Chullin

And in connection with this it was taught that R. Jose declares [the house] clean. Now to which clause [does R. Jose refer]? If to the last clause-surely the first Tanna [in that case] also declares [the house] clean! It must therefore [be this]. The first Tanna had said: ‘If there was some uncleanness in it the house becomes unclean’, either by virtue of the fact that the uncleanness must come forth eventually, or by virtue of the rule that concealed uncleanness breaks through.1 Whereupon R. Jose said to him: As for your argument, ‘The uncleanness must come forth eventually’, [I reply that] one could take out the uncleanness by halves, or burn it in its place; and as for your ruling, ‘Concealed uncleanness breaks through’, [I maintain that] concealed uncleanness does not break through. I can point out a contradiction in the views of R. Jose. For we have learnt:2 If a dog ate the flesh of a corpse and died3 and Jay upon the threshold:4 R. Meir says. If its neck was one handbreadth wide, it brings the uncleanness [into the house];5 and if not, it does not bring in the uncleanness.6 R. Jose says. We must see [where the uncleanness lies]: if it7 lies opposite the lintel and inwards,8 the house is unclean;9 but if opposite the lintel and outwards, the house is clean. R. Eleazar says. If its mouth lies inside,10 the house remains clean; but if the mouth lies outside,10 the house is unclean, because the uncleanness passes out by way of its lower parts.11 R. Judah b. Bathyra says. In all circumstances12 the house is unclean. Now presumably R. Jose deals with the case where its neck was not one handbreadth wide;13 hence you can deduce [that he holds], concealed uncleanness breaks through! — Said Raba: He [R. Jose] means to say: ‘We must consider the space in connection with the uncleanness’;14 and R. Jose consequently differs on two points, saying to R. Meir thus: As for your saying: ‘If its neck was one handbreadth wide it brings in the uncleanness’, [I maintain that] we must consider only the space; and as for your saying, [If it lies] anywhere upon the threshold15 the house is unclean, [I maintain that] if it lies on the inside of the lintel the house is unclean, but if on the outside of the lintel the house remains clean.16 R. Aha the son of Raba actually quotes the Mishnah with these words: R. Jose says. We must consider the space in connection with the uncleanness. And who is the Tanna that disagrees with R. Jose?17 — It is R. Simeon. For it was taught: R. Simeon says. the text applies. E.g., (in the case that is inferred from the last clause) where there was not the space of a cubic handbreadth in the drawer, even though the cupboard stood in the doorway of the house, the house is unclean because of concealed uncleanness; or, the case quoted in the first clause, the house is unclean for the uncleanness will eventually pass through. swallowed within a living being cannot render unclean. vertebrae, arteries etc.) the uppermost side of the neck overshadows as a ‘tent’ the uncleanness, and seeing that the ‘tent’ extends into the house it thus leads in the uncleanness. uncleanness. V. Ohol. III, 7. through, so that the house overshadows the uncleanness. this way it would have been evacuated) into the house. lintel or not, and whether the mouth of the dog lay inside or not. would lead the uncleanness into the house. Where, however, there is no space of a handbreadth in the neck, even though the neck in which the uncleanness lies is entirely within the house, the house is clean, for the uncleanness is concealed and cannot break through. who touches’, for contact and overshadowing are separate categories of uncleanness.