Chullin 126b — the Talmud in English

Yet there are

three impurities

[among all the impurities] that

emanate from the corpse,

and their laws are equal in this respect—

that

two

of the three ways of impurity through which a corpse imparts impurity are found

in each one

of them, whereas

the third is not found in them!

And these are

the three impurities—

A full ladleful of dust of decomposition.

And a barley-sized bone.

And a golel

[the covering of the coffin of the corpse]

and a dofek

[a board placed at the side of the corpse].

A full ladleful of dust of decomposition

—imparts impurity through carrying and through a tent, but does not impart impurity through contact.

Since one cannot touch every particle of the dust of decomposition.

And from here it is proven that Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and holds that one who forms a tent over something is not called one who “touches,” [for Rabbi Yosei said above that a full ladleful of dust of decomposition imparts impurity even through contact, meaning “a tent of contact].

And where

does

its contact

of the corpse impart impurity?

In one of them!

That is, in each one of the other two impurities.

A bone the size of a barley grain

—imparts impurity through carrying and through contact, but does not impart impurity through a tent.

[This law is learned from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.]

And where

does

its tent

of the corpse impart impurity?

In

every

one of them!

A golel and a dofek

—impart impurity through contact and through a tent, but do not impart impurity through carrying!

And where

does

its carrying

of the corpse impart impurity?

In

every

one of them!

We learned in the Mishna:

The hollow bone of a carcass and the hollow bone of a creeping animal

—one who touches them when they are sealed is pure.

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning a carcass, “One who touches its carcass shall become impure,” which implies—

“its carcass”

—but not a sealed hollow bone.

For one who touches it is not impure, since he has not touched the marrow inside it, [and the bone itself does not impart impurity in the case of a carcass].

One might even say that if it was perforated

the hollow bone, one who touches it should not become impure?

The verse states, “One who touches

—shall become impure,”

and we expound from the superfluous yod in “shall become impure” to include that even one who touches the bone becomes impure, since it is a “protector” for the marrow inside it.

And since “one who touches” is written, we expound:

Only

that which can be touched

in the marrow inside it—that is, when the hollow bone was perforated—is

impure

by the law of a protector.

But

that which cannot be touched,

such as when the hollow bone is sealed, is

pure.

For even the law of a protector does not apply to it.

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: If that is so,

that a protector imparts impurity only if one can touch the flesh itself, then

an animal

that is a carcass which was not skinned at all and is still

in its hide

—should it not impart impurity

even though the hide protects the flesh, since it is impossible to touch the flesh?

And we answer:

Go out and see how many openings it has:

the mouth, the snout, and the eyes, through which it is possible to touch the flesh.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: If that is so, a kidney

[of a carcass] that is entirely covered

with its fat

[and fat does not impart impurity in the case of a carcass]—

should it not impart impurity!?

For one who touches the fat, which protects the kidney, should not become impure, since he cannot touch the kidney? And we answer:

Come and see how many strands extend from it

—from the kidney—which are flesh that imparts impurity in the case of a carcass.

Rabbi Oshaya raised a dilemma: If one intended concerning it

—concerning the hollow bone—

to perforate it, but did not perforate it

—what

is the law: should it impart impurity?

Does

something lacking perforation count as something lacking an act, or not?

After the dilemma was raised, he

then resolved it: Something lacking perforation does not count as something lacking an act.

Mishna:

The developed egg of a creeping animal,

an egg of a creeping animal [a tortoise, lizard, or the like] in which a chick developed, and the chick died—

is pure

from imparting the impurity of creeping animals. Since it is impossible to touch the chick inside while the egg is sealed, one who touches the egg also does not become impure.

If it was perforated

the egg

in any amount, it is impure

—one who touches it, even if he touched only its shell. Since it is possible to touch the chick itself [which imparts the impurity of creeping animals] through the perforation, the egg also imparts impurity, because it is a “protector” for the chick inside.

A mouse that is half flesh and half earth,

for there is a species of mouse that is formed from earth [like worms that are formed from refuse]. At the beginning of its formation, when half of it has already become a mouse and half of it is still earth—

one who touches the

half that has already become

flesh becomes impure.

But one who touches

the

half that is still

earth remains pure.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the earth opposite the flesh becomes impure,

because it will eventually become flesh, and already from now it imparts impurity like a creeping animal.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written, “These are the impure among you, among every creeping animal,” and we expound from the heh of

“the impure”—

to include the egg of a creeping animal and the hollow bone of a creeping animal 170,

which impart impurity like the creeping animal itself.

One might even say that if it has not developed

the egg, so that no chick was formed in it, it too should impart impurity?

The verse states, “the creeping animal,”

and we expound:

Just as a creeping animal that developed,

for it has already been formed,

so too the egg of a creeping animal

specifically if it

developed 171.

One might even say that if they were not perforated

the hollow bone and the egg of the creeping animal, they should impart impurity?

The verse states, “One who touches

them

shall become impure,”

and we expound that only

that which can be touched

—the marrow inside the hollow bone and the creeping animal inside the egg—is

impure

by the law of a protector.

But

that which cannot be touched is pure.

And how much

is the measure of

its perforation,

of the egg and the hollow bone?

Like the thickness of a hair. For

it is

possible to touch through an opening the thickness of a hair,

meaning that a hair of the head or beard [attached to a person] can enter through the opening and touch inside. The person thereby becomes impure, since a hair attached to a person is considered like his flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

A mouse that is half

flesh and half earth: one who touches the flesh is impure, and one who touches the earth is pure.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: And this is when it developed over its entire surface.

That is, specifically when the half that has already become flesh has developed along the entire length of the mouse—meaning, its entire right side or its entire left side—then that side is considered a creeping animal and imparts impurity. But as long as one half of it has not been formed along its entire length, it does not impart impurity at all as a creeping animal.

There are those who teach it

as referring to the statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna.

For it teaches:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the earth opposite the flesh is impure.

And concerning this

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: And this is when it developed over its entire surface.

For specifically then does Rabbi Yehuda declare even one who touches the earth on the other side impure. But if it did not develop over its entire surface, he agrees that only one who touches the flesh is impure.

And we explain:

The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause

—that even for one who touches the flesh, we require that it have developed over its entire surface—

all the more so with regard to the latter clause,

concerning one who touches the earth, for Rabbi Yehuda declares him impure only when it developed over its entire surface.

And the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause

says that specifically in the latter clause did Rabbi Joshua ben Levi say that it does not impart impurity until it developed over its entire surface,

but

in the

first clause,

where one touches the flesh,

even though it did not develop

over its entire surface, he is also impure.

The Sages taught: Since it is stated

in the Torah, among the eight creeping animals that impart impurity,

“mouse,” I might understand even a mouse of the sea

—a fish resembling a mouse—

whose name is mouse,

so that it too is included in “mouse”.

And the inference is

that one should consider that a mouse of the sea is not included in “mouse,” for

He declared impure

it in Scripture

as a weasel,

which is also one of the eight creeping animals,

and He declared impure through a mouse.

Just as a weasel

is only

a species that grows on the land,

for everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on dry land, He created its counterpart in the sea, except for the weasel, for there is no fish in the sea resembling a weasel,

so too a mouse

includes only

the species that grows on the land

and not one that grows in the sea, for one that grows in the sea does not impart the impurity of creeping animals.

Or proceed along this path:

One might reason conversely, that a mouse of the sea should be included in “mouse,” for

He declared impurity through a mouse and declared impurity through a weasel; just as a weasel

includes

everything whose name is weasel,

since there is no weasel in the sea, and every species whose name is weasel imparts the impurity of creeping animals,

so too a mouse—everything whose name is mouse

is included.

I will include a mouse of the sea

so that it too imparts impurity,

for

it

its name is mouse?

And since it can be reasoned in both directions, we apply the stricter side, and a mouse of the sea should be impure.

Scripture says: "

that swarms

upon the earth,"

which indicates specifically that species which is on land, and not that which is in the sea.

Or does it not say "upon the earth"

to exclude the species of mouse in the sea,

but

it comes to teach that whenever the mouse is found

upon the earth, it will render impure

the one who touches it, whether it is a mouse on land or whether it is a mouse in the sea. But if

it went down into the sea, it will not render impure

there the one who touches it!? [For there is no distinction in the species of the mouse, but rather in the place where it is found ].