Chullin 119a — the Talmud in English

And now we ask:

and Rav—

this

beraita

in what can he establish it,

so that none of the tannaim taught in this beraita will disagree with him?

But

if

it is speaking in the beraita

of

a bone serving as

a handle

alone—for example, a bone that has no marrow inside it, but on one side of the bone there is half an olive-bulk of meat, so that the entire bone serves as a “handle” for that meat—

the first clause is difficult,

for the first tanna said that even if the meat upon the bone is less than an olive-bulk, the house becomes impure, whereas Rav said that there is no handle for less than an olive-bulk?

And if

it is speaking in the beraita

of

a bone that is

a protector—for example, the bone is hollow and there is marrow inside it on one side, so that the entire bone becomes a “protector” 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, in accordance with the law of a protector that conveys impurity—

then

the final clause is difficult,

for Judah ben Nekosa declares it pure because the meat is less than an olive-bulk, whereas Rav said that there is no protector for less than a double-olive-bulk. But for more than a double-olive-bulk there is a protector, even though there is not an olive-bulk of meat?

And likewise, according to Rabbi Yohanan, one can ask: if it is speaking of a handle, it is difficult from Judah ben Nekosa, who declares it pure because there is no olive-bulk in the meat, whereas Rabbi Yohanan declares impurity through a handle even for less than an olive-bulk. And if it is speaking of a protector, it is difficult even from the first tanna, for the first tanna declared impurity specifically for two half-olive-bulks. This implies that if there are many bones, none of which contains a double-olive-bulk, they do not render impure. Whereas Rabbi Yohanan said that there is a protector even for less than a double-olive-bulk.

And we answer:

If you wish, say

establish it

as a handle. If you wish, say

establish it

as a protector,

as he proceeds to explain. [And in truth, it is impossible to establish the two tannaim in the beraita as agreeing with Rav or with Rabbi Yohanan; rather, they stated their words in accordance with one of the tannaim.]

If you wish, say: of

a bone that is

a handle. And

Rav

is the one who stated [his ruling] in accordance with Judah ben Nekosa,

who declares the house pure because there is no handle for less than an olive-bulk. [And Rav agrees that according to the first tanna there is a handle even for less than an olive-bulk.]

And if you wish, say

with regard to a bone that is

a protector. And

Rav

is the one who stated [his ruling] in accordance with the first tanna,

who declares impurity, since there is a protector even for less than half an olive-bulk. [And Rav agrees that according to Judah ben Nekosa there is not even a protector for less than an olive-bulk.]

And Rabbi Yohanan said: the entire

beraita is speaking

of a handle, and he is the one who stated [his ruling] in accordance with the first tanna,

who holds that there is a handle even for less than an olive-bulk. [And Rabbi Yohanan agrees that according to Judah ben Nekosa there is no handle for less than an olive-bulk.]

But according to Rabbi Yohanan it cannot be established as referring to a protector, for according to him there is a protector even for less than a double-olive-bulk, whereas in the beraita it is implied that even according to the first tanna there is a protector only for at least an olive-bulk, and not for less than a double-olive-bulk. It must therefore be speaking of a handle. And Rabbi Yohanan, who stated [his ruling] in accordance with the first tanna, holds that there is a handle for less than an olive-bulk but not for less than a double-olive-bulk.

Come and hear:

for it was taught:

Rabbi Judah says: A thigh-bone

which is the upper bone of the thigh,

upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat,

that olive-bulk

drags

the

all of it,

the entire thigh-bone,

to impurity.

For because of the olive-bulk of meat, the entire thigh-bone becomes either a handle or a protector for the meat, so that wherever impurity touches the bone, the meat becomes impure through it, even though a bone does not receive impurity on its own.

Others say: Even if there is not upon it

upon the thigh-bone

but

meat

the size of a “double-olive,”

it drags

the double-olive-sized meat

all of it to impurity.

And now we ask:

and Rav, this

beraita

in what does he establish it?

If

it is speaking

of

a thigh-bone that is

a handle

alone, having meat upon it on one side, with no marrow inside it,

the final clause is difficult,

for Others say that even when the meat is a double-olive-bulk, the thigh-bone serves it as a handle, whereas Rav said that there is no handle for less than an olive-bulk?

If

it is speaking

of a protector,

because of the marrow inside it,

the first clause is difficult,

for Rabbi Judah says that it is specifically when there is an olive-bulk of meat in it, whereas Rav said that there is a protector even for less than an olive-bulk?!

And we answer:

If you wish, say: as a handle. And

Rav

is the one who stated [his ruling] in accordance with Rabbi Judah, [and Rav agrees that according to Others there is a handle even for less than an olive-bulk].

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

And if you wish, say: as a protector. And

Rav said

in accordance with Others, [and Rav agrees that according to Rabbi Judah there is a protector only for an olive-bulk].

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

And Rabbi Yohanan said: the entire matter is as a protector. And he stated [his ruling] in accordance with Others, [and according to Rabbi Judah there is a protector only for an olive-bulk].

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

And we ask: Does Rabbi Yohanan stand according to the position of

Others?! For “a double-olive-bulk”

specifically

they say,

Others. Whereas according to Rabbi Yohanan there is a protector even for less than a double-olive-bulk?

And we answer: In truth, Others hold that even less than a double-olive-bulk has the law of a protector. Rather,

since the first tanna stated a measure

of an olive-bulk,

they too stated a measure

of a double-olive-bulk. But it is not specific.

According to Rabbi Yohanan, one could answer that it is speaking of a handle, and he stated [his ruling] in accordance with Others, for according to Rabbi Yohanan a handle requires a double-olive-bulk, and there is no need to force the interpretation that Others mentioned the measure of a double-olive-bulk incidentally to the Sages. Rather, the one who answers relied upon Rava’s words below, who infers from the beraita that it is speaking of a protector. But according to Rav, the Gemara preferred in the first answer to force the interpretation that it is speaking of a handle, and that Rav stated [his ruling] in accordance with Rabbi Judah, since the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Judah. This is not so according to Rabbi Yohanan, who in any event stated [his ruling] in accordance with Others; it is preferable to establish it as referring to a protector.

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

in the beraita,

as it teaches, “a thigh-bone,”

for generally there is marrow inside it, and the thigh-bone is a protector for the marrow. If the beraita were speaking of a handle, the same law would apply to every bone upon which there is meat; why, then, did it mention specifically a thigh-bone?!

Learn from it

that we are dealing with a protector.

It was stated: Rabbi Hanina said:

the fact that Others say “a double-olive-bulk”

that is the measure.

For less than a double-olive-bulk there is no protector, in accordance with Rav.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: This is not the measure.

It is not specific, and even less than a double-olive-bulk has a protector.

And we ask: How did you say,

“This is not the measure,” whereas it teaches

explicitly in the words of Others

“a double-olive-bulk”?!

And we answer:

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

in truth, it is not specific. For this was the tradition received by Rabbi Yohanan: when Others say “a double-olive-bulk,” it is not specific.

Come and hear:

for we learned in tractate Uktzin: A pod [a pod-shell] of legumes from which the legumes inside it have been emptied—the pod is pure, because it is not fit for eating and does not serve as a protector for the legumes. But if even one grain of a legume was left in it, the pod is impure, because the pod is considered a protector for that legume [and it is speaking of a large pod, containing enough to combine with one grain to form the measure of an egg-bulk].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah declares pure a

pod

of a bean,

because the pod is not considered a protector,

and declares impure a

pod

of legumes,

for it has the law of a protector,

because he desires their handling

of the legumes through the pods. That is, the beans are coarse, and there is no difficulty in cleaning them of refuse, and therefore he has no interest in leaving them inside the pods, and they do not serve as a “protector” for the beans. In contrast, the legumes are small, and when refuse becomes mixed with them it is difficult to clean them; therefore he wants the legumes to remain inside the pods so that refuse will not become mixed with them. Therefore they are considered a protector for the legumes.

We see that there is a protector for legumes that are less than a double-olive-bulk. And this is difficult for Rav, who said that there is no protector for less than a double-olive-bulk?!

And we answer:

As

Rav Aha son of Rava

said

below, because of another difficulty:

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

it is speaking

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

that 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 protector: the stalk serves as a handle for the pods and for the legumes inside them, and brings impurity upon them. It is a handle for more than an olive-bulk, since all the pods together contain legumes in a measure of an olive-bulk or more.

And what is “in their handling”

that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said? [For according to the Gemara’s answer that it is speaking of a handle, he declares even their handle pure in the case of beans, because he has no need to hold them, and he declares the handle of the legumes impure because he desires their handling. Hence it is impossible to explain as in the initial assumption, that he desires the handling of the legumes through the pods, for that is a rationale applying to a protector and not to a handle.] —

In 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 Ishmael taught:

It is stated in the section concerning the impurity of food: “And if any of their carcasses falls

upon any sowable seed that is sown,”

and we expound “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 they render impurity, for the husk, which is a protector for the food, combines to complete the measure of an egg-bulk with regard to the impurity of food.

It is therefore proven that there is a protector for less than a double-olive-bulk, for grains of wheat, barley, or lentils do not contain a double-olive-bulk. This is difficult for Rav!?

And we answer:

“Beria is different.”

For wheat and barley grains, when they are whole, are considered a beria in and of itself, and they are significant. Therefore, everyone agrees that even when they are less than a double, they have a protective part. And when Rav said that the law of a protective part applies specifically at a double, he said this only regarding something that is not a beria, such as a protective part for half a bean, or for meat less than a double.