Chullin

if he touched one half-olive's bulk and some other thing overshadowed both him and another half-olive's bulk,1 he is clean. Now if they fall within one category why is he clean?2 But does not this clause conflict with the first clause?3 — 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. 4 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-mould5 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!6 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’.7 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.8 Raba said: Whence do I derive this?9 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.10 If these were spread over a corpse, being suspended in the air, whatever touches11 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!12 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],13 but he does not ignore the existence of these. But is this not a case of concealed uncleanness14 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?15 From [the following Mishnah] which we learnt:16 If a drawer in a cupboard had the capacity of a [cubic] handbreadth within,17 and the opening [of the cupboard] was less than a handbreadth [square], and there was some uncleanness in it, the house becomes unclean;18 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.19 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;20 if there was some uncleanness in the house, what is in [the cupboard] remains clean. render the person unclean? 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. have touched the whole ladleful, in which case he should not be rendered unclean by contact therewith. 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. or roof over both. ‘overshadowing by contact’ according to R. Jose, and is implied in the term ‘touch’. 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. 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. the dead surely cannot prevent the uncleanness of the corpse from spreading! this, however, cannot be said with regard to the network. 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. be brought out in such quantities as does not render unclean. cupboard the uncleanness in it cannot break through.