Chullin 125b (קכה:) — the Talmud in English

However,

if one touches half an olive-bulk, and another object casts a tent over him and over half an olive-bulk,

for example, when he is found together with half an olive-bulk under one roof,

he is pure. And if

you say

that it is one name of impurity, why is he pure?

But this is precisely the fundamental law of impurity imparted by a tent stated in the Torah: The house casts a tent over him and over the corpse together. Why, then, should the tenting not combine with the touching? Rather, you are forced to say that this tanna holds that tenting and touching are two different names of impurity, and not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

But the first clause is difficult.

For concerning the first clause, which deals with a person who casts a tent with his hand over the impurity, you say that the tenting combines with touching, and they are one name of impurity; whereas concerning the latter clause, which deals with a person and the impurity located in one tent [which is also impurity imparted by a tent], you say that it does not combine with touching, because they are two different names. What is the difference between them? After all, both are impurity imparted by a tent?

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said:

The first clause of the Mishna in Tractate Oholot, which states that touching and tenting combine, deals

with compressed impurity

[which is confined].

We are dealing with a case between two towers,

where half an olive-bulk was placed between two wooden chests [in the form of towers, standing one beside the other

with no opening of a handbreadth between them,

as the space between the two chests was less than a handbreadth; [and therefore the impurity is called “compressed”] , and the person casts a tent with his hand over the impurity above the tops of the towers.

The entire matter—

is touching!

Since the impurity is compressed and breaks through and rises to the firmament, the entire area above the impurity is considered filled with impurity, and it follows that the person is touching the impurity itself. Therefore, this half olive-bulk combines with the half olive-bulk that he touched. But generally, tenting and touching are two different names of impurity .

We inquire about this: If so,

who is the tanna

of the Mishna

who

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan

calls tenting touching ?

And we answer:

It is Rabbi Yosei!

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: A full ladleful

the full contents of a spoon of

decayed matter

[the dust of a corpse’s decomposition]

imparts impurity through touching, through carrying, and through a tent.

[This measure, a ladleful of decayed matter, is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.]

We inquire about this:

Granted,

the fact that it imparts impurity

through carrying and through a tent

is understandable, since

in the one case

he carries it

all, and in the other

he casts a tent over it

all,

as he carries and casts a tent over the measure of a full ladleful at one time.

But touching:

why is he impure?

He did not touch all of it!

The dust is not joined together; rather, each particle is separate in itself, and it is impossible for him to touch all the particles at one time?

Rather, is it not evident from this that what does Rabbi Yosei mean by “touching”

when he says it? Not actual touching, but

tenting.

Thus, Rabbi Yosei calls tenting touching, and the tanna of the Mishna holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

And we challenge this: Is it possible to say so?

But it teaches

in Rabbi Yosei’s statement

“touching,” and it also teaches

also

“tenting,”

indicating that they are two distinct matters, and “touching” means actual touching?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

In fact, Rabbi Yosei’s “touching” means tenting. And there are two types of tenting: If one casts a tent over the impurity

less than a handbreadth above it,

when there is less than a handbreadth between his hand and the impurity, it is considered an

“tent”—

“touching.”

This tent is similar to touching, and it is in such a case that Rabbi Yosei says that one who touches a full ladleful of decayed matter becomes impure.

But if one casts a tent over impurity that is

more than a handbreadth above it,

when there is a handbreadth between his hand and the impurity, this is

merely a tent,

as Rabbi Yosei says: The full ladleful imparts impurity through a tent .

Rava said: Even more than a handbreadth above it is also “a tent—

touching”;

this type of tenting is also called “touching” by Rabbi Yosei.

And what is an example of merely a tent? When the impurity is extended!

The person and the impurity are beneath one tent, and the tent extends the impurity toward the person. This is not called a “tent of touching,” since a “tent of touching” is only when the person casts a tent over the impurity or the impurity casts a tent over him. But when an intermediary object extends the impurity toward the person by means of a tent, this is called “merely a tent.”

Hence, according to Rabbi Zeira and Abaye, an ordinary tent is not considered touching, except when the impurity is compressed between two towers according to Rabbi Zeira, or when one casts a tent less than a handbreadth above it according to Abaye. According to them, it is impossible to answer, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosei’s, since the difficulty would still remain: It is touching—yes; tenting more than a handbreadth above it—no. [Indeed, Abaye, in accordance with his own view, answered above that the Mishna is to be understood differently.]

However, according to Rava, every instance of casting a tent above impurity is considered touching according to Rabbi Yosei, and according to him it is entirely possible to answer, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosei’s. [And one should not raise the difficulty: Let us still say, touching—yes, but impurity extended by a tent—no. Concerning this one can say that the Mishna deals with a case in which the person became impure from the corpse itself, and not through extension of impurity by a tent—Tosafot] .

Rava said: From where do I derive this

that even a tent more than a handbreadth above the impurity is called “touching” by Rabbi Yosei?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Bundles of a bed,

a network of ropes placed at the bottom of a bed,

and window lattices,

wooden or metal bars placed in windows so that objects will not fall through them—if one spreads them across the beams in the roof of the house, they

constitute a barrier between the house and the upper story, preventing

the

impurity

of the corpse

from entering the other side,

from the house into the upper story.

That is to say, if there is a house with an upper story above it, and beams between them [which constitute the roof of the house and the floor of the upper story], but there is a space of more than a handbreadth between one beam and the next, so that they are not adjacent, and the corpse is in the house, the entire house and the entire upper story are impure, since the impurity spreads throughout the house and also enters the upper story through the opening of a handbreadth between the beams.

When bundles of a bed are placed in the space between the beams, they reduce the space between the beams. Although the ropes and lattices contain small holes, they are considered sealed, and the impurity does not pass through them, since the holes are not of the measure of a handbreadth, and impurity does not pass through an opening less than a handbreadth .

They spread it over the corpse in the air,

meaning that the corpse was outside [and not inside a house], and they spread bundles of bedding over the corpse. The openings are therefore not considered sealed, since they did not make them as a roof. Consequently,

one who touches [

that is, one who overshadows it]

opposite the opening

between the ropes of the bed—is

impure.

But one who touches

not opposite the opening,

but above the ropes themselves—is

pure,

because the ropes themselves interpose before the impurity, preventing it from rising above them.

We inquire about this:

What are the circumstances? If you say

that they spread it over the corpse

below a handbreadth,

so that there was not a height of a handbreadth between the ropes and latticework and the corpse,

if so, why is one who touches

not opposite the opening pure?

After all, since they are so close to the corpse, it is like a

corpse

covered

with its covering, and a corpse in its covering imparts impurity!?

For the covering does not interpose before one who overshadows the corpse, preventing the impurity from reaching him.

Rather, is it not

that here we are dealing with a case in which they spread it

above a handbreadth

from the corpse? Consequently, it is not considered a corpse in its covering.

And Rabbi Yosei calls him

Rabbi Yosei

“one who touches,”

which shows that even a tent above a handbreadth is called “touching” according to Rabbi Yosei.

Abaye said: Actually,

a space above a handbreadth is not called “touching” according to Rabbi Yosei. And “they spread it over the corpse” refers to a case in which they spread it

below a handbreadth.

And as for what you said,

that if so,

it is a corpse in its covering,

there is no difficulty: This is not comparable to a corpse in its covering. For

in the case of a corpse in its covering,

he designates it permanently for it,

meaning that he intends the covering to remain over the corpse forever. Therefore, it does not interpose before the impurity of the corpse, since it is considered part of the corpse. But

this

the ropes and latticework—

he does not designate permanently for it,

for he intends to remove them from the corpse. Consequently, they do interpose before the impurity.

We challenge Abaye: If they spread it over the corpse below a handbreadth, then even though they are not considered like a corpse in its covering, nevertheless

let it be like

any

concealed impurity,

where there is no space of a handbreadth between it and the partition above it. For it is established that the impurity

breaks through

beyond the partition above it

and rises

to the firmament. Why, then, is one who touches not opposite the opening pure?

We answer:

Rabbi Yosei holds: Concealed impurity does not break through.

And from where do you say

that Rabbi Yosei holds this?

For we learned

in tractate Oholot:

The drawer of the tower-chest

a drawer in a cupboard inside the house,

which has an opening of a handbreadth,

meaning that the interior space of the drawer is a handbreadth,

but its exit does not have an opening of a handbreadth,

meaning that the opening of the drawer leading outside is less than a handbreadth, [

For if the drawer did not have an interior space of a handbreadth, the compressed impurity, which has no space of a handbreadth, would break through the drawer, rise, and spread into the house, rendering the entire house impure . Similarly, if the opening of the drawer leading outside had an opening of a handbreadth, the impurity would leave through the opening and enter the house, rendering the entire house impure. Rather, here we are dealing with a case in which it has an interior space of a handbreadth, but its exit does not have an opening of a handbreadth].

If there is

impurity inside it,

the drawer, even though the impurity is not concealed, since there is a space of a handbreadth above it and it does not break through and rise into the house, and even though the opening of the drawer is less than a handbreadth and the impurity cannot leave through it, nevertheless

the house is impure.

As the Mishna proceeds to explain.

And if the

impurity is in the house,

then

what is inside it,

the drawer,

is pure.

For the impurity cannot enter the drawer, since its opening is less than a handbreadth, and the ceiling of the drawer, which has an interior space of a handbreadth, interposes before the impurity in the house.

Because

when the impurity is inside the drawer,

it is the way of impurity to leave,

for ultimately the impurity inside the drawer will be removed from there and pass through the house. Consequently, when the impurity is inside it, the house is impure. [This law is rabbinic: They decreed impurity upon a place through which the impurity is ultimately going to be transported].

But

when the impurity is inside the house,

there is no way for the impurity

in the house

to enter

the drawer. Consequently, when the impurity is in the house, what is inside the drawer is pure.

And Rabbi Yosei declares

the house pure when the impurity is inside the drawer,

because

it is not certain that the impurity will leave into the house,

for

he

can remove it in halves,

in half-olive-bulk portions, which do not impart impurity,

or burn it in its place,

inside the drawer. [The enactment of the Sages, who decreed impurity upon a place through which the impurity is ultimately going to be transported, applied only to an intact corpse, since it is not customary to remove an intact corpse in half-olive-bulk portions or to burn it in its place. Here, Rabbi Yosei declares the house pure in the case of a corpse that is not intact—Tosafot].

And it teaches in the latter clause

of that Mishna that if one

placed

the tower-chest

at the opening

of the house, so that the drawer itself is located within the space of the house,

and its opening

is open toward the

outside

of the house,

then if the

impurity is inside it—

the house is pure,

for the impurity is ultimately going to leave not through the house but through the opening of the tower-chest, which is outside the house.

And likewise, if the

impurity is in the house, what is inside it is pure,

for the impurity is not ultimately going to enter the tower-chest.