Chullin 125b — the Talmud in English

But ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

one who touches half an olive-bulk, while another thing overshadows him and half an olive-bulk,

for example, when it was found together with half an olive-bulk under one roof,

is pure. And if

you say

that it is one designation, why is he pure?

This is, after all, the very principle of the law of tent impurity stated in the Torah: that the house overshadows him and the corpse together; and why should the tent not combine with the touching? Rather, it is necessarily the view of this tanna that overshadowing and touching are two designations, and not like Rabbi Yohanan.

But the first clause is difficult.

For in the first clause, which discusses a person overshadowing the impurity with his hand, you say that the tent combines with touching, and it is one designation; whereas in the latter clause, which discusses a person and the impurity being in one tent [which is also tent impurity], you say that it does not combine with touching, for they are two designations. What is the difference? Are they not both tent impurity?

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said:

The first clause of the Mishna of Ohalot, where touching and overshadowing combine,

concerns compressed impurity

[constricted impurity]

between two towers.

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

and there is not an opening of a handbreadth between them,

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

it is all—

touching!

For since the impurity is compressed, and it breaks through and rises to the firmament, the entire place 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 of the touching. But generally, overshadowing and touching are two designations .

And we inquire: If so,

which tanna

of the Mishna

[holds] that

according to Rabbi Yohanan

he calls overshadowing touching ?

And we answer:

It is Rabbi Yosei!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: a full ladleful

full of the spoon of

decay

[the soil of a corpse’s decay]

renders impure through touching, through carrying, and through a tent.

[This measure of a spoonful of decay is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.]

And we inquire:

Granted,

that which it renders impure

through carrying and through a tent

is understandable, for

this one

through carrying

carries all of it, and this one

through overshadowing

overshadows all of it,

since he carries and overshadows the measure of a full ladleful at one time.

But touching,

why is he impure?

Does he not touch all of it?

For the soil is not joined together; rather, each grain is separate in itself, and it is impossible that he should touch all the grains at one time.

Rather, can one not infer from this: what does “touching”

which Rabbi Yosei

say mean? Not actual touching, but

overshadowing. Thus Rabbi Yosei calls overshadowing touching, and the tanna of the Mishna holds like Rabbi Yosei.

And we object: Is it possible to say so?

But it teaches

in Rabbi Yosei’s words

“touching,” and it also teaches

also

“overshadowing,”

implying that they are two things, and “touching” means actual touching?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

The “touching” of Rabbi Yosei indeed means overshadowing. But there are two kinds of tents: if he overshadows the impurity

below a handbreadth

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

a tent—

touching. For this tent is similar to touching, and in such a case Rabbi Yosei says that one who touches a full ladleful of decay becomes impure.

And if he overshadows the impurity which is

above

a handbreadth,

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

a mere tent,

as Rabbi Yosei says: the full ladleful renders impure through a tent .

Rava said: Even above a handbreadth as well, “tent—

touching” it is;

even such a tent is called “touching” by Rabbi Yosei.

And what are the circumstances of a mere tent? With the extension!

The person and the impurity are beneath one tent, and the tent extends the impurity to the person. This is not called a “tent of touching,” since a “tent of touching” exists only when the person overshadows the impurity or the impurity overshadows him; but when there is an intermediate object that extends the impurity to the person by means of a tent, this is called “a mere tent.”

And now, according to Rabbi Zeira and Abaye, an ordinary tent is not considered touching, unless, according to Rabbi Zeira, the impurity is compressed between two towers, or, according to Abaye, he overshadows below a handbreadth. According to them, it is impossible to answer, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosei’s, for it would still be difficult: “touching”—yes; “overshadowing above a handbreadth”—no [and in truth, Abaye, according to his position, explained the Mishna above in another manner].

But according to Rava, every act of overshadowing above the impurity is considered touching according to Rabbi Yosei, and according to him it is well possible to answer, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosei. [And one should not object: Let us still say, “touching”—yes; impurity through extension—no? For one can say regarding this that the Mishna discusses a case where he became impure from the corpse itself and not through extension—Tosafot] .

Rava said: From where do I say it,

that even a tent above a handbreadth is called “touching” in Rabbi Yosei’s expression?

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: bundles of a bed,

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

and latticework of windows,

wooden or metal bars placed in windows so that things should not fall through them—if he spread them over the beams in the roof of the house, they

interpose between the house and the upper story, so as not to let

the

impurity

of the corpse

to the other side,

from the house to the upper story.

That is to say, if there is a house with an upper story above it, and between them there are beams [which are 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, then the entire house and the entire upper story are impure, since the impurity spreads through the house and also enters the upper story through the opening of a handbreadth between the beams.

And when he placed bundles of a bed in the space between the beams, they reduce the space between the beams. Even though the ropes and lattices have small holes in them, they are considered sealed, and the impurity does not pass through them, since the holes do not have the measure of a handbreadth, and impurity does not pass through less than a handbreadth .

spread over the corpse, suspended in the air,

meaning that the corpse was outside [and not inside a house], and he spread bundles of a bed over the corpse; the openings are therefore not considered closed, since he did not place them there to serve as a roof. Consequently,

one who comes into contact

that is, one who overhangs

directly over the opening

between the ropes of the bed—is

impure.

But one who comes into contact

not directly over the opening,

but rather above the ropes themselves—is

pure,

because the ropes themselves block the ritual impurity beneath them, preventing it from rising above them.

We analyze this:

What are the circumstances? If you say

that he spread them over the corpse

less than a handbreadth above it,

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

if so, why is one who comes into contact

with what is not directly over the opening pure?

Since they are so close to the corpse, is it not like a

corpse

that is covered

by its covering, and a corpse in its covering transmits ritual impurity?

For the covering does not block the ritual impurity from one who overhangs the corpse.

Rather, is it not

that here the case is that he spread them

more than a handbreadth above

the corpse, and therefore it is not considered like a corpse in its covering?

And Rabbi Yosei calls

Rabbi Yosei

“one who comes into contact,”

which indicates that even a tent more than a handbreadth above the corpse is called “coming into contact” according to Rabbi Yosei.

Abaye said: Actually,

more than a handbreadth above the corpse is not called “coming into contact” according to Rabbi Yosei. And the statement that he spread them over the corpse refers to a case in which he spread them

less than a handbreadth above it.

And as for what you said

that if so,

is it a corpse in its covering?

There is no difficulty: this case is not comparable to a corpse in its covering. When there is a

corpse in its covering, he

designates it permanently

the covering for the corpse, intending that it remain covering the corpse forever. Therefore, it does not block the ritual impurity of the corpse, since it is considered part of the corpse. But

these

ropes and latticework—he

does not designate them permanently

since he intends to remove them from the corpse. Therefore, they do block the ritual impurity.

We challenge Abaye: If he spread them over the corpse less than a handbreadth above it, then even if they are not like a corpse in its covering, nevertheless

let it be like

any

covered ritual impurity,

where there is no space of a handbreadth between it and the barrier above it. For we hold that ritual impurity

breaks through

the barrier above it,

and rises

to the sky. Why, then, is one who comes into contact with what is not directly over the opening pure?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei holds: Covered ritual impurity does not break through.

And from where do you say

that Rabbi Yosei holds this way?

For we learned

in tractate Oholot:

The drawer of the tower-chest

a drawer in a cabinet inside a house,

which has an opening of a handbreadth,

meaning that the space inside 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 a space of a handbreadth, the compressed ritual impurity, which has no space of a handbreadth, would break through the drawer, rise, and spread into the house, making the entire house impure. Likewise, if the drawer’s opening to the outside were an opening of a handbreadth, the ritual impurity would leave through the opening and enter the house, making the entire house impure. Rather, here we are dealing with a case in which the drawer has a space of a handbreadth, but its exit does not have an opening of a handbreadth.

If there is

ritual impurity inside it,

the drawer, even though the ritual impurity is not covered, 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 drawer’s opening is less than a handbreadth and the ritual impurity cannot leave through it, nevertheless

the house is impure.

As the Mishna goes on to explain:

And if the

ritual impurity is in the house, then

then

what is inside it,

the drawer, is

pure.

The ritual impurity cannot enter the drawer because its opening is less than a handbreadth, and the roof of the drawer, which has a space of a handbreadth, blocks the ritual impurity in the house.

Because

when the ritual impurity is inside the drawer,

it is expected that the ritual impurity will leave,

since ultimately the ritual impurity inside the drawer will be removed from there and pass through the house. Therefore, when the ritual impurity is inside it, the house is impure. [This law is rabbinic: the Sages decreed impurity upon a place through which the ritual impurity is eventually expected to be carried].

But

when the ritual impurity is inside the house,

there is no expectation that the ritual impurity

in the house

will enter

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

And Rabbi Yosei declares the house pure

when the ritual impurity is inside the drawer,

because

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

as

he

can remove it in separate portions,

in half-olive-bulk portions, which do not transmit ritual impurity,

or burn it where it is,

inside the drawer. [The rabbinic enactment decreeing impurity upon a place through which the ritual impurity is eventually expected to be carried 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 where it is. Here Rabbi Yosei declares the house pure because the corpse is not intact—Tosafot].

And it is taught in the latter clause

of that Mishna: If he

placed

the tower-chest

at the entrance

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

ritual impurity is inside it,

the house is pure,

since the ritual impurity is not ultimately expected to leave through the house, but through the opening of the tower-chest, which is outside the house.

Likewise, if the

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

since the ritual impurity is not ultimately expected to enter the tower-chest.