Chullin

so that it1 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.2 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!3 — Thereupon Raba said to him, Why not rather quote the view of the Rabbis,4 ‘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.5 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,6 and any fragment thereof7 [is still unclean if it is] four handbreadths high: so R. Meir. But the Sages say. This8 applies only to a large oven,9 but as regards a small oven10 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].11 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!12 — I can answer: There he split it across the width,13 but here he split it lengthwise.14 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. 15 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.16 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: If17 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. 18 MISHNAH. IF THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK OF [UNCLEAN] FLESH ADHERING TO THE HIDE19 AND A MAN TOUCHED A SHRED HANGING FROM IT,20 OR A HAIR THAT WAS OPPOSITE TO IT,21 HE BECOMES UNCLEAN.22 IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH EACH A HALF-OLIVES BULK UPON IT, THEY CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BY CARRYING23 BUT NOT BY CONTACT:24 SO R. ISHMAEL. R. AKIBA SAYS, NEITHER BY CONTACT NOR BY CARRYING.25 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 SWAYED26 THEM, HE BECOMES UNCLEAN.27 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 rule28 applies only to the case where a wild beast tore it away,29 but where it was cut away by the knife [in flaying] it certainly is deemed negligible.30 R. Nahman enquired of ‘Ulla, ‘Did R. Johanan also say so even if it was as large as a tirta?31 — 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 it32 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 rule33 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 company34 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?35 — As R. Papa suggested [elsewhere]36 (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). article remains firm, although the rest of it is broken or torn, it is still considered an article. concerning the measures necessary in order to prevent it from ever becoming unclean. 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. remains unclean. It must therefore be divided into three parts so that no part is equal to the greater part of the oven. 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. destroyed for al use. 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. hide. half-olive's bulk is touched. The two separate ‘contacts’ cannot be reckoned together to make up a ‘contact’ of an olive's bulk. hide itself. found to have been torn away and left hanging to the hide. slice of flesh as much as a tirta? Can this quantity, too, be deemed negligible or not? country to the other. should be the case where flesh the size of a tirta or a sieve was cut away. But this is contrary to reason!