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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 2, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 126

Does Rabbi Yossi really hold that impurity in an enclosed area without the space of a square handsbreadth above it, will not pass on impurities to one touching the space above it? According to Rabbi Yochanan, the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yossi holds that “touching” the space above an item that is impure (dead human) is called “touching” (meaning laws of covering is the same as laws of touching). Which tanna disagrees with him? Is a dead egg of a creeping animal impure? Does a mouse that is partially flesh and partially dirt (according to most, created by spontaneous generation) pass on impurities? If so, under what conditions?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟讛专 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专讬 拽讗 诪讟讛专

And it is taught with regard to that halakha in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei deems it pure. To which halakha in the mishna is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, which discusses a chest placed in the entrance of the house, the first tanna also deems it pure in that case.

讗诇讗 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘转讜讻讛 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讚专讱 讟讜诪讗讛 诇爪讗转 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讘讜拽注转 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讚专讱 讟讜诪讗讛 诇爪讗转 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 诇砖讜专驻讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讘讜拽注转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讜拽注转

Rather, it is clear that the first tanna says that if a source of impurity is inside the compartment of a chest that is inside the house, the house is impure, either because it is typical for a source of impurity to exit its location, or because he holds that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends. And Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says to him: With regard to that which you say that it is typical for a source of impurity to exit its location, it is not necessarily so. One can remove the impure item in halves or burn it in its place inside the compartment. And with regard to that which you say that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends, a hidden source of impurity does not break through. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei must hold that a hidden source of impurity does not break through and ascend.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂Based on the previous statement of Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara established that Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity does not break through and ascend. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that previous statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei.

讚转谞谉 讛讻诇讘 砖讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪转 讜诪转 讛讻诇讘 讜诪讜讟诇 注诇 讛讗住拽讜驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛

As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 11:7): In the case of a dog that ate the flesh of a corpse, and the dog then died and is lying on the threshold in such a manner that its neck and mouth are facing toward the inside of the house, Rabbi Meir says: If there is an opening the size of one cubic handbreadth inside the neck of the dog, i.e., the neck itself constitutes this measure, the dog imports impurity into the house because the upper portion of the dog鈥檚 body overlies the impure item inside the dog and the impurity is transmitted through the neck and mouth of the dog into the house. But if there is not such a large cavity in the neck of the dog, then there is no halakha of a tent, and the dog does not import the impurity into the house.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专

Rabbi Yosei says: One looks to determine exactly where on the threshold the dog is located. If the impure item inside the dog is located anywhere from opposite, i.e., under, the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure. If the dog is located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the outside of the house, the house remains pure.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 驻讬讜 诇讞讜抓 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讚专讱 砖讜诇讬讜

Rabbi Elazar says: One must determine the exact manner in which the dog is lying on the threshold. If its mouth is located inside the house, but its rear is located outside the house, the house remains pure. If its mouth is located outside the house but its rear is located inside the house, the house is impure. This is because the source of impurity exits the dog鈥檚 body through its edge, i.e., its rear.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: In both this case and that case, i.e., whether the dog is lying such that its mouth is inside the house or outside the house, the house is impure. The reason is that the impure item can exit through either the mouth or the rear.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讗讬谉 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Yosei that if the dog is located anywhere from under the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure. What, is the statement of Rabbi Yosei not referring to a case where there is not an opening the size of one cubic handbreadth inside the dog鈥檚 neck, with regard to which Rabbi Meir says that the house remains pure? Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei is responding to Rabbi Meir and saying: Even if the neck of the dog is not the size of one cubic handbreadth, as long as the impure item inside the dog is located from under the lintel and toward the house, the house is impure because it overlies the impure item.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讘讜拽注转

And therefore learn from it that Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends, contrary to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as understood from his previous statement.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讞诇诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 拽转谞讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗诪专转 讻讬 讬砖 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗谞谉 讘转专 讞诇诇讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉

Rava said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity does not break through and ascend. As for that which Rabbi Yosei teaches: One looks whether the impure item inside the dog is located opposite the lintel and toward the inside of the house, Rabbi Yosei actually teaches: One looks at the empty space adjacent to the source of impurity. And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Meir with regard to two matters, and says to Rabbi Meir: As for that which you say that if there is the width of one cubic handbreadth in the neck of the dog, it imports the impurity into the house, that is not so. Rather, we follow the measure of the empty space, i.e., the neck of the dog imports impurity into the house only if it contains a cubic handbreadth of space in addition to the thickness of the flesh of the neck itself.

讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专

And with regard to that which you say that even if the dog is located on the outer portion of the threshold of the house, the entire house is impure, that is not so. Rather, if the impurity inside the dog is located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure. If the impurity inside the dog is located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the outside of the house, the house remains pure.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讞诇诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, teaches that Rava鈥檚 explanation is explicit in the mishna itself, as follows: Rabbi Yosei says: One looks at the empty space adjacent to the source of impurity.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

搂Previously the Gemara established that Rabbi Yosei holds that with regard to the halakhot of impurity, overlying is referred to as touching, as the transmission of impurity via contact and via overlying are considered one category. But the mishna (Oholot 3:1) cited earlier (125b) states that in the case of one who touches half an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, if a tent simultaneously overlies him and another half an olive-bulk of flesh he remains pure. Evidently, there is a tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and holds that these two methods of transmitting impurity are not the same category. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 驻讜专砖讜转 诪谉 讛诪转 砖转讬诐 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讜讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽

Parts of a corpse that impart impurity include an olive-bulk of flesh, a complete limb, the majority of a corpse鈥檚 bones, and the majority of the essential bones of its skeleton, namely, its legs, spine, and ribs. All of these impart impurity via contact, carrying, and in a tent. There are also three sources of impurity that derive from a corpse, each one of which imparts impurity in two ways but does not impart impurity in a third way. And they are the following: A full ladle of dust from a corpse, and a bone the size of a barley grain, and a grave cover [golel] and a grave wall [dofek] upon which the cover rests.

诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讛讬讻谉 诪讙注讜 注诐 讗讞转 诪讛谉

A full ladle of dust imparts impurity via carrying and in a tent, but it does not impart impurity via contact, as it is impossible for one to touch all of the particles of dust simultaneously. And where among these sources of impurity is the imparting of impurity via contact applicable? It is applicable with one of those other two sources of impurity, i.e., a bone the size of a barley grain and the cover or wall of a grave.

注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讘诪讙注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讬讻谉 讗讛诇讜 注诐 讗讞转 诪讛谉

A bone the size of a barley grain imparts impurity via carrying and contact, but it does not impart impurity in a tent. This halakha was transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And where among these sources of impurity is impurity imparted in a tent? It is with one of those other two sources of impurity.

讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讛讬讻谉 诪砖讗讜 注诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

A grave cover and a grave wall impart impurity via contact and in a tent, but they do not impart impurity via carrying. This halakha too was transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And where among these sources of impurity is impurity transmitted via carrying? It is with one of those other two sources of impurity. It may be inferred from Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that a full ladle of dust imparts impurity in a tent but not via contact that he disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and holds that overlying is not the same category as touching.

拽讜诇讬转 谞讘诇讛 讜拽讜诇讬转 讛砖专抓 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诇讬转 住转讜诪讛

搂The mishna teaches: With regard to the thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal, one who touches them when they are sealed remains ritually pure, because the bone itself does not impart impurity. With regard to this topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥ne who touches the carcass thereof shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The word 鈥渃arcass鈥 indicates that one who touches the carcass is impure, but one who touches a sealed thigh bone is not.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬拽讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛谞讙注讬讟诪讗 讗转 砖讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟诪讗 讜讗转 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟讛讜专

One might have thought that even one who touches a perforated thigh bone remains pure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who touches the carcass thereof [benivlatah] shall be impure,鈥 indicating that one who touches a part of the animal through which it is possible to touch the flesh, which has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass [neveila], is impure, but one who touches a part of the animal through which it is impossible to touch the flesh remains pure. Therefore, one who touches a protective layer such as the outside of a sealed thigh bone does not become impure, as it is impossible to touch the marrow.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讛诪讛 讘注讜专讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 讻诪讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讬砖 讘讛

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: If that is so, that one who touches the protective layer of a carcass via which it is impossible to touch the flesh of the carcass itself does not become impure, an animal still in its hide should not impart impurity, as one can touch the hide, which constitutes a protective layer, but not the flesh. Abaye answered: Go out and see how many orifices there are in the body of an animal via which one can touch the flesh, e.g., the eyes, the nostrils, and the mouth.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 转讗 讞讝讬 讻诪讛 讞讜讟讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛

Similarly, Rav Pappa said to Rava: If that is so, that one who touches the protective layer of a carcass via which it is impossible to touch the flesh of the carcass itself does not become impure, the kidney of a carcass that is completely covered in its fat should not impart impurity via contact. Rava answered: Come and see how many sinews emerge from the kidney that one is able to touch.

讘注讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诇谞讜拽讘讛 讜诇讗 谞讬拽讘讛 诪讛讜 诪讞讜住专 谞拽讬讘讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

搂The mishna taught that the halakha distinguishes between a sealed and a perforated thigh bone of a carcass or a creeping animal. With regard to this topic, Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one intended to perforate the thigh bone but did not yet perforate it? This is the dilemma: Is a thigh bone lacking perforation considered to be lacking the necessary action for it to impart impurity, and it therefore retains its status as a sealed thigh bone, or not?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 诪讞讜住专 谞拽讬讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

Rabbi Oshaya then resolves the dilemma: A thigh bone lacking perforation is not considered to be lacking the necessary action for it to impart impurity. If one intends to perforate it, it imparts impurity immediately.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬爪转 讛砖专抓 讛诪专讜拽诪转 讟讛讜专讛 谞讬拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛 讛谞讜讙注 讘讘砖专 讟诪讗 讘讗讚诪讛 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜讙注 讘讗讚诪讛 砖讻谞讙讚 讛讘砖专 讟诪讗

MISHNA: The egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo developed and one who comes into contact with the egg are ritually pure, as the impure creeping animal is hermetically sealed. But if one perforated the egg with a hole of any size, one who comes in contact with the egg is ritually impure. In the case of a mouse that grows from the ground and is half-flesh half-earth, one who touches the half that is flesh is impure; one who touches the half that is earth is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh is ritually impure.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讘讬爪转 讛砖专抓 讜拽讜诇讬转 讛砖专抓

GEMARA: The mishna states that in the case of an egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo developed, if it is perforated then one who touches it is ritually impure. With regard to this matter the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hese are the impure ones to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). The term 鈥渢he impure ones鈥 is interpreted as including the egg of a creeping animal and the thigh bone of a creeping animal in the category of sources of impurity.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 专讬拽诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛砖专抓 诪讛 砖专抓 砖专拽诐 讗祝 讘讬爪转 讛砖专抓 砖专拽诪讛

One might have thought that even an egg in which tissue of an embryo has not developed imparts impurity. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat creep,鈥 indicating that just as a creeping animal has developed tissue, so too only the egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo has developed imparts impurity.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讬拽讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛谞讙注讬讟诪讗 讗转 砖讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟诪讗 讜讗转 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟讛讜专

One might have thought that in the case of an egg in which tissue of an embryo has developed, it imparts impurity even if it was not perforated. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure,鈥 indicating that when it is possible to touch the flesh, contact renders one impure; but when it is impossible to touch the flesh, one remains pure.

讜讻诪讛 谞拽讬讘转讛 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛

And how large must its perforation be to render one touching the egg or thigh bone impure? Its width must be the size of a strand of hair, as it is possible for one to touch the inside of an egg or thigh bone with a strand of his hair.

注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛砖专讬抓 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讜 讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜讙注 讘讗讚诪讛 砖讻谞讙讚 讘砖专 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛砖专讬抓 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讜

搂The mishna teaches: In the case of a mouse that grows from the ground and is half-flesh half-earth, one who touches the half that is flesh is impure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in this regard: One becomes impure in such a case only if the flesh of the mouse has developed along the entire length of the mouse, from head to foot. Some teach the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One becomes impure in such a case only if the flesh of the mouse has developed along the entire length of the mouse.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 专讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛砖专讬抓

The one who teaches the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so he teaches this same halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that it applies only to that clause, with regard to one who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh according to Rabbi Yehuda. But according to the opinion of the first tanna, stated in the first clause of the mishna, even if the flesh of the mouse has not developed along the entire length of the mouse, one who touches the half of the mouse that is flesh is impure.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 注讻讘专 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讻讘专 砖讘讬诐 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 讘注讻讘专 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讛讙讚诇 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗祝 注讻讘专 诪讬谉 讛讙讚诇 注诇 讛讗专抓

The Sages taught in a baraita concerning the following verse: 鈥淎nd these are they which are impure to you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:29). Since 鈥渕ouse鈥 is stated among the creeping animals that impart impurity, I would derive that even a sea mouse, i.e., a sea creature that has an appearance similar to a mouse, imparts impurity because its name is also mouse. But ostensibly, the opposite conclusion could be derived through logical inference: The verse deems a weasel impure and deems a mouse impure. Therefore, just as a weasel is a species that grows on land, so too the mouse to which the verse is referring is a species that grows on land; a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讟讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 讘注讻讘专 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讻诇 砖砖诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讗祝 注讻讘专 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讻讘专 砖讘讬诐 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讛讗专抓

Or, perhaps go this way: The verse deems a weasel impure and deems a mouse impure; accordingly, just as 鈥渨easel鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, 鈥渕ouse鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is mouse, even a sea mouse, as its name is also mouse. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淯pon the earth,鈥 indicating that a land mouse imparts impurity, but a sea mouse does not.

讗讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 注诇 讛讗专抓 讬讟诪讗 讬专讚 诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

If this halakha is derived only from the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth,鈥 one might have thought that the verse means that any mouse, whether a land mouse or a sea mouse, imparts impurity when it is upon the earth, but if it descended to the sea it does not impart impurity.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 126

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 126

讜转谞讬 注诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟讛专 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 转谞讗 拽诪讗 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专讬 拽讗 诪讟讛专

And it is taught with regard to that halakha in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei deems it pure. To which halakha in the mishna is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, which discusses a chest placed in the entrance of the house, the first tanna also deems it pure in that case.

讗诇讗 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘转讜讻讛 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讚专讱 讟讜诪讗讛 诇爪讗转 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讘讜拽注转 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讚专讱 讟讜诪讗讛 诇爪讗转 讬讻讜诇 讛讜讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 诇砖讜专驻讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讘讜拽注转 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讜拽注转

Rather, it is clear that the first tanna says that if a source of impurity is inside the compartment of a chest that is inside the house, the house is impure, either because it is typical for a source of impurity to exit its location, or because he holds that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends. And Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says to him: With regard to that which you say that it is typical for a source of impurity to exit its location, it is not necessarily so. One can remove the impure item in halves or burn it in its place inside the compartment. And with regard to that which you say that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends, a hidden source of impurity does not break through. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei must hold that a hidden source of impurity does not break through and ascend.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

搂Based on the previous statement of Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara established that Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity does not break through and ascend. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that previous statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei.

讚转谞谉 讛讻诇讘 砖讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪转 讜诪转 讛讻诇讘 讜诪讜讟诇 注诇 讛讗住拽讜驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛

As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 11:7): In the case of a dog that ate the flesh of a corpse, and the dog then died and is lying on the threshold in such a manner that its neck and mouth are facing toward the inside of the house, Rabbi Meir says: If there is an opening the size of one cubic handbreadth inside the neck of the dog, i.e., the neck itself constitutes this measure, the dog imports impurity into the house because the upper portion of the dog鈥檚 body overlies the impure item inside the dog and the impurity is transmitted through the neck and mouth of the dog into the house. But if there is not such a large cavity in the neck of the dog, then there is no halakha of a tent, and the dog does not import the impurity into the house.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专

Rabbi Yosei says: One looks to determine exactly where on the threshold the dog is located. If the impure item inside the dog is located anywhere from opposite, i.e., under, the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure. If the dog is located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the outside of the house, the house remains pure.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 驻讬讜 诇讞讜抓 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讚专讱 砖讜诇讬讜

Rabbi Elazar says: One must determine the exact manner in which the dog is lying on the threshold. If its mouth is located inside the house, but its rear is located outside the house, the house remains pure. If its mouth is located outside the house but its rear is located inside the house, the house is impure. This is because the source of impurity exits the dog鈥檚 body through its edge, i.e., its rear.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: In both this case and that case, i.e., whether the dog is lying such that its mouth is inside the house or outside the house, the house is impure. The reason is that the impure item can exit through either the mouth or the rear.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讗讬谉 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 拽讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Yosei that if the dog is located anywhere from under the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure. What, is the statement of Rabbi Yosei not referring to a case where there is not an opening the size of one cubic handbreadth inside the dog鈥檚 neck, with regard to which Rabbi Meir says that the house remains pure? Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei is responding to Rabbi Meir and saying: Even if the neck of the dog is not the size of one cubic handbreadth, as long as the impure item inside the dog is located from under the lintel and toward the house, the house is impure because it overlies the impure item.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讜谞讛 讘讜拽注转

And therefore learn from it that Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends, contrary to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as understood from his previous statement.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讞诇诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 拽转谞讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗诪专转 讻讬 讬砖 讘爪讜讗专讜 驻讜转讞 讟驻讞 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗谞谉 讘转专 讞诇诇讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉

Rava said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity does not break through and ascend. As for that which Rabbi Yosei teaches: One looks whether the impure item inside the dog is located opposite the lintel and toward the inside of the house, Rabbi Yosei actually teaches: One looks at the empty space adjacent to the source of impurity. And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Meir with regard to two matters, and says to Rabbi Meir: As for that which you say that if there is the width of one cubic handbreadth in the neck of the dog, it imports the impurity into the house, that is not so. Rather, we follow the measure of the empty space, i.e., the neck of the dog imports impurity into the house only if it contains a cubic handbreadth of space in addition to the thickness of the flesh of the neck itself.

讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讟诪讗 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诪讻谞讙讚 讛砖拽讜祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专

And with regard to that which you say that even if the dog is located on the outer portion of the threshold of the house, the entire house is impure, that is not so. Rather, if the impurity inside the dog is located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure. If the impurity inside the dog is located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the outside of the house, the house remains pure.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讞诇诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, teaches that Rava鈥檚 explanation is explicit in the mishna itself, as follows: Rabbi Yosei says: One looks at the empty space adjacent to the source of impurity.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

搂Previously the Gemara established that Rabbi Yosei holds that with regard to the halakhot of impurity, overlying is referred to as touching, as the transmission of impurity via contact and via overlying are considered one category. But the mishna (Oholot 3:1) cited earlier (125b) states that in the case of one who touches half an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, if a tent simultaneously overlies him and another half an olive-bulk of flesh he remains pure. Evidently, there is a tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and holds that these two methods of transmitting impurity are not the same category. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

砖诇砖 讟讜诪讗讜转 驻讜专砖讜转 诪谉 讛诪转 砖转讬诐 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 讜注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讜讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽

Parts of a corpse that impart impurity include an olive-bulk of flesh, a complete limb, the majority of a corpse鈥檚 bones, and the majority of the essential bones of its skeleton, namely, its legs, spine, and ribs. All of these impart impurity via contact, carrying, and in a tent. There are also three sources of impurity that derive from a corpse, each one of which imparts impurity in two ways but does not impart impurity in a third way. And they are the following: A full ladle of dust from a corpse, and a bone the size of a barley grain, and a grave cover [golel] and a grave wall [dofek] upon which the cover rests.

诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讛讬讻谉 诪讙注讜 注诐 讗讞转 诪讛谉

A full ladle of dust imparts impurity via carrying and in a tent, but it does not impart impurity via contact, as it is impossible for one to touch all of the particles of dust simultaneously. And where among these sources of impurity is the imparting of impurity via contact applicable? It is applicable with one of those other two sources of impurity, i.e., a bone the size of a barley grain and the cover or wall of a grave.

注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讘诪讙注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讬讻谉 讗讛诇讜 注诐 讗讞转 诪讛谉

A bone the size of a barley grain imparts impurity via carrying and contact, but it does not impart impurity in a tent. This halakha was transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And where among these sources of impurity is impurity imparted in a tent? It is with one of those other two sources of impurity.

讙讜诇诇 讜讚讜驻拽 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘讗讛诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗 讜讛讬讻谉 诪砖讗讜 注诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

A grave cover and a grave wall impart impurity via contact and in a tent, but they do not impart impurity via carrying. This halakha too was transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And where among these sources of impurity is impurity transmitted via carrying? It is with one of those other two sources of impurity. It may be inferred from Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that a full ladle of dust imparts impurity in a tent but not via contact that he disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and holds that overlying is not the same category as touching.

拽讜诇讬转 谞讘诇讛 讜拽讜诇讬转 讛砖专抓 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诇讬转 住转讜诪讛

搂The mishna teaches: With regard to the thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal, one who touches them when they are sealed remains ritually pure, because the bone itself does not impart impurity. With regard to this topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥ne who touches the carcass thereof shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The word 鈥渃arcass鈥 indicates that one who touches the carcass is impure, but one who touches a sealed thigh bone is not.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬拽讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛谞讙注讬讟诪讗 讗转 砖讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟诪讗 讜讗转 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟讛讜专

One might have thought that even one who touches a perforated thigh bone remains pure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who touches the carcass thereof [benivlatah] shall be impure,鈥 indicating that one who touches a part of the animal through which it is possible to touch the flesh, which has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered carcass [neveila], is impure, but one who touches a part of the animal through which it is impossible to touch the flesh remains pure. Therefore, one who touches a protective layer such as the outside of a sealed thigh bone does not become impure, as it is impossible to touch the marrow.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讛诪讛 讘注讜专讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 讻诪讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讬砖 讘讛

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: If that is so, that one who touches the protective layer of a carcass via which it is impossible to touch the flesh of the carcass itself does not become impure, an animal still in its hide should not impart impurity, as one can touch the hide, which constitutes a protective layer, but not the flesh. Abaye answered: Go out and see how many orifices there are in the body of an animal via which one can touch the flesh, e.g., the eyes, the nostrils, and the mouth.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 诇讗 转讟诪讗 转讗 讞讝讬 讻诪讛 讞讜讟讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛

Similarly, Rav Pappa said to Rava: If that is so, that one who touches the protective layer of a carcass via which it is impossible to touch the flesh of the carcass itself does not become impure, the kidney of a carcass that is completely covered in its fat should not impart impurity via contact. Rava answered: Come and see how many sinews emerge from the kidney that one is able to touch.

讘注讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诇谞讜拽讘讛 讜诇讗 谞讬拽讘讛 诪讛讜 诪讞讜住专 谞拽讬讘讛 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

搂The mishna taught that the halakha distinguishes between a sealed and a perforated thigh bone of a carcass or a creeping animal. With regard to this topic, Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha if one intended to perforate the thigh bone but did not yet perforate it? This is the dilemma: Is a thigh bone lacking perforation considered to be lacking the necessary action for it to impart impurity, and it therefore retains its status as a sealed thigh bone, or not?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 诪讞讜住专 谞拽讬讘讛 诇讗讜 讻诪讞讜住专 诪注砖讛 讚诪讬

Rabbi Oshaya then resolves the dilemma: A thigh bone lacking perforation is not considered to be lacking the necessary action for it to impart impurity. If one intends to perforate it, it imparts impurity immediately.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬爪转 讛砖专抓 讛诪专讜拽诪转 讟讛讜专讛 谞讬拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 讘砖专 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讚诪讛 讛谞讜讙注 讘讘砖专 讟诪讗 讘讗讚诪讛 讟讛讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜讙注 讘讗讚诪讛 砖讻谞讙讚 讛讘砖专 讟诪讗

MISHNA: The egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo developed and one who comes into contact with the egg are ritually pure, as the impure creeping animal is hermetically sealed. But if one perforated the egg with a hole of any size, one who comes in contact with the egg is ritually impure. In the case of a mouse that grows from the ground and is half-flesh half-earth, one who touches the half that is flesh is impure; one who touches the half that is earth is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh is ritually impure.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讘讬爪转 讛砖专抓 讜拽讜诇讬转 讛砖专抓

GEMARA: The mishna states that in the case of an egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo developed, if it is perforated then one who touches it is ritually impure. With regard to this matter the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hese are the impure ones to you among all that creep; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). The term 鈥渢he impure ones鈥 is interpreted as including the egg of a creeping animal and the thigh bone of a creeping animal in the category of sources of impurity.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 专讬拽诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛砖专抓 诪讛 砖专抓 砖专拽诐 讗祝 讘讬爪转 讛砖专抓 砖专拽诪讛

One might have thought that even an egg in which tissue of an embryo has not developed imparts impurity. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat creep,鈥 indicating that just as a creeping animal has developed tissue, so too only the egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo has developed imparts impurity.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讬拽讘讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛谞讙注讬讟诪讗 讗转 砖讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟诪讗 讜讗转 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讟讛讜专

One might have thought that in the case of an egg in which tissue of an embryo has developed, it imparts impurity even if it was not perforated. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure,鈥 indicating that when it is possible to touch the flesh, contact renders one impure; but when it is impossible to touch the flesh, one remains pure.

讜讻诪讛 谞拽讬讘转讛 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇讬讙注 讻讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛

And how large must its perforation be to render one touching the egg or thigh bone impure? Its width must be the size of a strand of hair, as it is possible for one to touch the inside of an egg or thigh bone with a strand of his hair.

注讻讘专 砖讞爪讬讜 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛砖专讬抓 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讜 讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谞讜讙注 讘讗讚诪讛 砖讻谞讙讚 讘砖专 讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛砖专讬抓 注诇 驻谞讬 讻讜诇讜

搂The mishna teaches: In the case of a mouse that grows from the ground and is half-flesh half-earth, one who touches the half that is flesh is impure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in this regard: One becomes impure in such a case only if the flesh of the mouse has developed along the entire length of the mouse, from head to foot. Some teach the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One becomes impure in such a case only if the flesh of the mouse has developed along the entire length of the mouse.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 专讬砖讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛砖专讬抓

The one who teaches the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so he teaches this same halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that it applies only to that clause, with regard to one who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh according to Rabbi Yehuda. But according to the opinion of the first tanna, stated in the first clause of the mishna, even if the flesh of the mouse has not developed along the entire length of the mouse, one who touches the half of the mouse that is flesh is impure.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 注讻讘专 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讻讘专 砖讘讬诐 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讟讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 讘注讻讘专 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 诪讬谉 讛讙讚诇 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗祝 注讻讘专 诪讬谉 讛讙讚诇 注诇 讛讗专抓

The Sages taught in a baraita concerning the following verse: 鈥淎nd these are they which are impure to you among the creeping animals that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds鈥 (Leviticus 11:29). Since 鈥渕ouse鈥 is stated among the creeping animals that impart impurity, I would derive that even a sea mouse, i.e., a sea creature that has an appearance similar to a mouse, imparts impurity because its name is also mouse. But ostensibly, the opposite conclusion could be derived through logical inference: The verse deems a weasel impure and deems a mouse impure. Therefore, just as a weasel is a species that grows on land, so too the mouse to which the verse is referring is a species that grows on land; a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讟讬诪讗 讘讞讜诇讚讛 讜讟讬诪讗 讘注讻讘专 诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讻诇 砖砖诪讛 讞讜诇讚讛 讗祝 注讻讘专 讻诇 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讻讘专 砖讘讬诐 砖砖诪讜 注讻讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 讛讗专抓

Or, perhaps go this way: The verse deems a weasel impure and deems a mouse impure; accordingly, just as 鈥渨easel鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, 鈥渕ouse鈥 is referring to any animal whose name is mouse, even a sea mouse, as its name is also mouse. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淯pon the earth,鈥 indicating that a land mouse imparts impurity, but a sea mouse does not.

讗讬 注诇 讛讗专抓 讬讻讜诇 注诇 讛讗专抓 讬讟诪讗 讬专讚 诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

If this halakha is derived only from the phrase 鈥渦pon the earth,鈥 one might have thought that the verse means that any mouse, whether a land mouse or a sea mouse, imparts impurity when it is upon the earth, but if it descended to the sea it does not impart impurity.

Scroll To Top