Chullin 124bחולין קכ״ד ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 124b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
124bקכ״ד ב

במרודד הכא נמי במרודד:

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

היו עליו:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ואם איתא הרי בא לכלל מגע מלפניו

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

או דלמא לית ליה

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

אמר ליה עורבא פרח

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

א"ר פפא במרודד

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

מתני׳ קולית המת

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