חולין 125 — Soncino English Talmud

¹OR A THIGH-BONE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL, HE WHO TOUCHES IT, WHETHER IT BE STOPPED UP OR PIERCED, BECOMES UNCLEAN. WITH REGARD TO A THIGHBONE OF A CARCASS OR OF A [DEAD] REPTILE, IF IT WAS STOPPED UP HE WHO TOUCHES IT REMAINS CLEAN, BUT IF IT WAS AT ALL PIERCED IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BY CONTACT. WHENCE DO WE KNOW [THAT IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS] ALSO BY CARRYING? THE TEXT SAYS, 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. GEMARA. He who touches it does [become unclean] but he who overshadows it does not [become unclean]. What are the circumstances? If there was an olive's bulk of flesh upon it, then surely it conveys uncleanness by overshadowing? — It must be that there was not an olive's bulk of flesh upon it. But if there was an olive's bulk of marrow within it, then surely the uncleanness breaks through and rises upwards, and it should convey uncleanness by overshadowing? — It must be that there was not an olive's bulk of marrow within it. But if it is held that the marrow within [the bone] can restore [the flesh] outside it, then surely it is a proper limb, and it should convey uncleanness by overshadowing? — Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: This proves that the marrow within cannot restore [the flesh] outside it. How have you explained the case? That there was not an olive's bulk. Then why does it convey uncleanness in the case of consecrated animals? Furthermore, why does the thigh-bone of a carcass or of a [dead] reptile, even when pierced, convey uncleanness? — These are no difficulties at all, for the first clause refers to the case where there was not an olive's bulk and the subsequent clause to the case where there was an olive's bulk. What does he teach us then? — He teaches us a number of rules. The first clause teaches us [the principle] that the marrow within [the bone] cannot restore [the flesh] outside it. The clause concerning consecrated animals teaches us that whatever serves [as a holder for] the meat left over [from the sacrifice] is a matter of consequence, for R. Mari b. Abbuha said in the name of R. Isaac, Bones of sacrifices which served [as a holder for] the meat left over [from the sacrifice] render the hands unclean, since they have become auxiliary to forbidden matter. The clause concerning the carcass [teaches us] that even if there is an olive's bulk [of marrow in the bone], only when [the bone is] pierced does it [convey uncleanness], but when not pierced it does not [convey uncleanness]. Abaye said: In fact [I maintain that] the marrow within [the bone] can restore [the flesh] outside it, but here we are dealing with a bone which was sawn through [transversely], and it is in agreement with R. Eleazar's view. For R. Eleazar stated: If a man sawed through a marrow-bone lengthwise it is still unclean, if transversely it is clean; as a mnemonic think of the palm tree. R. Johanan said: In truth, there was an olive's bulk [of marrow in the bone], and [I maintain that] the marrow within can restore [the flesh] outside it, but the expression HE WHO TOUCHES stated [in the Mishnah] means also overshadowing. But surely if the marrow within can restore [the flesh] outside it, why is it that the thigh-bone of a carcass or of a dead reptile, if not pierced, is clean? — R. Benjamin b. Giddal said in the name of R. Johanan. We are dealing here with an olive's bulk of marrow that shakes about [in the bone]; so that with regard to a corpse the uncleanness breaks through and rises upwards, but with regard to a carcass, since the marrow shakes about within, if the bone was pierced, it does [convey uncleanness], but if it was not pierced, it does not [convey uncleanness]. R. Abin (others say R. Jose b. Abin) said: We have also learnt the same: If a man touched one half-olive's bulk [of a corpse] and [at the same time] overshadowed another half-olive's bulk or the other half-olive's bulk overshadowed him, he is unclean. Now if you hold that they fall within one category then it is quite right that they combine [to render the person unclean]; but if you hold that they fall within two categories, can they in any way combine? Surely, we have learnt: This is the general rule: All [means of conveying uncleanness] which fall within one category combine to convey uncleanness, but all which fall within two categories do not [combine to] convey uncleanness. What do you say then? That they fall within one category? Read the following clause: But^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

^ᵃnote:Which was rendered piggul (v. Glos.) in the course of the offering, or whose meat became nothar, i.e., was left over beyond the time prescribed for eating. The Rabbis, in order to prevent such abuses arising out of the negligence of the priest, decreed that sacrificial meat which was piggul or nothar shall render the hands unclean (v. Pes. 120b). This decree clearly applied to those parts of the sacrifice which were edible; therefore it did not apply to marrowless bones, but it did apply to a marrowbone for then the bone serves as a holder for the marrow within it.
^ᵇnote:The bone of a carcass or of a reptile is in itself not unclean (v. supra 77b); it is, however, unclean because it serves as a ‘protection’ to the marrow that is within it. And this is so only if the marrow within was accessible, i.e., the bone must be pierced so as to allow a hair at least to reach the marrow.
^ᶜnote:Lev. XI, 39.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. 40.
^ᵉnote:Since presumably there is not within the bone an air-space of one cubic-handbreadth the uncleanness within it breaks through its enclosure and spreads in the house or ‘tent’. Cf. supra 71a, and Ber. 19b.
^ᶠnote:And even if the marrow of a bone in the living animal has entirely wasted away, and the flesh around it has gone, the bone is still regarded as a proper limb, for it is possible for new marrow to form in the bone and to restore the flesh around it.
^ᵍnote:Neither of marrow nor of flesh.
^ʰnote:For to regard the bone as a holder for the flesh that is nothar (v. Glos.) there must be at least an olive's bulk either of marrow within it or of flesh upon it.
^ⁱnote:The bone is clearly a protection for the marrow that is within it, and it ha been established (supra 117b, in the very first ruling of this chapter) that a protection can be included and reckoned together with the foodstuff only to convey the light uncleanness i.e., to render other foodstuffs unclean, but not to convey the grave uncleanness, i.e., to render the person that touches it unclean.
^ʲnote:Which deals with the thigh-bone of a corpse.
^ᵏnote:Which deals with the thigh-bone of consecrated animals and of a carcass or reptile.
^ˡnote:Therefore if there was not an olive's bulk of marrow within the bone, it cannot convey uncleanness by ‘overshadowing’. i.e., It cannot render unclean men and vessels that are in the same ‘tent’ or under the same roof.
^ᵐnote:It is regarded as the meat itself and so renders the hands unclean.
^ⁿnote:V. Pes. 83a.
^ᵒnote:Lit., a stand for’.
^ᵖnote:In which case there is no hope of the limb being restored by the formation of new marrow and flesh. Hence as there is not an olive's bulk of marrow now in the bone, neither is there any prospect for the bone to form new marrow, it cannot convey uncleanness by overshadowing.
^ᵠnote:Although it does not now contain the requisite quantity of marrow, since in a portion of the bone there is a continuous strip of marrow, it will be invested in time with marrow and flesh, and it therefore conveys uncleanness as the corpse itself.
^ʳnote:If a long strip of the bark of the tree is removed, the tree will in no way be affected by it, but if a strip around the circumference of the tree is removed, the tree will soon wither.
^ˢnote:I.e., even if there was not an olive's bulk of marrow within the bone, it would still convey uncleanness as a corpse, for the limb would, in time, be restored.
^ᵗnote:So that the original assumption at the outset that the Tanna of our Mishnah excluded uncleanness by overshadowing was incorrect.
^ᵘnote:It is surely regarded as a whole limb, for even if it has no marrow or flesh at present, it will be invested with these later on; of what avail is it, therefore, that the bone is stopped up?
^ᵛnote:I.e., it is dried up and shrivelled so that it shakes about within the bone; in such a case the limb cannot be restored.
^ʷnote:Since there is the requisite quantity of marrow within the bone it is immaterial whether it is stopped up or not, for the uncleanness breaks through. With regard to consecrated meat, too, as the bone should as a holder for an olive's bulk of marrow which was nothar, it conveys uncleanness.
^ˣnote:And since it cannot restore the flesh on the outside, it cannot then be considered as a limb; it therefore requires the minimum standard of an olive's bulk which must be accessible.
^ʸnote:Ohol. III, 2. The Tanna in the following Mishnah clearly holds the view that the expression ‘contact’ means also ‘overshadowing’, and that these two forms of uncleanness fall within one category.
^ᶻnote:E.g. one hand of the man was touching one half-olive's bulk while the other hand was directly above and overshadowing the second half-olive's bulk.
^ᵃᵃnote:E.g. the second half-olive's bulk was stuck on a chip which was inserted in the wall and the man stood directly underneath it.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc., uncleanness conveyed by contact and by overshadowing.
^ᵃᶜnote:Ohol. ibid.

²if 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.^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᵈnote:E.g., both the man and the second half-olive's bulk were directly underneath and overshadowed by a plank.
^ᵃᵉnote:Should not the contact and the overshadowing, each in connection with a half-olive's bulk of a corpse, combine to render the person unclean?
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., there is a contradiction in this Mishnah itself between the first clause and the next one.
^ᵃᵍnote:For it is established law that uncleanness which is confined or wedged in — i.e., there is not the air-space of a handbreadth on all sides — breaks through its confines and rises, as it were, in a column directly above, so that whoever passes at any height whatsoever over the uncleanness actually comes into contact with the column of uncleanness and is rendered unclean.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., the earth of a decomposed body found in a coffin.
^ᵃⁱnote:For the corpse-mould is composed of many particles, and when a person touches a part thereof he cannot be said to have touched the whole ladleful, in which case he should not be rendered unclean by contact therewith.
^ᵃʲnote:The terms ‘contact’ and ‘overshadowing’ employed in the foregoing Baraitha are both to be understood in the sense of overshadowing, but Abaye draws a distinction between two modes of overshadowing. It must be observed that Abaye's suggestion is in no wise in support of R. Johanan's contention that the Tanna of our Mishnah is R. Jose and that the expression in our Mishnah HE WHO TOUCHES includes overshadowing, for according to him only overshadowing within a handbreadth from the unclean matter can be referred to by the term ‘touch’, accordingly our Mishnah does exclude plain overshadowing so that the difficulty propounded at the beginning of the argument stands. Of course Abaye himself has already explained the Mishnah to his satisfaction as stated above, supra p. 701.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., where the person and the uncleanness are side by side, but some projection overshadows both, forming a ‘tent’ or roof over both.
^ᵃˡnote:That whatsoever overshadows more than the distance of a handbreadth away from the uncleanness is still regarded as ‘overshadowing by contact’ according to R. Jose, and is implied in the term ‘touch’.
^ᵃᵐnote:If these networks are stretched out across the lower room forming a ceiling thereto, they become forthwith part of the structure of the room and as such cannot contract uncleanness. Moreover they serve as a partition and prevent the uncleanness from passing into the room above, for the meshes or holes in the network do not give passage to the uncleanness since there is no opening a handbreadth square in it. Consequently whatsoever happens to be in the upper room, even that which is directly over a hole in the net, remains clean.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., happens to be directly over one of the holes in the net. In this case the network is in no way intended as a ceiling, consequently whatsoever directly overshadows the corpse becomes unclean, but whatsoever is not directly over a hole but over a bar or thread of the net does not become unclean, for in this respect the threads of the net, inasmuch as they do not contract uncleanness, form a partition to prevent the uncleanness from passing upwards.
^ᵃᵒnote:The network, since it is so close to the corpse, can almost be regarded as the shroud of the dead, and the shroud of the dead surely cannot prevent the uncleanness of the corpse from spreading!
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., he mentally ignores the separate existence of the shroud as a garment but looks upon it as part of the corpse; this, however, cannot be said with regard to the network.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., uncleanness over which there is not the space of one handbreadth. V. supra 71a and Ohol. XIV, 6.
^ᵃʳnote:That according to R. Jose concealed uncleanness cannot break through.
^ᵃˢnote:Ohol. IV, 2, 3.
^ᵃᵗnote:So that any uncleanness inside it would not be regarded as concealed uncleanness.
^ᵃᵘnote:By Rabbinic decree everything in the house becomes unclean forthwith, even while the uncleanness is still shut-up in the drawer, because eventually the uncleanness will be brought forth and then it will certainly render everything in the house unclean. Cf. Ohol. VII, 3; Bez. 101.
^ᵃᵛnote:It is not inevitable that the house be tendered unclean, for the uncleanness can either be destroyed in the drawer, or be brought out in such quantities as does not render unclean.
^ᵃʷnote:For the uncleanness will not pass through the house at all and as there was the space of a cubic handbreadth in the cupboard the uncleanness in it cannot break through.