חולין 119:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:I.e., each bone was dry and without marrow but there was a piece of flesh attached to one end of each, in which case the bones can act as handles only.
^ᵇnote:Since the first Tanna declares the house to be unclean because a handle can serve as a connective even to what is less than the size of an olive's bulk.
^ᶜnote:I.e., the bones contained marrow at one end but not at the other end, and the ends void of marrow were brought into the house. The bone of a marrow-bone is regarded as a protection to the marrow within.
^ᵈnote:Since Judah b. Nakosa holds that a protection cannot serve as such to anything less than the size of an olive's bulk, whereas according to Rab it can serve as a protection to anything the size of a bean which is less than half an olive. The same difficulty would arise on the view of R. Johanan, which is apparently in conflict with that of Judah b. Nakosa, whether the bone is treated as a ‘handle’ or ‘protection’; v. n. 9.
^ᵉnote:For presumably with regard to a protection Judah b. Nakosa would concede that a protection can serve as a protection even to that which is less than the size of an olive's bulk, provided, of course, it was not less than the size of a bean; thus entirely in agreement with Rab's view.
^ᶠnote:The first Tanna presumably would agree with Rab that a handle cannot serve as a connective unless it was attached to flesh at least of the size of an olive's bulk.
^ᵍnote:He cannot however regard the bones in the dispute between the first Tanna and Judah b. Nakosa as protections, for then he would be in agreement with neither: for Judah b. Nakosa insists upon an olive's bulk, and the first Tanna upon a half olive's bulk, since he speaks of two bones together making up an olive's bulk, whereas R. Johanan rules that a protection can serve as such even to anything less than the size of a bean which is certainly less than a half olive's bulk. See Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.
^ʰnote:I.e., if the olive's bulk of flesh attached to this bone was with other foodstuffs so that together there was an egg's bulk of foodstuff, and unclean matter came into contact with the bone, the whole would then become unclean.
^ⁱnote:For Rab says that a handle to anything less than the size of an olive's bulk cannot serve as a connective.
^ʲnote:For R. Judah speaks of an olive's bulk of flesh which was attached to the bone, whereas Rab said that a protection to that which is less than an olive's bulk, provided it is of the size of a bean, can serve as a protection.
^ᵏnote:In this case R. Johanan could certainly regard it as a handle and he would be in agreement with the ‘others’; moreover, if he did so, it would leave no ground for the question which follows in the text; but he preferred to regard it as a protection, since the thigh-bone, which is expressly mentioned in the Baraitha, usually contains marrow and so must be considered as a protection. V. Rashi, s.v.
^ˡnote:Whereas R. Johanan considers it a proper protection even if the substance within is less than the size of a bean.
^ᵐnote:An olive's bulk.
^ⁿnote:The size of a bean; nevertheless a protection to something even less than the size of a bean would also be regarded as a protection.
^ᵒnote:Which usually contains marrow, and therefore is to be considered a protection.
^ᵖnote:The statement of the ‘others’ above: ‘Even if it has flesh only the size of a bean attached to it’.
^ᵠnote:But a protection to anything less than this size cannot be considered as a protection.
^ʳnote:Cf. ‘Uk. I, 5. R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah maintains that the pod of beans is not regarded as a protection to convey uncleanness to or from the beans, neither is it to be reckoned together with the beans so as to make up the requisite quantity, because the pod does not serve any useful purpose since the beans are large enough to be handled with the fingers. On the other hand the pods of peas or of other pulse are regarded as protections, for the peas are small and the pods then serve a useful purpose in making the handling of the peas easier. Now even if there was only one pea in the pod it would serve as a protection to it. Hence it is clear that a protection can serve as a protection even to a foodstuff less than the size of a bean, contra R. Hanina and Rab.
^ˢnote:It is not the pod that is considered here but the stalk to which a number of pods are attached. In the case of other pulse, like peas, the stalk serves as a handle to all the pods (which obviously are more than an olive's bulk), and so is a connective for uncleanness. In the case of the bean, however, the stalk is of no importance, for the beans are large enough to be handled by themselves, and is therefore not considered a handle for the uncleanness.
^ᵗnote:Lev. XI, 37.
^ᵘnote:The husk serves as a protection to the grain even though the grain of wheat is less than the size of a bean.
^ᵛnote:A protection to an entire thing, however small it is, as the husk of grain, is certainly regarded as a protection. Rab and R. Hanina, however, insist upon the minimum size of a bean only in those cases where the substance that is protected is only part of a whole, as a morsel of flesh, or half a bean.