Commentary for Chullin 144:22

בגד לאו לחתיכה קאי עובר לחתיכה קאי וכל העומד לחתוך

So R'Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words 'So R. Meir' are not found in the Mishnah cited; cf. Kel. ibid.');">¹¹</span> And we have learnt further:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. What follows is the continuation of the cited Mishnah; cur. edd. 'it was taught'.');">¹²</span> R'Jose said: What midras uncleanness has it touched? But, [it is admitted,] if one that had an issue touched it, it would now be unclean by reason of its contact with one that had an issue'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a person that had an issue stood upon it with his bare feet, this cloth would have contracted uncleanness on two grounds', viz., because of the pressure and also by reason of direct contact. Now when the cloth is divided and is thereby reduced to less than the minimum size required for midras uncleanness this uncleanness will have disappeared and the cloth will no longer render men and vessels unclean; it will, however, be capable of rendering foodstuffs and liquids unclean by reason of the additional uncleanness brought about by the contact which still remains, provided, of course, it was not reduced to less than three finger-breadths square.');">¹³</span> Surely there has been reported in connection with the above the following statement of Ulla viz. , They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Meir and R. Jose.');">¹⁴</span> stated their views only in respect of a cloth three handbreadths square that was divided, but if a piece of cloth three finger-breadths square was cut away from a large garment [that had contracted midras uncleanness], [all agree that] it is rendered unclean [by virtue of contact] with the rest [of the garment] at the moment that it was severed from the rest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from its father', i.e., from the stock or rest of the material. The cloth, all agree, is unclean by reason of contact with midras uncleanness; for contact there was inasmuch as it is almost impossible to cut away a portion of cloth from the garment without the two coming into contact if only at the moment that they are being severed; and moreover the contact was exposed contact.');">¹⁵</span> Here too, it will be said that it [sc. the foetus] is rendered unclean [by virtue of contact] with t limb at the moment that it is severed from the limb!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the same reasoning applies to the severing of the foetus from the limb so that even R. Jose would agree that it is unclean by reason of the said contact.');">¹⁶</span> Rabina said: A garment is not intended for cutting up but a foetus is, and whatsoever is intended for cutting up

Explore commentary for Chullin 144:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.