh inside the hide. Therefore, a sealed thigh bone, which does not enter the category of impurity via contact in any manner, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying either.

או דלמא לית ליה

Or perhaps Rabbi Yishmael does not maintain this principle, and he would maintain that one who carries a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh becomes impure even if it were not the case that it enters the category of impurity via contact if one directly touched the flesh inside the hide. And therefore, Rabbi Yishmael holds that a sealed thigh bone imparts impurity via carrying even though it does not enter the category of impurity via contact in any manner.

אמר ליה עורבא פרח

In an effort to evade the question, Rabba bar Rav Huna distracted Rav Avya the Elder and said to him: Look, a raven flies in the sky.

א”ל רבא בריה ולאו היינו רב אויא סבא מפומבדיתא דמשבח לן מר בגויה דגברא רבה הוא א”ל אני היום (שיר השירים ב, ה) סמכוני באשישות ובעא מינאי מילתא דבעי טעמא

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said to his father: But isn’t this Rav Avya the Elder of Pumbedita, whom the Master would praise to us, saying that he is a great man? If so, why did you treat him in that manner and evade his question? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Today I am in a state best described by the verse: “Let me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees” (Song of Songs 2:5), meaning: I am tired, and he asked me about a matter that requires reasoning and careful examination, and therefore I could not provide an immediate answer.

אמר עולא שני חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם אפי’ מוליך ומביא כל היום כולו טהור

§Ulla says: With regard to two half olive-bulks that one skewered with a wood chip, even if one moves them back and forth the entire day, he does not contract impurity via carrying, and he is pure.

מ”ט כתיב (ויקרא יא, כה) ונשא וקרינן נושא בעינן נושא והוא דנישא בבת אחת

The Gemara explains: What is the reason? With regard to impurity transmitted by carrying it is written: “And one who carries [vahannosei] its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:40). The words “and who carries” in the term “and one who carries” is written vav, nun, sin, alef, which can be read venisa, meaning: Is carried; but according to the traditional vocalization we read the word as nosei, meaning: Carries. From here it is derived that with regard to impurity transmitted by carrying we require that one carry [nosei] the requisite measure of impurity of a carcass, i.e., an olive-bulk, and that that olive-bulk be capable of being carried [nissa] all at once, without the assistance of a utensil. This requirement is not met with regard to two half olive-bulks that one skewered with a wood chip, which are carried only with the assistance of a utensil.

תנן היו עליו שני חצאי זיתים מטמאין במשא ולא במגע דברי ר’ ישמעאל אמאי והא לאו נישא הוא

The Gemara objects to Ulla’s statement: We learned in the mishna that if upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Why does it impart impurity by means of carrying? This case does not fulfill the requirement that an olive-bulk of impure flesh be capable of being carried all at once without the assistance of a utensil, as the hide is needed to carry them.

א”ר פפא במרודד

Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing a case where a thin layer of flesh was attached to the hide. Despite the fact that there is not one piece of flesh the size of an olive-bulk, the two half olive-bulks are connected by a strip of thin flesh which enables the two pieces to be carried at once without the assistance of the hide. Therefore, the pieces impart impurity by means of carrying but not by means of contact.

ת”ש מודה ר”ע בשני חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם והסיטן שהוא טמא אמאי והא לאו נישא הוא ה”נ במרודד

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to the opinion of Ulla from that which is stated in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. Why? This case does not fulfill the requirement that an olive-bulk of impure flesh be capable of being carried all at once without the assistance of a utensil. The Gemara rejects this refutation: Here too, with regard to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, the mishna is discussing a case of a thin layer of flesh connecting the two pieces.

כתנאי אחד הנוגע ואחד המסיט ר’ אליעזר אומר אף הנושא אטו נושא לאו מסיט הוא

The Gemara suggests: The opinion of Ulla is like one side of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to two pieces of flesh, neither of which measures an olive-bulk, both one who touches and one who moves the pieces is impure. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who carries the pieces is impure. The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? Is that to say that carrying is not the same as moving?

אלא לאו הכי קאמר אחד הנוגע ואחד המסיט בלא נישא ואתא ר’ אליעזר למימר והוא דנישא ומאי אף אימא והוא דנישא:

Rather, isn’t this what the baraita is saying: Both one who touches and one who moves pieces of flesh is impure even if an olive-bulk of flesh is not capable of being carried without the assistance of a utensil? And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say: One becomes impure only if an olive-bulk of flesh is capable of being carried without the assistance of a utensil. The Gemara asks: But if the intention of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is to qualify the statement of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the word even? Rather, say the statement of Rabbi Eliezer differently: One is impure only if an olive-bulk of flesh is capable of being carried without the assistance of a utensil.

מתני׳ קולית המת

MISHNA: With regard to the thigh bone of a human corpse,