Chullin 126a — the Talmud in English

And it was taught concerning it

that Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei declares pure.

And we considered it:

To which

does Rabbi Yosei refer?

If you say: to the latter clause?

It is difficult: what does Rabbi Yosei come to teach us? After all,

does the first tanna not also declare it pure?

Rather,

we are compelled to say that Rabbi Yosei heard him

saying, the first tanna—

“The impurity is inside it; the house is impure.”

And this law was stated in two ways—

Either

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

because the way of impurity is to emerge

through the house.

Or

in a case in which the impurity is not destined to emerge through the house [for example, when the drawer is at the entrance of the house], but there is no handbreadth in the hollow of the drawer, and therefore the house is impure

because concealed impurity

inside the drawer

breaks through

the cabinet and rises into the house, and the house is thereby spread over it.

And this law is inferred from the fact that the first tanna restricted his statement to a case in which there is a hollow of a handbreadth in the drawer; and it follows that if there is no hollow of a handbreadth there, the house is impure even in the case of the latter clause, for although the opening of the drawer is toward the outside 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—

This

that you said

in the first clause, that the house is impure because

the way of impurity is to emerge—

I declare it pure, because

he can remove it in portions or burn it in its place.

And that you said

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

concealed impurity breaks through—

I disagree with this and hold that

concealed impurity does not break through.

Thus we have found that Rabbi Yosei holds that concealed impurity does not break through and rise.

And they challenged Rabbi Yosei from Rabbi Yosei

for elsewhere we have found that he too holds the law that concealed impurity breaks through and rises.

As it was taught

in Tractate Ohalot:

A dog that ate the flesh of

a human

corpse, and the dog died, [

for had the dog been alive, the corpse-flesh in its belly would not have imparted impurity, since it is swallowed impurity],

and

the dog was

lying on the threshold,

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

Rabbi Meir says: If there is a handbreadth opening in its neck,

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

conveys the impurity

into the house, for the upper side of the dog serves as a tent for transferring the impurity from the belly [where the corpse-flesh is located], through the neck and the mouth, into the house. [Although the hollow of the neck on the inside does not contain a handbreadth, nevertheless Rabbi Meir holds that we regard the inside of the neck as though it had been carved out and widened to a handbreadth—Tosafot].

And if not,

that the width of the neck is less than a handbreadth,

it does not convey the impurity

into the house, for less than a handbreadth is not considered a tent for conveying impurity.

Rabbi Yosei says: We see where the impurity is

located within the dog’s body.

If it is

opposite the lintel

the doorpost

and inward,

that is, it is inside the house, then

the house is impure,

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

And if the impurity is located

opposite the lintel and outward—

the house is pure.

And below the Gemara explains his words.

Rabbi Elazar says:

If

its mouth

the dog’s

is inward

and its anal opening is outward—

the house is pure. [

And this is in a case where the impurity is outside the house and the neck is not a handbreadth wide, so that neither by the law of a tent nor by the law of compressed impurity is there a reason to declare the house impure; and as for the impurity’s eventual emergence, it is destined to emerge through its anal opening and not through its mouth].

But if

its mouth is outward

and its anal opening is inward—

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

for the impurity is destined to emerge through its anal opening.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Whether in this manner or in that manner,

whether its mouth is inward or whether its mouth is outward, whether the impurity is opposite the lintel and inward or whether it is outward, whether there is a handbreadth opening in its neck or whether there is no handbreadth opening in its neck, in every case

the house is impure.

For even through the route by which the impurity entered, namely through the mouth, it expels the impurity into the house. [Another explanation: at times the impurity emerges through its mouth, because it vomits out the food].

And now we explain Rabbi Yosei’s words:

Is it not that,

with regard to what Rabbi Meir said, that if

there is no handbreadth opening in its neck

the house is pure,

Rabbi Yosei refers,

and says that if the impurity is opposite the lintel and inward, the house is impure? For although the neck does not have the measure of a tent, the house itself is spread over the impurity, since the impurity is concealed, with no handbreadth of hollow above it, and it breaks through and rises into the house.

And infer from it

that Rabbi Yosei holds

concealed impurity breaks through.

And this is a difficulty from Rabbi Yosei against Rabbi Yosei: concerning bundles of a bed and concerning the chest of a cabinet, Rabbi Yosei said that concealed impurity does not break through, whereas concerning a dog that died he said that concealed impurity breaks through?

And we answer:

Rava said:

Rabbi Yosei does not refer to “there is no handbreadth opening in its neck,” for in that case, even when the impurity is inside, the house is pure, since according to Rabbi Yosei concealed impurity does not break through. Rather, he refers to what Rabbi Meir said: that if there is a handbreadth of width on the outer side of the neck, it conveys the impurity into the house. It is concerning this that Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says that specifically if the hollow of the neck on the inside is a handbreadth, the law of a tent applies to it, to convey the impurity. But if only the outer side is a handbreadth, while inside there is no width of a handbreadth in the hollow, it is not considered a tent for conveying impurity.

And this “we see the impurity” that Rabbi Yosei says means:

we see the hollow

of the place of

the impurity, he teaches,

whether it contains a handbreadth or not.

And the conclusion of his words, “opposite the lintel and inward,” is another matter, as he explains—

And Rabbi Yosei disagrees in two matters. And he says to Rabbi Meir:

This

that you said

that

when there is in its neck

even on the outer side

a handbreadth opening, it conveys the impurity

into the house,

we—

follow its hollow.

And that you said concerning the entire threshold

that the

house is impure,

for the plain meaning of your words implies that even if the dog’s mouth is placed on the outer part of the threshold, the entire house is likewise impure, since the entire width of the threshold is considered inside the house, so that if there is a corpse there, the entire house is impure,

concerning this I say: specifically when the dog’s mouth is

opposite the lintel

at the place where 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 part is considered outside the house.

Rav Aḥa son of Rava taught it explicitly

in the Mishna:

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

and in accordance with Rava’s resolution.

And we considered it:

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 was taught: Rabbi Shimon says:

All impurities that separate from a corpse—for example, an olive-bulk of flesh, a complete limb, a quarter of bones, the majority of the number of bones and the majority of the structure of a corpse, a spinal column and a skull, and more—impart impurity in three ways: a. contact; b. carrying; c. a tent.