Chullin 125a — the Talmud in English

And the hollow bones of consecrated offerings,

the bones of offerings that became pigul—an offering disqualified through improper intent—or notar—an offering left beyond the permitted time. The Sages decreed that these bones render the hands impure, so that the priests would not deliberately cause an offering to become pigul [with the intention of causing the owners a loss] or leave parts of the offering because of laziness. This decree applied both to the meat and to the bones that served the meat.

One who touches them, whether

the bones are

sealed,

so that it is impossible to touch the marrow inside them,

or

they are

perforated,

so that it is possible to touch the marrow as well—he is

impure.

For a bone from a corpse the size of a barley grain conveys impurity through contact and carrying, even without the marrow inside it. Similarly, the bones of disqualified offerings themselves convey impurity. Therefore, it makes no difference whether it is possible to touch the marrow.

The hollow bone of an animal carcass and the hollow bone of a creeping creature—

the bones themselves do not convey impurity. Nevertheless, when they contain marrow, there are two reasons that they can convey impurity. First, because the bones are considered a “protective covering” for the marrow, and a protective covering conveys the impurity of what it covers. Second, if one carries them, he has also carried the marrow inside them, and an animal carcass conveys impurity through carrying—

therefore

one who touches them

when they are

sealed—

is pure,

and they do not convey impurity either by the law of a protective covering or through carrying, because the flesh of an animal carcass that cannot be touched does not convey impurity at all. [This differs from the hollow bone of a corpse and the hollow bone of consecrated offerings, which convey impurity through the bones themselves even though it is impossible to touch the marrow.]

But if the bones are

perforated

even

to any extent,

so that it is now possible to touch the marrow by inserting a person’s hair through the hole [and the person thereby becomes impure]—he

becomes impure through contact,

and even if he touched the bone, he becomes impure because the bone is considered a protective covering for the marrow.

The reason that flesh from an animal carcass that cannot be touched does not convey impurity by the law of a protective covering will be explained in the Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna. We derive it from the verse: “One who touches it shall become impure” .

And

from where do we know that

if something cannot be touched, it does not convey impurity

even through carrying,

although he carried the marrow inside the bone?

The verse states “one who touches it”—

“and one who carries it.”

And we expound:

Anything that can come under the category of contact

can come under the category of carrying.

But if it

cannot come under the category of contact, it

cannot come under the category of carrying.

Gemara:

The Mishna teaches: “The hollow bone of a corpse: one who touches them, whether they are sealed or perforated, is impure.” This implies:

“One who touches”—

yes;

only if he touched the hollow bone does he become impure.

But one who spreads over

the hollow bone—

no,

he does not become impure. A bone does not convey impurity through a tent, and the marrow inside it does not render him impure either .

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances?

If there is an olive-bulk of flesh

on the hollow bone, then

it should also convey impurity through a tent ?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

There is not

upon it

an olive-bulk of flesh.

We inquire further:

And if there is an olive-bulk of marrow inside,

inside the hollow bone, then the

impurity

of the marrow

breaks through

the bone

and rises upward. The bone does not block the impurity inside it because it does not contain an airspace one handbreadth wide. If so,

upward. For the bone does not interpose before the impurity inside it, since it does not contain a cavity measuring a handbreadth. If so—

it should also convey impurity through a tent!?

One who spreads over the hollow bone should become impure, since he has spread over the marrow inside it ?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

There is no olive-bulk of marrow inside.

We still inquire:

And if

the tanna of the Mishna holds that

marrow

that is

inside grows back

the flesh that is

outside, meaning that when a person is alive, if the flesh over the bone is stripped away, the marrow inside heals it, and through it the flesh grows back above the bone—if so, every hollow bone, even one with no flesh upon it,

то есть у живого человека, если мясо на кости содрано, мозг внутри исцеляет его, поскольку благодаря ему мясо сверху вырастает, — тогда всякая полая кость, даже если на ней нет мяса, —

is a complete limb!

For anything that would become whole again if the person were alive is considered a complete limb even now .

If so, this is difficult:

It should also convey impurity through a tent!?

For a complete limb from a corpse conveys impurity through a tent.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: This indicates

that the tanna of the Mishna holds that

marrow inside

does not cause flesh outside to grow back.

Therefore, a bone with no flesh upon it is not considered a limb, since if the person were alive, the flesh would not grow back.

We challenge this:

By what circumstances did you establish

the Mishna? By

there being no olive-bulk

of marrow inside the bone.

If so, with regard to consecrated offerings,

why does

the hollow bone convey impurity? The Sages decreed impurity upon bones only when they served notar—that is, when they contained an olive-bulk of marrow [which is the measure of notar]. But bones that do not contain an olive-bulk of notar do not convey impurity with regard to consecrated offerings.

Furthermore,

the statement in the Mishna that

the hollow bone of an animal carcass and the hollow bone of a creeping creature

convey impurity when perforated is also difficult:

When they are perforated,

why do they convey impurity?

They contain no olive-bulk of marrow, and the bones of an animal carcass or creeping creature do not convey impurity.

And we answer:

This is not difficult!

The first clause

concerning the hollow bone of a corpse deals with a case

where there is no olive-bulk

of marrow inside, and the impurity is due to the bones themselves.

The final clause,

concerning the hollow bone of consecrated offerings, an animal carcass, and a creeping creature, deals with a case

where there is an olive-bulk

of marrow inside.

We challenge this: If so, you have established the first clause as referring to a case with no olive-bulk and the final clause as referring to a case with an olive-bulk. This is difficult:

What does the Mishna come to teach us? We already knew that a bone from a corpse conveys impurity through contact and carrying but not through a tent, and that an olive-bulk of flesh from an animal carcass conveys impurity through contact and carrying.

We already knew that a corpse’s bone transmits impurity through contact and carrying but not through a tent, and that an olive-bulk of flesh from an unslaughtered animal transmits impurity through contact and carrying.

And we answer:

It comes to teach several separate points!

There is a novelty in each matter—

The first clause,

the hollow bone of a corpse,

comes to teach that marrow inside does not cause flesh outside to grow back!

Therefore, it does not convey impurity through a tent.

The hollow bone of

consecrated offerings comes to teach

that

serving notar is significant!

It is not only the notar itself that conveys impurity; the bones that served the notar [meaning that they contain marrow that is notar] also convey impurity. Therefore, even if one touched sealed bones, through which it is impossible to touch the marrow inside, he becomes impure.

For Rav Mari bar Avuha said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: The bones of sacred offerings that served

the

leftover offering convey impurity to the hands, since

the bone

became a base

[a seat]

for a forbidden substance

[the flesh of pigul and notar] .

The hollow bone of an

animal carcass

comes to teach that

even though there is an olive-bulk

of marrow inside, only if the hollow bone is

perforated

—

yes,

only then does it convey impurity; but if it is

not perforated—

no,

it does not convey impurity, since the bone does not even have the status of a protective covering, as it is impossible to touch the marrow inside.

Abaye said: Actually,

the tanna of the Mishna holds that

marrow inside causes flesh outside to grow back.

Why, then, is it not difficult that the hollow bone of a corpse should convey impurity through a tent because it is a limb?

Here, what are we dealing with? With a bone that was sawed.

The bone was cut, and it can no longer cause flesh to grow back; therefore, it no longer has the status of a limb,

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: A hollow bone that was sawed lengthwise is impure

because of its status as a limb, since it can still cause flesh to grow back. When it is sawed lengthwise, a section remains around the bone that was not sawed, and because of this section the bone can cause flesh to grow back. But if it was sawed

widthwise,

all the way around, with no section remaining around the bone that was not sawed, it cannot cause flesh to grow back, and it is

pure.

And your mnemonic is

a palm tree!

Similarly, with a palm tree, if one removes a strip all the way around its width, it dries out because the sap can no longer rise through the tree. But if one removes a strip lengthwise, the sap can still rise through the part that was not removed, and the tree heals.

Abaye came only to resolve the question of why the bone should not be considered a limb because it can cause flesh to grow back: Since the bone was sawed, it can no longer cause flesh to grow back. But it is still necessary to say that the Mishna deals with a case where there is no olive-bulk of flesh outside and no olive-bulk of marrow, and that the first clause is not parallel to the final clause; rather, the Mishna comes to teach several separate points, as stated above. Rabbi Yoḥanan below, however, comes to resolve all the difficulties.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Actually,

the first clause, concerning the hollow bone of a corpse, deals with a case

where there is an olive-bulk

of marrow inside [as in the final clause]. It is also possible that this tanna holds that

marrow inside causes flesh outside to grow back,

and the hollow bone conveys impurity through a tent either because of the marrow or because of its status as a limb. What, then, is the meaning of the tanna’s statement “one who touches,” which implies that it does not convey impurity through a tent?

What is the meaning of “one who touches,” which it teaches

with regard to the hollow bone of a corpse?

It means one who spreads over it!

For the tanna of the Mishna also calls one who spreads over it “one who touches.”

We challenge this:

And if marrow inside causes flesh outside to grow back,

and the hollow bone is considered a complete limb, then

with regard to the hollow bone of an animal carcass and the hollow bone of a creeping creature, why are they pure when they are not perforated?

The bone itself should convey impurity because of its status as a limb [for an animal carcass and a creeping creature also convey impurity through a limb itself]. What difference does it make that the bone is sealed and it is impossible to touch the marrow inside?

And we answer:

Rabbi Binyamin bar Gidel said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Here, what are we dealing with? A case in which there is

inside the hollow bone

an olive-bulk of jostling marrow 153 ,

meaning that the marrow has dried out and knocks against the walls. It can no longer cause the flesh outside to grow back, and consequently the bone does not have the status of a limb.

Therefore,

with regard to a corpse,

the hollow bone conveys impurity through a tent—not because of its status as a limb, since it cannot cause flesh to grow back, but because of the olive-bulk of marrow inside [for although it is dry, it still conveys impurity through a tent]. Even when the hollow bone is sealed, we say that the

impurity

of the marrow

breaks through and rises. [The same applies to the hollow bone of consecrated offerings: one who touches it becomes impure even when it is sealed, because the bone itself conveys impurity since it served the notar inside.]

И то же самое относится к кости посвященных: прикасающийся к ней становится нечистым даже когда она закрыта, поскольку сама кость оскверняет, так как служила находившемуся внутри нотар.]

But with regard to an

animal carcass [and a creeping creature], since the hollow bone does not convey impurity because of its status as a limb,

—

since it is jostling,

and all the impurity is only due to the marrow inside, therefore, if the hollow bone is

perforated

so that one can touch the marrow,

yes,

it conveys impurity through contact; but if it is

not perforated, it does not.

Rabbi Avin said, and some say it was Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: We too have learned

that one who spreads over something is called one who touches, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement concerning the view of the tanna of the Mishna.

As we learned in tractate Oholot:

One who touches half an olive-bulk

of flesh from a corpse with one hand

and

at the same time

spreads over

with his other hand

half an olive-bulk

of another portion,

or

if at that time

half an olive-bulk was spread over him,

as he placed his hand beneath the flesh of the corpse—he is

impure.

This is because the two half-olive-bulks combine [unlike the opinion of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas above, who holds that contact followed by contact does not combine].

Rabbi Avin concludes his proof:

It works out well if you say

that spreading over and touching

are one designation, which is why they combine;

these two half-olive-bulks combine to form the measure of an olive-bulk.

But if you say that they have two designations, do they combine!?

And we learned

in the final clause of that Mishna in Oholot:

This is the general principle: Anything that is from one designation

of impurity—for example, one touched two half-olive-bulks, carried them, or spread over them—

combines

the two halves into one olive-bulk

and becomes impure.

But anything that is

from two designations,

such as one who touched a half-olive-bulk and carried another half-olive-bulk, does not combine, and he is

pure.

And since we see that touching and spreading over combine to form the measure of an olive-bulk, it is proven that they have one designation, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.

We challenge this:

Rather, what

does it prove—that spreading over and touching

have one designation,

and therefore they combine? If so,

say the final clause

of that Mishna in Oholot: