Chullin 119a (קיט.) — the Talmud in English

We now raise an objection:

And Rav—

this

beraita

with what case can he establish it,

so that none of the tanna'im mentioned in this beraita disagrees with him?

But

if

it is speaking in the beraita

of

a bone serving as

a handle

alone—for example, a bone that contains no marrow, but has on one side half a kezayit of flesh, so that the entire bone serves as a “handle” for that flesh—

the first clause is difficult,

as the first tanna says that even if the flesh on the bone is less than a kezayit, the house becomes impure, whereas Rav said that there is no status of a handle for less than a kezayit?

And if

it is speaking in the beraita

of

a bone that is

a protective covering,

for example, a hollow bone containing marrow on one side, so that the entire bone becomes a “protective covering” for the marrow [because if the bone is opened, even on its other side, the marrow will be spoiled], and therefore the bone renders the house impure at its other end, according to the law of a protective covering that conveys impurity,

the final clause is difficult,

as Yehuda ben Nekosa deems it pure because the flesh is less than a kezayit, whereas Rav said that there is no protective covering for less than a double-kebeitza. But for more than a double-kebeitza there is a protective covering, even when the flesh does not amount to a kezayit?

And it is likewise difficult according to Rabbi Yohanan: if it is speaking of a handle, there is a difficulty from Yehuda ben Nekosa, who deems it pure because the flesh does not amount to a kezayit, whereas Rabbi Yohanan deems it impure through a handle even when it is less than a kezayit. And if it is speaking of a protective covering, there is a difficulty even from the first tanna, as the first tanna deemed it impure specifically when there were two half-kezayit portions. This implies that if there are many bones, none of which contains a double-kebeitza, they do not render it impure. Yet Rabbi Yohanan said that there is a protective covering even for less than a double-kebeitza.

And we answer:

If you wish, say

that he establishes it

as a handle. If you wish, say

that he establishes it

as a protective covering,

as will be explained. [In truth, it is impossible to establish both tanna'im in the beraita as agreeing with Rav or with Rabbi Yohanan; rather, they stated their positions in accordance with one of the tanna'im.]

If you wish, say that it is referring to

a bone that is

a handle; and

Rav

is the one who stated his opinion in accordance with Yehuda ben Nekosa,

who deems the house pure because there is no handle for less than a kezayit. [Rav concedes that according to the first tanna there is a handle even for less than a kezayit.]

And if you wish, say

that it is referring to a bone that is

a protective covering; and

Rav

is the one who stated his opinion in accordance with the first tanna,

who deems it impure because there is a protective covering even for less than half a kezayit. [Rav concedes that according to Yehuda ben Nekosa there is no protective covering even for less than a kezayit.]

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The entire

beraita is speaking

of a handle, and he stated his opinion in accordance with the first tanna,

who holds that there is a handle even for less than a kezayit. [Rabbi Yohanan concedes that according to Yehuda ben Nekosa there is no handle for less than a kezayit.]

However, according to Rabbi Yohanan it cannot be established as referring to a protective covering, since in his view there is a protective covering even for less than a double-kebeitza, whereas the beraita implies that even according to the first tanna there is a protective covering only for at least a kezayit, and not for less than a double-kebeitza. It must therefore be speaking of a handle. And Rabbi Yohanan stated his opinion in accordance with the first tanna, who holds that there is a handle for at least a kezayit, but not for less than a double-kebeitza.

Come and hear:

as it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A thighbone

which is the upper bone of the thigh,

that has a kezayit of flesh on it,

that kezayit

draws

along with it

the entire

bone, the entire thighbone,

to impurity.

Because of the kezayit of flesh, the entire thighbone becomes either a handle or a protective covering for the flesh, so that wherever impurity touches the bone, the flesh becomes impure through it, even though a bone does not itself contract impurity.

Others say: Even if it has on it

on the thighbone

only

flesh

the size of a “double-kebeitza”—

it draws

the flesh of double-kebeitza size along with

the entire bone to impurity.

We now raise an objection:

And Rav—this

beraita

with what case does he establish it?

If

it is speaking

of

a thighbone that is

a handle

alone, with flesh on one side and no marrow inside it,

the final clause is difficult,

as Others say that even when the flesh is only the size of a double-kebeitza, the thighbone serves as a handle for it, whereas Rav said that there is no handle for less than a kezayit?

If

it is speaking

of a protective covering,

because of the marrow inside it,

the first clause is difficult,

as Rabbi Yehuda says that this applies specifically when it contains a kezayit of flesh. Yet Rav said that there is a protective covering even for less than a kezayit!?

And we answer:

If you wish, say that it is referring to a handle. And

Rav

is the one who stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

[and Rav concedes that according to Others there is a handle even for less than a kezayit].

And if you wish, say that it is referring to a protective covering. And

Rav stated

his opinion in accordance with Others

[and Rav concedes that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is a protective covering only for a kezayit].

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The entire passage is referring to a protective covering. And he stated his opinion in accordance with Others,

[whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda there is a protective covering only for a kezayit].

And we challenge this: Can Rabbi Yohanan maintain his position in accordance with

Others!? Others specifically

said

“double-kebeitza,”

whereas according to Rabbi Yohanan there is a protective covering even for less than a double-kebeitza?

And we answer: Actually, Others hold that even for less than a double-kebeitza it has the status of a protective covering. However,

since the first tanna stated a measure,

of a kezayit,

they too stated a measure,

of a double-kebeitza. But it is not meant specifically.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, one could answer that the passage is speaking of a handle, and that he stated his opinion in accordance with Others, since according to Rabbi Yohanan a handle requires a double-kebeitza, and there is no need to force the interpretation that Others mentioned the measure of a double-kebeitza incidentally to the Sages' measure. Rather, the one who answered relied on Rava's statement below, which infers from the beraita that it is speaking of a protective covering. But according to Rav, the Gemara preferred in its first answer to force the interpretation that it is speaking of a handle, and that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, since the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. This is unlike the case of Rabbi Yohanan, who in any event stated his opinion in accordance with Others; it is therefore preferable to establish the passage as referring to a protective covering.

Rava said: It is also precise that we are dealing with a protective covering

in the beraita,

as it teaches “thighbone,”

which ordinarily contains marrow, and the thighbone is a protective covering for the marrow. If the beraita were speaking of a handle, the same law would apply to any bone that has flesh on it, so why did it specifically mention a thighbone!?

Learn from this

that we are dealing with a protective covering.

It was stated: Rabbi Hanina said:

The statement of Others, “double-kebeitza,”

that is the measure.

For less than a double-kebeitza there is no protective covering, in accordance with Rav.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: This is not the measure.

It is not meant specifically; even for less than a double-kebeitza it has a protective covering.

And we challenge this: How can you say

“This is not the measure,” when it teaches

explicitly in the statement of Others

“double-kebeitza”!?

And we answer:

Since the first tanna stated a measure, they too stated a measure. And

it is actually not meant specifically. This was Rabbi Yohanan's received tradition: when Others said “double-kebeitza,” it was not meant specifically.

Come and hear:

as we learned in tractate Uktzin: A pod [husk] of legumes that has been emptied of the legumes inside it is pure, because it is not fit for consumption and does not serve as a protective covering for the legumes. But if even one grain of a legume remains in it, the pod is impure, because the pod is considered a protective covering for that legume [and the passage is speaking of a large pod, containing enough to combine with the one grain to complete the measure of a foodstuff the size of an egg].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Azarya deems pure

a

pod of a bean,

because the pod is not considered a protective covering,

but deems impure

a

pod of legumes,

which has the status of a protective covering,

because he desires to handle them

the legumes through the pods. That is, beans are coarse, and it is not difficult to clean them of waste; therefore, he has no interest in leaving them inside the pods, and the pods do not serve as a “protective covering” for the beans. Legumes, by contrast, are small, and when waste becomes mixed with them, it is difficult to clean them; therefore, he wants the legumes to remain inside the pods so that waste will not become mixed with them. Consequently, the pods are considered a protective covering for the legumes.

We see that there is a protective covering for legumes that are less than a double-kebeitza. This is difficult for Rav, who said that there is no protective covering for less than a double-kebeitza!?

And we answer:

As

Rav Aha, son of Rava,

said

below, in response to another difficulty:

“At the stalk, and because of a handle.” Here too,

it is speaking

at the stalk

—the creeping creature touched the stalk to which the pods are attached, and not the pods themselves.

And

the issue

is because of a handle

and not because of a protective covering: the stalk serves as a handle for the pods and for the legumes inside them, conveying impurity to them, and it is a handle for more than a kezayit, since all the pods together contain legumes in a measure of a kezayit or more.

And what is the meaning of “because he desires to handle them”

as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya stated? [For according to the Gemara's answer that the passage is speaking of a handle, he deems even the handle of the beans pure because he has no need to hold them, and he deems the handle of the legumes impure because he desires to handle them. It is therefore impossible to explain it as in the initial assumption, namely, that he desires to handle the legumes through the pods, since that is a rationale for a protective covering and not for a handle.] \-

“Because of their use!”

He uses that same stalk as a handle for the pods. But with beans, since they are coarse, he does not care to move the beans themselves without the pods; therefore, their stalk does not have the status of a handle.

Come and hear: For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the impurity of food: “And when any of their carcass falls

upon any sowable seed that is sown,”

and we expound the words “that is sown”:

in the manner in which people take out

the seed to the field, namely,

wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, and lentils in their husk;

so too they contract impurity, for the husk, which is a protective covering for the food, combines with it to complete the measure of a foodstuff the size of an egg with regard to the impurity of food.

This proves that there is a protective covering even for less than a double-kebeitza, since grains of wheat, barley, and lentils do not contain a double-kebeitza. This is difficult for Rav!?

And we answer:

“A whole entity is different.”

When wheat and barley grains are whole, they are considered an independent beria, and they are significant. Therefore, everyone agrees that even when they are less than a double measure, they have a shomer. And when Rav said that the status of a shomer applies specifically at a double measure, he said so only with regard to something that is not a beria, such as a shomer for half a bean, or for meat less than a double measure.