Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 31, 2019 | 讻状讚 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 124

注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗 诇讙专讜专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诪注讟讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讗专讘注 讟驻讞讬诐

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.

讻讬 诪诪注讟 诇讛 诪讗专讘注 诪讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讞诇讬诐 讜拽讗讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讜专专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讜诇拽讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讜讙讜专专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓

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.

讜讛专讜爪讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讗 转谞讜专讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讞讜诇拽讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讜讙讜专专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗 诇讙专讜专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诪注讟讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讗专讘注 讟驻讞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜诇拽讜 诇砖诇砖讛

搂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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 转谞讜专 转讞诇转讜 讗专讘注讛 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谉 转讞诇转讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖转讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 砖讬专讬讜 讘专讜讘讜

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.

讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 注讜砖讬诐 转谞讜专讬诐 讘谞讜转 讟驻讞

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.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注 讟讛讜专

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.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讚爪诇拽讬讛 诪爪诇拽 讛讻讗 讚注讘讚讬讛 讙讬住讟专讗

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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讬专讬讜 讘专讜讘讜 专讜讘讜 讚讟驻讞 诇诪讗讬 讛讜讬

搂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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬专讬 讙讚讜诇 讘专讜讘讜 讜讛讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘转谞讜专讗 讘专 转砖注讛 讛讗 讘转谞讜专讗 讘专 砖讘注讛

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鈥檛 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.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讬专 讘讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转

搂The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna in tractate Kelim (28:8) previously mentioned in the Gemara (123a鈥揵): 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讟诇讬转 讗讘诇 注讜专 讞砖讬讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞砖讬讘

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讜专 讟诪讗 诪讚专住 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 诇专爪讜注讛 讜住谞讚诇讬谉 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 讘讜 讗讬讝诪诇 讟讛讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬诪注讬讟谞讜 诪讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 诪诪注讟 诪讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讞砖讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讜砖讘 讝讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 注讜专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛谞讜讙注 讘爪讬讘 讛讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讜 讜讘砖注专讛 砖讻谞讙讚讜 讟诪讗

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.

讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 讻砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讜讛住讬讟谉 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟讛专 讘注讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘讟讬诇

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转专讟讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻讜诪讬讛 诇讗 爪讬讬转谞讗 诇讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an 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 Na岣an swore and said to him: By God! Even if Rabbi Yo岣nan had said this statement to me directly from his mouth, I would not have listened to him.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讛讻讬 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞转谞讬讛 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讗 诪讝诇讝诇 讘砖诪注转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

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 Na岣an responded to him. Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: And just because Rav Na岣an is the son-in-law of the family of the Nasi, can he demean the halakhic statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan?

讝诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘诪砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘讟讬诇

With regard to this section of the mishna, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Sages taught Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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 Na岣an had heard that the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讗住讬驻讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讗诇讗 注讜诇讗 讗专讬砖讗 讗诪专讛 谞讬讛诇讬讻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 诇讗 爪讬讬转谞讗 诇讬讛

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 Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an was justified in his surprise at the halakha of Rabbi Yo岣nan. 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讗诪专讜讛 讗专讬砖讗 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

When Ravin and all those descending from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they stated this halakha of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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:

讘诪专讜讚讚 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪专讜讚讚

The reference is to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. Here, too, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讛讬讜 注诇讬讜

搂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.

讗诪专 讘专 驻讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讞专讬讜 讗讘诇 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讬砖 谞讜讙注 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讙注

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讜讙注 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讙注 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said the same thing, i.e., maintained the same principle.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐

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.

诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讛讬诇 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讗讛讬诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 谞讜讙注 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讙注

Didn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘谞谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讟讛讜专讬 拽讗 诪讟讛专

The Gemara objects to the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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鈥檛 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?

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讟讛专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘注讜专 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诪讟诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讜讛住讬讟谉 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟讛专 讘注讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讘谞讘诇转诐 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:24鈥25). It is derived from the term 鈥渢heir carcass鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘诪砖讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讜砖讗讬讟诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讙注讜讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗

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: 鈥淎nd whoever carries the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening,鈥 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 鈥渨hoever touches鈥 with 鈥渁nd whoever carries,鈥 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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讛专讬 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诪诇驻谞讬讜

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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讻诇 爪讚 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讻诇 爪讚 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诪专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讜诇讬转 住转讜诪讛 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讛讜 砖转讟诪讗

搂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?

讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诪诇驻谞讬讜

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜专讘讗 驻专讞

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诪驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚诪砖讘讞 诇谉 诪专 讘讙讜讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讛讬讜诐 住诪讻讜谞讬 讘讗砖讬砖讜转 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘注讬 讟注诪讗

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said to his father: But isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淟et me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees鈥 (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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讟讛讜专

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讗 讜拽专讬谞谉 谞讜砖讗 讘注讬谞谉 谞讜砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讚谞讬砖讗 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara explains: What is the reason? With regard to impurity transmitted by carrying it is written: 鈥淎nd one who carries [vahannosei] its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:40). The words 鈥渁nd who carries鈥 in the term 鈥渁nd one who carries鈥 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.

转谞谉 讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 谞讬砖讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects to Ulla鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诪专讜讚讚

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讜讛住讬讟谉 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 谞讬砖讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘诪专讜讚讚

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.

讻转谞讗讬 讗讞讚 讛谞讜讙注 讜讗讞讚 讛诪住讬讟 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜砖讗 讗讟讜 谞讜砖讗 诇讗讜 诪住讬讟 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: The opinion of Ulla is like one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛谞讜讙注 讜讗讞讚 讛诪住讬讟 讘诇讗 谞讬砖讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讜讛讜讗 讚谞讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 讗祝 讗讬诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚谞讬砖讗

Rather, isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜诇讬转 讛诪转

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 124

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 124

注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗 诇讙专讜专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诪注讟讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讗专讘注 讟驻讞讬诐

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.

讻讬 诪诪注讟 诇讛 诪讗专讘注 诪讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讞诇讬诐 讜拽讗讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讜专专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 转谞讜专 砖谞讟诪讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讟讛专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讜诇拽讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讜讙讜专专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓

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.

讜讛专讜爪讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讗 转谞讜专讜 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讞讜诇拽讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讜讙讜专专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗 诇讙专讜专 讗转 讛讟驻讬诇讛 讜诇讗 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诪注讟讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪讗专讘注 讟驻讞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜诇拽讜 诇砖诇砖讛

搂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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 转谞讜专 转讞诇转讜 讗专讘注讛 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谉 转讞诇转讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖转讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 砖讬专讬讜 讘专讜讘讜

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.

讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 注讜砖讬诐 转谞讜专讬诐 讘谞讜转 讟驻讞

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.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注 讟讛讜专

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.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讚爪诇拽讬讛 诪爪诇拽 讛讻讗 讚注讘讚讬讛 讙讬住讟专讗

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.

讗诪专 诪专 砖讬专讬讜 讘专讜讘讜 专讜讘讜 讚讟驻讞 诇诪讗讬 讛讜讬

搂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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬专讬 讙讚讜诇 讘专讜讘讜 讜讛讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘转谞讜专讗 讘专 转砖注讛 讛讗 讘转谞讜专讗 讘专 砖讘注讛

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鈥檛 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.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讬专 讘讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转

搂The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna in tractate Kelim (28:8) previously mentioned in the Gemara (123a鈥揵): 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讟诇讬转 讗讘诇 注讜专 讞砖讬讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞砖讬讘

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讜专 讟诪讗 诪讚专住 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 诇专爪讜注讛 讜住谞讚诇讬谉 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 讘讜 讗讬讝诪诇 讟讛讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬诪注讬讟谞讜 诪讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 诪诪注讟 诪讬讛讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讞砖讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讜砖讘 讝讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 注讜专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛谞讜讙注 讘爪讬讘 讛讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讜 讜讘砖注专讛 砖讻谞讙讚讜 讟诪讗

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.

讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 讻砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讜讛住讬讟谉 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟讛专 讘注讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘讟讬诇

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转专讟讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞驻讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻讜诪讬讛 诇讗 爪讬讬转谞讗 诇讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an 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 Na岣an swore and said to him: By God! Even if Rabbi Yo岣nan had said this statement to me directly from his mouth, I would not have listened to him.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讛讻讬 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞转谞讬讛 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讛讜讗 诪讝诇讝诇 讘砖诪注转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

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 Na岣an responded to him. Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: And just because Rav Na岣an is the son-in-law of the family of the Nasi, can he demean the halakhic statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan?

讝诪谞讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘诪砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘诪讙注 讜诇讗 讘诪砖讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 驻诇讟转讜 讞讬讛 讗讘诇 驻诇讟转讜 住讻讬谉 讘讟讬诇

With regard to this section of the mishna, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Sages taught Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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 Na岣an had heard that the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讗住讬驻讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讜讗诇讗 注讜诇讗 讗专讬砖讗 讗诪专讛 谞讬讛诇讬讻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 诇讗 爪讬讬转谞讗 诇讬讛

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 Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an was justified in his surprise at the halakha of Rabbi Yo岣nan. 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讗诪专讜讛 讗专讬砖讗 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

When Ravin and all those descending from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they stated this halakha of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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:

讘诪专讜讚讚 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪专讜讚讚

The reference is to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. Here, too, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讛讬讜 注诇讬讜

搂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.

讗诪专 讘专 驻讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讞专讬讜 讗讘诇 诪诇驻谞讬讜 讬砖 谞讜讙注 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讙注

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讜讙注 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讙注 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said the same thing, i.e., maintained the same principle.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讞诇拽讜 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐

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.

诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讛讬诇 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讗讛讬诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 谞讜讙注 讜讞讜讝专 讜谞讜讙注

Didn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘谞谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讟讛讜专讬 拽讗 诪讟讛专

The Gemara objects to the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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鈥檛 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?

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讟讛专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘注讜专 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诪讟诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讜讛住讬讟谉 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟讛专 讘注讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专 诪讘讟诇谉

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讘谞讘诇转诐 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:24鈥25). It is derived from the term 鈥渢heir carcass鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘诪砖讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛谞讜砖讗讬讟诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讙注讜讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗

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: 鈥淎nd whoever carries the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening,鈥 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 鈥渨hoever touches鈥 with 鈥渁nd whoever carries,鈥 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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讛专讬 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诪诇驻谞讬讜

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?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讻诇 爪讚 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讻诇 爪讚 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诪专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讜诇讬转 住转讜诪讛 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讛讜 砖转讟诪讗

搂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?

讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪砖讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讗 诇讻诇诇 诪讙注 诪诇驻谞讬讜

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜专讘讗 驻专讞

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诪驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚诪砖讘讞 诇谉 诪专 讘讙讜讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讛讬讜诐 住诪讻讜谞讬 讘讗砖讬砖讜转 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘注讬 讟注诪讗

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said to his father: But isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淟et me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees鈥 (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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讟讛讜专

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讗 讜拽专讬谞谉 谞讜砖讗 讘注讬谞谉 谞讜砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讚谞讬砖讗 讘讘转 讗讞转

The Gemara explains: What is the reason? With regard to impurity transmitted by carrying it is written: 鈥淎nd one who carries [vahannosei] its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:40). The words 鈥渁nd who carries鈥 in the term 鈥渁nd one who carries鈥 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.

转谞谉 讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘诪砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪讙注 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 谞讬砖讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara objects to Ulla鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诪专讜讚讚

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 砖转讞讘谉 讘拽讬住诐 讜讛住讬讟谉 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 谞讬砖讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘诪专讜讚讚

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.

讻转谞讗讬 讗讞讚 讛谞讜讙注 讜讗讞讚 讛诪住讬讟 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜砖讗 讗讟讜 谞讜砖讗 诇讗讜 诪住讬讟 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: The opinion of Ulla is like one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛谞讜讙注 讜讗讞讚 讛诪住讬讟 讘诇讗 谞讬砖讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讜讛讜讗 讚谞讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 讗祝 讗讬诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚谞讬砖讗

Rather, isn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜诇讬转 讛诪转

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

Scroll To Top