Chullin 124a (קכד.) — the Talmud in English

Until it reaches the ground,

meaning that one must scrape away the plaster down to the ground, so that the pieces do not remain joined and standing by means of the plaster; then the oven becomes pure even though it remains standing.

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

at all,

nor is it necessary to bring it down to the ground

[that is, this latter statement, and there is no need to state the former] .

Rather,

it is sufficient that he

reduce it,

by breaking the oven itself

from the inside

from top to bottom until its height is less

than four handbreadths.

[The first tanna and Rabbi Meir disagree on two matters: first, whether the vessel must be broken from the inside all the way to the ground, or whether it is sufficient to reduce it to less than four handbreadths; and second, whether, in addition, the plaster must be scraped away or not.]

And we infer:

When he reduces it by four

handbreadths,

at least, it is pure,

even though all the plaster remains attached to it around it.

But why

is it pure?

Let us say—

it is still sound and standing,

for the oven is still standing by virtue of the plaster, and let us say that although he broke it, nevertheless it remains sound and standing?

Rava said

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

say

that there is proof for the position of Reish Lakish

from the

statement of

the Sages,

who disagree and say:

He scrapes away the plaster until it reaches the ground!

It is evident that we say that it is “sound,” which is why the plaster must also be scraped away: since without scraping it away, the oven would stand by means of the surrounding plaster, we say that it would again be “sound,” and therefore it would not become pure. If so, on the contrary, this is a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan!?

Rather, Rava said:

Reish Lakish can maintain his position in accordance with everyone, because Reish Lakish said “it is sound” only when the hide had already become impure. If one tears it, it does not thereby become pure, since it is sound. But when one tears it before it has received impurity, it is possible that he agrees that it can no longer receive impurity.

And

this is what it means: An oven that has become impure

already—

how is it rendered pure?

The dispute does not concern this case. Rather,

according to everyone: It is divided into three, and the plaster is scraped away—

until it reaches the ground.

And one who wishes to prevent his oven from ever becoming impure—what does he do?

He ensures that it does not have the status of an oven from the outset. It is concerning this case that they disagree:

The first tanna holds: Here too,

it is divided into three, and the plaster is scraped away until it reaches the ground.

Rabbi Meir says:

Since the oven has not yet become impure,

it is necessary neither to scrape away the plaster nor to bring it “down to the ground”; rather, he reduces it from the inside

[toward the wall of the oven, without affecting the plaster around it]

by four handbreadths,

and that is sufficient .

The Master said:

An oven that has become impure

is divided into three.

Because if one divides it into two, one of the pieces will contain most of the oven, and an oven is not rendered pure through breaking when one piece contains most of the oven.

Rabbi Meir, however, holds that it is sufficient to reduce it to less than four handbreadths, and it need not be divided into three.

It is thus clear that according to the Sages, even if he reduces it to less than four handbreadths, this is ineffective for rendering it pure as long as one piece contains most of it.

And we raise a contradiction

seemingly 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, because a small oven that is less than four handbreadths does not receive the impurity of an oven.

And

likewise,

its remnants are four,

for if the oven breaks, its fragments do not receive impurity until they are four handbreadths. And if one wishes to render an oven that became impure pure, he must reduce each fragment so that it is less than four handbreadths—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: When are these matters stated,

that at its beginning an oven must be at least four handbreadths in order to acquire the status of an “oven,” and likewise, when it has become impure and one wishes to purify it by breaking it, there must not be a fragment that is four handbreadths?

With regard to a large one,

a regular oven made for baking.

But with regard to a

oven

that is small,

made for children to play with—

At its beginning, any amount

gives it the status of an oven

once its manufacture is completed

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

But

its remnants—

most of it.

If it became impure, it is not purified until most of the oven is broken.

And we explain:

And how much

is

any amount

in the case of a small oven?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: A handbreadth. For girls make ovens

that is, girls commonly make small ovens whose size is

a handbreadth

alone.

And now we ask: With regard to a large oven, at least, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that its remnants are four handbreadths.

The reason is that there is

among

its remnants four

handbreadths, and therefore its remnants are impure;

but

if

there is not

among

its remnants four,

then it is

pure,

even if one piece of the remnants contains most of the oven. Yet above the Sages said that it is divided into three, and if it is divided only into two it remains impure, even if no piece retains four handbreadths!?

And we answer:

They said: There,

where the Sages said that its remnants are four, it is referring to a case

where he cut it into horizontal slices,

meaning that he cut the oven across its height, so that one broken section rests upon the other but does not stand firmly. Therefore, if no four-handbreadth section remains, it is pure even if one section contains most of the oven.

Here,

where the Sages said that it becomes pure only if it is divided into three pieces, it is referring to a case

where he made it into a gistera,

meaning that he cut it from top to bottom. Even if no four-handbreadth section remains, it is fit for use, since one piece contains most of the oven; it is therefore not rendered pure by breaking the oven until it is divided into three, so that no single piece retains most of it.

The Master said:

But with regard to a small oven, at its beginning any amount suffices, and

its remnants are most of it.

And we inquire:

Most of a handbreadth

[which is the measurement of a small oven at its beginning]—

what use is that!?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

The term “its remnants” refers to a large oven. And this is what it means:

The remnants of a

oven

large—

most of it!

As long as most of it remains intact, it retains its impurity.

And we challenge this:

But the Sages said:

The remnants of a large oven are

four!?

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

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

statement, in which the Sages said that “its remnants are most of it,” refers

to an oven

that was initially

nine

handbreadths high. Even if four handbreadths remain, it is pure, since less than most of it remains [and in this they are more lenient than Rabbi Meir, who considers it impure whenever four handbreadths remain].

That

statement, in which the Sages said that its remnants are four, refers

to an oven that was seven

handbreadths high. If four handbreadths do not remain, it is pure, even though most of the oven still remains!

The principle is that one always follows the smaller of the two measurements for leniency: whether most of the oven does not remain in one piece, or four handbreadths do not remain, it is pure .

The Gemara returns to the Mishna in tractate Kelim, which states that a garment whose majority has been torn is pure. Above, Rav Huna said that if enough remains for a ma'afet, it is impure. Reish Lakish said that in the case of a hide, even if enough for a ma'afet does not remain, it is impure, because a hide remains sound.

There are those who state this alternative version: Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei:

This statement that we learned—that a garment whose majority has been torn is pure—

applies even when enough for a ma'afet remains;

it is nevertheless pure whenever its majority has been torn.

Reish Lakish said: They taught

that even when enough for a ma'afet remains it is pure

only

in the case of

a garment; but a hide

that was impure and was torn, if enough for a ma'afet remains in it, it is still impure, since it

is significant;

therefore, it still retains its original designation whenever enough for a ma'afet remains in it.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hide is not significant.

It too becomes pure merely through the tearing of its majority.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

We learned:

A hide

that is

impure with the impurity of a surface used for lying,

when one

designated it to

make

straps and sandals—

once he places a chisel in it, it is pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Sages say: Until he reduces it to less than five handbreadths.

And we infer from the statement of the Sages:

When he reduces

it to less than five handbreadths,

at least, it is pure. Why? Let us say—

it is significant!

For enough of the remaining hide for a ma'afet still remains.

And we answer:

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

this hide

as a seat for

the

the zav,

the and less than five handbreadths is not fit to be made into a seat for a zav. Therefore it is pure. But an ordinary hide in which enough for a ma'afet remains is still fit for use, and it is impure .

Mishna:

With regard to a hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of carcass flesh

in one place,

one who touches the tuft

of flesh

that protrudes from it,

from that olive-bulk of flesh on the hide ,

or

one who touches

the hair

on the hide

that

is

opposite it,

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

is impure.

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

If there were upon it

upon the hide

two half-olive-bulks

separate from one another, it

conveys impurity through carrying.

One who carries them becomes impure, since he carried an olive-bulk of carcass flesh,

but not through contact,

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

the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says:

It does not convey impurity

neither through contact nor through carrying.

Since, when the olive-bulk of flesh is not in one place, it does not convey impurity at all, as will be explained below.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to two half-olive-bulks

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

sticking them onto a splinter and moving them,

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

that he is impure!

For movement conveys impurity like carrying, and he moved an entire olive-bulk of carcass flesh. Rabbi Akiva disagrees only when they are attached to the hide, as he explains:

And why does Rabbi Akiva render it pure when it is attached to the

hide?

Because the hide nullifies them!

Each half-olive-bulk is nullified with regard to the hide, and it has the status not of flesh but of hide, which does not convey the impurity of carcasses. This is not so when they are stuck onto a splinter: there they retain the status of flesh, but do not contain an olive-bulk; therefore one who carries or moves them together becomes impure. 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 Yoḥanan said: They taught

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

only

when

an animal tore it away.

Through the bite of an animal, an olive-bulk of flesh was torn away and remained attached to the hide; in that case the olive-bulk is not nullified with regard to the hide.

But if a knife released it

during the flaying, meaning that he did not remove it from the hide,

it is nullified

with regard to the hide, even when it is a full olive-bulk. Since this was done by a person, he has evidently mentally nullified it, and even a full olive-bulk can be nullified.

Rav Naḥman said to Ulla:

Did

Rabbi Yoḥanan say even

meat that is the size of

a tartaya

—a quarter of a kav [another interpretation: like the pan of a balance]—which is also 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!

Rav Naḥman said to him,

Ulla:

By God!

I could swear that

even

if

Rabbi Yoḥanan himself told me this, I would not obey him

because it is inconceivable that such a large quantity of meat should be nullified with regard to the hide.

When Rav Oshaya went up

to Eretz Yisrael,

he encountered Rabbi Ami. He said

Rav Oshaya

his teaching before him,

Rabbi Ami:

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

Rabbi Ami said to him,

Rabbi Oshaya:

And merely because Rav Naḥman is the son-in-law of the Nasi’s household, he disparages the teaching of Rabbi Yoḥanan !?

Once,

on one occasion,

Rav Oshaya encountered

Rabbi Ami

sitting and saying

this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan

with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna.

As it teaches:

“If there were upon it two half-olive-bulks, they render one impure through carrying but not through contact; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: They render one impure neither through contact nor through carrying.”

And concerning this,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “They taught

this statement of Rabbi Yishmael, that a half-olive-bulk is not nullified,

only when the living creature released it. But if a knife released it,

Rabbi Yishmael concedes that it

is nullified 138 .

Rav Oshaya said to him,

Rabbi Ami:

Master, you teach it with regard to the latter clause,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is therefore coherent. Had they told Rav Naḥman that this was what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, he would not have disparaged his words, since he said that only a half-olive-bulk is nullified.

Rabbi Ami said to Rav Oshaya:

But did Ulla tell you that he said it with regard to the first clause

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan?

Rav Oshaya said to him:

Rav Oshaya:

Yes!

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Rabbi Ami:

By God! Even if Joshua son of Nun told me this

from his own mouth, I would not obey him.

Because of Rav Naḥman’s question.

When Ravin and all those who descended by sea arrived, they reported

this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan

with regard to the first clause.

And we raised a difficulty:

But this is difficult

with regard to Rav Naḥman’s statement. If an olive-bulk is nullified, then even a tartaya or a nafya should be nullified; yet surely a person would not nullify such a large quantity of meat?