Chullin 248

Chapter 248

א במרודד הכא נמי
1 that the flesh was beaten thin, so here it could also be explained that the flesh was beaten thin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was a thin slice of flesh the size of a tirta or even of a sieve which when collected and rolled tip amounted to an olive's bulk only.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב במרודד:
2 IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH EACH A HALF-OLIVES BULK UPON IT etc. Bar Padda said: This ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Ishmael that the two pieces of flesh each a half-olive's bulk adhering to the hide do not convey uncleanness by contact.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג היו עליו:
3 applies only to the case [where a man touched them] from the outside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he did not actually touch the flesh but only the hide opposite each piece; the hide in such a case cannot serve either as a protection or as a handle to combine the two pieces in order to convey the uncleanness.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אמר בר פדא
4 but [where he touched them] on the inside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he actually touched the pieces of flesh, first the one half-olive's bulk and then the other. In this case R. Ishmael will hold that the two separate contacts are combined and are regarded as one contact of a whole olive's bulk, and the person would be unclean.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה לא שנו אלא מאחריו אבל מלפניו יש נוגע וחוזר ונוגע
5 the two contacts can be reckoned together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is such a thing as touching and again touching'.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו ורבי יוחנן אמר
6 But R'Johanan said: The two contacts cannot be reckoned together.
ז אין נוגע וחוזר ונוגע
7 R'Johanan is consistent in his view, for R'Johanan also said that R'Ishmael and R'Dosa B'Harkinas said the same thing.
ח ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן
8 R'Ishmael taught it in the above passage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Johanan R. Ishmael holds that two separate contacts, each time of half the minimum quantity, cannot be reckoned as one contact of the whole quantity.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט רבי ישמעאל ורבי דוסא בן הרכינס אמרו דבר אחד
9 and R'Dosa B'Harkinas in the following Mishnah which we learnt: If any matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of those enumerated in Ohol. II, 1, e.g. an olive's bulk of the flesh of a corpse, or a ladleful of corpse-mould.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י רבי ישמעאל הא דאמרן רבי דוסא בן הרכינס דתנן
10 which causes uncleanness in a 'tent'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By overshadowing, i.e., which renders unclean everything which happens to be in the same tent or under the same roof space as the unclean matter. Cf. Num. XIX, 14.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יא כל המטמאין באהל שנחלקו והכניסן לתוך הבית ר' דוסא בן הרכינס מטהר וחכמים מטמאים
11 was divided and [the parts]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each less then the minimum quantity.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב או אמר רבי דוסא בן הרכינס התם אין מאהיל וחוזר ומאהיל הכא נמי
12 brought into a house, R'Dosa B'Harkinas declares [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages declare it unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 1, 'Ed. III, 1.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יג אין נוגע וחוזר ונוגע
13 Now does not R'Dosa B'Harkinas hold that two overshadowings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each time of half the minimum quantity. According to R. Dosa b. Harkinas, overshadowing must be in one place, at the same time, and over a whole olive's bulk.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד ומדרבי דוסא בן הרכינס כרבי ישמעאל רבנן כרבי עקיבא
14 cannot be reckoned together?
טו והא ר' עקיבא טהורי קא מטהר
15 Similarly, two contacts cannot be reckoned together.
טז עד כאן לא קא מטהר רבי עקיבא אלא בעור אבל בעלמא מטמא
16 As it is established that R'Dosa B'Harkinas is in agreement with R'Ishmael, it follows that the Sages [th opponents of R'Dosa] are in agreement with R'Akiba [the opponent of R'Ishmael].
יז כדקתני סיפא ומודה רבי עקיבא בב' חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם והסיטן שהוא טמא ומפני מה ר"ע מטהר בעור מפני שהעור מבטלן
17 But does not R'Akiba hold that they are entirely clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the flesh adhering to the hide. Thus R. Akiba is more lenient in his view than R. Ishmael, whereas the Sages who differ with R. Dosa');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יח מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא
18 - R'Akiba only declares them clean when adhering to the hide, but otherwise they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two pieces of flesh, each a half-olive's bulk, when touched separately.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יט בנבלתם ולא בעור שיש עליו ב' חצאי זיתים
19 convey uncleanness, as stated in the latter part [of the Mishnah]: R'AKIBA, HOWEVER, AGREES THAT IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH.
כ יכול אף במשא
20 EACH A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK, STUCK ON A CHIP AND A MAN SWAYED THEM, HE BECOMES UNCLEAN.
כא ת"ל
21 WHEREFORE THEN DOES R'AKIBA DECLARE HIM CLEAN IN THE [CASE WHERE THEY ADHERE TO THE] HIDE?
כב (ויקרא יא, כה) והנושא יטמא דברי רבי ישמעאל
22 BECAUSE THE HIDE RENDERS THEM NEGLIGIBLE.
כג רבי עקיבא אומר
23 R''Ukba B'Hama raised an objection.
כד הנוגע והנושא את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע לא בא לכלל משא
24 It is written: [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 39.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כה ואם איתא הרי בא לכלל מגע מלפניו
25 but not the hide upon which are two pieces of flesh each a half-olive's bulk.
כו אמר רבא הכי קאמר
26 I might think that the same is the case with regard to carrying, the verse therefore says.
כז את שבא לכלל מגע בכל צד בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע בכל צד לא בא לכלל משא
27 And he that carrieth.
כח בעא מיניה רב אויא סבא מרבה בר רב הונא
28 shall be unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 40.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כט קולית סתומה לרבי ישמעאל מהו שתטמא
29 So R'Ishmael.
ל אית ליה לר' ישמעאל את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע לא בא לכלל משא והכא היינו טעמא משום דבא לכלל מגע מלפניו
30 R'Akiba says: It is written: 'He that toucheth', and 'He that carrieth': therefore, what comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact, comes within the scope of uncleanness by carrying, and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, argues R. Akiba, it cannot be said that these pieces of flesh convey uncleanness by carrying and not by contact, as R. Ishmael would have it.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לא או דלמא
31 Now if it were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, according to Bar Padda, R. Ishmael holds that these pieces can convey uncleanness also by contact, namely, on the inside (v. supra p. 696, n. 2) , then R. Akiba's argument is void of meaning.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לב לית ליה
32 it indeed comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact on the inside! - Raba answered.
לג אמר ליה
33 He means to say this: What comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact on every side thereof comes within the scope of uncleanness by carrying, and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact on every side thereof does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Akiba means that unless a substance can convey uncleanness by every contact with it, from the outside as well as from the inside, it will not convey uncleanness by carrying.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
לד עורבא פרח
34 R'Awia the Elder enquired of Rabbah son of R'Huna: Can a closed marrow-bone, according to R'Ishmael, convey uncleanness [by carrying] or not?
לה א"ל רבא בריה
35 Does R'Ishmael accept the principle 'What comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact, comes within the scope of uncleanness by carrying, and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact, does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore a closed-up marrow-bone of a carcass, since it does not convey uncleanness by contact (v. next Mishnah, for the bone itself is not considered unclean as the carcass, and the marrow within it is inaccessible for it is closed-up) , will not convey uncleanness by carrying.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
לו ולאו היינו רב אויא סבא מפומבדיתא דמשבח לן מר בגויה דגברא רבה הוא
36 - but here [in our Mishnah] the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the two morsels of flesh convey uncleanness by carrying.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
לז א"ל
37 is because it comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact on the inside; or does he not accept this principle at all? - He replied: See, there's a raven flying past.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An evasive answer.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
לח אני היום (שיר השירים ב, ה) סמכוני באשישות ובעא מינאי מילתא דבעי טעמא
38 [When R'Awia left,] his son Raba said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba said to his father Rabbah b. R. Huna.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
לט אמר עולא
39 'Was that not R'Awia the Elder of Pumbeditha whom you.
מ שני חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם אפי' מוליך ומביא כל היום כולו טהור
40 Sir, have praised as a great man'?
מא מ"ט כתיב (ויקרא יא, כה) ונשא וקרינן נושא בעינן נושא והוא דנישא בבת אחת
41 He replied: 'I am to-day [in the condition of the lover who said,] Sustain me with raisin-cakes!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cant. II, 5. He had just finished his lecture for that day (or, he was that day elected Head of the Academy - 'Aruch) and was too exhausted for any argument or discussion but required rest and refreshment. tabvu tabvu');"><sup>23</sup></span>
מב תנן
42 And he asks me a matter which requires much reasoning!'
מג היו עליו שני חצאי זיתים מטמאין במשא ולא במגע דברי ר' ישמעאל אמאי
43 Ulla said: If there were two pieces of flesh, each a half-olive's bulk, stuck on a chip and a man waved them to and fro, even the whole day long, he remains clean.
מד והא לאו נישא הוא
44 Why?
מה א"ר פפא
45 Because [as] written [the word can be read] 'be carried', but [by tradition] we read 'carries';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 40. Heb. The traditional reading is , (in active sense) 'and he who carries'; though the word might also be read as tabvu , (in passive sense) 'and whatsoever is carried'.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
מו במרודד
46 it is necessary therefore that when one 'carries' it it must be able to 'be carried' at one time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the olive's bulk must be one whole piece so that if one were to lift up part thereof the whole would be lifted up.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
מז ת"ש
47 We have learnt: IF THERE WERE TWO PIECES OF FLESH, EACH A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK.
מח מודה ר"ע בשני חצאי זיתים שתחבן בקיסם והסיטן שהוא טמא אמאי
48 UPON IT, THEY CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BY CARRYING BUT NOT BY CONTACT; SO R'ISHMAEL.
מט והא לאו נישא הוא
49 Wherefore is this so?
נ ה"נ במרודד
50 They surely cannot 'be carried' at one time? - R'Papa suggested that there was a thin strip [of flesh joining the two pieces].
נא כתנאי
51 Come and hear: 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 THEM, HE BECOMES UNCLEAN.
נב אחד הנוגע ואחד המסיט ר' אליעזר אומר
52 Wherefore is this so?
נג אף הנושא
53 They surely cannot 'be carried' at one time? - Here, too, we must suppose that there was a thin strip of flesh.
נד אטו נושא לאו מסיט הוא
54 Tannaim differ on this point.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether it is essential that the olive's bulk be in one whole so that it could be carried at one time.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
נה אלא לאו הכי קאמר
55 It was taught: It is all one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one is rendered unclean.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
נו אחד הנוגע ואחד המסיט בלא נישא ואתא ר' אליעזר למימר
56 whether one touches them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two pieces of unclean flesh each a half-olive's bulk.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
נז והוא דנישא ומאי אף
57 or sways them.
נח אימא
58 R'Eliezer says.
נט והוא דנישא:
59 Even if one carries them.
ס <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> קולית המת
60 But does not the one that carries them also sway them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherein then does R. Eliezer differ from the first Tanna?');"><sup>29</sup></span> - This must be the interpretation: It is all one whether one touches them or sways them even though they cannot be carried [at one time]. Whereupon R'Eliezer comes to say, [No,] only if they can be carried at one time. Then what is the meaning of 'even'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'even' implies an extension of the law beyond that stated by the first Tanna; on the other hand, 'only' is a limitation,');"><sup>30</sup></span> - Read: Only if they can be carried at one time. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WITH REGARD TO A THIGH-BONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or any bone which contains marrow.');"><sup>31</sup></span> OF A CORPSE.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter