Chullin 247
עד שיהא בארץ
so that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the plastering; i.e., the plastering must be entirely demolished so that it in no wise supports the parts of the oven (Rashi) ; or, 'it' sc. each part of the oven (Maim) ; or, 'it' sc. the crack must run from the top to the bottom of the oven, i.e., a perpendicular crack (R. Samson of Sens) .');"><sup>1</sup></span>
כי ממעט לה מד' מיהא טהור אמאי
One need not scrape off the plastering nor [see to it] that it lies the ground, but one need only cut it down to less than four handbreadths high inside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. V, 7.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אמר ליה רבא
Surely we should say that it stands firm!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the plastering around it. This then conflicts with Resh Lakish who maintains that if only a portion of an article remains firm, although the rest of it is broken or torn, it is still considered an article.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר מר
One need not scrape off the plastering nor [see to it] that it lies on the ground, but one need only cut it down to less than four handbreadths high inside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dispute therefore between R. Meir and the Rabbis is only with regard to an oven which was not unclean, concerning the measures necessary in order to prevent it from ever becoming unclean.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
תנור תחלתו ארבעה ושיריו ארבעה דברי רבי מאיר
But there is a contradiction to this, for we have learnt: An oven must, in its first state, be [at least] four handbreadths high,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to be susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
שיריו ברובו רובו דטפח למאי הוי
Now only if there is a fragment of four handbreadths [is it still unclean], but if there is no fragment of four handbreadths it is clean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This clearly contradicts the aforementioned Mishnah which states that an oven to be made clean again must be divided into three parts, but it would not be sufficient to divide it into two, even though each part would be less than four handbreadths.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
שירי גדול ברובו
but here he split it lengthwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if there remains standing the greater part of the oven, even though such part is less than four handbreadths, it remains unclean. It must therefore be divided into three parts so that no part is equal to the greater part of the oven.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ל"א אמרי לה אמר רב הונא משום רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי
But [with regard to a large oven] Sages say [in agreement with R'Meir that it is still unclean if the fragment is] four handbreadths? - This is no difficulty: one ruling refers to an oven nine handbreadths high, the other to an oven seven handbreadths high.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages adopt rules of leniency: where the greater portion of the oven is more than four handbreadths then they regard fragments up to the size of the greater portion as clean; and where the greater portion is less than four handbreadths then they regard fragments up to four handbreadths as clean.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
לא שנו אלא טלית אבל עור חשיב
Thereupon Resh Lakish said: This [teaching] applies only to a garment, but in the case of leather [what is left] is of value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it is only the size of an apron. Hence it is not rendered clean by 'the tearing, for it cannot be said to be destroyed for al use.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כי ממעט מיהא טהור אמאי
Surely we should say [what is left] is of value! - We must suppose here that he intended [the hide] to serve as a seat for one suffering with an issue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reading . According to MS.M. and 'Aruch the reading is , a peculiar word, whose etymology as well as meaning is extremely doubtful. 'A leather seat of a folding chair' (Jast) . The argument is, since the hide was intended to be used for a particular purpose so soon as it is diminished and so rendered unfit for that purpose it is deemed to be of no value.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
הכא במאי עסקינן דקא בעי ליה למושב זב:
AND A MAN TOUCHED A SHRED HANGING FROM IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the olive's bulk of flesh (Rashi) . According to Maim. the Mishnah refers to a fibre that proceeds from the hide.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> עור שיש עליו כזית בשר הנוגע בציב היוצא ממנו ובשערה שכנגדו טמא
OR A HAIR THAT WAS OPPOSITE TO IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on the outside of the hide, directly over the morsel of flesh.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
רבי עקיבא אומר
IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH EACH A HALF-OLIVES BULK UPON IT, THEY CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BY CARRYING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when a person carries the hide he carries at the same time an olive's bulk of the carcass.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
לא במגע ולא במשא
BUT NOT BY CONTACT:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the pieces are apart they cannot be touched simultaneously but only one after the other, and each time only a half-olive's bulk is touched. The two separate 'contacts' cannot be reckoned together to make up a 'contact' of an olive's bulk.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן
R'AKIBA SAYS, NEITHER BY CONTACT NOR BY CARRYING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Akiba is of the opinion (infra) that flesh less than an olive's bulk adhering to hide is deemed as part of the hide itself. yxhv');"><sup>25</sup></span>
לא שנו אלא פלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין בטיל
R'AKIBA, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH, EACH A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK, STUCK ON A CHIP AND A MAN SWAYED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., moved them without actually touching them. Heb. 'swaying'. 'shaking'.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
א"ל
applies only to the case where a wild beast tore it away,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a wild beast bit into the animal whilst alive and later when the animal was being flayed pieces of flesh were found to have been torn away and left hanging to the hide.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
א"ל
R'Nahman enquired of 'Ulla, 'Did R'Johanan also say so even if it was as large as a tirta?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A quarter of a kab; or, the pan of scales (Rashi) . The question is, what if the knife, whilst flaying, cut away a large slice of flesh as much as a tirta? Can this quantity, too, be deemed negligible or not?');"><sup>31</sup></span>
זמנין אשכחיה דיתיב וקאמר לה אסיפא
Said [R'Ammi] to him, 'And even if R'Nahman is the son-in-law of the Exilarch shall he make light of the teaching of R'Johanan? ' On another occasion he [R'Oshaia] found him [R'Ammi] sitting and expounding it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the above statement of R. Johanan.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
אין ואלא עולא ארישא אמרה ניהליכו
By God!' said R'Ammi, 'even i Joshua the son of Nun had told it me by his own mouth I should not have accepted it!' When Rabin came down with all the company<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ; the scholars who used to travel to and fro between Palestine and Babylon reporting teachings of the one country to the other.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
אין
But is there not then a difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is held that a whole olive's bulk of flesh is rendered negligible when cut away by the knife then the same should be the case where flesh the size of a tirta or a sieve was cut away. But this is contrary to reason!');"><sup>35</sup></span>