חולין 124 — Soncino English Talmud

¹so that it lies on the ground. R. Meir says. One need not scrape off the plastering nor [see to it] that it lies on the ground, but one need only cut it down to less than four handbreadths high inside. It follows that if one did cut it down to less than four handbreadths high it would be clean; but why? Surely we should say that it stands firm! — Thereupon Raba said to him, Why not rather quote the view of the Rabbis, ‘One should scrape off the plastering so that it lies on the ground’ [in support]? Rather, said Raba, This is the interpretation: If an oven had become unclean how can one make it clean again? It is the unanimous opinion that one should divide it into three parts and scrape off the plastering so that it lies on the ground. And if one desires that the oven should not be susceptible to uncleanness what should one do? One should divide it into three parts and should scrape off the plastering so that it lies on the ground. R. Meir says. One need not scrape off the plastering nor [see to it] that it lies on the ground, but one need only cut it down to less than four handbreadths high inside. The Master said: ‘One should divide it into three parts’. But there is a contradiction to this, for we have learnt: An oven must, in its first state, be [at least] four handbreadths high, and any fragment thereof [is still unclean if it is] four handbreadths high: so R. Meir. But the Sages say. This applies only to a large oven, but as regards a small oven no matter what its height was in its first state, provided its manufacture was complete. [it is susceptible to uncleanness,] and any fragment thereof [is still unclean if it amounts to] the greater portion of [the oven]. How much is meant by ‘no matter what its height’? R. Jannai said, [At least] one handbreadth high, for it is usual to make an oven one handbreadth high [as a plaything]. Now only if there is a fragment of four handbreadths [is it still unclean], but if there is no fragment of four handbreadths it is clean! — I can answer: There he split it across the width, but here he split it lengthwise. The Master said: ‘And any fragment thereof [is still unclean if it amounts to] the greater portion of [the oven]’. But of what use can the greater portion of a handbreadth be? — Abaye said: It means, any fragment of a large oven [is still unclean if it amounts to] the greater portion of it. But [with regard to a large oven] the Sages say [in agreement with R. Meir that it is still unclean if the fragment is] four handbreadths? — This is no difficulty: one ruling refers to an oven nine handbreadths high, the other to an oven seven handbreadths high. Another version reports the passage as follows: R. Huna said in the name of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. Even if he left a portion sufficient for an apron [the garment is rendered clean]. Thereupon Resh Lakish said: This [teaching] applies only to a garment, but in the case of leather [what is left] is of value. But R. Johanan said: Even in the case of leather [what is left] is of no value. R. Johanan raised the following objection against Resh Lakish: If a hide had contracted midras uncleanness and a man had the intention to use it for straps and sandals, so soon as he puts the knife into it it becomes clean: so R. Judah. But the Sages say. Not until he has reduced its size to less than five handbreadths. It follows, however, that if he had actually reduced its size [to less than five handbreadths] it would be clean; but why? Surely we should say [what is left] is of value! — We must suppose here that he intended [the hide] to serve as a seat for one suffering with an issue. MISHNAH. IF THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF [UNCLEAN] FLESH ADHERING TO THE HIDE AND A MAN TOUCHED A SHRED HANGING FROM IT, OR A HAIR THAT WAS OPPOSITE TO IT, HE BECOMES UNCLEAN. IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH EACH A HALF-OLIVES BULK UPON IT, THEY CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BY CARRYING BUT NOT BY CONTACT: SO R. ISHMAEL. R. AKIBA SAYS, NEITHER BY CONTACT NOR BY CARRYING. 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. GEMARA. ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan. This rule applies only to the case where a wild beast tore it away, but where it was cut away by the knife [in flaying] it certainly is deemed negligible. R. Nahman enquired of ‘Ulla, ‘Did R. Johanan also say so even if it was as large as a tirta? — He replied. ‘Yes’. ‘And even as large as a sieve?’ — He replied. ‘Yes’. ‘By God!’ said the other; ‘even if R. Johanan himself had told it me by his own mouth I should not have accepted it!’ When R. Oshaia went up [to Palestine] he met R. Ammi and reported to him the discussion, ‘So said ‘Ulla and so answered R. Nahman’. Said [R. Ammi] to him, ‘And even if R. Nahman is the son-in-law of the Exilarch shall he make light of the teaching of R. Johanan?’ On another occasion he [R. Oshaia] found him [R. Ammi] sitting and expounding it with reference to the second clause [of our Mishnah] thus: ‘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. R. AKIBA SAYS, NEITHER BY CONTACT NOR BY CARRYING. Thereupon R. Johanan had said: This rule applies only to the case where a wild beast tore them away, but where they were cut away by the knife [in flaying] they are deemed negligible’. Then said [R. Oshaia]. ‘Does the Master refer it to the second clause?’ — He replied. ‘Yes; did ‘Ulla tell it you with reference to the first clause?’ Said the other, ‘He did’. ‘By God!’ said R. Ammi, ‘even if Joshua the son of Nun had told it me by his own mouth I should not have accepted it!’ When Rabin came down with all the company that used to come down [from Palestine to Babylon] they reported that it referred to the first clause. But is there not then a difficulty? — As R. Papa suggested [elsewhere]36^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ

^ᵃnote:Sc. the plastering; i.e., the plastering must be entirely demolished so that it in no wise supports the parts of the oven (Rashi); or, ‘it’ sc. each part of the oven (Maim); or, ‘it’ sc. the crack must run from the top to the bottom of the oven, i.e., a perpendicular crack (R. Samson of Sens).
^ᵇnote:Kel. V, 7.
^ᶜnote:By reason of the plastering around it. This then conflicts with Resh Lakish who maintains that if only a portion of an article remains firm, although the rest of it is broken or torn, it is still considered an article.
^ᵈnote:Sc. the first Tanna of this Mishnah.
^ᵉnote:The dispute therefore between R. Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to an oven which was not unclean, concerning the measures necessary in order to prevent it from ever becoming unclean.
^ᶠnote:In order to be susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵍnote:I.e., of a large oven which was broken in order to be made clean again; cf. Lev. XI, 35.
^ʰnote:Sc. the ruling of R. Meir.
^ⁱnote:I.e., an oven used for baking or cooking.
^ʲnote:Which is used as a plaything.
^ᵏnote:Kel. V, 1.
^ˡnote:This clearly contradicts the aforementioned Mishnah which states that an oven to be made clean again must be divided into three parts, but it would not be sufficient to divide it into two, even though each part would be less than four handbreadths.
^ᵐnote:And if none of the fragments are of four handbreadths, the oven is absolutely useless and therefore clean.
^ⁿnote:And if there remains standing the greater part of the oven, even though such part is less than four handbreadths, it remains unclean. It must therefore be divided into three parts so that no part is equal to the greater part of the oven.
^ᵒnote:The Sages adopt rules of leniency: where the greater portion of the oven is more than four handbreadths then they regard fragments up to the size of the greater portion as clean; and where the greater portion is less than four handbreadths then they regard fragments up to four handbreadths as clean.
^ᵖnote:Even though it is only the size of an apron. Hence it is not rendered clean by ‘the tearing, for it cannot be said to be destroyed for al use.
^ᵠnote:V. supra p. 690.
^ʳnote:Reading cz caunk. According to MS.M. and ‘Aruch the reading is dzcaunk, a peculiar word, whose etymology as well as meaning is extremely doubtful. ‘A leather seat of a folding chair’ (Jast). The argument is, since the hide was intended to be used for a particular purpose so soon as it is diminished and so rendered unfit for that purpose it is deemed to be of no value.
^ˢnote:In one place.
^ᵗnote:I.e., from the olive's bulk of flesh (Rashi). According to Maim. the Mishnah refers to a fibre that proceeds from the hide.
^ᵘnote:I.e., on the outside of the hide, directly over the morsel of flesh.
^ᵛnote:For the shred is like the flesh itself, and the hair is a protection to the flesh.
^ʷnote:For when a person carries the hide he carries at the same time an olive's bulk of the carcass.
^ˣnote:Since the pieces are apart they cannot be touched simultaneously but only one after the other, and each time only a half-olive's bulk is touched. The two separate ‘contacts’ cannot be reckoned together to make up a ‘contact’ of an olive's bulk.
^ʸnote:For R. Akiba is of the opinion (infra) that flesh less than an olive's bulk adhering to hide is deemed as part of the hide itself.
^ᶻnote:I.e., moved them without actually touching them. Heb. yxhv ‘swaying’. ‘shaking’.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Gemara for the reason of R. Akiba s view.
^ᵃᵇnote:That an olive's bulk of flesh adhering to the hide is not rendered negligible.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., a wild beast bit into the animal whilst alive and later when the animal was being flayed pieces of flesh were found to have been torn away and left hanging to the hide.
^ᵃᵈnote:Even though there is a whole olive's bulk of flesh.
^ᵃᵉnote:A quarter of a kab; or, the pan of scales (Rashi). The question is, what if the knife, whilst flaying, cut away a large slice of flesh as much as a tirta? Can this quantity, too, be deemed negligible or not?
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. the above statement of R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵍnote:That two pieces of flesh each a half-olive's bulk are not rendered negligible according to R. Ishmael.
^ᵃʰnote:h,ujb; the scholars who used to travel to and fro between Palestine and Babylon reporting teachings of the one country to the other.
^ᵃⁱnote:For if it is held that a whole olive's bulk of flesh is rendered negligible when cut away by the knife then the same should be the case where flesh the size of a tirta or a sieve was cut away. But this is contrary to reason!
^ᵃʲnote:V. infra.

²that 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.^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ

^ᵃᵏnote:There was a thin slice of flesh the size of a tirta or even of a sieve which when collected and rolled tip amounted to an olive's bulk only.
^ᵃˡnote:Of R. Ishmael that the two pieces of flesh each a half-olive's bulk adhering to the hide do not convey uncleanness by contact.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., he did not actually touch the flesh but only the hide opposite each piece; the hide in such a case cannot serve either as a protection or as a handle to combine the two pieces in order to convey the uncleanness.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., he actually touched the pieces of flesh, first the one half-olive's bulk and then the other. In this case R. Ishmael will hold that the two separate contacts are combined and are regarded as one contact of a whole olive's bulk, and the person would be unclean.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘there is such a thing as touching and again touching’.
^ᵃᵖnote:That according to R. Johanan R. Ishmael holds that two separate contacts, each time of half the minimum quantity, cannot be reckoned as one contact of the whole quantity.
^ᵃᵠnote:Of those enumerated in Ohol. II, 1, e.g. an olive's bulk of the flesh of a corpse, or a ladleful of corpse-mould.
^ᵃʳnote:By overshadowing, i.e., which renders unclean everything which happens to be in the same tent or under the same roof space as the unclean matter. Cf. Num. XIX, 14.
^ᵃˢnote:Each less then the minimum quantity.
^ᵃᵗnote:Oh. III, 1, ‘Ed. III, 1.
^ᵃᵘnote:Each time of half the minimum quantity. According to R. Dosa b. Harkinas, overshadowing must be in one place, at the same time, and over a whole olive's bulk.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. the flesh adhering to the hide. Thus R. Akiba is more lenient in his view than R. Ishmael, whereas the Sages who differ with R. Dosa (supra) declare everything in the house to be unclean.
^ᵃʷnote:Sc. the two pieces of flesh, each a half-olive's bulk, when touched separately.
^ᵃˣnote:Lev. XI, 39.
^ᵃʸnote:Ibid. 40.
^ᵃᶻnote:Therefore, argues R. Akiba, it cannot be said that these pieces of flesh convey uncleanness by carrying and not by contact, as R. Ishmael would have it.
^ᵇᵃnote:That, according to Bar Padda, R. Ishmael holds that these pieces can convey uncleanness also by contact, namely, on the inside (v. supra p. 696, n. 2), then R. Akiba's argument is void of meaning.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., R. Akiba means that unless a substance can convey uncleanness by every contact with it, from the outside as well as from the inside, it will not convey uncleanness by carrying.
^ᵇᶜnote:And therefore a closed-up marrow-bone of a carcass, since it does not convey uncleanness by contact (v. next Mishnah, for the bone itself is not considered unclean as the carcass, and the marrow within it is inaccessible for it is closed-up), will not convey uncleanness by carrying.
^ᵇᵈnote:Why the two morsels of flesh convey uncleanness by carrying.
^ᵇᵉnote:An evasive answer.
^ᵇᶠnote:Raba said to his father Rabbah b. R. Huna.
^ᵇᵍnote:Cant. II, 5. He had just finished his lecture for that day (or, he was that day elected Head of the Academy — ‘Aruch) and was too exhausted for any argument or discussion but required rest and refreshment.
^ᵇʰnote:Lev. XI, 40. Heb. tabvu. The traditional reading is tabvu, (in active sense) ‘and he who carries’; though the word might also be read as tabvu, (in passive sense) ‘and whatsoever is carried’.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., the olive's bulk must be one whole piece so that if one were to lift up part thereof the whole would be lifted up.
^ᵇʲnote:As to whether it is essential that the olive's bulk be in one whole so that it could be carried at one time.
^ᵇᵏnote:And one is rendered unclean.
^ᵇˡnote:Sc. the two pieces of unclean flesh each a half-olive's bulk.
^ᵇᵐnote:Wherein then does R. Eliezer differ from the first Tanna?
^ᵇⁿnote:The word ‘even’ implies an extension of the law beyond that stated by the first Tanna; on the other hand, ‘only’ is a limitation,
^ᵇᵒnote:Or any bone which contains marrow.