חולין 119 — parallel

119:1

Now how does Rab interpret this teaching [to accord with his view]? If he regards it [the bone] as a handle, then the first opinion conflicts with his; and if he regards it as a protection, then the second opinion conflicts with his! — If you wish, you may say he regards it as a handle, or if you wish.you may say he regards it as a protection. ‘If you wish, you may say he regards it as a handle’ — and he is in agreement with Judah b. Nakosa. ‘Or if you wish, you may say he regards it as a protection’ — and he is in agreement with the first Tanna. R. Johanan, however, says that it can only be regarded as a handle, and so he is in agreement with the first Tanna. Come and hear: R. Judah says: If a thighbone has an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it, it brings about the uncleanness to the whole. Others say: Even if it has flesh only the size of a bean attached to it it is sufficient to bring about the uncleanness to the whole. Now how does Rab interpret this teaching? If he regards it [the bone] as a handle, then the second opinion conflicts with his; and if he regards it as a protection, then the first opinion conflicts with his. If you wish, you may say he regards it as a handle and he is then in agreement with R. Judah; or if you wish, you may say he regards it as a protection, and he is in agreement with the ‘others’. R. Johanan, however, says that it can be regarded as a protection and ,so he is in agreement with the ‘others’. But do not the ‘others expressly mention the size of a bean? — It is only because the first Tanna [sc. R. Judah] stated a fixed quantity that they also stated a fixed quantity. Raba said: There is indeed a proof that the Baraitha regards it as a protection, for it states ‘a thigh-bone’. This is conclusive. It was stated: R. Hanina said that that was the [minimum] size, but R. Johanan said that that was not the [minimum] size. But does it not expressly say: ‘the size of a bean’? — It was only because the first Tanna stated a fixed quantity that they too stated a fixed quantity. Come and hear. We have learnt: R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah declares that of the bean clean but that of [other] pulse unclean, since one is pleased with it when handling them! — As R. Aha the son of Raba had suggested [in another case] that it referred to the stalk which is considered a handle, so here too it refers to the stalk and it is considered here a handle. And what is meant by ‘when handling them’? — It means, when moving them about. Come and hear from the following teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael: It is written: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, that is to say, in the manner in which men take out the seeds for sowing: wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, lentils in their husks! — It is different with a separate entity. R. Oshaia raised the question,

—

119:2

Can two protections be reckoned together or not? But what is the actual case? If you say that one is over the other, but can it be said that a protection over a protection [has the law of a protection]? Behold we have learnt: R. Judah says: An onion has three skins: the innermost skin, whether it is entire or has holes in it, is reckoned together [with the edible part]; the middle skin, if it is entire, is reckoned together, but if it has holes in it, it is not reckoned together; the outermost skin in either case is clean! — R. Oshaia really raised this question: What is the law if the protection of a foodstuff was divided? Since this [half of the protection] does not protect the other [half of the foodstuff] and the other [half of the protection] does not protect this [half of the foodstuff] they cannot be reckoned together, or, it may be, since each [half of the protection] protects its own [half of the foodstuff] they can be reckoned together? Come and hear: R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah declares that of the bean clean but that of [other] pulse unclean, since one is pleased with it when handling them! — R. Aha the son of Raba answered: It refers to the stalk which is considered as a handle. And what is meant by ‘when handling them’? — It means, when moving them about. Come and hear from the following teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael: It is written: ‘Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown’, that is to say, in the manner in which men take out the seeds for sowing; wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, lentils in their husks! — As R. Aha the son of Raba had suggested [above] that it referred to the stalk which is considered a handle, so here it refers to the stem [of the ear of wheat] which is considered a protection. Granted, however, that the upper rows need the lower ones; but do the lower need the upper ones? — We are dealing here with one row only. But is there ever as much as an egg's bulk of foodstuff in one row? — Yes, in the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah. And now that you have arrived at this, you may say that it refers to a single grain of wheat, but of the wheat grains of Simeon b. Shetah. [To revert to] the [above] text: If there were two bones [of a corpse] that bore [at one end] a half olive's bulk of flesh and a man brought into a house the other two ends, and the house overshadowed them, the house becomes unclean. Judah b. Nakosa says in the name of R. Jacob: How can two bones [each bearing only a half olive's bulk of flesh at the other end] be reckoned together to make up an olive's bulk’? R. Simeon b. Lakish said: This was taught only with regard to a bone which is considered a handle, but a hair is not considered a handle. R. Johanan however said: Even a hair is considered a handle. R. Johanan raised the following objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish: If there was an olive's bulk of [unclean] flesh adhering to the hide and a man touched a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite it, he becomes unclean. It is, is it not, because it [the hair] is regarded as a handle? — No, it is because it is regarded as a protection. But can there be a protection over another protection? — It penetrates right through. R. Aha b. Jacob demurred, [saying:] If so, how may we write Tefillin? Surely it is necessary that the writing be perfect, and it is not so? — [In raising this objection] he must have overlooked the statement [of the Rabbis] in the West, viz., Any hole [in parchment] over which the ink can pass is not considered a hole. Or if you wish, you may answer: Each is considered a handle, for as R. Ila'a referred [elsewhere] to a bristle among many bristles, so here too it refers to a hair among many hairs. And where was this view of R. Ila'a stated? In connection with the following [Mishnah]: The bristles of ears of corn bring in uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but are not included together [with the rest to make up the quantity necessary to convey uncleanness]. Of what use is a bristle? R. Ila'a replied: It refers to a bristle among many bristles. Another version renders the argument as follows: It is more reasonable to say that it [a hair] is regarded as a protection, for should you say it is regarded as a handle [it will be asked]: Of what use is one hair? — As R. Ila'a referred [elsewhere] to a bristle among many bristles, so here, too, it refers to a hair among hairs. And where was this view of R. Ila'a stated? In connection with the following Mishnah: The bristles of ears of corn bring in uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but are not included together with the rest. Of what use is a bristle? — R. Ila'a replied: It refers to a bristle among many bristles. Some refer it27

—