Chullin 119b (קיט:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Oshaya raised a dilemma:

two protective coverings—

what is the halakha: may they combine

with the food protected by them to reach the measure of an egg-bulk, the measure for susceptibility to food impurity?

And we raised the following difficulty:

What are the circumstances?

If we say it is referring to

two protective coverings that are

one atop the other,

for example, food over which there are two shells, one atop the other. And Rav Oshaya raises the dilemma whether both of them have the status of a protective covering and combine with the food, this is difficult: What could Rav Oshaya possibly be uncertain about?

Can there be a protective covering atop a protective covering!?

For it is obvious that only the first protective covering, which protects the fruit itself, has the status of a protective covering that combines with the egg-bulk, but not the second protective covering, which protects the protective covering.

A proof of this is brought

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: There are three shells

in an onion.

And

each shell has a different status from the others:

a. The

inner

shell, adjacent to the onion—

whether

it is

whole

or

whether

it is

perforated [i.e., punctured], it

is

combines

with the food to complete the measure. This is not because it is a protective covering, but because the shell itself is fit to be eaten with the onion and is therefore considered food.

b. The

middle shell—

if it is

whole,

it

combines as a protective covering. But if it is

as a protective covering. But if it is

perforated, it does not

be

combine,

because when it is punctured it does not protect the onion .

c. The

outer shell—

whether in this manner or in that manner,

whether it is whole or punctured, it is

pure,

because it does not have the status of a protective covering, since it protects not the onion itself but the onion’s protective covering, namely, the middle shell beneath it .

Thus, there is no protective covering atop a protective covering . What, then, could Rav Oshaya be uncertain about?

And we answer:

Rav Oshaya was asking about a

protective covering

of

food

that initially, together with the food, had the measure of an egg-bulk,

which he divided

into two.

He raised the dilemma

whether the two separated parts of the covering now combine with the two parts of the food.

The alternatives of the dilemma are as follows: Is it the case that

since this—

the covering of one part—

does not protect that—

the second part—

and that—

the covering of the second part—

does not protect that—

the first part—

it does not combine

with the food, since a protective covering combines only with the food that it protects, and not with the other food [which is protected by the second covering]. And in each part, together with its own covering, there is only half an egg-bulk,

or perhaps, since this

covering

protects

its food

and that

covering

protects its food—

they combine.

Since each covering combines with its own food, and the foods themselves are connected to one another, everything is considered connected, and the two parts combine with one another to reach the measure of an egg-bulk ?

Come and hear: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems peas pure, but deems legumes impure, because he desires their handling.

And it initially entered our minds that this ruling is based on the law of a protective covering, as the stalks are protective coverings for the legumes. Yet a single stalk does not contain an egg-bulk, the measure required to become impure; rather, we combine several stalks with the food inside them to reach an egg-bulk . And each stalk protects only what is inside it, which is not even the measure of an olive-bulk. Nevertheless, all the coverings combine with the food inside them. This proves that two protective coverings combine.

And we reject this:

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said:

What are the circumstances here? It is a case where a creeping creature came into contact with

the stalk, and it is because of the handle.

It is not because of a protective covering. The case is one in which the legumes themselves contain an egg-bulk, and there is no need to combine the stalks. Rather, it teaches us that the stalk is considered a handle for all the legumes, even though none of them constitutes an olive-bulk in one place.

And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean by “their handling,”

as he said? It means

their use:

he desires to use the stalk as a means of holding the legumes.

Come and hear, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “For every seed that is sown,” in the manner in which people take them out for sowing—

a wheat grain in its shell, a barley grain in its shell, and lentils in their shells!

The shell combines with the wheat grain by virtue of its status as a protective covering. Yet a single wheat grain together with its shell does not contain an egg-bulk; only several wheat grains together reach that measure, and we say that their shells combine with the food to reach an egg-bulk. This proves that two protective coverings combine.

And we reject this:

As Rav Aha, son of Rava, said: “With the stalk

and because of the handle,”

one stalk serves as a single handle for all the stalks.

Here too,

with regard to combining the shells, the case concerns

the spine

of the ear of grain, around which the wheat grains are situated,

and because of one protective covering

they combine. Each shell requires all the other shells, because if the shell of the lowest wheat grain in the ear were to fall off, all the shells and wheat grains above it, up to the top of the ear, would fall. Therefore, all the shells combine.

And we challenge this:

Granted, the upper

rows of wheat grains

require the lower

rows beneath them, since without them the upper rows would also fall.

But the lower rows—

what do they require from the upper rows?

The lower rows remain intact even without the upper rows, and they do not protect them. If so, why should the shells of the upper wheat grains combine with the wheat grains in the lower rows ? And we answer: The case is

in a single row.

The shells combine only with the wheat grains in that same row, since all of them protect one another: if one wheat grain falls, the entire row falls.

And we challenge this:

Is there indeed

a measure of

an egg-bulk

in

food in a single row?

After all, all the wheat grains and shells in a single row do not contain an egg-bulk, the measure required to become impure. What, then, does the combining of the shells accomplish?

And we answer: Indeed, it is possible for them to contain an egg-bulk, for example,

in the wheat of Shimon ben Shetah’s time,

when blessing was prevalent and the wheat grains were exceedingly large; likewise, the barley and lentils were exceedingly large.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this, there is even a single wheat grain, in the wheat of Shimon ben Shetah’s time.

There is therefore no need to establish the teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that a wheat grain in its shell combines, as referring to the spine of an ear in which several wheat grains are fixed. Rather, it concerns a single wheat grain in the days of Shimon ben Shetah, when a single wheat grain together with its shell contained an egg-bulk .

With regard to the matter itself: Two bones with two half-olive-bulks of flesh upon them, and he inserted their

two

two

ends, on which there was no flesh,

into a house, and the house overshadowed them—

the house is impure.

Yehuda ben Nekosa said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov: How can two bones combine to form an olive-bulk!?

However, when a bone has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, everyone agrees that it brings the impurity into the house.

Reish Lakish said: They taught this only with regard to a bone,

because

it serves as a handle

for the flesh,

but a strand

[a hair attached to the skin]

does not serve as a handle.

For a strand cannot serve as a place by which to grasp the flesh, since it becomes detached when grasped. [Although the strand is considered a protective covering for the flesh, and a protective covering brings impurity in and takes it out even though it does not serve as a place by which to grasp the food, nevertheless it does not bring the impurity in this case, because the strand protects only the flesh opposite it, whereas here the case concerns one in which there is no olive-bulk of flesh opposite the strand.]

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even a strand also serves as a handle!

And it brings the impurity into the house.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

We learned in a Mishna:

Skin upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh

of an unslaughtered carcass—

one who touches the clump

[a tuft of flesh]

protruding from it,

or

the strand opposite it,

on the other side of the olive-bulk of flesh,

is impure!

Rabbi Yohanan inferred:

Is it not

the case that the strand renders one impure

because of its status as a handle?

It follows that a strand has the status of a handle, which is a difficulty for Reish Lakish!?

And we answer:

No,

it does not render one impure because of its status as a handle, but

because of its status as a protective covering.

It renders one impure when the strand is opposite the flesh. [This is also precise in the wording of the beraita, “the strand opposite it,” implying that a strand not opposite the flesh does not render one impure. According to Rabbi Yohanan, who says that the discussion concerns the status of a handle, one must force the explanation that “opposite it” is not meant literally.]

And we object:

Is there a protective covering over a protective covering!?

But the skin is the protective covering of the flesh, and the hair atop the skin is merely a protective covering over a protective covering; and above we proved that there is no protective covering over a protective covering.

And we answer:

It penetrates through and through.

The hair penetrates and perforates the skin, reaching the flesh; thus, it is considered a protective covering for the flesh itself.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov raised an objection to this: If so,

since you say that the skin has perforations that penetrate through to the flesh—

how do we write phylacteries!? We require complete writing,

whole and uninterrupted, as it is written: “And you shall write them,” and we expound: “and you shall write”—complete writing

but there is none!

For since there are perforations in the skin, the writing is interrupted by the perforations, and it is not “complete writing”

!? And we answer:

It had escaped Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov’s notice

that which they say in the West:

Any perforation

that is small,

through which ink passes

and seals it—

is not a perforation.

For despite the perforation, the letter does not appear divided in two. These perforations in the skin, which are made by the hairs, are likewise small, and ink passes over them.

And if you wish, say:

The entire Mishna, both the thorn and the hair,

impart impurity by virtue of being a yad.

And do not raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish, who says that a single hair is not a yad, for it can be explained

as Rabbi Ilaa said

with regard to another question:

“With the tufts among the tufts”; here too,

it can be explained that the case deals

with a hair among the hairs.

There are many hairs there, and it is possible to grasp the flesh by means of them, and they will not detach from it; therefore, they are considered a yad

. And Reish Lakish is speaking of a single hair, which is not a yad, since it detaches when one grasps the object.

And we explain:

And where was

this statement

of Rabbi Ilaa stated?

With regard to this

that we learned:

Tufts

[hairs]

at

the heads of the

ears of grain—

impart impurity and become impure

according to the law of a yad, since they serve as a yad for the ears of grain,

but do not combine,

since the hair at the heads of the ears of grain does not serve as a protective covering for them.

We raised a question about this:

Tufts—

what use are they

as a yad? For they detach when one grasps the ear of grain with them.

And concerning this

Rabbi Ilaa said: “With the tufts among the tufts!”

There are many hairs on the ear of grain, and they do not detach at the time of grasping.

There is another version of this statement:

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish did not disagree with regard to a single hair; everyone agrees that it is not a yad, since it detaches . Rather, they disagree with regard to many hairs: whether they are a yad or not .

Rabbi Yohanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish from the Mishna: “One who touches the hair opposite it becomes impure,” which seemingly refers to many hairs, and it is clear that they are a yad! And we answer that that case is because of a protective covering and not because of a yad. And

so too, it is reasonable that it is because of a protective covering

that it is so.

For if it enters your mind that it is because of a yad,

one could raise the difficulty that it teaches “a hair,” implying a single one, and

what use is a single hair!?

And we reject this: It is indeed because of a yad, and

as Rabbi Ilaa said, “with the tufts among the tufts”; here too,

what is meant by “a hair”

is a hair among the hairs,

as there were many hairs there, and not merely a single hair. [But according to Reish Lakish, who likewise does not consider a single hair among many hairs to be a yad, the beraita must necessarily be speaking of the law of a protective covering.]

And where was Rabbi Ilaa’s statement stated?

With regard to this that we learned: The tufts among the ears of grain—

become impure and impart impurity, but do not combine!

We raised a question about this:

What use are the tufts?

And concerning this

Rabbi Ilaa said: “With the tufts among the tufts!”