Chullin 124b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

as Rav Pappa said below

ниже

“flattened,” so here too

Rabbi Yohanan said that an olive-bulk is nullified only

when flattened,

where a thin layer of flesh remained spread over a broad area of the hide, so that even if there is an olive-bulk [or more than an olive-bulk] there at once, since there is effort involved in gathering it, the person nullifies it. [In any event, with a live hide, where the person did not nullify the flesh, it is not nullified on its own].

We learned in the Mishna:

If there were upon it

two olive-halves, it conveys impurity through carrying but not through contact; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Bar Padda said: They taught

that Rabbi Ishmael does not convey impurity through contact

only

when he touched the hide

from behind it

on the side opposite the flesh, [where there is no flesh], for the hide itself does not convey the impurity of an animal carcass; rather, it is a protector for the flesh, and since there is not an olive-bulk of flesh together here, there is no protector for less than an olive-bulk .

But

if he touched the hide

from in front of it,

meaning that he touched the two olive-halves of flesh themselves, he is impure. And although he did not touch an olive-bulk with one contact, we say:

There is one who touches and returns and touches.

That is, two contacts join together: if he touched both halves at once, one hand on this and one hand on that, the two contacts join to be considered contact with an olive-bulk.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

even if he touched the flesh itself, Rabbi Ishmael declares him pure, because

there is no one who touches and returns and touches.

And since each contact was only with half an olive-bulk, he does not become impure.

And Rabbi Yohanan follows his own reasoning,

for we find that he holds, according to Rabbi Ishmael, that there is no one who touches and returns and touches.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinos stated one matter.

Rabbi Ishmael—

that which we said,

that one who touches two olive-halves of an animal carcass is pure.

What is Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinos’s [opinion]? For we learned

in tractate Oholot:

All those that convey impurity through a tent,

such as an olive-bulk of flesh, or a quarter-kav of bones from the dead, or a full spoonful of dust,

which were divided

so that their measures were divided, and in each part there is only half a measure,

and he brought them

the two halves

into the house,

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinos declares

what is inside the house pure, because the halves do not join, and there is no complete measure here,

but the Sages declare impure,

because inside the house there is a complete measure, and they join the halves.

And Rabbi Yohanan concludes:

Did Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinos not say there: There is no one who makes a tent and returns and makes a tent?

He declares the house pure because there are two tents: the house makes a tent over each olive-half separately, and the two tents do not join.

Here too

Rabbi Dosa will say that

there is no one who touches and returns and touches.

And from the fact that Rabbi Yohanan said that Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinos stated one matter, we see that Rabbi Yohanan holds that the reason of Rabbi Ishmael, that he does not convey impurity through contact, is because there is no one who touches and returns and touches, as he holds above, and not because there is no protector for less than an olive-bulk, as Bar Padda said .

And we object to Rabbi Yohanan’s statement that they stated one matter:

And from the fact that Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinos

held

like Rabbi Ishmael,

by implication

the Rabbis

who say that there is one who makes a tent and returns and makes a tent, and the same applies to there being one who touches and returns and touches, hold

like Rabbi Akiva,

the disputant of Rabbi Ishmael.

But Rabbi Akiva declares pure!

He is more lenient than Rabbi Ishmael, for even through carrying they do not convey impurity with two olive-halves. How, then, can he hold like the Sages? And we answer:

Rabbi Akiva declares pure only

when the olive-halves were attached

to the hide,

for the hide nullifies them, and there is no animal carcass here at all.

But in general,

if there were two separate olive-halves of a carcass that conveys impurity, Rabbi Akiva

conveys impurity

even through contact, for he holds that there is one who touches and returns and touches.

As it teaches in the final clause

of our Mishna:

And Rabbi Akiva agrees with regard to two olive-halves that he stuck on a splinter and moved them, that he is impure. And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva declare pure with a hide? Because the hide nullifies them!

Thus, the entire reason of Rabbi Akiva is because the hide nullifies them, so that there is no carcass here at all, and not because there is no one who touches and returns and touches.

Rashi added that Rabbi Akiva himself holds below that anything that does not convey impurity through contact does not convey impurity through carrying; and if he holds in the final clause of our Mishna that two olive-halves stuck on a splinter and moved convey impurity, it follows that he also conveys impurity through contact, for otherwise he would not convey impurity even through carrying .

Rav Ukva bar Hama raised an objection

to Bar Padda:

It was taught: It is written, “The one who touches

their carcasses

shall become impure,” and we derive:

But not

one who touches

a hide upon which there are two olive-halves.

He is not impure.

One might even say that through carrying

the two halves do not convey impurity?

The verse says, “And the one who carries—

shall become impure,”

to include impurity through carrying for a hide upon which there are two olive-halves,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: Since it is stated in the Torah

“the one who touches,”

and afterward it is stated concerning that same carcass

“and the one who carries,”

we derive:

That which comes within the category

of impurity through

contact—

comes within the category

of impurity through

carrying,

but if it

does not come within the category of contact—

it does not come within the category of carrying.

And if so, two olive-halves that do not convey impurity through contact do not convey impurity through carrying either. [Rabbi Akiva, according to his own method, declares them pure because the hide nullifies them, and he does not need to exclude them from the verse. Rather, he says this according to Rabbi Ishmael: even if you do not declare them pure because of nullification, you should declare them pure by the exclusion from the verse; Rashi and Tosafot] .

And now this is difficult for Bar Padda:

And if it is so,

that Rabbi Ishmael declares pure from impurity through contact with two olive-halves only when he touched from behind it, then what did Rabbi Akiva answer—that since it does not come within the category of contact, it does not come within the category of carrying?

Behold,

he

does come within the category of contact

when he touches

from in front of it!?

And we answer:

Rava said: This is what

Rabbi Akiva

is saying: That which comes within the category of contact from every side,

so that even one who touches its protector becomes impure [for the impurity of protectors is learned from the verse “the one who touches”]—

comes within the category of carrying.

But a thing that

does not come within the category of contact from every side,

such as two olive-halves, where one who touches the hide from behind it is not impure—

does not come within the category of carrying.

Rav Avya the Elder asked Rabbah bar Rav Huna: A bone-tube

a bone containing marrow that is

sealed,

so that it is impossible to become impure through contact—for the bone itself does not convey the impurity of an animal carcass, and it is impossible to touch the marrow because the bone is sealed—

according to Rabbi Ishmael, what is the ruling: does it convey impurity

through carrying?

Does

Rabbi Ishmael have

the derivation of

that which comes within the category of contact—

comes within the category of carrying; that which does not come within the category of contact—

does not come within the category of carrying? And here,

with regard to the two olive-halves on the hide, where Rabbi Ishmael says that they convey impurity through carrying even though one who touches from behind it does not convey impurity,

this is the reason: because it does come

at least

within the category of contact from in front of it, [as Bar Padda said; for according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says that it is not fit for contact at all, it is obvious that Rabbi Ishmael entirely disagrees with this derivation].

And in this he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva: According to Rabbi Akiva, it must come within the category of contact from every side, whereas according to Rabbi Ishmael it need not be fit for contact from every side. But with a sealed bone-tube, which does not come within the category of contact in any manner, Rabbi Ishmael agrees that it does not convey impurity through carrying either.

Or perhaps he does not have

Rabbi Ishmael’s derivation at all, “that which comes within the category of contact comes within the category of carrying.” Rather, even something that does not convey impurity through contact at all, even from in front of it, conveys impurity through carrying; and if so, a sealed bone-tube also conveys impurity through carrying?

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said to Rav Avya the Elder:

A raven is flying!

Here is a raven flying in the air. That is, he began speaking with him about another matter.

His son said to him

Rabbah bar Rav Huna’s son said to his father:

Is he not Rav Avya the Elder from Pumbedita, concerning whom you praised him to us—

that he is a great man,

so why are you belittling him and changing the subject to another matter?

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said to his son:

Today I am “Support me with flagons.”

That is, bring me a meal and I will eat, for I have weakened from the discourse that I delivered today publicly,

and he asked me

Rav Avya the Elder

a matter that requires

a reason, and I cannot answer now because I need to examine the matter; I did not change the subject because of contempt.

Ulla said: Two olive-halves

of the flesh of an animal carcass

that he stuck on a splinter,

behold,

even if he carries them back and forth

while carrying them

the entire day—

he is pure.

What is the reason

that he is pure, since he carried an olive-bulk of an animal carcass?

For

it is written, “and he carried,”

for “and the one who carries its carcass” is written defectively, without a vav. According to the spelling it is read “and the one who is carried,” but according to the received reading

we read, “

“and the

one who carries.”

And we derive:

we require—

a carrier, and it must be carried at one time.

The olive-bulk must be joined together in such a way that it can all be carried as one, without an external attachment .

And we challenge:

It was taught

in the Mishna:

“If there were upon it two half-olive measures, they impart impurity through carrying, but not through contact; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael.”

And why does Rabbi Ishmael deem [him] impure through carrying,

for it is not borne

since the two half-olive measures are separate?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

In what are we engaged here?

In a flattened piece.

For there was a thin layer of flesh connecting the two halves, by means of which the olive-measure is considered connected and is borne at one time. [Nevertheless, it does not impart impurity through contact, because it is speaking of a case in which, if he grasps the smaller one, the larger one does not rise with it, and he holds that this is not a connection for it to be considered one contact. But regarding the law that it is borne at one time, it is sufficient that, if he grasps the larger one, the smaller one rises with it, for they are already borne at one time—Tosafot].

Come and hear:

For it was taught in the latter clause of the Mishna:

“Rabbi Akiva concedes regarding two half-olive measures that he stuck upon a reed and shifted them, that he is impure.”

Why? For it is not borne?

And we answer:

Here too

it is speaking

of a flattened piece!

And this law of Ulla is

as a dispute among tannaim.

For it was taught:

“One who touches

two half-olive measures,

and one who shifts

[them], becomes impure.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who carries [them].”

And we pondered it: What did Rabbi Eliezer add,

is it not the case that one who carries is one who shifts

and is included in the words of the first tanna?

Rather, is it not so? This is what he is saying: One who touches and one who shifts

is impure, even

without

their being

borne

at one time, for the halves are not connected to one another.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: And it is when it is borne

at one time, for both through contact and through carrying they impart impurity only when they are connected [for example, in a flattened piece].

And we challenge:

And what is the meaning of “even”

that Rabbi Eliezer said, for he has come to exclude and not to include?

And we answer:

Say:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

And it is when it is borne.

It follows that the tannaim disputed the law of Ulla, whether it is necessary that it be borne at one time or not.

Mishna:

A bone

that has marrow inside it from

the dead,