Talmud Bavli Hullin 124a-b - translation by Tzvee

E.            R. Jeremiah objected: [As to] an oven which was made unclean — how do they clean it? One divides it in three [equal] parts and scrapes off the plastering [124a] so that it is on the ground. R. Meir says, “One does not need to scrape off the plastering, and not down to the earth. But one cuts it down [to] within four handbreadths” [M. Kel. 5:7 A-C]. But if he cuts it down [to] within four handbreadths behold it is clean! Why is this the case? Let him maintain that it is sturdy [and can be put back together]!

F.             Said to him Raba, “Consider the view of the rabbis that he scrapes off the plastering so that it is on the ground.” Rather said Raba, “Here is how you should state the matter: [As to] an oven which was made unclean — how do they clean it? All parties agree that one divides it in three [equal] parts and scrapes off the plastering so that it is on the ground.

G.            And one who wants to make sure that his oven does not become unclean, what does he do? One divides it in three [equal] parts and scrapes off the plastering so that it is on the ground. R. Meir says, “One does not need to scrape off the plastering, and not down to the earth. But one cuts it down [to] within four handbreadths.”

H.            Said the master: One divides it in three [equal] parts. And they raised a contradiction: A baking oven — “Its beginning [is] four [handbreadths]. And its remnants [are] four [handbreadths],” the words of R. Meir. And sages say, “Under what circumstances? In the case of a large one, but in the case of a small one — its beginning is any size at all, and its remnants [to remain susceptible] are the larger part [of the original oven]” [M. Kel. 5:1 A-E].

I.             And how much is any size at all? Said the House of R. Yannai, “A handbreadth. For they make ovens a handbreadth [as a toy (Rashi), and larger for practical use].”

J.             The basis [for it to remain unclean] is that its remnants [are] four [handbreadths]. But lo, [from this we may draw the inference that] if its remnants are not four [handbreadths], it is clean. [This is contrary to M. Kel. 5:7 that prescribes that one must break the oven into three parts and makes no reference to the minimum size of four handbreadths.]

K.            They said [in response]: there [in 5:1 the case is that] he broke it widthwise [and if the parts are less than four it is not usable and therefore clean]. Here [in 5:7 the case is that] he broke it lengthwise [and he must divide it at least into thirds so that no single part is a major portion of the oven.]

L.            Said the master: And its remnants [to remain susceptible] are the larger part [of the original oven]. Of what use is the greater part of [a small oven the size of] a handbreadth?

M.           Said Abayye, “The remnants of a large oven are the larger part [of the original oven].” But lo, the rabbis said, [And its remnants are] four [handbreadths]. There is no contradiction. This one [view of the rabbis in the Mishnah passage] refers to an oven that is [originally] nine [handbreadths]. And this one [Abayye's statement of the rule] refers to an oven that is [originally] seven [handbreadths]. [And in both instances the statements result in potentially lenient interpretations of the law.]

III.3

A.            There is another textual version [of the preceding at III.1]: R. Huna said in the name of R. Ishmael b. R. Yosé, “They learned the rule [that once torn a garment is clean of prior uncleanness, referring back to I.2 A] even if one has left enough of the cloth to be used as an apron, [it is not deemed joined to the rest and therefore the garment remains clean][cf. b. Zeb. 94b].”

B.            Said Resh Laqish, “They learned the rule only with regard to a cloak. But with regard to [one who tears up an unclean garment made of] leather — it is sturdy [and if they piece it back together it regains its original status including its uncleanness].”

C.            And R. Yohanan said, “Even leather is not sturdy [enough. And if it is torn to shreds and pieced together it does not regain its original status].”

D.            R. Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Laqish: A hide that is unclean with midras uncleanness and that one intended [to use] for straps and sandals — “Once one has placed the knife on it, it is clean,” the words of R. Judah. And sages say, “Until one will diminish it [to] less than five handbreadths [it is still unclean][M. Kel. 26:9 A-C].” Once he diminishes it [to less than that size], behold it is clean! Why is this the case? Let him maintain that it is sturdy [in accord with the view of Resh Laqish]!

E.            In that case [in M. Kel.] what are we dealing with? Where he needed it for a seat for a zab. [Jastrow: a leather seat of a folding chair. If he cut it to a size too small for this purpose it no longer had any value to him.]

Unit I.1 discusses the implication of the rule of M. and cites the relevant T. Unit I.2 contrasts the premise of out M. with an intersecting premise of a rule in M. Kelim and works through the analysis of that matter. I.3 inquires further into the circumstances addressed by M. II.1 cites T. and glosses it. III.1 picks up on a point raised in I.2 A and expounds various related issues. Finally, III.2-3 is a reprise of themes of I and II with additional cases for analysis.

                                                                         9:4

                A.            Hide on which is an olive's bulk of [carrion] meat —

                B.            he who [or that which] touches the shred which juts forth from it or hair which is on the opposite side is unclean.

                C.            “[If] there were on it two half-olive's bulks, it imparts uncleanness to the one who carries it, but not to the one who touched it,” the words of R. Ishmael.

                D.            R. Aqiba says, “Neither to the one who touches it nor to the one who carried it.”

                E.            And R. Aqiba agrees in the case of two half-olive's bulks [of meat] which one stuck onto a spindle and moved,

                F.            that he is unclean.

                G.            And on what account does R. Aqiba declare clean in the case of hide?

                H.            Because the hide renders them negligible.

I.1

A.            Said Ulla, said R. Yohanan, “They only taught the matter where a wild beast [tore the animal and] exposed it [i.e., the shred which juts forth]. But where the knife [of the butcher] exposed it, it is a null entity [with regard to the transmission of uncleanness].”

B.            Said R. Nahman to Ulla, “Did R. Yohanan say [this is the status of the meat] even [if the piece cut by a knife that juts out is as large as] the size of a tirta [i.e., a quarter of a qab, or the size of a scale (Rashi)]? He said to him, “Yes.” “Even the size of a sieve?” He said to him, “Yes.”

C.            He [Nahman] said to him, “God! If R. Yohanan had told me this himself, I would not have heeded him.”

D.            When R. Oshaia went off to Israel he found R. Ammi. He stated this tradition before him: “This is what Ulla said and this is what R. Nahman answered.” He [Ammi] said to him, “And because R. Nahman is the son-in-law of the Exilarch does this permit him to mock the tradition of R. Yohanan?”

E.            Another time [R. Oshaia] found [R. Ammi] sitting in session and stating concerning the latter text of the Mishnah-passage [C-D]: “[If] there were on it two half-olive's bulks, it imparts uncleanness to the one who carries it, but not to the one who touched it,” the words of R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba says, “Neither to the one who touches it nor to the one who carried it.”

F.             [And said R. Ammi], said R. Yohanan, “They only taught the matter where a wild beast [tore the animal and] exposed it [i.e., the shred which juts forth]. But where the knife [of the butcher] exposed it, it is a null entity [with regard to the transmission of uncleanness].”

G.            He [Oshaia] said to him, “Does the master connect this teaching [of Yohanan] to the latter text of the Mishnah-passage?” He said to him, “Yes.” [He said to him,] “But Ulla connects this teaching to the former text of the Mishnah-passage.” He said to him, “Yes.”

H.            He [Oshaia] said to him, “God! If Joshua the son of Nun had told me this himself in [Moses'] name, I would not have heeded him.”

I.             When Rabin came [to Babylonia] with the travellers from Israel, he stated this [teaching of Yohanan] in connection with the former text of the Mishnah passage.

J.             But then this poses a question [in accord with Nahman, that a piece of meat the size of a scale or sieve would be accounted as negligible]. [We might explain] as R. Pappa said, [124b] “[It refers to] a flattened piece.” Here too [in our Mishnah-passage the piece that was cut refers to] a flattened piece [that in fact does not amount to an olive's bulk].”

II.1

A.            “[If] there were on it [two half-olive's bulks, it imparts uncleanness to the one who carries it, but not to the one who touched it,” the words of R. Ishmael][M. 9:4 C]. Said Bar Padda, “They only taught the matter regarding a case where they were behind [where the person touched]. But if they were in the front [where he touched them], there could be [an instance] where he touched one and then touched the other [and they combine to render him unclean].”

B.            And R. Yohanan said, “There is no [instance] where he touched one and then touched the other [and they combine to render him unclean].”

C.            And R. Yohanan follows in accord with his own view [elsewhere]. For said R. Yohanan, “R. Ishmael and R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus said the same thing.”

D.            R. Ishmael — this is the one we stated [M. 9:4 C]. And R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus — as it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: All things which contaminate in the Tent, which were divided and which one brought into the house — R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus [Neusner: Harkinas] declares clean. And sages declare unclean [M. Ohalot 3:1 A-C].

E.            Said R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus, “There we do not [employ the principle that] it [the house] overshadowed one part and then overshadowed the other [and they combine to render unclean in the enclosed space]. Here too we do not [employ the principle that] he could touch one [piece of meat] and then touch the other [and they combine to render him unclean].”

F.             And since the view of R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus [in M. Ohalot] corresponds to the view of R. Ishmael [in our Mishnah-passage], then the view of the rabbis [sages, there] corresponds to the view of R. Aqiba [here]. But lo, R. Aqiba declares clean [a person who touches the item in question and sages declare unclean the house in question].

G.            On this point [we must insist that] R. Aqiba declares clean only the [case of two pieces of meat stuck to] a hide. But in general he declares [analogous cases] unclean.

H.            As it is taught in the latter text of our Mishnah-passage [E-H]: And R. Aqiba agrees in the case of two half-olive's bulks [of meat] which one stuck onto a spindle and moved, that he is unclean. And on what account does R. Aqiba declare clean in the case of a hide? Because the hide renders them negligible.

II.2

A.            R. Uqba bar Hama posed an objection [based on the language in these verses: “And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening and he who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; he also who carries the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening” (Lev. 11:39-40)]. “[He who touches] its carcass” — and not [who touches] a hide that had on it two half-olive's bulks.

B.            You might infer that even if he carries [the hide he does not become unclean]. It comes to teach, “He also who carries the carcass shall... be unclean,” the words of R. Ishmael.

C.            R. Aqiba says, “`He who touches... and he who carries...' — whatever is subsumed under the rule of touching [and deemed unclean] is subsumed under the rule of carrying [and deemed unclean in that regard]. Whatever is not subsumed under the rule of touching is not subsumed under the rule of carrying” [=M. 9:5 M].

D.            And if you accept [the interpretation of the case of a piece of hide with two half-olive-bulks of meat on it in accord with Bar Padda above at II.1 A] then behold it is subsumed under the rule of touching [when the meat is stuck on] if they were in the front [where he touched them, there could be an instance where he touched one and then touched the other and they combine to render him unclean].

E.            Said Raba, “Here is how you should state the matter [of Aqiba's generalization]: Whatever is subsumed under the rule of touching when it is on either side [of the hide and is deemed unclean] is subsumed under the rule of carrying [and deemed unclean in that regard]. Whatever is not subsumed under the rule of touching on either side, is not subsumed under the rule of carrying.”

III.1

A.            R. Avya the Elder posed a question to Rabbah bar R. Huna, “A marrow bone that is stopped up — in accord with the view of R. Ishmael what is the law as to whether it renders unclean through carrying? Does R. Ishmael hold in accord with [the principle]: That which enters the category of touching enters the category of carrying. That which does not enter the category of touching does not enter the category of carrying [M. 9:5 M]?

B.            “And here the basis for our reasoning [that the pieces of meat render unclean] is that they were subsumed in the rule of touching in the front [but you cannot touch the unclean part in a marrow bone that is stopped up].

C.            “Or perhaps he does not [hold in accord with that principle at all, in which case you could argue that a marrow bone renders unclean through carrying even though it cannot do so through touching].”

D.            He [Rabbah] said to him, “Look at the raven flying.” [He changed the subject and did not answer.]

E.            Said to him Raba his son, “Is that not R. Avya the Elder from Pumbedita whom the master lauded as a great person?” [Why did you dismiss him so rudely?]

F.             He said to him, “Today I [felt weak and dismissed him in accord with the verse], `Sustain me with raisins, [refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love]' (Song of Songs 2:5). And he had posed before me a matter that demanded [complex] reasoning.”

III.2

A.            Said Ulla, “Two half-olive's bulks [of meat] which one stuck onto a spindle and even if he waved them back and forth all day long, he is clean. What is the basis in scripture for this rule? It is written, “He also who carries [the carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:40). We read it “carries” [even though it is written “carried”]. [This implies that] we need to have a case where he carries what can be carried together [i.e., in one and not in two pieces].

B.            It was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: “[If] there were on it two half-olive's bulks, it imparts uncleanness to the one who carries it, but not to the one who touched it,” the words of R. Ishmael [M. 9:4 C]. But why is this the case? Lo, it cannot be carried together [in one and not in two pieces]? Said R. Pappa, “We deal with a case of a flattened piece [of meat that connects the two half-olive-bulks (Rashi)]” [I.1 J].

C.            Come and take note: And R. Aqiba agrees in the case of two half-olive's bulks [of meat] which one stuck onto a spindle and moved, that he is unclean [M. 9:4 E-F]. But why is this the case? Lo, it cannot be carried together [in one and not in two pieces]? Here also we deal with a case of a flattened piece of meat [that connects them].

D.            This accords with a Tannaite dispute: It is the same whether one touches them or moved them [with a stick]. R. Eliezer says, “It is even [the same] if he carries them.”

E.            Is not carrying also moving them? Rather here is what you should say: It is the same whether one touches them or moved them [with a stick] without carrying them.

F.             And R. Eliezer comes to say, “It is [the same] if he carries them.” What about the language, “Even”? You may maintain that it should say, “It is [the same] if he carries them.”

Unit I.1 is a direct exposition of M.'s principles. II.1 aligns positions related to the M.-passage here and M. elsewhere. II.2 inquires into the principle of the M. and its basis in scripture. III.1 further clarifies the operative principle of M. through the discussion of the example of the marrow bone. III.2 spells out the underlying considerations of E-F in the M.-passage.