Parallel
חולין 124:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
that the flesh was beaten thin, so here it could also be explained that the flesh was beaten thin. IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH EACH A HALF-OLIVES BULK UPON IT etc. Bar Padda said: This ruling applies only to the case [where a man touched them] from the outside, but [where he touched them] on the inside the two contacts can be reckoned together. But R. Johanan said: The two contacts cannot be reckoned together. R. Johanan is consistent in his view, for R. Johanan also said that R. Ishmael and R. Dosa b. Harkinas said the same thing. R. Ishmael taught it in the above passage, and R. Dosa b. Harkinas in the following Mishnah which we learnt: If any matter which causes uncleanness in a ‘tent’ was divided and [the parts] brought into a house, R. Dosa b. Harkinas declares [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages declare it unclean. Now does not R. Dosa b. Harkinas hold that two overshadowings cannot be reckoned together? Similarly, two contacts cannot be reckoned together. As it is established that R. Dosa b. Harkinas is in agreement with R. Ishmael, it follows that the Sages [the opponents of R. Dosa] are in agreement with R. Akiba [the opponent of R. Ishmael]. But does not R. Akiba hold that they are entirely clean? — R. Akiba only declares them clean when adhering to the hide, but otherwise they convey uncleanness, as stated in the latter part [of the Mishnah]: R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH. EACH A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK, STUCK ON A CHIP AND A MAN SWAYED THEM, HE BECOMES UNCLEAN. WHEREFORE THEN DOES R. AKIBA DECLARE HIM CLEAN IN THE [CASE WHERE THEY ADHERE TO THE] HIDE? BECAUSE THE HIDE RENDERS THEM NEGLIGIBLE. R. ‘Ukba b. Hama raised an objection. It is written: [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof, but not the hide upon which are two pieces of flesh each a half-olive's bulk. I might think that the same is the case with regard to carrying, the verse therefore says. And he that carrieth . . . shall be unclean. So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says: It is written: ‘He that toucheth’, and ‘He that carrieth’: therefore, what comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact, comes within the scope of uncleanness by carrying, and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying. Now if it were so, it indeed comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact on the inside! — Raba answered. He means to say this: What comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact on every side thereof comes within the scope of uncleanness by carrying, and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact on every side thereof does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying. R. Awia the Elder enquired of Rabbah son of R. Huna: Can a closed marrow-bone, according to R. Ishmael, convey uncleanness [by carrying] or not? Does R. Ishmael accept the principle ‘What comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact, comes within the scope of uncleanness by carrying, and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact, does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying’, — but here [in our Mishnah] the reason is because it comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact on the inside; or does he not accept this principle at all? — He replied: See, there's a raven flying past. [When R. Awia left,] his son Raba said to him, ‘Was that not R. Awia the Elder of Pumbeditha whom you. Sir, have praised as a great man’? He replied: ‘I am to-day [in the condition of the lover who said,] Sustain me with raisin-cakes! And he asks me a matter which requires much reasoning!’ Ulla said: If there were two pieces of flesh, each a half-olive's bulk, stuck on a chip and a man waved them to and fro, even the whole day long, he remains clean. Why? Because [as] written [the word can be read] ‘be carried’, but [by tradition] we read ‘carries’; it is necessary therefore that when one ‘carries’ it it must be able to ‘be carried’ at one time. We have learnt: IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH, EACH A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK. UPON IT, THEY CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BY CARRYING BUT NOT BY CONTACT; SO R. ISHMAEL. Wherefore is this so? They surely cannot ‘be carried’ at one time? — R. Papa suggested that there was a thin strip [of flesh joining the two pieces]. Come and hear: R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH, EACH A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK, STUCK ON A CHIP AND A MAN SWAYED THEM, HE BECOMES UNCLEAN. Wherefore is this so? They surely cannot ‘be carried’ at one time? — Here, too, we must suppose that there was a thin strip of flesh. Tannaim differ on this point. It was taught: It is all one whether one touches them or sways them. R. Eliezer says. Even if one carries them. But does not the one that carries them also sway them? — This must be the interpretation: It is all one whether one touches them or sways them even though they cannot be carried [at one time]. Whereupon R. Eliezer comes to say, [No,] only if they can be carried at one time. Then what is the meaning of ‘even’? — Read: Only if they can be carried at one time. MISHNAH. WITH REGARD TO A THIGH-BONE OF A CORPSE.
—