חולין 55:1 — Soncino English Talmud

[can contract uncleanness if they can now hold] enough oil to anoint a limb of a child, [provided that, when unbroken, these vessels could hold any amount] up to a log. Presumably what could hold exactly a log would be regarded as holding less! — No. Exactly a log would be regarded as holding more. Come and hear: If [these vessels, when unbroken, could hold anything] from a log up to a se'ah, [their remnants must now be capable of holding] one quarter log. Presumably what holds exactly a se'ah would be regarded as holding less! — No. Exactly a se'ah would be regarded as holding more. Come and hear: If [these vessels, when unbroken, could hold anything] from one se'ah up to two se'ahs, [their remnants must now be capable of holding] one half log. Presumably what holds exactly two se'ahs would be regarded as holding less! — No. Exactly two se'ahs would be regarded as holding more. But it has been taught: If the vessel, when unbroken, could hold exactly a log it must be regarded as holding less, or if exactly a se'ah it must be regarded as holding less, or if exactly two se'ahs it must be regarded as holding less. — [It must be said that] there [and in all cases] the stricter view is adopted. For R. Abbahu reported in the name of R. Johanan: All standards fixed by the Rabbis are to be applied strictly except the size of a bean, the standard for stains, which is to be applied leniently. And there is, indeed, a support for this ruling; for the following has been taught as a comment [upon that Mishnah]: If it was exactly five handbreadths long it is regarded as more, but if it was exactly ten handbreadths long it is regarded as less. IF THE SPLEEN WAS GONE. R. ‘Awira said in the name of Raba: This was taught only if it was gone, but should it have been pierced it would be trefah. R. Jose b. Abin (others say: R. Jose b. Zabida) raised this objection. We have learnt: Whatsoever is cut off from the embryo within the womb [of the animal and left inside] may be eaten, but whatsoever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal itself and left inside] may not be eaten. It follows, however, that the animal itself is permitted! — No; the law is that the animal itself is also forbidden, but only because the Tanna stated in the first clause that it may be eaten did he state in the second clause too that it may not be eaten. Alternatively, I can say: Pierced is one thing but cut another. IF THE KIDNEYS WERE GONE. Rakish b. Papa said in the name of Rab, If one kidney was diseased it is trefah. In the West it was said: Provided the infection extended^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ᵃnote:Whatsoever cannot hold this quantity is not regarded as a receptacle and the law of uncleanness does not apply. On the question whether or not this minimum quantity is essential in an unbroken earthenware vessel, v. Tosaf. a.l. and the commentaries on this Mishnah in Kelim II. 2.
^ᵇnote:I.e., less than a log; and the standard of ‘enough oil to anoint a limb of a child’ would apply, thus proving that ‘up to’ is inclusive. Log and se'ah are Heb. measures both of liquids and of solids.
^ᶜnote:And the standard stated in the next clause would apply.
^ᵈnote:And in order to be able to contract uncleanness the minimum capacity of a remnant of a vessel which, when unbroken, held more than two se'ahs is one whole log. V. Kelim II, 2.
^ᵉnote:It is evident from this Baraitha that ‘up to’ is always inclusive.
^ᶠnote:The conclusion therefore is that the expression ‘up to’ sometimes is and sometimes is not inclusive. If, in any context, a matter up to a certain measure is permitted (as in the case of our Mishnah supra 54a), the strict view must be adopted and ‘up to’ will not be inclusive. But, on the other hand, if any matter up to a certain measure is forbidden, or is capable of being rendered unclean, the strict view must again be adopted and ‘up to’ will be inclusive.
^ᵍnote:If a woman observes a blood stain, the size of a bean, on her under-clothes she becomes unclean, for the stain might be the blood of menstruation. If the stain is exactly, or less than, the size of a bean, she would not be unclean, for she may set it down to the blood of a louse; v. Nid. 58b. The reason for this leniency is because the law relating to stains is merely Rabbinic.
^ʰnote:In Kelim XIX, 2. V. supra p. 298, n. 6.
^ⁱnote:In each case the string is rendered unclean because we adopt throughout the stricter ruling, so that in the first case of this Baraitha ‘up to’ is not inclusive but in the second case it is.
^ʲnote:When the animal is slaughtered subsequently. V. infra 68a.
^ᵏnote:Even though its spleen was cut, which is presumably very much the same as when pierced; thus refuting R. ‘Awira's ruling.
^ˡnote:Sc. the actual part that was cut off.
^ᵐnote:But the animal itself is also trefah by reason of this mutilation of its spleen.
^ⁿnote:I.e., the law is different in each case. Where the whole or part of the spleen has been removed the animal is permitted, but where it has pierced it is trefah according to R. ‘Awira. This is a difficult distinction to accept, and indeed it is omitted in many MSS. V. Marginal Gloss and notes on this passage in D.S.