Chullin 125a (קכה.) — the Talmud in English

And the hollow bone of consecrated offerings,

a bone from offerings that became piggul or notar. The Sages decreed that these render the hands impure, so that the priests would not deliberately cause the offering to become piggul [with the intention of causing the owners a loss], nor leave part of the offering uneaten out of laziness. The decree applied both to the flesh and to the bones that served the flesh.

One who touches them, whether

the bones are

sealed

and it is impossible to touch the marrow inside them,

or

when they are

perforated

and it is possible to touch the marrow as well—he is

impure.

For a corpse’s bone, even one the size of a barley-grain, transmits impurity through contact and carrying, even without the marrow inside it. Likewise, the bones of offerings that became disqualified themselves transmit impurity. Therefore, it makes no difference whether it is possible to touch the marrow or not.

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

for the bones themselves do not transmit impurity, but when there is marrow inside them, there are two reasons for them to transmit impurity: one, because the bones are considered a “protective covering” (shomer) for the marrow, and a protective covering conveys the impurity; and the second, because if one carries them, he has also carried the marrow inside them, and an unslaughtered animal transmits impurity through carrying—

then

one who touches them

when they are

sealed—

is pure,

and they do not transmit impurity either by virtue of the law of a protective covering or by virtue of carrying, since the flesh of an unslaughtered animal that cannot be touched does not transmit impurity at all [unlike the hollow bone of a corpse and the hollow bone of consecrated offerings, which, although it is impossible to touch the marrow, transmit impurity by virtue of the bones themselves].

But if the bones are

perforated

even

to any extent,

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

it transmits impurity 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 of an unslaughtered animal that cannot be touched does not transmit impurity by virtue of a protective covering will be explained in the Gemara, as we derive it from the verse, “One who touches it shall become impure” .

And

from where do we know that

if it is impossible to touch it, it does not transmit impurity

even through carrying,

although he carried the marrow within the bone?

The verse states, “One who touches it”—

“and one who carries it.”

And we interpret this as follows:

That which can come within the category of contact

can come within the category of carrying.

But if it

cannot come within the category of contact,

it cannot come within the category of carrying.

Gemara:

It is taught in the Mishna: The hollow bone of a corpse—one who touches them, whether 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 himself over

the hollow bone—

no,

he does not become impure. For a bone does not transmit impurity through a tent, and because of the marrow inside it, he does not become impure either .

We inquire about this:

What are the circumstances?

If there is an olive-bulk of flesh

on the hollow bone, then

it should also transmit impurity through a tent ?

The Ramban has a version that reads: “If there is flesh upon it sufficient to regenerate, it also transmits impurity through a tent,” meaning that it is considered a limb, even though there is not an olive-bulk of flesh upon it.

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

There is no

olive-bulk of

flesh upon it.

We inquire further:

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

within the hollow bone, then the

impurity

of the marrow

bursts through

the bone

and rises

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 transmit impurity through a tent!?

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

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

There is no olive-bulk of marrow inside.

We nevertheless inquire:

And if

the tanna of the Mishna holds that the

marrow

that is

inside regenerates

the flesh

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

For any condition that, were the person alive, would return him to wholeness, is considered even now to be a complete limb .

a full-fledged limb!

For any condition that, were the person alive, would return him to wholeness, is considered even now to be a complete limb .

If so, this is difficult:

it should also transmit impurity through a tent!?

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

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Hiyya, said: This means that

the tanna of the Mishna holds that

marrow inside—

does not regenerate the flesh outside.

Therefore, a bone with no flesh upon it is not considered a limb, since had the person been alive, the flesh would not have grown back.

We challenge this:

With what circumstances did you establish

the Mishna? With

there being no olive-bulk

of marrow inside the bone.

If so, with regard to consecrated offerings—

why does

the hollow bone transmit impurity? Did they not decree impurity upon bones only in the case of bones that served notar, meaning that there was an olive-bulk of marrow inside them [which is the measure for notar]? But bones that contain no olive-bulk of notar do not transmit impurity with regard to consecrated offerings?

And furthermore,

we challenge what is taught in the Mishna, that

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

transmit impurity when perforated: If they

were perforated,

why do they transmit impurity?

There is no olive-bulk of marrow inside them, and the bones of an unslaughtered animal or creeping creature do not transmit impurity!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult!

The first clause,

concerning the hollow bone of a corpse, is dealing with

there being no olive-bulk

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

The latter clause,

concerning the hollow bones of consecrated offerings, an unslaughtered animal, and a creeping creature, is dealing with

there being an olive-bulk

of marrow inside.

We challenge this: If so, if you establish the first clause as referring to a case without an olive-bulk and the latter clause as referring to a case with an olive-bulk, this is difficult:

what does the Mishna teach us?

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 teaches us several separate matters!

There is a novelty in each matter—

The first clause,

the hollow bone of a corpse,

teaches us that marrow inside does not regenerate flesh outside!

Therefore, it does not transmit impurity through a tent.

The hollow bone of

consecrated offerings teaches us

that

the use of notar is significant!

It is not only the notar flesh itself that transmits impurity; the bones that served the notar [that is, that contain marrow which is notar] also transmit impurity. Therefore, even if one touched sealed bones, where it is impossible to touch the marrow inside, he becomes impure.

As Rav Mari bar Avuha said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The bones of consecrated offerings that served

the

notar transmit impurity to the hands, since

the bone

became a base [a seat]

[a seat]

for the forbidden matter [the flesh of piggul and notar] .

[the flesh of pigul and notar] .

The hollow bone of an

unslaughtered animal

teaches us that

even though there is an olive-bulk

of marrow inside, only if the hollow bone is

perforated

does it transmit impurity—

yes;

only then does it transmit impurity. But if it is

not perforated,

no,

it does not transmit 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 regenerates flesh outside.

And it is not difficult that, if so, the hollow bone of a corpse should transmit impurity through a tent because of its status as a limb, because

here, what are we dealing with? With a bone that was sawn.

The bone was sawn, and it no longer regenerates flesh; therefore, its status as a limb has been nullified,

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar.

As Rabbi Elazar said: A hollow bone that was sawn lengthwise is impure

by virtue of its status as a limb, since it still regenerates flesh. Once it is sawn lengthwise, a place remains around the bone that was not sawn, and because of this place the bone regenerates flesh. But if it was sawn

widthwise

all around, with no place remaining around the bone that was not sawn, it can no longer regenerate flesh, and it is

pure.

And your mnemonic is—

a palm tree!

Likewise, with a palm tree, if one removes a strip around its circumference, it dries out, since the sap cannot rise through the tree. But if one removes a strip lengthwise, the sap can still rise through the part that was not removed, and it regenerates.

Abaye came only to resolve the difficulty of why the bone should not be considered a limb because it regenerates flesh: since the bone was sawn, it no longer regenerates flesh. But it is still necessary to say that the Mishna is dealing with a case in which there is neither an olive-bulk of flesh outside nor an olive-bulk of marrow, and that the first clause is not analogous to the latter clause; rather, it teaches several separate matters, as above. Rabbi Yohanan below, however, comes to resolve all the difficulties.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Actually,

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

in which there is an olive-bulk

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

marrow inside regenerates flesh outside,

and the hollow bone transmits impurity through a tent either because of the marrow or because of its status as a limb. As for the question of why the tanna mentioned “one who touches,” implying that it does not transmit impurity through a tent—

What does “one who touches,” which it teaches,

mean with regard to the hollow bone of a corpse?

One who spreads himself over it!

The tanna of the Mishna also calls such a person “one who touches.”

We challenge this:

And if marrow inside regenerates flesh outside,

and the hollow bone is considered a complete limb, then

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

The bone itself should transmit impurity by virtue of its status as a limb [for with an unslaughtered animal and a creeping creature as well, a limb transmits impurity independently]. 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 Giddel said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Here, what are we dealing with? In a case in which there is

inside the hollow bone

an olive-bulk of quivering marrow— 153 ,

the marrow has dried and knocks against the walls, and it no longer regenerates the flesh outside. Consequently, the bone does not have the status of a limb.

Therefore,

with regard to a corpse,

the hollow bone transmits impurity through a tent, not by virtue of its status as a limb, since it does not regenerate flesh, but because of the olive-bulk of marrow inside [for even though it is dry, it still transmits impurity through a tent]. And even if the hollow bone is sealed, we say that the

impurity

of the marrow

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

But with regard to an

unslaughtered animal [and a creeping creature], since the hollow bone does not transmit impurity by virtue of its status as a limb

—

since it is quivering,

and all the impurity is only because of the marrow inside, therefore, if the hollow bone is

perforated,

so that one can touch the marrow,

yes,

it transmits impurity through contact; but if it is

not perforated, no.

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

that one who spreads himself over something is called one who touches, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, who said this regarding the view of the tanna of the Mishna.

As we learned in tractate Ohalot:

One who touches half an olive-bulk

of flesh from a corpse with one hand,

and

at that same time he

spreads himself over

another half olive-bulk with his other hand,

or

at that same time there was

half an olive-bulk spreading itself over him, or

he was at that time

half an olive-bulk was spread over him,

holding his hand beneath the corpse’s flesh—he is

impure.

This is because the two half-olive-bulks combine [and this is not in accordance with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, cited above, who holds that one does not touch and then touch again].

Rabbi Avin concludes his proof:

Granted, if you say

that spreading oneself over and touching

are one designation, that is why they combine,

so that these two half-olive-bulks constitute the measure of an olive-bulk.

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

And we learned

in the latter clause of that Mishna there:

This is the principle: Anything that is of one designation

of impurity, such as one who touched two half-olive-bulks, or carried them, or spread himself over them,

combines

the two halves into a single olive-bulk

and he is impure.

But anything that is

of two designations,

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

pure.

And since we see that touching and spreading oneself over something combine to form the measure of an olive-bulk, it is evident that they are one designation, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

We challenge this:

Rather, what

does it prove, that spreading oneself over and touching

are one designation,

and therefore they combine? If so,

say the latter clause

of the Mishna of Ohalot there: