Parallel
חולין 125:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
OR A THIGH-BONE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL, HE WHO TOUCHES IT, WHETHER IT BE STOPPED UP OR PIERCED, BECOMES UNCLEAN. WITH REGARD TO A THIGHBONE OF A CARCASS OR OF A [DEAD] REPTILE, IF IT WAS STOPPED UP HE WHO TOUCHES IT REMAINS CLEAN, BUT IF IT WAS AT ALL PIERCED IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY CONTACT. WHENCE DO WE KNOW [THAT IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS] ALSO BY CARRYING? THE TEXT SAYS, 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. GEMARA. He who touches it does [become unclean] but he who overshadows it does not [become unclean]. What are the circumstances? If there was an olive's bulk of flesh upon it, then surely it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing? — It must be that there was not an olive's bulk of flesh upon it. But if there was an olive's bulk of marrow within it, then surely the uncleanness breaks through and rises upwards, and it should convey uncleanness by overshadowing? — It must be that there was not an olive's bulk of marrow within it. But if it is held that the marrow within [the bone] can restore [the flesh] outside it, then surely it is a proper limb, and it should convey uncleanness by overshadowing? — Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: This proves that the marrow within cannot restore [the flesh] outside it. How have you explained the case? That there was not an olive's bulk. Then why does it convey uncleanness in the case of consecrated animals? Furthermore, why does the thigh-bone of a carcass or of a [dead] reptile, even when pierced, convey uncleanness? — These are no difficulties at all, for the first clause refers to the case where there was not an olive's bulk and the subsequent clause to the case where there was an olive's bulk. What does he teach us then? — He teaches us a number of rules. The first clause teaches us [the principle] that the marrow within [the bone] cannot restore [the flesh] outside it. The clause concerning consecrated animals teaches us that whatever serves [as a holder for] the meat left over [from the sacrifice] is a matter of consequence, for R. Mari b. Abbuha said in the name of R. Isaac, Bones of sacrifices which served [as a holder for] the meat left over [from the sacrifice] render the hands unclean, since they have become auxiliary to forbidden matter. The clause concerning the carcass [teaches us] that even if there is an olive's bulk [of marrow in the bone], only when [the bone is] pierced does it [convey uncleanness], but when not pierced it does not [convey uncleanness]. Abaye said: In fact [I maintain that] the marrow within [the bone] can restore [the flesh] outside it, but here we are dealing with a bone which was sawn through [transversely], and it is in agreement with R. Eleazar's view. For R. Eleazar stated: If a man sawed through a marrow-bone lengthwise it is still unclean, if transversely it is clean; as a mnemonic think of the palm tree. R. Johanan said: In truth, there was an olive's bulk [of marrow in the bone], and [I maintain that] the marrow within can restore [the flesh] outside it, but the expression HE WHO TOUCHES stated [in the Mishnah] means also overshadowing. But surely if the marrow within can restore [the flesh] outside it, why is it that the thigh-bone of a carcass or of a dead reptile, if not pierced, is clean? — R. Benjamin b. Giddal said in the name of R. Johanan. We are dealing here with an olive's bulk of marrow that shakes about [in the bone]; so that with regard to a corpse the uncleanness breaks through and rises upwards, but with regard to a carcass, since the marrow shakes about within, if the bone was pierced, it does [convey uncleanness], but if it was not pierced, it does not [convey uncleanness]. R. Abin (others say R. Jose b. Abin) said: We have also learnt the same: If a man touched one half-olive's bulk [of a corpse] and [at the same time] overshadowed another half-olive's bulk or the other half-olive's bulk overshadowed him, he is unclean. Now if you hold that they fall within one category then it is quite right that they combine [to render the person unclean]; but if you hold that they fall within two categories, can they in any way combine? Surely, we have learnt: This is the general rule: All [means of conveying uncleanness] which fall within one category combine to convey uncleanness, but all which fall within two categories do not [combine to] convey uncleanness. What do you say then? That they fall within one category? Read the following clause: But
—