Commentary for Chullin 249:39

אבל

We are dealing here with an olive's bulk of marrow that shakes about<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²²</span> [in the bone]; so that with regard to a corpse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²³</span> the uncleanness breaks through and rises upwards, but with regard to a carcass, since the marrow shakes about within,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁴</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁵</span> If a man touched one half-olive's bulk [of a corpse] and [at the same time] overshadowed another half-olive's bulk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> or the other half-olive's bulk overshadowed him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁷</span> he is unclean. Now if you hold that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., uncleanness conveyed by contact and by overshadowing.');">²⁸</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ohol. ibid.');">²⁹</span> What do you say then? That they fall within one category? Read the following clause: But

Explore commentary for Chullin 249:39. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.