Chullin 249
וקולית המוקדשין הנוגע בהן בין סתומים בין נקובים טמא
OR A THIGH-BONE OF A CONSECRATED ANIMAL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was rendered piggul (v. Glos.) in the course of the offering, or whose meat became nothar, i.e., was left over beyond the time prescribed for eating. The Rabbis, in order to prevent such abuses arising out of the negligence of the priest, decreed that sacrificial meat which was piggul or nothar shall render the hands unclean (v. Pes. 120b) . This decree clearly applied to those parts of the sacrifice which were edible; therefore it did not apply to marrowless bones, but it did apply to a marrowbone for then the bone serves as a holder for the marrow within it.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
קולית נבלה וקולית השרץ הנוגע בהם סתומים טהורים נקובים כל שהוא מטמא במגע מנין שאף במשא ת"ל (ויקרא יא, כז) הנוגע והנושא את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא לא בא לכלל מגע לא בא לכלל משא:
HE WHO TOUCHES IT, WHETHER IT BE STOPPED UP OR PIERCED, BECOMES UNCLEAN.
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> נוגע אין אבל מאהיל לא
WITH REGARD TO A THIGHBONE OF A CARCASS OR OF A [DEAD] REPTILE, IF IT WAS STOPPED UP HE WHO TOUCHES IT REMAINS CLEAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bone of a carcass or of a reptile is in itself not unclean (v. supra 77b) ; it is, however, unclean because it serves as a 'protection' to the marrow that is within it. And this is so only if the marrow within was accessible, i.e., the bone must be pierced so as to allow a hair at least to reach the marrow.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ותו קולית נבלה וקולית השרץ כי ניקבו אמאי מטמאו
But if there was an olive's bulk of marrow within it, then surely the uncleanness breaks through and rises upwards,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since presumably there is not within the bone an air-space of one cubic-handbreadth the uncleanness within it breaks through its enclosure and spreads in the house or 'tent'. Cf. supra 71a, and Ber. 19b.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מילי מילי קא משמע לן
But if it is held that the marrow within [the bone] can restore [the flesh] outside it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even if the marrow of a bone in the living animal has entirely wasted away, and the flesh around it has gone, the bone is still regarded as a proper limb, for it is possible for new marrow to form in the bone and to restore the flesh around it.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
דאמר מרי בר אבוה אמר רבי יצחק
Then why does it convey uncleanness in the case of consecrated animals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For to regard the bone as a holder for the flesh that is nothar (v. Glos.) there must be at least an olive's bulk either of marrow within it or of flesh upon it.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
עצמות קדשים ששימשו נותר מטמאין את הידים הואיל ונעשה בסיס לדבר האסור
Furthermore, why does the thigh-bone of a carcass or of a [dead] reptile, even when pierced, convey uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bone is clearly a protection for the marrow that is within it, and it ha been established (supra 117b, in the very first ruling of this chapter) that a protection can be included and reckoned together with the foodstuff only to convey the light uncleanness i.e., to render other foodstuffs unclean, but not to convey the grave uncleanness, i.e., to render the person that touches it unclean.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
דיקלא
The first clause teaches us [the principle] that the marrow within [the bone] cannot restore [the flesh] outside it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore if there was not an olive's bulk of marrow within the bone, it cannot convey uncleanness by 'overshadowing'. i.e., It cannot render unclean men and vessels that are in the same 'tent' or under the same roof.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ורבי יוחנן אמר
The clause concerning consecrated animals teaches us that whatever serves [as a holder for] the meat left over [from the sacrifice] is a matter of consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is regarded as the meat itself and so renders the hands unclean.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ואי מוח מבפנים מעלה ארוכה מבחוץ קולית נבלה וקולית השרץ כי לא נקבו אמאי טהורים
Bones of sacrifices which served [as a holder for] the meat left over [from the sacrifice] render the hands unclean, sinc they have become auxiliary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., a stand for'.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאיכא כזית מוח המתקשקש גבי מת טומאה בוקעת ועולה נבלה כיון דמתקשקש הוא ניקבה אין לא ניקבה לא
The clause concerning the carcass [teaches us] that even if there is an olive's bulk [of marrow in the bone], only when [the bone is] pierced does it [convey uncleanness], but when not pierced it does not [convey uncleanness].
א"ר אבין ואיתימא ר' יוסי בר אבין אף אנן נמי תנינא
Abaye said: In fact [I maintain that] the marrow within [the bone] can restore [the flesh] outside it, but h we are dealing with a bone which was sawn through [transversely],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is no hope of the limb being restored by the formation of new marrow and flesh. Hence as there is not an olive's bulk of marrow now in the bone, neither is there any prospect for the bone to form new marrow, it cannot convey uncleanness by overshadowing.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
אי אמרת בשלמא חד שמא הוא משו"ה מצטרף
For R'Eleazar stated: If a man sawed through a marrow-bone lengthwise it is still unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it does not now contain the requisite quantity of marrow, since in a portion of the bone there is a continuous strip of marrow, it will be invested in time with marrow and flesh, and it therefore conveys uncleanness as the corpse itself.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אלא אי אמרת תרי שמי נינהו מי מצטרף
if transversely it is clean; as a mnemonic think of the palm tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a long strip of the bark of the tree is removed, the tree will in no way be affected by it, but if a strip around the circumference of the tree is removed, the tree will soon wither.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
והתנן
R'Johanan said: In truth, there was an olive's bulk [of marrow in the bone], and [I maintain that] the marrow within can restore [the flesh] outside it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if there was not an olive's bulk of marrow within the bone, it would still convey uncleanness as a corpse, for the limb would, in time, be restored.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
זה הכלל כל שהוא משם אחד מצטרף וטמא משני שמות טהור
but the expression HE WHO TOUCHES stated [in the Mishnah] means also overshadowing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the original assumption at the outset that the Tanna of our Mishnah excluded uncleanness by overshadowing was incorrect.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אלא מאי חד שמא הוא
But surely if the marrow within can restore [the flesh] outside it, why is it that the thigh-bone of a carcass or of a dead reptile, if not pierced, is clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is surely regarded as a whole limb, for even if it has no marrow or flesh at present, it will be invested with these later on; of what avail is it, therefore, that the bone is stopped up?');"><sup>21</sup></span>
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.');"><sup>22</sup></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.');"><sup>23</sup></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.');"><sup>24</sup></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.');"><sup>25</sup></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.');"><sup>26</sup></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.');"><sup>27</sup></span> he is unclean. Now if you hold that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., uncleanness conveyed by contact and by overshadowing.');"><sup>28</sup></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.');"><sup>29</sup></span> What do you say then? That they fall within one category? Read the following clause: But