Chullin 119b — the Talmud in English

Rav Oshaya raised a question: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

two guardians—

what is the law: do they join

with the food guarded by them to complete the measure of an egg-bulk for the impurity of food?

And we raised it:

What are the circumstances?

If we say

two guardians that are

one above the other,

such as food upon which there are two peels, one above the other. And he raises the question for himself whether both of them have the status of a guardian and join—this is difficult: what is Rav Oshaya asking?

Is there, then, a guardian above a guardian!?

For it is obvious that the status of a “guardian” that joins toward an egg-bulk applies only to the first guardian, which is the guardian of the fruit itself, and not to the second guardian, which is the guardian of the guardian.

And there is proof for this

For we learned: Rabbi Judah says: There are three peels

in an onion.

And

each peel has a different status from the other:

a. The

inner

peel adjacent to the onion—

whether

when it is

whole

and

whether

when it is

perforated

[pierced]—it

joins

with the food to complete the measure. And this is not by the law of a guardian, but because the peel itself is fit to be eaten with the onion, and it is considered food.

b. The

middle peel—

if it is

whole,

it

joins

according to the law of a guardian. But if it is

perforated, it does not

join;

it does not join,

because when it is pierced it does not guard the onion .

c. The

outer peel—

whether in this manner or in that manner,

whether when it is whole or when it is pierced—it is

pure,

because it does not have the status of a guardian, since it does not guard the onion but the guardian of the onion, namely, the middle peel beneath it .

Thus, there is no guardian above a guardian . And what is Rav Oshaya asking?

And we answer:

Rav Oshaya—

a guardian

of

food,

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

that he divided

into two—

he is asking

whether the two separate parts of the guardian now join with the two parts of the food.

And the alternatives of the question are: Is it that

since this—

the guardian over one part—

does not protect that

part, the second part, and

that—

the guardian over the second part—

does not protect that

part, the first part—

it does not join

with the food, since a guardian joins only with the food that it protects, and not with the second food [protected by the second guardian]. And in each part together with its guardian alone there is only half an egg-bulk,

or perhaps, since this

guardian

protects

the food

belonging to it, and that

guardian

protects that belonging to it—

they join.

Since each guardian joins with its food, and the foods themselves are connected to one another, everything is considered connected, and the two join with one another to the measure of an egg-bulk ?

Come and hear: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah declares pure [food] in the case of beans, and declares impure [food] in the case of legumes, because he desires their handling.

And it entered our minds that we are dealing with it by the law of a guardian, for the stalks are guardians for the legumes. But one stalk does not contain an egg-bulk sufficient to receive impurity; rather, we join several stalks with the food in them to an egg-bulk . And each stalk guards only what is inside it, which does not contain an olive-bulk. Nevertheless, all the guardians join with the food inside them. And it is proven that two guardians join.

And we reject this:

Rav Aha son of Rava said:

What are we dealing with here? With a creeping creature touching

the stalk, and by reason of a handle.

And not by reason of a guardian. And it is speaking of a case where the legumes themselves contain the measure of an egg-bulk, and there is no need to join the stalks; and it teaches us that the stalk is considered a handle for all the legumes, even though there is no olive-bulk of them in one place.

And what is meant by “their handling,”

which Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said?—

Their use.

That he desires the use of the stalk as a grip for the legumes.

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

a wheat grain in its peel, a barley grain in its peel, and lentils in their peel!

For the peel joins with the wheat by the law of a guardian. But one wheat grain together with its peel does not contain the measure of an egg-bulk; rather, several wheat grains must be joined together, and we say that their peels join with the food to an egg-bulk. And it is proven that two guardians join.

And we reject this:

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

and by reason of a handle,”

that one stalk serves as one handle for all the stalks.

Here too,

with regard to the joining of the peels, it is speaking

of the spine

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

and by reason of one guardian

they join. For each peel requires all the other peels, since if the peel of the lower wheat grain in the ear falls off, all the peels and grains above it will fall until the top of the ear. Therefore all the peels join.

And we challenge this:

Granted, the upper ones—

the upper rows of wheat grains—

require the lower ones—

the rows beneath them, since without them the upper ones will also fall.

But the lower ones—

what do they require the upper ones for?

For the lower ones remain even without the upper rows, and they do not guard them. If so, why should the peels of the upper wheat grains join with the wheat grains in the lower rows ? And we answer:

We are dealing with one row,

for the peels join only with the wheat grains in that same row, since they all guard one another: if one wheat grain falls, the entire row will fall.

And we challenge this:

Is there, then,

a measure of

an egg-bulk

in

food in one row?

After all, among all the wheat grains together with the peels in one row there is not an egg-bulk sufficient to receive impurity. And what will the joining of the peels accomplish?

And we answer: Indeed, it is possible that they contain an egg-bulk, such as

in the wheat of Shimon ben Shetah,

for in his days blessing was prevalent and the wheat grains were very large; and likewise the barley and lentils were very large.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this, even one wheat grain as well—in the wheat of Shimon ben Shetah.

And again there is no need to establish the teaching of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, that the wheat grain in its peel joins, as referring to the spine of an ear in which several wheat grains are fixed. Rather, it speaks of one wheat grain in the days of Shimon ben Shetah, when one wheat grain together with its peel contained the measure of an egg-bulk .

The essential matter: Two bones with two half-olive-bulks upon them, and he inserted their heads,

the

two

that have no flesh upon them,

into the house, and the house overshadows them—

the house is impure.

Judah ben Nakosa says in the name of Rabbi Yaakov: How can two bones join to an olive-bulk!?

But a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, according to everyone, brings the impurity into the house.

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

because

it is a handle

for the flesh;

but a hair

[a hair upon the skin]

is not a handle.

For the hair cannot serve as a place of grip for the flesh, since it becomes detached through the gripping. [And although the hair is considered a guardian for the flesh, and a guardian brings in and takes out impurity even though it does not serve as a place of grip for the food, nevertheless it does not bring in the impurity, because the hair guards only the flesh opposite it, and here we are dealing with a case where there is no olive-bulk of flesh opposite the hair.]

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even a hair is also a handle!

And it brings the impurity into the house.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish:

We learned:

A skin upon which there is an olive-bulk of the flesh

of an unslaughtered animal—

one who touches the tuft

[a lock of flesh]

that emerges from it,

or

the hair opposite it,

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

is impure!

And Rabbi Yohanan inferred:

Is it not the case

that the hair renders impure

by reason of a handle

that it renders impure? It follows that a hair has the status of a handle, and this is difficult for Resh Lakish!?

And we answer:

No,

it renders impure not by reason of a handle, but

by reason of a guardian

it renders impure. And this is in a case where the hair is opposite the flesh. [And this is likewise precise in the beraita: “the hair opposite it”; and it implies that hair that is not opposite the flesh does not render impure. But according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says that the issue is by reason of a handle, it is necessary to force the explanation that “opposite it” is not specifically meant.]

And we object:

But is there a protective covering upon a protective covering!?

But the hide is the protective covering of the flesh, and the hair upon the hide is nothing but a protective covering upon a protective covering, and above we proved that there is no protective covering upon a protective covering.

And we answer:

It penetrates through and through.

The hair penetrates and perforates the hide and reaches the flesh, and thereby it is considered a protective covering for the flesh itself.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov challenged it: But if that is so,

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

how do we write tefillin!? For we require complete writing,

whole, [as it is written, “and you shall write them,” and we expound: write—complete],

and there is none!

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

And we answer:

It had escaped him

from Rav Aha bar Yaakov

that which they say in the West: Every perforation

that is small

through which the ink passes

and seals it—

is not a perforation.

For despite the perforation, the letter does not appear divided into two, and these perforations in the hide that are made by the hairs are also small, and the ink passes over them.

And if you wish, say: The entire

Mishna, both the bristle and the hair,

is by the law of a handle

that they impart impurity. And do not object to Reish Lakish, who says that the strand is not a handle. For it can be answered

as Rabbi Ela said

with regard to another question,

“with the tufts that are among the tufts”; here too

it can be answered that it is speaking

of a strand that is among the strands.

For 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 “handle.”

And Reish Lakish is speaking of only one strand, which is not a handle, since it detaches at the time of grasping.

And we explain:

And where was it stated

this statement

of Rabbi Ela?

With regard to this

that we learned:

The tufts

[hairs]

that are on

the heads of

the ears of grain—

become impure and impart impurity

by the law of a handle, because they are a handle for the ears of grain,

but do not combine,

because the hair at the heads of the ears of grain does not protect them.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Tufts—

what are they fit for

as a handle? For they detach when one grasps the ear of grain by them?

And concerning this

Rabbi Ela said: “With the tufts that are among the tufts!”

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

There is another formulation according to which they say it: Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish did not disagree with regard to one strand, for according to everyone it is not a handle, since it detaches ; rather, they disagreed with regard to many strands, whether it is a handle or not.

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish did not disagree with regard to a single hair; according to everyone, it is not a handle because it detaches . Rather, they disagree with regard to many hairs: whether they are considered a handle or not.

And Rabbi Yohanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish from the Mishna, “One who touches the hair opposite it becomes impure,” which apparently speaks of many hairs, and it is explained that it is a handle!? And we answer that that case is by the law of a protective covering and not by the law of a handle. And

so too, it is reasonable that it is by the law of a protective covering

that it is so.

For if it enters your mind that it is by the law of a handle,

it is difficult, for it teaches “a hair,” which implies one, and

what is one strand fit for!?

And we reject this: It is indeed by the law of a handle, and

as Rabbi Ela said, “with the tufts that are among the tufts”; here too

what does “a hair” mean?

A strand that is among the strands,

for there were many hairs there, and not only one hair. [But according to Reish Lakish, who also says that one hair among many hairs is not a handle, the beraita must necessarily be speaking of the law of a protective covering.]

And where was Rabbi Ela’s statement stated?

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

become impure and impart impurity, but do not combine!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What are tufts fit for?

And concerning this

Rabbi Ela said: “With the tufts that are among the tufts!”