Parallel
חולין 125:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
if he touched one half-olive's bulk and some other thing overshadowed both him and another half-olive's bulk, he is clean. Now if they fall within one category why is he clean? But does not this clause conflict with the first clause? — R. Zera answered: We are dealing there [in the first clause] with uncleanness that was confined between two cupboards between which there was not a handbreadth's space, in which case [overshadowing] is regarded as actual contact. Who then is the Tanna that includes ‘overshadowing’ in the term ‘he who touches’? — It is R. Jose. For it was taught: R. Jose says. A ladleful of corpse-mould conveys uncleanness by contact, by carrying, and by overshadowing. Now it is clear [that a person is rendered unclean] by carrying and by overshadowing, for he carries the whole quantity and overshadows the whole quantity, but with regard to uncleanness by contact, he surely does not touch the whole quantity! One must say, therefore, that the expression ‘contact’ means ‘overshadowing’. But does it not expressly state ‘by contact’ as well as ‘by overshadowing’? Abaye suggested, [To overshadow uncleanness] within a handbreadth thereof is termed ‘overshadowing by contact’, but more than a handbreadth away it is termed ‘plain overshadowing’. Raba said: Even more than a handbreadth away, it is also termed overshadowing by contact’; but what is meant by ‘plain overshadowing’? Where there is a projection. Raba said: Whence do I derive this? From what was taught [in the following Baraitha]: R. Jose says. The woven cords of beds and the lattice-work of windows serve as partitions between the house and the upper room to prevent the passage of uncleanness to the other side. If these were spread over a corpse, being suspended in the air, whatever touches directly over a mesh is unclean but whatever is not directly over a mesh is clean. Now what are the circumstances? If [they were suspended] within a handbreadth [from the corpse], why does that which was not directly over a mesh remain clean? Surely it is nothing else but the corpse in its shroud, and the corpse in its shroud conveys uncleanness! They must then [have been suspended] more than a handbreadth away [from the corpse], nevertheless the expression ‘whatever touches’ is used! — Abaye said: In fact [they were suspended] within a handbreadth [from the corpse], but as for your objection, ‘Surely it is nothing else but the corpse in its shroud!’ [I reply that] with regard to the corpse in its shroud a man certainly ignores [the existence of the shroud], but he does not ignore the existence of these. But is this not a case of concealed uncleanness which [according to established law] breaks through and rises upwards? — R. Jose is of the opinion that concealed uncleanness cannot break through and rise upwards. Whence do you know this? From [the following Mishnah] which we learnt: If a drawer in a cupboard had the capacity of a [cubic] handbreadth within, and the opening [of the cupboard] was less than a handbreadth [square], and there was some uncleanness in it, the house becomes unclean; if there was some uncleanness in the house, what is in the drawer remains clean, for the uncleanness must come forth [eventually] but need not come in at all. R. Jose declares [the house] clean, for one could take out the uncleanness by halves or burn it in its place. And the next clause reads thus: If one set [the cupboard] in the doorway of the house and it [the cupboard] opened outwards, and there was some uncleanness in it, the house remains clean; if there was some uncleanness in the house, what is in [the cupboard] remains clean.
—