Chullin

Now how does Rab interpret this teaching [to accord with his view]? If he regards it [the bone] as a handle,1 then the first opinion conflicts with his;2 and if he regards it as a protection,3 then the second opinion conflicts with his!4 — 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.5 ‘Or if you wish, you may say he regards it as a protection’ — and he is in agreement with the first Tanna.6 R. Johanan, however, says that it can only be regarded as a handle, and so he is in agreement with the first Tanna.7 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.8 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;9 and if he regards it as a protection, then the first opinion conflicts with his.10 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’.11 But do not the ‘others expressly mention the size of a bean?12 — It is only because the first Tanna [sc. R. Judah] stated a fixed quantity13 that they also stated a fixed quantity.14 Raba said: There is indeed a proof that the Baraitha regards it as a protection, for it states ‘a thigh-bone’.15 This is conclusive. It was stated: R. Hanina said that that16 was the [minimum] size,17 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!18 — 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.19 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,20 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!21 — It is different with a separate entity.22 R. Oshaia raised the question, the bones can act as handles only. than the size of an olive's bulk. the house. The bone of a marrow-bone is regarded as a protection to the marrow within. 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. 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. flesh at least of the size of an olive's bulk. 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. of foodstuff, and unclean matter came into contact with the bone, the whole would then become unclean. that which is less than an olive's bulk, provided it is of the size of a bean, can serve as a protection. 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. as a protection. 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. 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. 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.