Chullin 119a

וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא!

The Gemara explains the objection: And according to Rav, who holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food or protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food is not considered a handle or protection with regard to imparting impurity, in what manner does he interpret this baraita ? If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone without marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, which measures less than an olive-bulk, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because it indicates that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting impurity.

אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא.

If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone containing marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes protection for food measuring less than an olive-bulk, then the last clause of the baraita is difficult because Yehuda ben Nekosa apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is not considered protection with regard to imparting impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav, who holds that it is protection unless it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection. If you wish, say instead that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

The Gemara explains its answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And if you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna , who maintains that the house is impure because he holds that protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity if the flesh measures at least a bean-bulk.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna , who maintains that the house becomes impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food imparts impurity. But he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure.

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוּלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה.

Come and hear another objection to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from the Tosefta ( Okatzin 2:5): Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a femur that has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, the flesh draws the entire femur into ritual impurity if any part of the femur comes into contact with a dead creeping animal. The Sage referred to as Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh upon the femur, it draws the entire femur into impurity.

וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא, אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.

The Gemara asks: In what manner does Rav interpret this baraita ? If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, then the latter clause of the baraita is difficult, because Aḥerim apparently maintains that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav. If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult, because Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד – וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר – כַּאֲחֵרִים.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And if you wish, say instead that the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion introduced with the words: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is referring to the case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says, according to which even protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.

אֲחֵרִים, הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי!

The Gemara asks: How is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion consistent with the opinion referred to as: Aḥerim says? Don’t they say that protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity?

אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.

The Gemara answers: Aḥerim agrees that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk imparts impurity. Nevertheless, since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.

אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דִּבְשׁוֹמֵר עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוּלִית״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, indicating that we are dealing with protection and not a handle, as it teaches the case of a femur, which contains marrow, and therefore the bone provides protection for the food inside. If the baraita were discussing a handle, it would have taught this halakha with regard to any other bone that is attached to flesh and not specifically a femur. Conclude from it that the baraita is discussing the halakha of protection.

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר.

§The baraita cited above teaches that Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh attached to the femur it causes the entire femur to become impure. A dispute was stated with regard to this opinion. Rabbi Ḥanina says: When Aḥerim stated the measure of a bean-bulk, this is a specific measure, and Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies to an appendage only if a bean-bulk of food is attached to it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not a specific measure. Aḥerim holds that the halakha of protection applies even if it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.

אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.

The Gemara asks: How is it possible for Rabbi Yoḥanan to hold that this is not a specific measure? But doesn’t the baraita explicitly teach the measure of a bean-bulk? The Gemara answers: Indeed, Aḥerim holds that protection that is attached to even less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity. But since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן!

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof against the opinion of Rav from that which is taught in a mishna ( Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. Since beans are large and do not require the protection of the pod, the pod is not considered protection for the beans and therefore does not impart impurity. But he deems a pod containing smaller legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually impure if even only one grain is attached to the pod, because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them, and it is therefore considered protection, which imparts impurity. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.

כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.

The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation of that mishna is in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in the context of a different discussion: That mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came into contact with the stalk to which the pod is attached, but not with the pod itself. And therefore the halakha in the mishna is not with regard to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain.

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״? בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.

Here, too, with regard to this proof one can respond that the mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came in contact with the stalk and therefore the halakha in the mishna is with regard to the matter of a handle. Since the mishna is referring to a stalk, and the stalk has many pods on it, it serves as a handle to more than an olive-bulk of food, and is consistent with the opinions of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav. And what does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when handling [ bemashmishan ] the legumes? He is referring to using [ betashmishan ], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן!

Come and hear proof from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food are considered part of the food. Since wheat, barley, and lentil grains are smaller than a bean-bulk, this statement indicates that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.

בְּרִיָּה – שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara rejects this proof: A grain is a distinct entity, and therefore its status is different. The halakha of protection is applicable to a distinct entity even if it measures less than a bean-bulk.

בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא:

§ Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: