חולין קיט

חולין קיט

וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא!

The Gemara explains the objection: And according to Rav, who holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food or protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food is not considered a handle or protection with regard to imparting impurity, in what manner does he interpret this baraita? If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone without marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, which measures less than an olive-bulk, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because it indicates that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting impurity.

אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא.

If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone containing marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes protection for food measuring less than an olive-bulk, then the last clause of the baraita is difficult because Yehuda ben Nekosa apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is not considered protection with regard to imparting impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav, who holds that it is protection unless it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection. If you wish, say instead that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

The Gemara explains its answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who maintains that the house is impure because he holds that protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity if the flesh measures at least a bean-bulk.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who maintains that the house becomes impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food imparts impurity. But he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure.

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוּלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה.

Come and hear another objection to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from the Tosefta (Okatzin 2:5): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a femur that has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, the flesh draws the entire femur into ritual impurity if any part of the femur comes into contact with a dead creeping animal. The Sage referred to as Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh upon the femur, it draws the entire femur into impurity.

וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא, אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.

The Gemara asks: In what manner does Rav interpret this baraita? If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, then the latter clause of the baraita is difficult, because Aḥerim apparently maintains that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav. If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד – וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר – כַּאֲחֵרִים.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And if you wish, say instead that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion introduced with the words: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is referring to case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.

אֲחֵרִים, הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי!

The Gemara asks: How is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion consistent with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says? Don’t they say that protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity?

אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.

The Gemara answers: Aḥerim agrees that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk imparts impurity. Nevertheless, since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.

אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דִּבְשׁוֹמֵר עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוּלִית״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, indicating that we are dealing with protection and not a handle, as it teaches the case of a femur, which contains marrow, and therefore the bone provides protection for the food inside. If the baraita were discussing a handle, it would have taught this halakha with regard to any other bone that is attached to flesh and not specifically a femur. Conclude from it that the baraita is discussing the halakha of protection.

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר.

§The baraita cited above teaches that Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh attached to the femur it causes the entire femur to become impure. A dispute was stated with regard to this opinion. Rabbi Ḥanina says: When Aḥerim stated the measure of a bean-bulk, this is a specific measure, and Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies to an appendage only if a bean-bulk of food is attached to it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not a specific measure. Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies even if it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.

אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.

The Gemara asks: How is it possible for Rabbi Yoḥanan to hold that this is not a specific measure? But doesn’t the baraita explicitly teach the measure of a bean-bulk? The Gemara answers: Indeed, Aḥerim holds that protection that is attached to even less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity. But since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof against the opinion of Rav from that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. Since beans are large and do not require the protection of the pod, the pod is not considered protection for the beans and therefore does not impart impurity. But he deems a pod containing smaller legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually impure if even only one grain is attached to the pod, because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them, and it is therefore considered protection, which imparts impurity. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.

כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.

The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation of that mishna is in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in the context of a different discussion: That mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came into contact with the stalk to which the pod is attached, but not with the pod itself. And therefore the halakha in the mishna is not with regard to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain.

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״? בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.

Here, too, with regard to this proof one can respond that the mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came in contact with the stalk and therefore the halakha in the mishna is with regard to the matter of a handle. Since the mishna is referring to a stalk, and the stalk has many pods on it, it serves as a handle to more than an olive-bulk of food, and is consistent with the opinions of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן!

Come and hear proof from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food are considered part of the food. Since wheat, barley, and lentil grains are smaller than a bean-bulk, this statement indicates that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.

בְּרִיָּה – שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara rejects this proof: A grain is a distinct entity, and therefore its status is different. The halakha of protection is applicable to a distinct entity even if it measures less than a bean-bulk.

בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא:

§Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:

שְׁנֵי שׁוֹמְרִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?

As the Gemara stated, protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. What is the halakha with regard to two protections joining together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart impurity?

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזֶה עַל גַּב זֶה – וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּב שׁוֹמֵר?

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the dilemma? If we say that it is referring to a case where a food item has two layers of protection, and this outer protection is on top of that inner protection, is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection?

וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ קְלִיפּוֹת בְּבָצָל – פְּנִימִית, בֵּין שְׁלֵמָה בֵּין קְדוּרָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת; אֶמְצָעִית, שְׁלֵמָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת, קְדוּרָה – אֵין מִצְטָרֶפֶת; חִיצוֹנָה, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – טְהוֹרָה.

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Okatzin 2:4) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are three peels surrounding an onion. The inner peel is considered like the food itself, and therefore, whether whole or punctured, it joins together with the onion to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impurity of food. With regard to the middle peel, when it is whole it provides protection and therefore joins together with the onion, but when it is punctured it does not provide protection and therefore does not join together with the onion. The outer peel does not join together with the onion at all, and both in this case, when it is whole, and in that case, when it is punctured, it remains ritually pure. Evidently, the halakha of protection is not applied to a protection that surrounds another protection.

רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, שׁוֹמֵר אוֹכֶל שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Rav Oshaya does not raise the dilemma with regard to a food item that has two layers of protection. Rather, he raises the dilemma with regard to protection of food that one divided such that the food is whole but the protection is divided into separate sections.

כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, וְהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, לָא מִצְטָרֵף.

The dilemma is as follows: Since this section of the protection is protecting this part of the food but does not provide protection for that other part of the food, and that other section of the protection is protecting another part of the food but does not provide protection for this part of the food, must one conclude that the two protections do not join together to constitute the requisite measure for the impurity of food?

אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, מִצְטָרְפִין.

Or perhaps, should one reason that since this section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and that section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and the two parts of the food are joined together, therefore the entire entity is considered unified and the two sections of the protection join together to constitute the requisite measure?

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן.

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna cited previously (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. But he deems a pod containing legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal impure because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them. Since the requisite volume for a food item to be susceptible to impurity is an egg-bulk, and the volume of one pod and its legumes is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple pods joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״ – בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in rejection of this resolution: That mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal touched the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And the halakha in that mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ (אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ)״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.

Come and hear a resolution from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the measure of one grain and its shell is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple grains and their shells joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to impart impurity.

כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.

The Gemara rejects this resolution: One can explain this statement in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said with regard to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that was cited previously: The mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal came in contact with the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And therefore, the halakha in the mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle.

הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּשִׁדְרָה, וּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר.

Here too, the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not referring to independent grains of wheat and barley, but rather to the stem to which the grains are attached, and it is with regard to the status of all the shells of the grains on one stem as protection. All of the grains surrounding the stem protect each other, since if one shell with its grain falls it causes all of the other shells and their grains to fall as well. Therefore, this case is not similar to Rav Oshaya’s dilemma, where each protection protects only part of the food.

בִּשְׁלָמָא עִילִּיָּתָא צְרִיכִי לְתַתָּיָתָא, אֶלָּא תְּתַּיָּתָא מַאי צְרִיכִי לְעִילִּיָּתָא? בְּחַד דָּרָא.

The Gemara asks: Granted, the grains located higher on the stem need the grains located lower on the stem to remain in place in order to not fall. But for what purpose do the grains located lower on the stem need the grains located higher on the stem? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the grains are all positioned tightly around the stem in one row in such a manner that if even one located higher up on the stem were to fall, the remaining grains would fall too.

מִי אִיכָּא כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין בְּחַד דָּרָא בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח?

The Gemara asks: Is there a volume of an egg-bulk of food in one row of grain? The Gemara answers: Yes, this baraita is stated with regard to large grains of wheat, such as those grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, חֲדָא חִטָּה נָמֵי בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח.

The Gemara points out: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, it is not necessary to interpret the baraita as referring to many grains tightly packed around the stem. It is even possible to explain that the baraita is discussing the case of one grain of wheat, such as the large grains of wheat grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.

גּוּפָא: שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת וַעֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים, וְהִכְנִיס רָאשֵׁיהֶן שְׁנַיִם לְבַיִת, וְהַבַּיִת מַאֲהִיל עֲלֵיהֶן – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא.

§The Gemara proceeds to discuss the Tosefta itself that was cited earlier (118b): In a case of two bones upon which there are two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside the house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself and the house is impure.

יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: הֵיאַךְ שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת?

Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk? It may be inferred from here that according to all, if the end of a bone that is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh is outside the house, and the other end that is not directly attached to any flesh is inside the house, the house becomes impure with the ritual impurity of a corpse.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֶצֶם, דְּהָוֵי יָד, אֲבָל נִימָא לָא הָוְיָא יָד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִימָא נָמֵי הָוְיָא יָד.

With regard to this matter Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a bone, as it constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, but if one hair of a corpse is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh at one end, and the other end of the hair is inside a house, it does not render the house impure, because the hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hair constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, and therefore the house is rendered impure.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּצִיב הַיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו, מִשּׁוּם יָד?

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case of the hide of an unslaughtered animal carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh, or touches a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh, is ritually impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, even though he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh. What is the reason that one who touches the strand of flesh or the hair becomes impure? Is it not because they constitute a handle for the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Reish Lakish with regard to a hair?

לָא, מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר. וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹמֵר? חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחֵל.

The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of that mishna is not because the hair serves as a handle for the flesh. Rather, it is because the hair serves as protection for the flesh. The Gemara asks: But the hide protects the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide; is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection? The Gemara answers: The hair penetrates through the hide and touches the flesh, thereby providing protection directly for the flesh.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תְּפִילִּין הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? הָא בָּעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וְלֵיכָּא!

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this answer: If that is so, that there are perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, how can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require phylacteries to be written with a perfect writing, with no perforations in the letters? And that is not possible if there are perforations in the hide.

אִשְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.

The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov overlooked that halakha which they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any perforation over which the ink passes and which it covers is not considered a perforation that invalidates the writing.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם יָד, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.

And if you wish, say instead a different answer to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s objection to Reish Lakish: The entire mishna teaches that one who touches either a strand of flesh or a hair becomes impure because these appendages serve the flesh as a handle and not as protection. Nevertheless, that statement does not contradict the opinion of Reish Lakish that a hair does not constitute a handle for the flesh, because one can explain this mishna as Rabbi Ela stated with regard to a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.

הָכִי נָמֵי, בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.

So too, the mishna taught later is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair. Therefore, the hair constitutes a handle for the flesh because one can hold the hair and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.

וְהֵיכָא אִתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא? אַהָא: מְלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.

And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:3): An awn [melai] that is on top of a stalk constitutes a handle for the stalk. Therefore, it can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai, i.e., Rabbi Ela, said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns and not the case of a single awn. Therefore, the awns constitute a handle for the stalk because one can hold the awns and lift the stalk without the awns becoming detached from it.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ.

Some say another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish and the ensuing discussion with regard to the status of hairs vis-à-vis the flesh: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that a single hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh connected to it, but they disagree with regard to several hairs. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion that hair is not considered a handle from the mishna taught later, which states that one who touches a hair emerging from the hide of an animal carcass opposite the flesh is impure, indicating that hair constitutes a handle.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם יָד – נִימָא אַחַת לְמַאי חֲזֵי?

Reish Lakish answers that one who touches the hair is impure not because it is considered a handle, but rather because it is considered protection for the flesh. The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain that the person is impure because hair is considered protection and not because it is considered a handle, as, if it enters your mind that it is because hair is considered a handle, for what function is one hair fit such that it is considered a handle?

כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין, הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.

The Gemara responds: One can explain that that mishna considers hair to constitute a handle, as Rabbi Ela stated in explanation of a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns. Here too, that mishna is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair.

וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אַהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמְּלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.

And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: An awn that is on top of a stalk can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ

And there are those who teach another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish,