Chullin Daf 119 (חולין דף קי״ט)
Daf: 119 | Amudim: 119a – 119b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (119a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
How does Rav read the two-bones baraita? If a handle, the first clause is difficult.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the two-bones Tosefta from 118b, the Gemara tests it against Rav’s thresholds (no yad below a k’zayit, no shomer below a k’pol). If the bone is a mere handle (a marrowless bone), the first clause — where the house is impure though each half-olive is less than a k’zayit — contradicts Rav’s minimum for a handle. The Gemara sets up the horns of the dilemma resolved below.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ = how does he interpret/establish it?
- רֵישָׁא (reisha) = the first clause
- יָד (yad) = a handle (an appendage conveying impurity by contact)
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
If protection, the latter clause is difficult — Yehuda ben Nekosa denies shomer below a k’zayit.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The other horn: if the bone is a shomer (a marrow-bearing bone protecting the marrow), the latter clause — Yehuda ben Nekosa’s objection that two bones cannot combine to a k’zayit — implies a shomer below a k’zayit does not impart impurity, contradicting Rav (who permits shomer down to a k’pol). Either reading seems to clash with Rav, demanding the resolution that follows.
Key Terms:
- סֵיפָא (seifa) = the latter clause
- שׁוֹמֵר (shomer) = protection (a covering that shields the food)
- כְּפוֹל (k’pol) = a bean-bulk (Rav’s minimum for a shomer)
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav reads it either way — as protection, or as a handle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers Rav two escape routes: read the baraita as about a shomer, or as about a yad. Each reading, spelled out next, aligns Rav with one of the baraita’s two tannaitic voices (the first tanna or Yehuda ben Nekosa), so that neither clause refutes him.
Key Terms:
- אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא (ibba’it eima) = “if you wish, say” (offering an alternative resolution)
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
As a handle → Rav follows Yehuda ben Nekosa; as protection → Rav follows the first tanna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two alignments: (1) if the bone is a yad, Rav follows Yehuda ben Nekosa (house not impure — no yad below a k’zayit); (2) if the bone is a shomer, Rav follows the first tanna (house impure — shomer works down to a k’pol, which two half-olives exceed). Either way Rav is consistent with a legitimate tannaitic position. His view is defended against the baraita.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא קַמָּא (tanna kama) = the first (anonymous) tanna
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא = the tanna objecting that two bones cannot combine to a k’zayit
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yochanan reads it all as a handle, following the first tanna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan reads the whole baraita as concerning a yad, siding with the first tanna: a handle imparts impurity even below a k’zayit, so the house is impure — consistent with his view (yesh yad l’faḥot mik’zayit). He rejects Yehuda ben Nekosa’s dissent. Each amora thus finds a tannaitic home for his position.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד = the entire [baraita] is about a handle
- יֵשׁ יָד לְפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת = there is a handle-function below an olive-bulk (Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view)
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
A femur baraita: Rabbi Yehuda requires a k’zayit; Acherim, only a bean-bulk.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוּלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new baraita on a femur (kulit, a marrow-bearing bone). Rabbi Yehuda: a k’zayit of flesh draws the whole bone into impurity. Aḥerim: even a k’pol (bean-bulk) of flesh suffices. This bears on the size-thresholds and is tested against both Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan in the coming segments.
Key Terms:
- קוּלִית (kulit) = a femur/thigh-bone (contains marrow, so it is a shomer)
- גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה = draws the whole [bone] into impurity
- אֲחֵרִים (Aḥerim) = “Others” (a designation for a particular tanna)
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
How does Rav read this? Handle → latter clause hard; protection → first clause hard.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא, אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Again the two horns. If a yad: Aḥerim’s “bean-bulk suffices” contradicts Rav’s “no yad below a k’zayit.” If a shomer: Rabbi Yehuda’s requirement of a k’zayit contradicts Rav’s “shomer works down to a k’pol.” The Gemara resolves by matching Rav to one tannaitic voice per reading.
Key Terms:
- קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא / רֵישָׁא = the latter / first clause is difficult
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
As a handle → Rav follows Rabbi Yehuda; as protection → Rav follows Acherim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד – וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר – כַּאֲחֵרִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav’s two alignments: (1) as a yad, follow Rabbi Yehuda (needs a k’zayit — matching Rav’s handle-threshold); (2) as a shomer, follow Aḥerim (a bean-bulk suffices — matching Rav’s shomer-threshold of k’pol). Either reading places Rav within a tannaitic view, so the femur baraita does not refute him.
Key Terms:
- כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה / כַּאֲחֵרִים = in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda / with Aḥerim
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yochanan reads it all as protection, following Acherim — but he permits below a bean-bulk!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים. אֲחֵרִים, הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי!
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said that the entire baraita is referring to 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. 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan reads the whole baraita as about a shomer and aligns with Aḥerim. But a difficulty: Aḥerim specifies a k’pol (bean-bulk), whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds a shomer works even below a k’pol. How can he cite Aḥerim, who names a specific measure Rabbi Yoḥanan rejects? The next segment resolves this.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר = the entire [baraita] is about protection
- הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי = “but they say a bean-bulk!” (a specific measure)
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Acherim names a bean-bulk only to parallel the first tanna’s measure, not as a true minimum.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution: Aḥerim really holds that even less than a k’pol suffices, but because the first tanna (Rabbi Yehuda) framed his ruling with a specific measure (k’zayit), Aḥerim responded in kind with a specific measure (k’pol) — for rhetorical parallelism (ayidei), not as a genuine floor. So Aḥerim’s “bean-bulk” is illustrative, and Rabbi Yoḥanan can consistently cite him. The apparent conflict dissolves.
Key Terms:
- אַיְּידֵי (ayidei) = “since/on account of” (a measure stated for parallelism, not as a strict limit)
- שִׁיעוּרָא (shiura) = a [specific] measure
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rava: the word “femur” (marrow-bearing) shows the baraita concerns protection.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דִּבְשׁוֹמֵר עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוּלִית״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava adds a textual proof (dayka nami): the baraita specifically says kulit (femur), a marrow-bearing bone that protects the marrow inside — a shomer. Had it meant a mere handle, it would have used any ordinary bone. The precise word choice confirms the shomer reading, supporting Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation of the baraita.
Key Terms:
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי (dayka nami) = “the wording is also precise” (a textual corroboration)
- קוּלִית (kulit) = a femur (marrow-bearing, hence a shomer)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Is Acherim’s “bean-bulk” a fixed measure? Rabbi Chanina yes, Rabbi Yochanan no.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר.
English Translation:
§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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A recorded dispute over Aḥerim’s intent. Rabbi Ḥanina: the bean-bulk is a genuine minimum (zehu shiur) — a shomer needs at least a k’pol of attached food. Rabbi Yoḥanan: it is not a fixed measure (ein zeh shiur) — a shomer works even below a k’pol. This directly extends the Rav/Rabbi Yoḥanan threshold-dispute into the reading of Aḥerim.
Key Terms:
- זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר = “this is a [fixed] measure” (Rabbi Ḥanina)
- אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר = “this is not a [fixed] measure” (Rabbi Yoḥanan)
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But it says “bean-bulk”! Again: Acherim states a measure only to match the first tanna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same objection and answer as Segment 10, now applied to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reading of Aḥerim in the amoraic dispute. Aḥerim’s stated “k’pol” is a parallel-driven phrasing responding to the first tanna’s “k’zayit,” not a real floor. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s “ein zeh shiur” therefore stands. The repetition cements the point.
Key Terms:
- וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״ = “but it teaches a bean-bulk!” (the objection)
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: a pod with even one small grain is impure — below a bean-bulk?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A mishna in Okatzin: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a bean-pod pure (beans are large and need no protection) but a legume-pod impure — even with just one small grain attached, since one wants the pod when handling the delicate legumes (it is a shomer). This implies a shomer functions even below a k’pol, challenging Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina. The rejection follows.
Key Terms:
- פּוֹל / קִטְנִית = a [large] bean / small legumes
- רוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן = one desires their use (the pod is wanted — a shomer)
- מְטַהֵר / מְטַמֵּא = deems pure / deems impure
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Acha: that mishna is about the stalk (a handle to much food), not the pod.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד. הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״? בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.
English Translation:
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. 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa son of Rava reinterprets the mishna: the creeping animal touched the stalk (kulḥa), not the pod, so it concerns a yad, not a shomer. The stalk bears many pods — more than a k’zayit of food — so it is a handle above Rav’s threshold. And “bemashmishan” is reread as “betashmishan” (carrying the legumes by the stalk). Thus the mishna does not disprove Rav or Rabbi Ḥanina.
Key Terms:
- קוּלְחָא (kulḥa) = a stalk (serving as a handle to many pods)
- בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן (betashmishan) = in carrying/using them (the reread of “bemashmishan”)
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
The school of Rabbi Yishmael: seed in its shell — grains are below a bean-bulk!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another challenge from the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s “al kol zera zerua” derivation: a shell (kelipa) protects its grain, and wheat, barley, and lentil grains are each smaller than a k’pol. So a shomer functions below a bean-bulk — against Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina. The Gemara distinguishes this case next.
Key Terms:
- עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ = “on any sown seed” (Leviticus 11:37)
- קְלִיפָּה (kelipa) = the shell/husk (a shomer for the grain)
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
A distinct entity (b’riya) is different — its shomer works even below a bean-bulk.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּרִיָּה – שָׁאנֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves it with a category-distinction: a whole grain is a b’riya — a complete, distinct entity — and for such an item the shomer’s protection applies even below a k’pol. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina’s threshold governs only fragments or portions of food, not an intact b’riya. The grain-in-shell case is thus exceptional and does not refute them.
Key Terms:
- בְּרִיָּה (b’riya) = a distinct, complete entity (treated more stringently)
- שָׁאנֵי (shani) = it is different (a distinguishing exception)
Segment 18
TYPE: בעיא
Rav Oshaya’s dilemma: do two protections join to complete the measure?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא:
English Translation:
§Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:
קלאוד על הדף:
This introduces Rav Oshaya’s dilemma, completed on 119b: whether two separate protections (shomrim) can join together (tzeiruf) to complete the required measure. The question probes the limits of the shomer’s joining-power established earlier in the sugya, and drives the analysis on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- בָּעֵי (ba’ei) = raises a dilemma/inquiry
- רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא (Rav Oshaya) = the amora posing the dilemma
Amud Bet (119b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
The dilemma stated: do two protections join to complete the egg-bulk?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁנֵי שׁוֹמְרִין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ?
English Translation:
As the Gemara stated, protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. What is the halakha with regard to two protections joining together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart impurity?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Oshaya’s dilemma (opened at the end of 119a): since a single shomer joins with its food, do two separate protections combine with each other and the food to reach the k’beitza (egg-bulk) for food impurity? The Gemara first clarifies which configuration is meant before exploring both sides.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי שׁוֹמְרִין (shnei shomrin) = two protections
- שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ (sheyitztarfu) = that they should join together
- כְּבֵיצָה (k’beitza) = an egg-bulk (the measure for food impurity)
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא
Not a shomer atop a shomer — is that even a valid category?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּזֶה עַל גַּב זֶה – וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּב שׁוֹמֵר?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the dilemma? If we say that it is referring to a case where a food item has two layers of protection, and this outer protection is on top of that inner protection, is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma. It cannot mean one shomer atop another (ze al gav ze), since a covering that protects only another covering — not the food directly — has no shomer status. This is proven by the onion-peels mishna cited next.
Key Terms:
- הֵיכִי דָמֵי (heichi dami) = “what are the circumstances?”
- זֶה עַל גַּב זֶה = one on top of the other (layered protections)
- שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּב שׁוֹמֵר = a protection on top of a protection
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
The onion-peels mishna: the outer peel, protecting only the middle peel, does not join.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ קְלִיפּוֹת בְּבָצָל – פְּנִימִית, בֵּין שְׁלֵמָה בֵּין קְדוּרָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת; אֶמְצָעִית, שְׁלֵמָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת, קְדוּרָה – אֵין מִצְטָרֶפֶת; חִיצוֹנָה, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – טְהוֹרָה.
English Translation:
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Okatzin 2:4) that Rabbi Yehuda says: There are three peels surrounding an onion. The inner peel is considered like the food itself, and therefore, whether whole or punctured, it joins together with the onion to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impurity of food. With regard to the middle peel, when it is whole it provides protection and therefore joins together with the onion, but when it is punctured it does not provide protection and therefore does not join together with the onion. The outer peel does not join together with the onion at all, and both in this case, when it is whole, and in that case, when it is punctured, it remains ritually pure. Evidently, the halakha of protection is not applied to a protection that surrounds another protection.
קלאוד על הדף:
The onion mishna establishes the three-peel gradation: the inner peel counts like the food (joins whether whole or pierced); the middle peel joins only when whole (it protects the onion); the outer peel never joins and stays pure — because it protects only the middle peel, not the onion directly. This proves a shomer atop a shomer does not join, so Rav Oshaya’s dilemma cannot be about layered coverings.
Key Terms:
- שָׁלֹשׁ קְלִיפּוֹת בְּבָצָל = the three peels of an onion (inner/middle/outer)
- פְּנִימִית / אֶמְצָעִית / חִיצוֹנָה = inner / middle / outer
- קְדוּרָה (kedura) = punctured/pierced (then it no longer protects)
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
So the dilemma is about a single protection divided into separate sections.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, שׁוֹמֵר אוֹכֶל שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Rav Oshaya does not raise the dilemma with regard to a food item that has two layers of protection. Rather, he raises the dilemma with regard to protection of food that one divided such that the food is whole but the protection is divided into separate sections.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defines Rav Oshaya’s actual case: not layered coverings, but a single protection that has been divided (shilko) into separate pieces around a whole piece of food. The question is whether those separate sections of one divided shomer combine to complete the measure. The two sides follow.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹמֵר אוֹכֶל שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ = protection of food that one divided (into sections)
- קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ = is the [subject of his] dilemma
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא
Side one: each section protects only its part — so they do not join.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, וְהַאי לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי, לָא מִצְטָרֵף.
English Translation:
The dilemma is as follows: Since this section of the protection is protecting this part of the food but does not provide protection for that other part of the food, and that other section of the protection is protecting another part of the food but does not provide protection for this part of the food, must one conclude that the two protections do not join together to constitute the requisite measure for the impurity of food?
קלאוד על הדף:
The first side: since each section of the divided protection shields only its own portion of food and not the other’s, the two sections are functionally independent — so perhaps they do not join (la mitztaref). Each guards a different part, so they may not combine into a single joining unit.
Key Terms:
- לָא מַגֵּין אַהַאי = does not protect this [other part]
- לָא מִצְטָרֵף = they do not join
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא
Side two: each protects its part, and the food is one — so they do join.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, וְהַאי מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ, מִצְטָרְפִין.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, should one reason that since this section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and that section of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and the two parts of the food are joined together, therefore the entire entity is considered unified and the two sections of the protection join together to constitute the requisite measure?
קלאוד על הדף:
The second side: since each section does protect its own part, and the underlying food is a single continuous item, the whole is unified — so the two protection-sections join (mitztarfin). On this view what matters is that the food beneath is one; the divided covering is still, collectively, its shomer. The Gemara now seeks a resolution.
Key Terms:
- מַגֵּין אַדִּידֵיהּ = protects its own [part]
- מִצְטָרְפִין (mitztarfin) = they do join
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
A proposed resolution from the pod-mishna: legume-pods joining implies divided protection joins.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן.
English Translation:
Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which is taught in a mishna cited previously (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. But he deems a pod containing legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal impure because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not damage them. Since the requisite volume for a food item to be susceptible to impurity is an egg-bulk, and the volume of one pod and its legumes is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple pods joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
An attempt to resolve the dilemma from the pod-mishna. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems a legume-pod impure because one wants the pod when handling the delicate legumes (it is a shomer). Since one pod-plus-legumes is less than a k’beitza, the ruling must involve multiple pods combining — implying that divided protections do join. The rejection follows.
Key Terms:
- פּוֹל / קִטְנִית = a [large] bean / small legumes
- רוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן = one desires their use (the pod is wanted — a shomer)
- תָּא שְׁמַע (ta shema) = “come and hear” (a proposed proof/resolution)
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Acha: that mishna is about the stalk (a handle), not the pods — “bemashmishan” means carrying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״ – בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said in rejection of this resolution: That mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal touched the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And the halakha in that mishna is not referring 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. 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 pod when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa son of Rava rejects the resolution: the mishna concerns the stalk (kulḥa), touched by the creeping animal — a yad, not a shomer. The stalk is a handle to many pods, and “bemashmishan” is reread as “betashmishan” (carrying the legumes by the stalk). So the mishna says nothing about combining divided protections, and the dilemma is unresolved.
Key Terms:
- בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד = about the stalk, and by [the law of] a handle
- בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן (betashmishan) = in carrying/using them (the reread of “bemashmishan”)
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
A second resolution: the seed-in-shell derivation — grains-and-shells joining.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ (אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ)״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.
English Translation:
Come and hear a resolution 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 ritual 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 join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the measure of one grain and its shell is less than an egg-bulk, this statement must be discussing multiple grains and their shells joined together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins together to impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second proposed resolution: the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s “al kol zera zerua” derivation teaches that shells (kelipot) join with their grain. Since one grain-and-shell is less than a k’beitza, the ruling must involve many grains-and-shells combining — implying divided protections join. This too is reinterpreted next.
Key Terms:
- עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ = “on any sown seed” (Leviticus 11:37)
- חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ = wheat in its shell
- קְלִיפָּה (kelipa) = the shell/husk (a shomer for the grain)
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rejected the same way — it may concern the stalk (a handle).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this resolution: One can explain this statement in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said with regard to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that was cited previously: The mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal came in contact with the stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves. And therefore, the halakha in the mishna is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the seed-in-shell resolution just as it rejected the pod-mishna: it too may concern the stalk (kulḥa) touched by the creeping animal — a yad, not a shomer. So it does not establish that divided protections join. But the Gemara now offers a more precise reinterpretation as protection.
Key Terms:
- כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא = as Rav Aḥa son of Rava said
- בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד = about the stalk, and by [the law of] a handle
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Reinterpreted: grains on one stem mutually protect each other (not divided protection).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּשִׁדְרָה, וּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר.
English Translation:
Here too, the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not referring to independent grains of wheat and barley, but rather to the stem to which the grains are attached, and it is with regard to the status of all the shells of the grains on one stem as protection. All of the grains surrounding the stem protect each other, since if one shell with its grain falls it causes all of the other shells and their grains to fall as well. Therefore, this case is not similar to Rav Oshaya’s dilemma, where each protection protects only part of the food.
קלאוד על הדף:
A more precise reading: the grains on one stem (shidra) mutually protect one another — if one shell-and-grain falls, all fall — so together they function as unified protection, not as genuinely divided sections each guarding only its own part. Thus the case differs from Rav Oshaya’s dilemma and cannot resolve it. The mutual-protection claim is examined next.
Key Terms:
- שִׁדְרָה (shidra) = the stem/spine (of grain)
- וּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר = and by [the law of] protection (mutually protecting)
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
How do lower grains “need” the upper ones? In a single tightly-packed row.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא עִילִּיָּתָא צְרִיכִי לְתַתָּיָתָא, אֶלָּא תְּתַּיָּתָא מַאי צְרִיכִי לְעִילִּיָּתָא? בְּחַד דָּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, the grains located higher on the stem need the grains located lower on the stem to remain in place in order to not fall. But for what purpose do the grains located lower on the stem need the grains located higher on the stem? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the grains are all positioned tightly around the stem in one row in such a manner that if even one located higher up on the stem were to fall, the remaining grains would fall too.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the mutual-protection claim: upper grains clearly need the lower ones to hold them, but why would lower grains need the upper ones? The answer: the grains are in one tight row (ḥad dara) so densely packed that losing any one — even an upper grain — would dislodge the rest. The protection is thus genuinely mutual, keeping the case distinct from Rav Oshaya’s divided-protection scenario.
Key Terms:
- עִילִּיָּתָא / תַּתָּיָתָא = the upper ones / the lower ones (grains)
- בְּחַד דָּרָא (b’ḥad dara) = in one [tightly packed] row
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Is there an egg-bulk in one row? Yes — the large wheat of Shimon ben Shatach’s time.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אִיכָּא כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין בְּחַד דָּרָא בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is there a volume of an egg-bulk of food in one row of grain? The Gemara answers: Yes, this baraita is stated with regard to large grains of wheat, such as those grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks whether a single row of grain even reaches a k’beitza. It answers: yes, if the grains are the famously large wheat of Shimon ben Shataḥ’s era. This preserves the mutual-protection reading while accounting for the required egg-bulk measure — and sets up an even simpler reading in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין = an egg-bulk of food
- חִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח = the [large] wheat of Shimon ben Shataḥ’s time
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Given such large wheat, even a single grain-and-shell could suffice.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, חֲדָא חִטָּה נָמֵי בְּחִטֵּי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח.
English Translation:
The Gemara points out: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, it is not necessary to interpret the baraita as referring to many grains tightly packed around the stem. It is even possible to explain that the baraita is discussing the case of one grain of wheat, such as the large grains of wheat grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
קלאוד על הדף:
Once the giant-wheat premise is granted, the interpretation simplifies: even a single such grain-and-shell could reach the egg-bulk on its own, removing the need for the mutual-protection reading entirely. Either way, the seed-in-shell case does not demonstrate that genuinely divided protections join — so Rav Oshaya’s dilemma remains open, and the Gemara turns back to the two-bones Tosefta.
Key Terms:
- הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי = “now that you have arrived at this [conclusion]”
- חֲדָא חִטָּה = a single grain of wheat
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
The two-bones Tosefta itself: two half-olives on two bones defile the house.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא: שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת וַעֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים, וְהִכְנִיס רָאשֵׁיהֶן שְׁנַיִם לְבַיִת, וְהַבַּיִת מַאֲהִיל עֲלֵיהֶן – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא.
English Translation:
§The Gemara proceeds to discuss the Tosefta itself that was cited earlier (118b): In a case of two bones upon which there are two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside the house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself and the house is impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to analyze the two-bones Tosefta directly (gufa). Two bones each bear half a k’zayit of corpse-flesh; when their bare ends are brought into a house so the house overhangs them, the house is impure — the bones convey the flesh’s corpse-impurity by ohel. The dissenting voice follows.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = “the [statement] itself” (returning to analyze it directly)
- שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים = two half-olive-bulks (of corpse flesh)
- מַאֲהִיל (ma’ahil) = overhangs (conveying impurity by ohel)
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Yehuda ben Nekosa: two bones cannot combine to a k’zayit — but a single bone does defile.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: הֵיאַךְ שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת?
English Translation:
Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk? It may be inferred from here that according to all, if the end of a bone that is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh is outside the house, and the other end that is not directly attached to any flesh is inside the house, the house becomes impure with the ritual impurity of a corpse.
קלאוד על הדף:
Yehuda ben Nekosa (in the name of Rabbi Yaakov) objects that two separate bones, each with only half a k’zayit, cannot combine to a full k’zayit. A key inference emerges from the dispute: all agree that a single bone bearing a full k’zayit of flesh, with its bare end in the house, defiles the house — the disagreement is only about combining two half-olive bones. This sets up the hair-as-handle dispute.
Key Terms:
- יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא = the tanna raising this objection (in the name of Rabbi Yaakov)
- הֵיאַךְ … מִצְטָרְפִין = how do they combine? (a challenge to the joining)
- לִכְזַיִת (likhzayit) = to [complete] an olive-bulk
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish: only a bone is a handle; a hair is not. Rabbi Yochanan: even a hair.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֶצֶם, דְּהָוֵי יָד, אֲבָל נִימָא לָא הָוְיָא יָד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִימָא נָמֵי הָוְיָא יָד.
English Translation:
With regard to this matter Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to a bone, as it constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, but if one hair of a corpse is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh at one end, and the other end of the hair is inside a house, it does not render the house impure, because the hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a hair constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, and therefore the house is rendered impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new dispute. Reish Lakish: only a bone functions as a handle (yad) for corpse-flesh; a single hair (nima) does not, so a hair whose end is in the house does not defile it. Rabbi Yoḥanan: even a hair is a handle, so the house is impure. The question is what thin appendages qualify as handles capable of transmitting impurity — tested by a mishna below.
Key Terms:
- עֶצֶם (etzem) = a bone (a handle for the flesh)
- נִימָא (nima) = a hair (a single strand)
- הָוְיָא יָד = it constitutes a handle
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yochanan objects: touching a strand or hair opposite an olive-bulk of flesh is impure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּצִיב הַיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבִשְׂעָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו, מִשּׁוּם יָד?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case of the hide of an unslaughtered animal carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh, or touches a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh, is ritually impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass, even though he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh. What is the reason that one who touches the strand of flesh or the hair becomes impure? Is it not because they constitute a handle for the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Reish Lakish with regard to a hair?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges Reish Lakish from a later mishna (124a): with a hide bearing a k’zayit of flesh, one who touches a protruding strand of flesh (tziv) or a hair (se’ara) opposite the flesh is impure. Is this not because the hair is a handle — refuting Reish Lakish? The Gemara must reinterpret the mishna to preserve Reish Lakish’s view.
Key Terms:
- צִיב (tziv) = a strand/fiber of flesh protruding from the meat
- שְׂעָרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ = a hair on the [hide’s outer] side opposite [the flesh]
- מַאי לָאו, מִשּׁוּם יָד = “is it not because of [being] a handle?”
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish: it’s protection, and the hair penetrates through the hide to the flesh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר. וּמִי אִיכָּא שׁוֹמֵר עַל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹמֵר? חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of that mishna is not because the hair serves as a handle for the flesh. Rather, it is because the hair serves as protection for the flesh. The Gemara asks: But the hide protects the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide; is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top of another protection? The Gemara answers: The hair penetrates through the hide and touches the flesh, thereby providing protection directly for the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish deflects: the mishna’s impurity is because the hair is a shomer, not a yad. But the hide already protects the flesh, and the hair sits atop the hide — a shomer atop a shomer, which does not join. The resolution: the hair penetrates (ḥalḥulei meḥalḥel) through the hide down to the flesh, protecting it directly, so it is a genuine shomer. Thus the mishna does not prove a hair is a handle.
Key Terms:
- מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר = because [it is] protection
- חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחֵל = it penetrates/bores through (the hide to the flesh)
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Acha bar Yaakov: if the hide is perforated, how can we write tefillin (needing perfect script)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, תְּפִילִּין הֵיכִי כָּתְבִינַן? הָא בָּעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה, וְלֵיכָּא!
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this answer: If that is so, that there are perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, how can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require phylacteries to be written with a perfect writing, with no perforations in the letters? And that is not possible if there are perforations in the hide.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov objects to the “penetrating hair” answer: if hairs bore right through the hide, then parchment is inherently perforated — yet tefillin require ketiva tama (perfect, unbroken writing), impossible on perforated parchment. This practical challenge to Reish Lakish’s resolution is answered next.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ (matkif lah) = raises a strong objection
- תְּפִילִּין (tefillin) = phylacteries (written on parchment)
- כְּתִיבָה תַּמָּה (ketiva tama) = perfect/complete writing (required for tefillin)
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
A perforation the ink covers is not a [disqualifying] perforation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִשְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו – אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov overlooked that halakha which they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any perforation over which the ink passes and which it covers is not considered a perforation that invalidates the writing.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers with a principle from Eretz Yisrael (ma’arava): any perforation over which the ink passes (kol nekev shehadyo over alav) is not a disqualifying perforation. Since the ink of the letters bridges the tiny hair-holes, the writing is still “perfect,” and tefillin can be written on such parchment. Reish Lakish’s “penetrating hair” resolution survives the objection.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַעְרְבָא (b’ma’arava) = “in the West” (Eretz Yisrael)
- כׇּל נֶקֶב שֶׁהַדְּיוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו אֵינוֹ נֶקֶב = a hole the ink covers is not a [disqualifying] hole
Segment 22
TYPE: תירוץ
Alternatively: the mishna is a handle-case, but of a hair among many hairs (per Rabbi Ela).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם יָד, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead a different answer to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s objection to Reish Lakish: The entire mishna teaches that one who touches either a strand of flesh or a hair becomes impure because these appendages serve the flesh as a handle and not as protection. Nevertheless, that statement does not contradict the opinion of Reish Lakish that a hair does not constitute a handle for the flesh, because one can explain this mishna as Rabbi Ela stated with regard to a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative defense of Reish Lakish: the mishna is indeed about a handle, but per Rabbi Ela’s principle “melai shebein hamelaim” (an awn among many awns), it concerns a hair among many hairs — not a single hair. Reish Lakish only denied that a single hair is a handle, so the mishna and his view are compatible. The application to hairs follows.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלֵּיהּ מִשּׁוּם יָד = the whole [mishna] is because of [being] a handle
- כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא = as Rabbi Ela stated
- מְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים = an awn among [many] awns
Segment 23
TYPE: תירוץ
So too here: a hair among many hairs is a functional handle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי, בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.
English Translation:
So too, the mishna taught later is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair. Therefore, the hair constitutes a handle for the flesh because one can hold the hair and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.
קלאוד על הדף:
Applying Rabbi Ela’s principle to the carcass-hide mishna: it speaks of a hair among many hairs (nima shebein hanimin). A cluster of hairs can serve as a functional handle — one can grasp them and lift the flesh without their detaching — whereas a single hair cannot. So the mishna’s ruling is consistent with Reish Lakish’s view that a lone hair is no handle.
Key Terms:
- הָכִי נָמֵי (hakhi nami) = “so too” (the same reading applies here)
- נִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין = a hair among [many] hairs
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
The source of Rabbi Ela’s principle: an awn is a handle only among many awns.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהֵיכָא אִתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא? אַהָא: מְלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
English Translation:
And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:3): An awn [melai] that is on top of a stalk constitutes a handle for the stalk. Therefore, it can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai, i.e., Rabbi Ela, said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns and not the case of a single awn. Therefore, the awns constitute a handle for the stalk because one can hold the awns and lift the stalk without the awns becoming detached from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara traces Rabbi Ela’s principle to an Okatzin mishna: the awn (melai) atop a grain-stalk is a handle — it conveys impurity but does not join to the measure. Since a single awn is too flimsy to serve as a functional handle, Rabbi Ela explained the mishna as concerning an awn among many awns, which collectively can lift the stalk. This is the source for the “among many” logic applied to hairs.
Key Terms:
- מְלַאי (melai) = an awn/beard (of grain, atop the stalk)
- מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין = become and impart impurity, but do not join (handle-behavior)
- לְמַאי חֲזֵי = for what is it fit/useful?
Segment 25
TYPE: גמרא
A second version of the dispute is introduced: they agree a single hair is no handle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ.
English Translation:
Some say another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish and the ensuing discussion with regard to the status of hairs vis-à-vis the flesh: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that a single hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh connected to it, but they disagree with regard to several hairs. Rabbi Yoḥanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion that hair is not considered a handle from the mishna taught later, which states that one who touches a hair emerging from the hide of an animal carcass opposite the flesh is impure, indicating that hair constitutes a handle.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative version (lishana aḥarina). Here Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish agree that a single hair is not a handle; they dispute several hairs. Rabbi Yoḥanan again objects from the carcass-hide mishna, taking it as proof that a cluster of hairs is a handle. The axis of disagreement shifts from single-hair to multiple-hair.
Key Terms:
- לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא (lishana aḥarina) = another version/formulation (of the dispute)
Segment 26
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish: it’s protection — for a single hair could serve no handle-function.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּמִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִשּׁוּם יָד – נִימָא אַחַת לְמַאי חֲזֵי?
English Translation:
Reish Lakish answers that one who touches the hair is impure not because it is considered a handle, but rather because it is considered protection for the flesh. The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain that the person is impure because hair is considered protection and not because it is considered a handle, as, if it enters your mind that it is because hair is considered a handle, for what function is one hair fit such that it is considered a handle?
קלאוד על הדף:
In this version, Reish Lakish again answers that the mishna’s impurity is due to the hair being a shomer, not a yad. The Gemara adds a supporting logic (hakhi nami mistabra): if the mishna meant “handle,” a single hair could serve no handle-function — one cannot lift flesh by one hair — so “protection” is the more reasonable reading.
Key Terms:
- הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא = so too it is reasonable [to say]
- מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹמֵר = because [it is] protection
- נִימָא אַחַת לְמַאי חֲזֵי = for what is a single hair fit? (it cannot function as a handle)
Segment 27
TYPE: גמרא
Alternatively (this version too): a hair among many hairs is a handle, per Rabbi Ela.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין, הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: One can explain that that mishna considers hair to constitute a handle, as Rabbi Ela stated in explanation of a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns. Here too, that mishna is stated with regard to the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair.
קלאוד על הדף:
This version also offers the Rabbi Ela route: the mishna may treat hair as a handle, but only a hair among many hairs (nima shebein hanimin), per the “awn among awns” principle. A cluster of hairs is a functional handle even if a single hair is not — reconciling the mishna with the agreed premise that one hair is no handle.
Key Terms:
- בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִין = an awn among [many] awns
- בְּנִימָא שֶׁבֵּין הַנִּימִין = a hair among [many] hairs
Segment 28
TYPE: גמרא
The awn-mishna source restated for this version.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אַהָא דִּתְנַן: הַמְּלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים מִיטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. מְלַאי לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בִּמְלַאי שֶׁבֵּין הַמְּלָאִים.
English Translation:
And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: An awn that is on top of a stalk can become impure and impart impurity, but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara restates the source of Rabbi Ela’s principle for this alternative version, identical to Segment 24: the Okatzin mishna on the awn atop a stalk, which conveys impurity but does not join, and which Rabbi Ela explained as concerning an awn among many awns. The parallel structure confirms the “among many” reasoning applies uniformly across both versions.
Key Terms:
- הַמְּלַאי שֶׁבַּשִּׁבֳּלִים = the awn(s) on the ears of grain
- וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין = and they do not join (to the measure)
Segment 29
TYPE: גמרא
Yet a third version of the dispute is introduced (continued next daf).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ
English Translation:
And there are those who teach another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish,
קלאוד על הדף:
This fragment introduces a third recension (v’ika d’matnei lah) of the Rabbi Yoḥanan–Reish Lakish dispute, whose full formulation continues onto the next daf. The multiplicity of versions reflects the Gemara’s careful transmission of the various ways the amoraic disagreement over hairs, handles, and protection was reported in different study-houses.
Key Terms:
- וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ = “and there are those who teach it [differently]” (a further version)