Chullin 126a (קכו.) — the Talmud in English

And it was taught concerning it

that Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei deems it pure.

And we raised the following difficulty:

With regard to which

does Rabbi Yosei’s statement apply?

Shall we say that it applies to the latter clause?

If so, this is difficult: What is Rabbi Yosei teaching us? After all,

doesn’t the first tanna also deem it pure?

Rather,

we are compelled to say that Rabbi Yosei understood

the first tanna to be saying:

If the impurity is inside it, the house is impure.

And this ruling is stated in two ways—

Either

it is referring to a case in which there is a space of one handbreadth in the hollow of the drawer, as the first clause teaches; in that case, the impurity is not concealed, but rather the reason the house is impure is

because the nature of impurity is to emerge

through the house.

Or

it is referring to a case in which the impurity is not destined to emerge through the house [for example, where the drawer is at the entrance of the house], but there is no space of one handbreadth in the hollow of the drawer. Therefore, the house is impure

because concealed impurity

inside the drawer

breaks through

the tower and rises into the house, and the house is thus a tent over it.

This ruling can be inferred from the fact that the first tanna stated his words only with regard to a case in which there is a space of one handbreadth in the hollow of the drawer. It follows that if there is no space of one handbreadth there, the house is impure even in the case of the latter clause: Although the opening of the drawer faces outward and the impurity is not destined to emerge into the house, nevertheless the house is impure because compressed impurity breaks through and rises.

And Rabbi Yosei said to him

the first tanna: I disagree with you in both cases—

With regard to

what you said

in the first clause, that the house is impure because

the nature of impurity is to emerge—I deem it pure because

I say that he

can remove it in pieces or burn it in its place.

And with regard to what you said

in the latter clause [as is implied by your words there], that the house is impure because

concealed impurity breaks through—I disagree with this and maintain that

concealed impurity

does not break through.

We have therefore found that Rabbi Yosei maintains that concealed impurity does not break through and rise.

And they raised a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei

as elsewhere we find that he also maintains that concealed impurity breaks through and rises.

As we learned

in tractate Oholot:

If a dog ate the flesh of

a human

corpse and the dog died, [

for had the dog remained alive, the corpse-flesh in its stomach would not render anything impure, as it is swallowed impurity],

and

the dog was

lying on the threshold,

the entranceway of the house, with its neck inside the house and its body outside.

Rabbi Meir says: If there is a space of one handbreadth in its neck,

meaning that the width of the neck is one handbreadth, the neck is considered a tent, and it

brings the impurity

into the house, as the upper side of the dog serves as a tent to transfer the impurity from the stomach [where the corpse-flesh is located] through the neck and mouth into the house. [Although the hollow of the neck internally does not contain a space of one handbreadth, nevertheless Rabbi Meir maintains that we view the inside of the neck as though it had been hollowed out and widened to one handbreadth—Tosafot].

And if not,

meaning that the width of the neck is less than one handbreadth, it

does not bring the impurity

into the house, since something less than one handbreadth is not considered a tent capable of bringing impurity.

Rabbi Yosei says: We view the location of the impurity

to determine where it is situated inside the dog’s body.

If it is

opposite the lintel

of the doorway

and inward,

that is, if it is inside the house, then

the house is impure,

even if the width of the neck is not one handbreadth.

And if the impurity is located

opposite the lintel and outward—

the house is pure.

The Gemara below explains his statement.

Rabbi Elazar says: If

the

mouth

of the dog is

inside

and its anus is outside—

the house is pure. [

This is referring to a case in which the impurity is outside the house and the neck is not one handbreadth wide. Neither the law of a tent nor the law of compressed impurity provides a reason to render the house impure; and as for the principle that impurity is destined to emerge, it is destined to emerge through the anus and not through the mouth.]

But if

its mouth is outside

and its anus is inside—

the house is impure, because the impurity emerges through its lower opening,

as the impurity is destined to emerge through its anus.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: In either case,

whether its mouth is inside or its mouth is outside, whether the impurity is opposite the lintel and inward or outward, and whether its neck has a space of one handbreadth or does not have a space of one handbreadth, in every case

the house is impure.

For even through the route by which the impurity entered, namely, through the mouth, it can bring the impurity into the house. [Alternatively: Sometimes the impurity emerges through its mouth, when it vomits the food.]

And now we explain Rabbi Yosei’s words:

Is it not that

Rabbi Yosei is referring to what Rabbi Meir said, that if

its neck does not have a space of one handbreadth,

the house is pure, and

Rabbi Yosei

said that if the impurity is opposite the lintel and inward, the house is impure? Although the neck does not have the dimensions of a tent, the house itself is a tent over the impurity, since the impurity is concealed, as there is no space of one handbreadth above it, and it breaks through and rises into the house.

And learn from this

that Rabbi Yosei maintains that

concealed impurity breaks through.

But this is difficult, as one statement of Rabbi Yosei contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yosei: With regard to bundles of bedding and with regard to the tower-chest, Rabbi Yosei said that concealed impurity does not break through, whereas with regard to the dead dog he said that concealed impurity breaks through.

And we answer:

Rava said:

Rabbi Yosei is not referring to the phrase “its neck does not have a space of one handbreadth,” since in that case, even if the impurity is inside the house, the house is pure, as according to Rabbi Yosei concealed impurity does not break through. Rather, he is referring to what Rabbi Meir said: If there is a width of one handbreadth on the outer side of the neck, it brings the impurity into the house. Rabbi Yosei disagrees with this and says that specifically if the inner hollow of the neck is one handbreadth, it has the status of a tent capable of bringing impurity. But if only the outer side is one handbreadth wide, while the inner hollow is not one handbreadth wide, it is not considered a tent capable of bringing impurity.

And this phrase “we view the impurity,” which Rabbi Yosei said, means:

We view the hollow

of the place of

the impurity,

to determine whether it contains a space of one handbreadth or not.

And the conclusion of his statement, “opposite the lintel and inward,” is a separate matter, as he explains:

And Rabbi Yosei disagrees in two respects. And he said to Rabbi Meir:

With regard to

what you said,

that

when there is in its neck,

even on the outer side,

a space of one handbreadth, it brings the impurity

into the house,

we—

follow the hollow.

And with regard to what you said, concerning the entire threshold,

that the

house is impure,

as the plain meaning of your words implies that even if the dog’s mouth is resting on the outer section of the threshold, the entire house is likewise impure, since the entire width of the threshold is considered part of the house, so that if a corpse were there, the entire house would be impure—

with regard to this I say: Specifically when the dog’s mouth is

opposite the lintel,

the place against which the door strikes [knocks] when it closes,

and inward, the house is impure.

But

opposite the lintel and outward, the house is pure.

For that section is considered outside the house.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, taught it explicitly

in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: We view the hollow of the impurity,

and this is in accordance with Rava’s resolution.

And we raised the following difficulty:

And who

is the

tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei

and says that a tent is not called “touching”?

And we answer:

It is Rabbi Shimon!

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

All impurities that separate from a corpse—for example, an olive-bulk of flesh, an entire limb, a quarter-kav of bones, the majority of the number and the majority of the structure of a corpse, a spine, a skull, and others—render impure in three ways: A. Through contact. B. Through carrying. C. Through a tent.