Chullin 124a — the Talmud in English

Until it is at the ground,

for he must scrape away the plastering down to the ground, so that the pieces do not remain joined and standing by means of the plastering; then the oven becomes pure even when it remains standing as it is.

Rabbi Meir says: It is not necessary either to scrape away the plastering

at all,

nor until it is at the ground [that is, this one, and it is unnecessary to say that one] .

[that is, this statement includes the less stringent case, and there is no need to state it separately] .

Rather,

it is sufficient that he

reduce it,

breaking the oven itself

from the inside,

from top to bottom, until less remains of its height

than four handbreadths. [The first tanna and Rabbi Meir disagreed on two matters: first, whether it is necessary to break the vessel from the inside down to the ground, or whether it is sufficient to reduce it to less than four handbreadths; and, further, whether it is necessary in addition to scrape away the plaster or not].

[The first tanna and Rabbi Meir disagree on two points: first, whether the vessel must be broken from the inside down to the ground, or whether it is sufficient to reduce it to less than four handbreadths; and second, whether the plaster must additionally be scraped away.]

And we infer:

When he reduces it by four

handbreadths,

at least, it is pure,

even though all the plastering remains adhered to it around it.

And why

is it pure!?

Let us say—

it is sound and stands,

for behold, the oven still stands because of the plastering, and let us say that even though he broke it, nevertheless it is sound and stands?

Rava said to him

to Rabbi Yirmeya: Before you raise a difficulty from the words of Rabbi Meir,

say

that there is proof for Resh Lakish

from the

words of

the Sages,

who disagree and say:

“He scrapes away the plastering until it is at the ground!”

It follows that we say “it is sound,” and therefore he must also scrape away the plastering, since without the scraping the oven would stand by means of the plastering around it; and we say that it is again “sound,” and therefore it does not become pure. If so, on the contrary, it is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan!?

Rather, Rava said:

Resh Lakish can stand in agreement with everyone, because Resh Lakish said “it is sound” only in a case where the hide had already become impure: if he tore it, it does not thereby become pure, since it is sound. But where he tore it before it received impurity, it is possible that he agrees that it no longer receives impurity again.

And

this is what he is saying: An oven that became impure

already—

how is it purified?

There is no disagreement about this; rather,

according to everyone: He divides it into three, and scrapes away the plastering—

until it is at the ground.

And one who wishes that his oven should not come to impurity—how does he act?

That there should not be the status of an oven upon it from the outset—about this they disagreed:

The first tanna holds: Even here,

he divides it into three and scrapes away the plastering until it is at the ground.

Rabbi Meir says:

Since the oven has not yet become impure,

he need neither scrape away the plastering nor “until it is at the ground”; rather, he reduces it from the inside [to the wall of the oven, without damaging the plastering around it]

[toward the oven wall, without damaging the plaster surrounding it]

by four handbreadths,

and that is sufficient .

The master said:

An oven that became impure

he divides it into three.

For if he divides it into two, one part will contain the majority of the oven, and an oven does not become pure through breaking when one part contains the majority of the oven.

And Rabbi Meir holds that it is sufficient that he reduce it to less than four handbreadths, and it is not necessary to divide it into three.

And it is explained that according to the Sages, even if he reduces it to less than four handbreadths, it is not effective to purify it so long as it contains the majority.

And we juxtapose

an apparent contradiction to this from what we learned in another Mishna in tractate Kelim:

An oven,

at

its beginning—

at the beginning of its formation, it is not called an “oven” unless its height is

four

handbreadths, for a small oven that does not contain four handbreadths does not receive the impurity of an oven.

And

likewise,

its remnants are four,

for if the oven breaks, the broken pieces do not receive impurity until they contain four handbreadths. And if he wishes to purify an oven that became impure, he must reduce each broken piece so that it does not contain four handbreadths,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: In what case are these words stated,

that at its beginning an oven must contain at least four handbreadths in order to receive the designation “oven,” and likewise, when it becomes impure and he wishes to purify it through breaking, there must not be a broken piece that contains four handbreadths?

In a large one,

a regular oven made for baking.

But in a

oven

small

made for babies to play in—

At its beginning, any amount,

it has the designation of an oven

once its work is completed [for the oven does not receive impurity until its work is completed].

[for the oven does not contract impurity until its construction is complete].

But

its remnants—

in their majority.

For if it became impure, it has no purification until the majority of the oven is broken.

And we explain:

And how much

is

any amount

of a small oven?

They said in the house of Rabbi Yannai: One handbreadth. For girls make ovens

small, who are accustomed to make small ovens whose size is

one handbreadth

alone.

And now we raise a difficulty: In the case of a large oven, at least, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that its remnants are four handbreadths.

The reason is that there is

in

its remnants four

handbreadths, which is why its remnants are impure;

but

if

there is not

in

its remnants four,

then it is

pure,

even though in one part of the remnants there is a majority of an oven. Whereas above the Sages said that he divides it into three, but if he divided it only into two, it is still impure, even if four handbreadths do not remain in each part!?

And we answer:

They said: There,

where the Sages said that its remnants are four, it is speaking

where he cut it tzalkiyei metzalk,

that he cut the oven across its height, so that one broken piece stands upon the other and does not stand firmly. Therefore, if four handbreadths do not remain of it, it is pure, even though it contains a majority of an oven.

Here,

where the Sages said that it becomes pure specifically if he divided it into three parts, it is speaking

where he made it gistera,

that is, he cut it from top to bottom, so that even if four handbreadths do not remain in it, it is fit for use, since it contains the majority of an oven; and it does not become pure through breaking the oven until he divides it into three, so that a majority does not remain in one part.

The master said:

But in the case of a small oven—at its beginning, any amount, and

its remnants are in their majority.

And we inquire about it:

The majority of one handbreadth [which is the measure of a small oven at its beginning]—

[which is the initial measurement of a small oven]—

what use is it for!?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

This “its remnants” refers to a large oven. And this is what he is saying:

The remnants

of a

large

oven—in their majority!

For as long as its majority remains intact, it is still in its impurity.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the Sages said:

The remnants of a large one—

four!?

For in the case of a large oven, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir, who said, “Its remnants are four”—

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

where the Sages said, “its remnants are in their majority,” is speaking

of an oven

that was from the outset

of nine

handbreadths, for even if four handbreadths remain of it, it is pure, since its majority has not remained [and in this they are more lenient than Rabbi Meir, who deems it impure whenever four remain in it].

That

where the Sages said four, is speaking

of an oven of seven

handbreadths, for if four handbreadths do not remain of it, it is pure, even though the majority of the oven is still here!

And the rule is that one always follows the smaller of the two measures for leniency: whether the majority of an oven did not remain in one part, or whether four handbreadths did not remain, it is pure .

The Gemara returns to the Mishna in tractate Kelim, that a cloak whose majority was torn is pure; and above Rav Huna said that if enough to make a cloth for wrapping remains in it, it is impure. And Resh Lakish said that, in the case of hide, even if enough to make a cloth for wrapping did not remain in it, it is impure, for hide is sound.

They state another version of it: Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yose:

This that we learned, “A cloak whose majority was torn is pure”—

even if enough to make a cloth for wrapping remains in it

it is also pure, whenever its majority was torn.

Resh Lakish said: They taught

that even if enough to make a cloth for wrapping remains, it is pure

only

in the case of a

cloak, but hide

that was impure, if he tore it and enough to make a cloth for wrapping remained in it, it is still impure, since it

is significant;

therefore, its name still applies to it whenever enough to make a cloth for wrapping remains in it.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even hide is not significant.

And it too becomes pure through the tearing of its majority alone.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish:

We learned:

Hide

that is

impure with the impurity of a seat,

where he

designated it to

make from it

straps and sandals—

once he placed a knife into it, it is pure, the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Sages say: Until he reduces it to less than five handbreadths.

And we infer from the Sages:

When he reduces

it to less than five handbreadths,

at least it is pure. Why? Let us say—

it is significant!

For there is still enough of the remaining hide in it to make a cloth for wrapping.

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With a case where he needs it

—this hide—

for a seat

of the

zav,

and less than five handbreadths is not fit to make a seat for a zav, and therefore it is pure. But with ordinary hide in which enough to make a cloth for wrapping remains, it is still fit for use, and it is impure .

Mishna:

Hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of carrion flesh

in one place—

one who touches the tuft

of flesh

that protrudes from it,

from that olive-bulk of flesh upon the hide ,

and

one who touches

the hair

that is upon the hide

that

is

opposite it

of the flesh [on the other side of the hide]—

is impure.

In the case of the tuft, because it is considered part of the flesh; and in the case of the hair, because it is considered a protector for the flesh, and one who touches a protector is impure as though he touches the flesh of the carrion itself.

If there were upon it

upon the hide

two halves of olive-bulks

separate from one another, then it

causes impurity through carrying.

For one who carries them becomes impure, since he carried an olive-bulk of carrion,

but not through contact,

for one who touches them does not become impure, since he does not touch an olive-bulk in a single contact, but through two separate contacts, and two contacts do not combine,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says:

It does not cause impurity

either through contact or through carrying.

For when the olive-bulk of flesh is not in one place, it does not cause impurity at all, as is explained below.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to two halves of olive-bulks

that were separate and were not attached to the hide, and he joined them by

sticking them onto a splinter and moving them,

moving them together at one time [because they are joined by the splinter],

that he is impure!

For moving causes impurity like carrying, and behold, he moved a complete olive-bulk of carrion. Rabbi Akiva disagrees only when they are attached to the hide, as he explains—

And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva purify in the case of

those attached to the

hide? Because the hide nullifies them!

For each of the halves of the olive-bulks is nullified with regard to the hide, and it has not the status of flesh but the status of hide, which does not cause impurity with the impurity of carrion. This is not so when he sticks them onto a splinter: they have the status of flesh, but they do not contain an olive-bulk, and therefore one who carries or moves them together at one time becomes impure. And Rabbi Yishmael holds that the hide does not nullify them, and therefore one who carries or moves them becomes impure.

Gemara:

Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

in the first clause of the Mishna, that an olive-bulk of flesh upon the hide is not nullified with regard to the hide,

only

when

an animal tore it out.

For through the bite of an animal an olive-bulk of flesh was torn away and remained attached to the hide; in such a case the olive-bulk is not nullified with regard to the hide.

But its knife-release

at the time of flaying, when he did not remove it from the hide,

is nullified

the flesh with regard to the hide, even when it is a complete olive-sized portion, since it was done in this manner by a person, he has nullified it intentionally, and even a complete olive-sized portion can be nullified.

Rav Naḥman said to Ulla:

Did

Rabbi Yoḥanan say even

with flesh that is the size of

a tartaya

—a quarter of a kav [another interpretation: like the pan of a balance]—that it too is nullified with regard to the hide?

He said to him

Ulla:

Yes!

Rav Naḥman asked him again:

And even like a “nafya”

the size of a sieve?

He said to him

Ulla:

Yes!

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Ulla:

By God!

I could swear that

even

if

Rabbi Yoḥanan said it to me from his own mouth, I would not obey him

for it is not reasonable that such a large quantity of flesh should be nullified with regard to the hide.

When Rav Oshaya went up

to the Land of Israel,

he found Rabbi Ami. He told him

Rav Oshaya

his teaching before him

Rabbi Ami:

“This is what Ulla said, and this is how Rav Naḥman responded to him.”

He said to him

Rabbi Ami to Rav Oshaya:

“And because Rav Naḥman is the son-in-law of the house of the Nasi, he treats Rabbi Yoḥanan’s teaching lightly !?”

Sometimes

once,

he found

Rav Oshaya Rabbi Ami

sitting and saying it

Rabbi Ami was stating this teaching of Rabbi Yoḥanan

concerning the latter clause

of the Mishna.

For it teaches:

“If there were upon it two halves of olive-sized portions, they render one impure through carrying but not through contact—these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: Neither through contact nor through carrying.”

And concerning this

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “They taught

this statement of Rabbi Yishmael, that half of an olive-sized portion is not nullified,

only when an animal expelled it. But when a knife expelled it

Rabbi Yishmael agrees that it

is nullified 138 .

He said to him

Rav Oshaya to Rabbi Ami:

“Master, he teaches it concerning the latter clause

and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words are therefore settled; and if they had told Rav Naḥman that Rabbi Yoḥanan had said this, he would not have treated his words lightly, since he said that only half an olive-sized portion is nullified.”

Rabbi Ami said to Rav Oshaya:

“But rather, Ulla said it to you concerning the first clause

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

He said to him

Rav Oshaya:

“Yes!”

He said to him

Rabbi Ami:

“By God! If Joshua son of Nun were to say it to me

from his own mouth, I would not obey him.”

Because of Rav Naḥman’s question.

When Ravin and all those who went down to the sea

came, they stated this teaching of Rabbi Yoḥanan

concerning the first clause.

And we raised the difficulty:

“But there is a difficulty

with this statement of Rav Naḥman: If an olive-sized portion is nullified, then even one the size of a tartaya or a nafya should be nullified; but certainly a person does not nullify such a large quantity of flesh?