Chullin Daf 124 (חולין דף קכ״ד)
Daf: 124 | Amudim: 124a – 124b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (124a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Completing the oven mishna: the Rabbis require scraping to the ground; Rabbi Meir disagrees.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאָרֶץ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לֹא לִגְרוֹר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה וְלֹא עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאָרֶץ, אֶלָּא מְמַעֲטוֹ מִבִּפְנִים מֵאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים.
English Translation:
until the oven itself merely rests on the ground and is not held in place by plaster. Breaking the oven in such a manner renders the oven pure because it is no longer considered a vessel. Rabbi Meir says: It is unnecessary to scrape off the layer of plaster, and it is certainly not necessary to remove it until the oven rests on the ground. Rather, one makes cuts in the oven itself, reducing its size from within the layer of plaster, i.e., without removing the layer of plaster, until the unbroken part is less than four handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence broken off at the end of 123b concludes here. To purify an impure oven the Rabbis require dividing it into three and scraping away the plaster jacket (tefeila) until the oven rests directly on the ground, at which point it is no longer a vessel. Rabbi Meir holds that neither the scraping nor the grounding is necessary — it is enough to cut the oven down from within the plaster to less than four handbreadths. The dispute matters because Rabbi Yirmeya raised it as an objection to Reish Lakish on the previous daf.
Key Terms:
- טְפֵילָה (tefeila) = the plaster or clay coating applied around an oven
- אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים = four handbreadths — the height at which an oven counts as a vessel
- מְמַעֲטוֹ מִבִּפְנִים = he reduces it from within — cutting the oven without removing its plaster
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
On Rabbi Meir’s view the oven is purified while still held together — against Reish Lakish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי מְמַעֵט לַהּ מֵאַרְבָּעָה מִיהָא טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לֵימָא: הָא חֲלִים וְקָאֵי!
English Translation:
Rabbi Meir holds that although breaking off a minority of the structure of the oven is insufficient, in any event when one reduces the size of the oven to less than four handbreadths in height the oven is rendered pure. Why is this so, according to the opinion of Reish Lakish? Let us say that this oven exists in a repairable state, as the plaster holds it together, and according to Reish Lakish it should therefore be considered connected and remain impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is now stated plainly. Reish Lakish holds that an object still chalim — intact enough to be restored — retains its impurity. But on Rabbi Meir’s ruling the plaster jacket still binds the reduced oven together, and yet it is pure. If a merely repairable state preserves impurity, this oven should remain impure.
Key Terms:
- חֲלִים וְקָאֵי = it stands in a repaired state — still held together and restorable
- אַמַּאי (amai) = why? — the idiom pressing an apparent inconsistency
Segment 3
TYPE: דחייה
Rava redirects: the Rabbis’ view in the same mishna actually supports Reish Lakish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְאֵימָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן – גּוֹרֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
Rava said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Instead of objecting to the opinion of Reish Lakish from the statement of Rabbi Meir, state a proof for his opinion from the statement of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that the oven becomes pure only if one scrapes off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground. Apparently, the Rabbis hold that the oven is rendered pure only if it is completely and irreparably broken, which supports the opinion of Reish Lakish according to your reasoning.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s first response is that Rabbi Yirmeya has quoted the wrong half of the mishna. The Rabbis in that very mishna require the oven to be broken so thoroughly that it rests on the ground — complete and irreparable destruction — which is precisely what Reish Lakish’s principle would demand. A mishna containing both positions cannot be deployed against him without acknowledging the half that favors him.
Key Terms:
- וְאֵימָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן = and say it from the Rabbis — redirecting to the other clause
- לְטַעְמָיךְ = according to your reasoning — turning an argument back on its author
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s real answer: everyone agrees on how to purify an already-impure oven.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, תַּנּוּר שֶׁנִּטְמָא כֵּיצַד מְטַהֲרִין אוֹתוֹ? דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְגוֹרֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava said: Not only is there no proof against the opinion of Reish Lakish from this mishna, as the statement of the Rabbis supports his opinion, but Rabbi Meir may even accept the opinion of Reish Lakish; as this is what the mishna is saying: How does one purify an oven that became impure? Everyone, even Rabbi Meir, agrees that one divides it into three parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava then supplies the substantive resolution by splitting the mishna into two distinct rulings. Where an oven has already contracted impurity, all agree — Rabbi Meir included — that purification requires dividing it into three and scraping the plaster until it rests on the ground. On this reading Rabbi Meir never permits purifying an impure oven while it remains held together, and the objection to Reish Lakish dissolves.
Key Terms:
- דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל = according to all opinions — a point on which no one disputes
- חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה = he divides it into three parts
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Meir’s leniency concerns preventing susceptibility, not purifying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָרוֹצֶה שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא תַּנּוּרוֹ לִידֵי טוּמְאָה, כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְגוֹרֵר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאָרֶץ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לֹא לִגְרוֹר אֶת הַטְּפֵילָה וְלֹא עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּאָרֶץ, אֶלָּא מְמַעֲטוֹ מִבִּפְנִים מֵאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים.
English Translation:
And anyone who wishes that his oven not become susceptible to impurity, how does he act? The Rabbis hold that he goes through the same process as is necessary in order to purify an impure oven: From the outset, he divides the oven into three parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to an oven that has not yet become impure, it is unnecessary to scrape off the layer of plaster, and it is certainly not necessary to remove it until the oven rests on the ground. Rather, one reduces the size of the oven from within the layer of plaster until the unbroken part is less than four handbreadths in height.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second clause is where Rabbi Meir differs, and it addresses a different question entirely: how a person may treat an oven from the outset so that it never becomes susceptible to impurity at all. There the Rabbis apply the same demanding procedure, while Rabbi Meir permits simply reducing it below four handbreadths from within the plaster. Preventing a status from ever attaching is a lighter matter than removing one already attached, and Reish Lakish’s principle governs only the latter.
Key Terms:
- הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא תַּנּוּרוֹ לִידֵי טוּמְאָה = one who wishes that his oven not become susceptible to impurity
- לִידֵי טוּמְאָה = into a state of impurity — becoming susceptible
Segment 6
TYPE: ביאור
Why three parts: so that no single piece holds the majority.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: חוֹלְקוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה.
English Translation:
§The Gemara discusses the mishna in tractate Kelim cited above. The Master said: An impure oven is rendered pure when one divides it into three parts, such that no one part contains the majority of the oven. But one cannot purify the oven by dividing it into two parts because one of the parts would contain the majority of the oven.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the requirement of dividing into three. The purpose is that no remaining piece contain the majority of the oven, since a majority piece would still be recognizable as the vessel it came from. Dividing into two necessarily leaves one part holding the majority, which is why the mishna specifies three.
Key Terms:
- אָמַר מָר = the Master said — the formula introducing analysis of a cited statement
- רוּבּוֹ (rubbo) = its majority — the greater part of the object
Segment 7
TYPE: רמינהו
A contradiction from Kelim 5:1 on oven measures, per Rabbi Meir.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: תַּנּוּר, תְּחִלָּתוֹ אַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁיָרָיו אַרְבָּעָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a contradiction to this mishna from another mishna (Kelim 5:1): A clay oven in its original state, once it is finished being built, is susceptible to ritual impurity if it is four handbreadths tall. And with regard to an oven that became impure and was subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece four handbreadths tall, that piece remains impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna, which measures ovens rather than counting pieces. Rabbi Meir there holds that an oven becomes susceptible at four handbreadths when first built, and that its remains (shirayav) stay impure so long as a piece measures four handbreadths. That standard is a height, not a proportion, and it sits awkwardly beside the majority rule just explained.
Key Terms:
- שְׁיָרָיו (shirayav) = its remains — the pieces left after an object is broken
- תְּחִלָּתוֹ (techilato) = its beginning — the oven as originally constructed
- וּרְמִינְהוּ = and they raise a contradiction against it
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
The Rabbis distinguish large ovens from small ones.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּגָדוֹל, אֲבָל בְּקָטָן – תְּחִלָּתוֹ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, מִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ – שְׁיָרָיו בְּרוּבּוֹ.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a large oven, but in the case of a small oven, in its original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to impurity. Once its construction is completed, if the oven became impure and was subsequently broken, its remains are still impure in a case where they contain the majority of the oven.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis in that mishna qualify Rabbi Meir’s measure: four handbreadths governs a large oven, but a small oven is susceptible at kol shehu, any size at all, from the moment it is built, and once completed its remains stay impure when they constitute the majority. Two different standards therefore operate depending on the oven’s size, which the Gemara must now square with the earlier mishna.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שֶׁהוּא (kol shehu) = any size whatsoever — no minimum measure
- מִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ = once its construction is completed
Segment 9
TYPE: ביאור
The school of Rabbi Yannai: ‘any size’ means a handbreadth, the size of toy ovens.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה ״כׇּל שֶׁהוּא״? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: טֶפַח, שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשִׂים תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: And how small is the size defined by the mishna as any size? The school of Rabbi Yannai says: One handbreadth, as people make toy ovens one handbreadth tall.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yannai supplies a floor for the seemingly unbounded phrase kol shehu: one handbreadth. The reasoning is drawn from ordinary life — people make tanurei banot, toy ovens for children, a handbreadth tall, and a form that is actually manufactured and used counts as a vessel. Halachic categories here track what human beings genuinely make and use.
Key Terms:
- תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת = toy ovens — literally girls’ ovens, made a handbreadth tall
- דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי = the school of Rabbi Yannai
Segment 10
TYPE: דיוק
The inference: with no four-handbreadth remnant the oven is pure, even at a majority.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁיָרָיו אַרְבַּע, הָא לֵיכָּא שְׁיָרָיו אַרְבַּע – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
The Gemara infers: The Rabbis in that mishna hold that with regard to a large impure oven that breaks, any remaining piece that measures four handbreadths remains impure. Evidently, the reason that the oven remains impure is because there are pieces of its remains that measure four handbreadths, but if there are no remains of the oven measuring four handbreadths, even if a piece contains the majority of the oven, the oven is rendered pure. This opinion is not consistent with the opinion of the Rabbis in the previously cited mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws out the tension. On the Kelim 5:1 formulation the operative test is the four-handbreadth measure, which implies that a remnant falling short of four handbreadths is pure even if it constitutes the majority of the oven. That directly contradicts the other mishna, where a majority piece keeps the oven impure regardless of height.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא = the reason is that there is — isolating the operative factor
- הָא לֵיכָּא = but where there is not — the implied contrasting case
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
The resolution: a horizontal cut versus a vertical one leaving a standing shard.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי: הָתָם, דְּצַלְקֵיהּ מִצְלָק; הָכָא, דְּעַבְדֵיהּ גִּיסְטְרָא.
English Translation:
The Sages said in response: There, with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis that if there are no remains measuring four handbreadths then the oven is pure, that mishna is discussing a case where one cut the oven horizontally such that the pieces do not stand one on top of the other in a stable manner. Here, with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis that an impure oven is rendered pure only when no one piece constitutes the majority of the oven, the mishna is discussing a case where one rendered the oven a shard [gistera] by cutting it in half vertically, in which case a piece that contains the majority of the oven can stand on its own.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two mishnayot are describing different kinds of breakage. Where the oven was cut horizontally (tzalkei mitzlak), the pieces cannot rest stably one upon another and none functions as a vessel, so only a four-handbreadth remnant matters. Where it was made a gistera, split vertically, a majority piece still stands upright on its own and remains usable — so there the majority is the test. The distinction is physical: what still stands and holds is still a vessel.
Key Terms:
- גִּיסְטְרָא (gistera) = a shard — a vertically split piece that can still stand on its own
- צַלְקֵיהּ מִצְלָק = he cut it horizontally — leaving pieces that cannot stack stably
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye harmonizes the two measures by positing ovens of nine and seven handbreadths.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: שְׁיָרָיו בְּרוּבּוֹ, רוּבּוֹ דְּטֶפַח לְמַאי הָוֵי?
English Translation:
§The Gemara discusses the previously cited mishna in tractate Kelim. The Master said: In the case of a small oven, in its original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to impurity. And once its construction is completed, if the oven became impure and was subsequently broken, its remains are still impure if they contain the majority of the oven. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yannai explained that the phrase: Any size, is referring to a measure of one handbreadth. For what purpose is a piece of an oven the size of the majority of one handbreadth usable? Since such a small piece is not functional; why should it remain impure?
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves a further difficulty in the Rabbis’ own statement. Their rule that remains stay impure at the majority concerns a large oven rather than a small one; and their four-handbreadth rule does not conflict with it because the two speak of different sizes — the majority rule of a nine-handbreadth oven, whose majority exceeds four handbreadths, and the four-handbreadth rule of a seven-handbreadth oven, where four handbreadths is already the majority. Both standards then coincide rather than compete.
Key Terms:
- בְּתַנּוּרָא בַּר תִּשְׁעָה = an oven of nine handbreadths
- לָא קַשְׁיָא = it is not difficult — the formula introducing a harmonization
Segment 13
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
An alternative version of Rav Huna’s teaching, reversing its conclusion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁיָרֵי גָּדוֹל בְּרוּבּוֹ, וְהָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אַרְבָּעָה? לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּתַנּוּרָא בַּר תִּשְׁעָה, הָא בְּתַנּוּרָא בַּר שִׁבְעָה.
English Translation:
Abaye said: The statement of the mishna: Its remains are still impure if they contain the majority of the oven, is not discussing a small oven, but rather is teaching that the remains of a large oven remain impure if they contain the majority of the oven. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the Rabbis say in the mishna that any remaining piece of a large oven measuring four handbreadths remains impure? The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. That statement of the Rabbis that the remains of a large oven remain impure if they contain the majority of the oven is referring to an oven measuring nine handbreadths. That statement of the Rabbis that any remaining piece of a large oven measuring four handbreadths remains impure is referring to an oven measuring seven handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records a second transmission of the statement cited on 123b. In the first version Rav Huna spoke in the name of Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Yosei, ruling that a torn garment remains impure if a scarf’s worth was left untorn. In this version he speaks in the name of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei and rules the opposite — the garment is pure even if that much remains. The two versions differ in the name transmitted and in the outcome, and the dispute that follows attaches to this second version.
Key Terms:
- לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא = another version — an alternative transmission of a statement
- כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת = the measure of a scarf — a remnant potentially still usable
Segment 14
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan dispute whether the remnant is significant on a hide.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַאֲפִילּוּ שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת.
English Translation:
§The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna in tractate Kelim (28:8) previously mentioned in the Gemara (123a-b): In the case of a ritually impure garment that one begins to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered to have a connection, and the garment is pure. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, that even if the majority of the garment is torn, if a part of the garment the measure of a scarf is left intact, the garment remains impure. Some say another version of Rav Huna’s statement: Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: If the majority of the garment is torn, the garment is rendered pure even if one left an untorn piece the measure of a scarf.
קלאוד על הדף:
On this version the machloket is recast in terms of chashiv, significance, rather than chalim, repairability, as it was on 123b. Reish Lakish confines the leniency to cloth: on a hide, a remaining scarf’s worth is significant enough to keep the whole impure. Rabbi Yochanan holds it is not significant even on a hide. The pair thus continue their running disagreement about how much surviving material keeps an object legally alive.
Key Terms:
- חֲשִׁיב (chashiv) = significant — substantial enough to retain legal status
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טַלִּית = they taught this only with regard to a garment
Segment 15
TYPE: איתיביה
Rabbi Yochanan objects from the midras-impure hide cut for straps and sandals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא טַלִּית, אֲבָל עוֹר – חֲשִׁיב, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר נָמֵי לָא חֲשִׁיב.
English Translation:
With regard to that statement of Rav Huna, Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught that the garment is pure even if one left an untorn piece the measure of a scarf only with regard to a torn garment. But with regard to a hide, if the majority was torn and a piece the measure of a scarf remains, the piece is considered significant and the hide remains impure. And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even with regard to a torn hide, if a piece the size of a scarf remains it is not considered significant and the hide is therefore rendered pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan challenges from Kelim 26:9, the same source he used on the previous daf. A hide bearing midras impurity that its owner decides to cut into straps and sandals becomes pure — according to Rabbi Yehuda once the scalpel is applied, according to the Rabbis once it is reduced below five handbreadths. Since it becomes pure on any view, the surviving material is evidently not significant, contrary to Reish Lakish.
Key Terms:
- מִדְרָס (midras) = impurity imparted by the pressure or treading of a zav
- אִיזְמֵל (izmel) = a scalpel or cutting blade
- חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים = five handbreadths — the Rabbis’ threshold
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Reish Lakish: that case concerns a seat for a zav, where under five handbreadths is useless.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עוֹר טָמֵא מִדְרָס, חִישֵּׁב עָלָיו לִרְצוּעָה וְסַנְדָּלִין – כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן בּוֹ אִיזְמֵל טָהוֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּמְעִיטֶנּוּ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yochanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from that which is taught in the mishna (Kelim 26:9): With regard to a hide that is impure with impurity imparted by treading, if the owner intended with regard to the hide to fashion it into straps and sandals, then when he applies a scalpel to the hide, the hide becomes pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: The hide does not become pure until he reduces the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish answers by identifying the intended use in that mishna. The owner wants the hide as a moshav zav, a seat designated for a man with a ritual discharge, and a piece under five handbreadths simply cannot serve as a seat. Significance is measured against the purpose for which the material is kept, so in that case the remnant genuinely is insignificant — which leaves his general position about hides intact.
Key Terms:
- מוֹשַׁב זָב = a seat for a zav — an object designated to be sat upon, subject to midras impurity
- זָב (zav) = a man with a ritual discharge, who imparts impurity to what he sits or lies upon
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: touching a strand of flesh or an opposing hair on a carcass hide.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי מְמַעֵט מִיהָא טָהוֹר, אַמַּאי? לֵימָא חֲשִׁיב! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לְמוֹשַׁב זָב.
English Translation:
In any event, when one reduces the hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it becomes pure. Why is this so? Let us say that the hide is considered significant and therefore remains impure. Reish Lakish answered: Here, we are dealing with a case where one needs the cut hide for a seat that he wishes to designate for a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]. Since a piece of hide measuring less than five handbreadths cannot be used for a seat, it is not considered significant in such a case.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna opens the subject that will occupy the rest of the daf. A carcass hide bearing an olive-bulk of flesh transmits carcass impurity not only through the flesh itself but through a tziv, a strand of flesh protruding from it, and even through a hair on the far side of the hide. The strand carries the flesh’s own status, and the hair counts as its protection — both categories familiar from daf 120, where Rabbi Yochanan argued that hair penetrates the hide to reach the flesh.
Key Terms:
- צִיב (tziv) = a strand or shred of flesh protruding from the hide
- שַׂעֲרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ = a hair opposite it — on the far side of the hide from the flesh
- כְּזַיִת (k’zayit) = an olive-bulk, the measure at which carcass flesh imparts impurity
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה
Two half olive-bulks: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva divide over contact and carrying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּצִיב הַיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ, וּבְשַׂעֲרָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ – טָמֵא.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of a hide of an unslaughtered carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh or a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh is ritually impure. Although he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh, he is rendered impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. The reason is that the strand of flesh has the same status as the flesh itself, and the hair is considered protection to the flesh, which also has the same status as the flesh with regard to one who touches it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s second clause is the daf’s central case. Where the hide bears two half olive-bulks rather than one whole one, Rabbi Yishmael rules that it transmits by carrying — since one lifts both halves together, making up the measure — but not by contact, since one touches each separately. Rabbi Akiva rules it transmits neither way, because ha’or mevatlan, the hide interposes and nullifies them. Yet Rabbi Akiva concedes that two halves skewered on a wood chip and moved do transmit, which shows his leniency is about the hide specifically and not about combination in general.
Key Terms:
- מַגָּע (maga) = contact — contracting impurity by touching
- מַשָּׂא (masa) = carrying — contracting impurity by bearing the impure object
- קֵיסָם (keisam) = a wood chip or splinter used as a skewer
- הָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן = the hide nullifies them — interposing so the halves do not combine
Segment 19
TYPE: מימרא
Ulla reports Rabbi Yochanan: only flesh an animal severed resists nullification.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיוּ עָלָיו כִּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים, מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא וְלֹא בְּמַגָּע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁתְּחָבָן בְּקֵיסָם וֶהֱסִיטָן, שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַהֵר בָּעוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.
English Translation:
If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying, because one moves them together, but not by means of contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The hide does not impart impurity, neither by means of contact nor by means of carrying. And Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide, as in that case, too, he moved them together? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla transmits a significant limitation in Rabbi Yochanan’s name. The mishna’s ruling that the flesh is not nullified applies only where an animal tore it — a dog bite, say — since no human intention was involved. Where a person severed it deliberately with a knife, that act itself nullifies the flesh, and the hide’s status governs. The principle is the familiar one that a person’s deliberate handling can strip a substance of its standing.
Key Terms:
- פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה = an animal expelled it — severed by a beast
- פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין = the knife expelled it — severed deliberately by a person
- בָּטֵיל (batel) = it is nullified
Segment 20
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Rav Nachman refuses the report, even from Rabbi Yochanan’s own mouth.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בָּטֵיל.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of a hide of an unslaughtered carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh, the flesh is not nullified by the hide, and therefore one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh is ritually impure. With regard to this section of the mishna, Ulla said that Rabbi Yochanan said: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where an animal severed the piece of flesh, e.g., a dog bite. But if a person used a knife to sever the flesh, the flesh is nullified by the hide because the person nullified the flesh via his action.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman presses Ulla on how far the rule extends. Even a piece the size of a tarta, a quarter-kav? Yes. Even the size of a sifter? Yes. At that Rav Nachman swears that he would not accept the teaching even if Rabbi Yochanan stated it to him directly — an unusually blunt refusal, grounded in the implausibility that anyone would treat so large a quantity of flesh as nullified.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְטָא (tarta) = a measure equal to a quarter of a kav
- נַפְיָא (nafya) = a sifter — here indicating a large size
- הָאֱלֹהִים (ha’Elohim) = by God — an oath formula expressing emphatic conviction
Segment 21
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Ami rebukes Rav Nachman for demeaning a teaching of Rabbi Yochanan.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילּוּ כְּתַרְטָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּנַפְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָאֱלֹהִים! אִם אָמַר לִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִפּוּמֵּיהּ – לָא צָיֵיתְנָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Nachman said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Yochanan say this halakha even with regard to a large piece of flesh the size of a tarta, i.e., a quarter of a kav? Ulla said to him: Yes. Rav Nachman was surprised and asked: And did he say it even with regard to a piece of flesh the size of a sifter? Ulla said to him: Yes. Rav Nachman swore and said to him: By God! Even if Rabbi Yochanan had said this statement to me directly from his mouth, I would not have listened to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Oshaya carries the exchange up to Eretz Yisrael and reports it to Rabbi Ami, whose reaction is sharp. Rav Nachman had married into the family of the Nasi, the Patriarch, and Rabbi Ami takes his dismissal as an abuse of that standing: does his position entitle him to belittle a ruling of Rabbi Yochanan? The rebuke is about deference to a master’s transmitted teaching — and it is about to be undercut.
Key Terms:
- חַתְנֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה = son-in-law of the family of the Nasi (the Patriarch)
- מְזַלְזֵל (mezalzel) = he demeans / treats lightly
- כִּי סְלֵיק = when he ascended — travelling up to Eretz Yisrael
Segment 22
TYPE: מעשה
Later Rav Oshaya finds Rabbi Ami teaching the statement on the latter clause instead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּיה קַמֵּיהּ: הָכִי אֲמַר עוּלָּא, וְהָכִי אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִשּׁוּם דְּרַב נַחְמָן חַתְנֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה הוּא, מְזַלְזֵל בִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?!
English Translation:
When Rav Oshaya ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Ami, and he said this halakha before him: This is what Ulla said and this is what Rav Nachman responded to him. Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: And just because Rav Nachman is the son-in-law of the family of the Nasi, can he demean the halakhic statement of Rabbi Yochanan?
קלאוד על הדף:
On a second occasion Rav Oshaya finds Rabbi Ami teaching Rabbi Yochanan’s limitation not on the mishna’s opening clause — the whole olive-bulk — but on its latter clause, about the two half olive-bulks. The difference is decisive, because half olive-bulks are small quantities where nullification is entirely plausible, whereas Ulla had applied the rule to a piece the size of a sifter.
Key Terms:
- אַסֵּיפָא (aseifa) = on the latter clause
- אַרֵישָׁא (areisha) = on the first clause
Segment 23
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Ami states the version he teaches, on the two half olive-bulks.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זִמְנִין אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: הָיוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים – מְטַמְּאִים בְּמַשָּׂא וְלֹא בְּמַגָּע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא.
English Translation:
Another time Rav Oshaya found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh, because he touches them separately and moves them together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It imparts impurity neither by means of contact nor by means of carrying.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records the statement as Rabbi Ami transmits it: Rabbi Yishmael’s ruling that the hide transmits by carrying applies only where an animal severed the half olive-bulks; where a knife did, they are nullified. Confined to that case the teaching is unremarkable, and Rav Nachman’s incredulity would never have arisen.
Key Terms:
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא = they taught this only with regard to — restricting a ruling
- שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים = two half olive-bulks
Segment 24
TYPE: מעשה
Learning of the other transmission, Rabbi Ami uses Rav Nachman’s own oath.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא פְּלָטַתּוּ חַיָּה, אֲבָל פְּלָטַתּוּ סַכִּין – בָּטֵיל.
English Translation:
With regard to this section of the mishna, Rabbi Yochanan said: The Sages taught Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying only in a case where an animal severed the half olive-bulks of flesh from the animal. But if a person used a knife to sever the half olive-bulks of flesh, the flesh is nullified. If Rav Nachman had heard that the statement of Rabbi Yochanan was stated with regard to a case of half olive-bulks of flesh, he would not have been surprised that this halakha also applies to pieces of flesh that amount together to the size of a tarta or a sifter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reversal completes itself. Rav Oshaya establishes that Rabbi Ami teaches the statement on the latter clause and that Ulla had transmitted it on the first. Rabbi Ami’s response is to swear that even had Yehoshua bin Nun said such a thing in Rabbi Yochanan’s name, he would not accept it — the identical oath formula, and an even more exalted authority, than Rav Nachman had used. Having rebuked Rav Nachman for the objection, he now makes it himself, and the Gemara lets the irony stand without comment.
Key Terms:
- יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן = Yehoshua bin Nun — invoked as the most exalted conceivable authority
- לָא צָיֵיתְנָא לֵיהּ = I would not listen to him / accept it from him
Segment 25
TYPE: מסקנא
Ravin and the travellers confirm the first-clause version; the difficulty returns.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר אַסֵּיפָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. וְאֶלָּא עוּלָּא אַרֵישָׁא אַמְרַהּ נִיהֲלַיְכוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָאֱלֹהִים, אִי אָמַר לִי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ – לָא צָיֵיתְנָא לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: Does the Master teach this halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna but not with regard to the first section of the mishna that discusses the case of a complete olive-bulk of flesh? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes. But did Ulla say to you this halakhic statement of Rabbi Yochanan in Babylonia with regard to the first clause of the mishna? Rav Oshaya said to him: Yes. Rabbi Ami said to him: If so, Rav Nachman was justified in his surprise at the halakha of Rabbi Yochanan. By God, even if Yehoshua bin Nun had said this halakha to me in his name, i.e., from his own mouth, I would not have listened to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The transmission is finally settled by Ravin and the nachotei, the scholars who regularly travelled down from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia: the statement was indeed made on the first clause, as Ulla had it. That vindicates Ulla’s report but restores Rav Nachman’s difficulty, since a whole olive-bulk — let alone a quantity the size of a sifter — being nullified remains hard to accept.
Key Terms:
- נָחוֹתֵי (nachotei) = the descenders — scholars who carried teachings from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia
- רָבִין (Ravin) = a leading transmitter among the nachotei
Segment 26
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa’s answer is invoked: the case is a thin spread-out layer of flesh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין וְכׇל נָחוֹתֵי, אַמְרוּהָ אַרֵישָׁא. וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא? כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא:
English Translation:
When Ravin and all those descending from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they stated this halakha of Rabbi Yochanan with regard to the first clause of the mishna. The Gemara objects: But the matter is difficult. If an olive-bulk of flesh is nullified by being severed with a knife, the same should be true for larger measurements, such as a tarta, which is unreasonable, as people would not usually disregard such a large amount. The Gemara resolves this difficulty in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said with regard to a different matter:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty by borrowing an answer Rav Pappa gave elsewhere: the case is bemrudad. The word is explained at the opening of 124b, and it dissolves Rav Nachman’s objection by changing the picture of what the flesh looks like — not a substantial lump but something quite different.
Key Terms:
- כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא = as Rav Pappa said — importing an answer given in another context
- קַשְׁיָא (kashya) = it is difficult — an unresolved objection
Amud Bet (124b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ביאור
Bemrudad: a thin film of flesh spread across the hide.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּמְרוּדָּד, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּמְרוּדָּד.
English Translation:
The reference is to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. Here, too, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yochanan’s statement is referring to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. When a person severs such a piece of flesh along with the hide, even if the total volume of the flesh is an olive-bulk, or even a much larger measure, it is insignificant and is nullified by the hide.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is spelled out. Bemrudad describes flesh flattened into a thin layer smeared across the hide rather than sitting on it as a distinct piece. Such a film has no independent presence — however large its total volume, it is inseparable in appearance and handling from the hide it coats. Rav Nachman’s objection assumed a lump of meat the size of a sifter; on this reading there is no lump at all, and even a large area of such flesh is nullified.
Key Terms:
- מְרוּדָּד (merudad) = flattened / spread thin — a film of flesh coating the hide
- בָּטֵיל (batel) = nullified — absorbed into the status of what it adheres to
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
Returning to the mishna’s clause on two half olive-bulks.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָיוּ עָלָיו.
English Translation:
§The mishna teaches: If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara restates the clause it will now analyze at length: on Rabbi Yishmael’s view a hide bearing two half olive-bulks transmits carcass impurity by carrying but not by contact. The asymmetry is the puzzle — why should lifting produce impurity where touching does not?
Key Terms:
- הָיוּ עָלָיו = there were upon it — the mishna’s phrase introducing the case
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Bar Padda: touching the flesh directly from inside does combine.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר בַּר פְּדָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מֵאַחֲרָיו, אֲבָל מִלְּפָנָיו – יֵשׁ נוֹגֵעַ וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹגֵעַ.
English Translation:
Bar Padda says: The Sages taught that Rabbi Yishmael holds that that hide does not impart impurity by means of contact only with regard to one who touched the hide on the outside. But if one directly touched the pieces of flesh inside the hide, even though he did not touch any one piece measuring an olive-bulk, he is impure. This is because there is a principle that if one touches an impure item measuring less than an olive-bulk and again touches another impure item measuring less than an olive-bulk, he becomes impure, as the two instances of contact join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
Bar Padda narrows Rabbi Yishmael’s denial of contact-impurity to one who touches the hide from the outside, where the hide itself intervenes. Touch the two pieces of flesh directly on the inner face and the two touches do combine into the requisite olive-bulk — yesh nogea vechozer venogea, there is touching and touching again. On this reading Rabbi Yishmael accepts that successive contacts accumulate.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ נוֹגֵעַ וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹגֵעַ = there is touching and touching again — successive contacts combining to a measure
- מֵאַחֲרָיו / מִלְּפָנָיו = from behind (the outer face) / from in front (the inner face)
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Rabbi Yochanan denies it, consistent with his pairing of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין נוֹגֵעַ וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹגֵעַ, וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yochanan says: There is no such principle that if one touches an impure item and again touches another impure item that the two instances of contact join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yochanan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yochanan said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said the same thing, i.e., maintained the same principle.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan rejects the principle outright: successive touches never combine. He is being consistent, since he had already taught that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas amru davar echad — said one and the same thing. Identifying a shared underlying principle between tannaim in unrelated contexts is a characteristic move of Rabbi Yochanan’s, and it commits him to reading Rabbi Yishmael as denying accumulation.
Key Terms:
- אֵין נוֹגֵעַ וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹגֵעַ = there is no touching and touching again — successive contacts do not combine
- אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד = they said one and the same thing — a shared underlying principle
- אַזְדָּא לְטַעְמֵיהּ = he follows his own line of reasoning
Segment 5
TYPE: מקור
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas on two sub-olive-bulk pieces under one roof.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן; רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס – דִּתְנַן: כָּל הַמְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ וְהִכְנִיסָן לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת – רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִים.
English Translation:
The statement of Rabbi Yishmael is that which we said: Two instances of contact do not join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of impurity. The statement of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas is that which we learned in a mishna (Oholot 3:1): With regard to any part of a corpse that imparts impurity in a tent, i.e., that imparts impurity to any other item that is under the same roof, if that body part was divided into two pieces, each measuring less than an olive-bulk, but together they constitute an olive-bulk, and one placed both pieces inside the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas rules that the two pieces do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. Therefore, he deems everything inside the house pure. And the Rabbis rule that the two pieces of the corpse join together to constitute an olive-bulk, and therefore they deem everything inside the house impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara supplies the second half of the pairing from Oholot 3:1. Where a portion of a corpse that would impart tent-impurity is divided into two pieces, each under an olive-bulk but together making one, and both are brought into a house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas rules everything within pure, while the Rabbis rule it impure. The structural parallel to the hide case is exact: two sub-measure portions, and the question whether the mode of transmission accumulates them.
Key Terms:
- אֹהֶל (ohel) = a tent — a roof under which corpse impurity spreads to everything beneath
- רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס = a tanna of the generation of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai
Segment 6
TYPE: ביאור
Rabbi Dosa denies overshadowing-and-overshadowing-again, as Rabbi Yishmael denies touching twice.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס הָתָם, אֵין מַאֲהִיל וְחוֹזֵר וּמַאֲהִיל, הָכָא נָמֵי אֵין נוֹגֵעַ וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹגֵעַ.
English Translation:
Didn’t Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas say in that mishna there that there is no such principle that a tent overlies an impure item and again overlies another impure item such that the two instances join together to constitute the requisite measure for impurity imparted in a tent? Here, too, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas would agree with Rabbi Yishmael that there is no such principle that if one touches an impure item and again touches another impure item that the two instances join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
The shared principle is now named. Rabbi Dosa holds ein ma’ahil vechozer uma’ahil — a roof does not overshadow one piece and then another so as to combine them. Rabbi Yishmael holds the corresponding thing about contact. Both refuse to let a mode of transmission aggregate two encounters into a single qualifying measure, which is exactly what Rabbi Yochanan meant in pairing them.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מַאֲהִיל וְחוֹזֵר וּמַאֲהִיל = there is no overshadowing and overshadowing again
- מַאֲהִיל (ma’ahil) = overshadows — the roof standing over an impure object
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
If Rabbi Dosa matches Rabbi Yishmael, the Rabbis should match Rabbi Akiva — but they are stricter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִדְּרַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, רַבָּנַן כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא טַהוֹרֵי קָא מְטַהַר!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects to the statement of Rabbi Yochanan: Since the opinion of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, so too, the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael. But doesn’t Rabbi Akiva rule more leniently than Rabbi Yishmael, as he deems one pure in both cases of contact and carrying, whereas the Rabbis rule more stringently than Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and deem everything in the house impure?
קלאוד על הדף:
The pairing generates a difficulty about the opposing sides. If Rabbi Dosa aligns with Rabbi Yishmael, then the Rabbis who dispute Rabbi Dosa ought to align with Rabbi Akiva, who disputes Rabbi Yishmael. But the alignment is backwards: Rabbi Akiva is the lenient one, purifying in both contact and carrying, while those Rabbis are stringent, declaring the house impure. The two disputes seem to run in opposite directions.
Key Terms:
- טַהוֹרֵי קָא מְטַהַר = he rules purely — taking the lenient position
- רַבָּנַן כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא = the Rabbis in accordance with Rabbi Akiva
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Akiva is lenient only about the hide, as his own concession shows.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד כָּאן לָא קָא מְטַהַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּעוֹר, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא מְטַמֵּא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁתְּחָבָן בְּקֵיסָם וֶהֱסִיטָן שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַהֵר בָּעוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva deems one who touches or carries the pieces of flesh pure only because they are nullified by the hide. But in general he holds that items join together to impart impurity, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the alignment. Rabbi Akiva’s leniency is not a general denial that portions combine — it is specific to the hide, which interposes and nullifies. In general he holds that items do combine, and the proof is in the mishna’s own closing clause, where he concedes that two halves skewered on a wood chip and moved transmit impurity. Once his leniency is localized to the hide, he and the stringent Rabbis of Oholot are consistent.
Key Terms:
- עַד כָּאן לָא קָא מְטַהַר אֶלָּא = he rules purely only in this case — localizing a leniency
- וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא = and Rabbi Akiva concedes
Segment 9
TYPE: מתיב
Rav Ukva bar Chama objects to bar Padda from a baraita on Vayikra 11:24-25.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: ״בְּנִבְלָתָם״ – וְלֹא בְּעוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים.
English Translation:
Rav Ukva bar Chama raises an objection to the statement of bar Padda that Rabbi Yishmael maintains that two instances of contact with two pieces measuring less than an olive-bulk join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. His objection is based on that which is taught in a baraita: It is written: “And by these you shall become impure; whoever touches their carcass shall be impure until evening. And whoever carries the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:24-25). It is derived from the term “their carcass” that one who touches the carcass itself becomes impure, but one who touches a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh does not become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ukva bar Chama brings a scriptural objection against bar Padda. The baraita reads benivlatam, “their carcass,” as teaching that one who touches a hide bearing two half olive-bulks does not become impure — an unqualified exclusion from contact-impurity, with no allowance for touching the flesh directly from within.
Key Terms:
- בְּנִבְלָתָם (benivlatam) = their carcass — the term excluding the hide-borne halves from contact impurity
- מֵתִיב (metiv) = he raises an objection
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
The verse admits carrying-impurity; Rabbi Akiva reads contact and carrying together.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אַף בְּמַשָּׂא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא יִטְמָא״ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״הַנּוֹגֵעַ״ ״וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא״ – אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא; לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא.
English Translation:
One might have thought that a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh does not impart impurity even by means of carrying. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “And whoever carries the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening,” from which it is derived that one who carries a carcass, even by means of the hide, becomes impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse juxtaposes “whoever touches” with “and whoever carries,” indicating that that which enters the category of impurity via contact, enters the category of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via contact, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: one might have thought such a hide transmits nothing at all, so the verse adds vehanosei yitma, teaching that carrying does transmit — this being Rabbi Yishmael’s position. Rabbi Akiva reads the two clauses as juxtaposed and derives a governing rule: whatever falls within the category of contact-impurity falls within carrying-impurity, and whatever does not, does not. On his principle the hide case, excluded from contact, is excluded from carrying too.
Key Terms:
- וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא יִטְמָא = and the one who carries shall be impure (Vayikra 11:25)
- בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע = it enters the category of contact — is subject to contact impurity
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
On bar Padda’s reading, this case does enter the category of contact.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אִיתָא, הֲרֵי בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע מִלְּפָנָיו?
English Translation:
Based on this baraita, one can object to the statement of bar Padda: And if it is so that Rabbi Yishmael maintains that two instances of contact with two pieces of flesh measuring less than an olive-bulk join together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk, then the case of a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh also enters the category of impurity transmitted by means of contact when one directly touches the flesh inside the hide. Therefore, why does Rabbi Akiva disagree with Rabbi Yishmael by stating that in this case there is no transmission of impurity by means of carrying because there is no transmission of impurity by means of contact?
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection lands. If bar Padda is right that touching the flesh directly from inside produces impurity, then the hide case does fall within the category of contact — and Rabbi Akiva’s principle would then include it in carrying as well, contrary to his stated ruling. Bar Padda’s reading makes Rabbi Akiva’s derivation incoherent.
Key Terms:
- וְאִם אִיתָא = and if it is so — pressing the consequence of a position
- מִלְּפָנָיו = from in front — touching the flesh directly on the inner face
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: Rabbi Akiva means contact in every manner, outer face included.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע בְּכׇל צַד – בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא, לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע בְּכׇל צַד – לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא.
English Translation:
Rava said that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: That which enters the category of impurity via contact in every manner, even by touching the hide on the outside, enters the category of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via contact in every manner, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava rescues the derivation by sharpening its terms. Rabbi Akiva’s principle concerns contact bechol tzad — in every manner, including touching the hide from the outside. Only something subject to contact-impurity from every angle is subject to carrying-impurity; the hide case, immune from the outer face, fails that test regardless of what happens on the inner face. Bar Padda’s position survives, and Rabbi Akiva’s exegesis holds.
Key Terms:
- בְּכׇל צַד (bechol tzad) = in every manner / from every side
- הָכִי קָאָמַר = this is what he is saying — a clarifying restatement
Segment 13
TYPE: בעיא
Rav Avya the Elder asks about a sealed thigh bone according to Rabbi Yishmael.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַוְיָא סָבָא מֵרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: קוּלִית סְתוּמָה, לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מַהוּ שֶׁתְּטַמֵּא?
English Translation:
§The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Rav Avya the Elder asked Rabba bar Rav Huna: The mishna below teaches that with regard to a sealed thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and of a creeping animal, where the bone is intact to the extent that there is no access to the marrow, which contains marrow inside but no flesh outside, one who touches it remains ritually pure because it does not enter the category of impurity via contact. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, what is the halakha as to whether it imparts impurity via carrying?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Avya the Elder poses a genuinely difficult question to Rabba bar Rav Huna. A kulit setuma is an intact thigh bone containing marrow with no flesh outside and no opening — it cannot transmit impurity by contact, since there is nothing impure to touch. Does it transmit by carrying on Rabbi Yishmael’s view? The question probes whether Rabbi Yishmael holds the contact-implies-carrying principle at all.
Key Terms:
- קוּלִית סְתוּמָה = a sealed thigh bone — intact, containing marrow, with no access
- מוֹחַ (moach) = marrow — the impure substance sealed within the bone
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא
The two horns: does Rabbi Yishmael hold the principle or not?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע – בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא, לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע – לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּבָא לִכְלַל מַגָּע מִלְּפָנָיו.
English Translation:
Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael maintains the principle: That which enters the category of impurity via contact, enters the category of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via contact, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying. And therefore, here, in the baraita cited above, this is the reason that Rabbi Yishmael taught that one who carries a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh becomes impure even though it does not enter the category of impurity via contact if one touched the outside of the hide: It is because it enters the category of impurity via contact if one directly touched the flesh inside the hide. Therefore, a sealed thigh bone, which does not enter the category of impurity via contact in any manner, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying either.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is set out precisely. If Rabbi Yishmael accepts the principle, then his ruling on the hide worked only because that case is subject to contact from the inner face — and a sealed bone, subject to contact from no angle at all, would be pure. If he rejects the principle, the sealed bone would transmit by carrying despite being untouchable. The question thus turns Rava’s answer of the previous segment into a test case.
Key Terms:
- אִית לֵיהּ / לֵית לֵיהּ = he holds it / he does not hold it — the two horns of a dilemma
- אוֹ דִלְמָא = or perhaps — introducing the alternative horn
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה
Rabba bar Rav Huna evades: ‘a raven is flying.’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא לֵית לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
Or perhaps Rabbi Yishmael does not maintain this principle, and he would maintain that one who carries a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh becomes impure even if it were not the case that it enters the category of impurity via contact if one directly touched the flesh inside the hide. And therefore, Rabbi Yishmael holds that a sealed thigh bone imparts impurity via carrying even though it does not enter the category of impurity via contact in any manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar Rav Huna does not answer. He says orva parach — a raven is flying — an idiom for changing the subject, pointing at the sky rather than engaging the question. The Talmud preserves the evasion rather than smoothing it over, and the exchange that follows explains it.
Key Terms:
- עוֹרְבָא פָּרַח (orva parach) = a raven is flying — an idiom for deflecting a question
- לְאִשְׁתְּמוֹטֵי = to evade / extricate oneself
Segment 16
TYPE: מעשה
His son protests, and Rabba bar Rav Huna admits he was simply spent.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עוֹרְבָא פָּרַח.
English Translation:
In an effort to evade the question, Rabba bar Rav Huna distracted Rav Avya the Elder and said to him: Look, a raven flies in the sky.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava, his son, is troubled: this is Rav Avya the Elder of Pumbedita, whom his father habitually praises as a great man — why brush him aside? The answer is candid and human. Quoting Shir HaShirim 2:5, “sustain me with dainties,” Rabba bar Rav Huna says he was exhausted that day, and Rav Avya had asked something requiring real reasoning. He deflected not from disrespect but because he had nothing left to give it.
Key Terms:
- סַמְּכוּנִי בָּאֲשִׁישׁוֹת = sustain me with dainties (Shir HaShirim 2:5) — invoked to convey exhaustion
- מִילְּתָא דְּבָעֵי טַעְמָא = a matter that requires reasoning
- גַּבְרָא רַבָּה = a great man — a scholar of stature
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא
Ulla: two halves on a skewer never transmit by carrying, however long one carries them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ: וְלָאו הַיְינוּ רַב אַוְיָא סָבָא מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא, דִּמְשַׁבַּח לַן מָר בְּגַוֵּיהּ דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי הַיּוֹם ״סַמְּכוּנִי בָּאֲשִׁישׁוֹת״, וּבְעָא מִינַּאי מִילְּתָא דְּבָעֵי טַעְמָא.
English Translation:
Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said to his father: But isn’t this Rav Avya the Elder of Pumbedita, whom the Master would praise to us, saying that he is a great man? If so, why did you treat him in that manner and evade his question? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Today I am in a state best described by the verse: “Let me lean against the stout trunks; let me couch among the apple trees” (Song of Songs 2:5), meaning: I am tired, and he asked me about a matter that requires reasoning and careful examination, and therefore I could not provide an immediate answer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla states a rule that will be tested against the mishna. Two half olive-bulks skewered on a wood chip do not transmit impurity by carrying even if one walks them back and forth the entire day. Carrying, on his view, is not merely a matter of the impure matter moving with a person — it has a formal requirement the skewer fails.
Key Terms:
- מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא = he carries back and forth
- טָהוֹר (tahor) = pure — not rendered impure
Segment 18
TYPE: דרשה
The ketiv/keri of ‘venisa’/‘nosei’ requires that the measure be carriable at once.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁתְּחָבָן בְּקֵיסָם, אֲפִילּוּ מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
§Ulla says: With regard to two half olive-bulks that one skewered with a wood chip, even if one moves them back and forth the entire day, he does not contract impurity via carrying, and he is pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla grounds the rule in a ketiv/keri variance. Vayikra 11:40 is written venisa, “is carried,” but read nosei, “carries.” Both readings are given force: there must be a person who carries, and the impure measure must itself be nissa — capable of being borne all at once, unaided by a utensil. Two halves held together only by a skewer are carried by the utensil rather than as a single load, so the requirement fails.
Key Terms:
- כְּתִיב וְקָרֵינַן = it is written and we read — a variance between written text and traditional vocalization
- נִישָּׂא בְּבַת אַחַת = carried all at once — as a single load without a utensil’s aid
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
The mishna contradicts Ulla: two halves on a hide do transmit by carrying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּתִיב ״וְנִשָּׂא״ וְקָרֵינַן ״נוֹשֵׂא״, בָּעֵינַן ״נוֹשֵׂא״ וְהוּא דְּנִישָּׂא בְּבַת אַחַת.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: What is the reason? With regard to impurity transmitted by carrying it is written: “And one who carries [vahannosei] its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:40). The words “and who carries” in the term “and one who carries” is written vav, nun, sin, alef, which can be read venisa, meaning: Is carried; but according to the traditional vocalization we read the word as nosei, meaning: Carries. From here it is derived that with regard to impurity transmitted by carrying we require that one carry [nosei] the requisite measure of impurity of a carcass, i.e., an olive-bulk, and that that olive-bulk be capable of being carried [nissa] all at once, without the assistance of a utensil. This requirement is not met with regard to two half olive-bulks that one skewered with a wood chip, which are carried only with the assistance of a utensil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna is turned against Ulla immediately. Rabbi Yishmael rules that two half olive-bulks on a hide transmit by carrying — yet there too the halves are borne only by means of the hide, which is no more a single load than a skewered pair. On Ulla’s requirement this case should be pure.
Key Terms:
- וְהָא לָאו נִישָּׂא הוּא = but it is not carriable as one — the objection from Ulla’s own criterion
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa: bemrudad — a thin film of flesh joins the two halves into one load.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: הָיוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים – מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא וְלֹא בְּמַגָּע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו נִישָּׂא הוּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects to Ulla’s statement: We learned in the mishna that if upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Why does it impart impurity by means of carrying? This case does not fulfill the requirement that an olive-bulk of impure flesh be capable of being carried all at once without the assistance of a utensil, as the hide is needed to carry them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa answers with the term that solved the earlier difficulty on 124a. The mishna speaks of bemrudad, where a thin layer of flesh runs between the two halves and physically connects them. Joined by flesh rather than by the hide, they constitute a single load carried at once, satisfying Ulla’s requirement while still not amounting to an olive-bulk at any single point of contact — which is exactly why the mishna splits carrying from contact.
Key Terms:
- בִּמְרוּדָּד (bemrudad) = in a thin spread layer — flesh connecting the two halves
- חִבּוּר (chibur) = connection — attachment making two pieces one
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The wood-chip clause raises the same problem, and receives the same answer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בִּמְרוּדָּד.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing a case where a thin layer of flesh was attached to the hide. Despite the fact that there is not one piece of flesh the size of an olive-bulk, the two half olive-bulks are connected by a strip of thin flesh which enables the two pieces to be carried at once without the assistance of the hide. Therefore, the pieces impart impurity by means of carrying but not by means of contact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses again from Rabbi Akiva’s concession: two halves skewered on a wood chip and moved do transmit impurity, which on Ulla’s criterion they should not. The answer is identical — there too the mishna speaks of bemrudad, a thin connecting layer of flesh, so the skewer is not what unites them. Ulla’s rule holds in both mishnaic cases once the physical picture is corrected.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע = come and hear — introducing a source as a challenge
- הָכִי נָמֵי = here too — the same answer applies
Segment 22
TYPE: כתנאי
Ulla’s position is matched to a tannaitic dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּשְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים שֶׁתְּחָבָן בְּקֵיסָם וֶהֱסִיטָן שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. אַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו נִישָּׂא הוּא! הָכִי נָמֵי בִּמְרוּדָּד.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to the opinion of Ulla from that which is stated in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. Why? This case does not fulfill the requirement that an olive-bulk of impure flesh be capable of being carried all at once without the assistance of a utensil. The Gemara rejects this refutation: Here too, with regard to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, the mishna is discussing a case of a thin layer of flesh connecting the two pieces.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes that Ulla’s requirement is not his innovation but already a tannaitic dispute (ketannaei). A baraita rules that both one who touches and one who moves sub-olive-bulk pieces becomes impure, and Rabbi Eliezer says “even one who carries.” Read that way, Rabbi Eliezer would be the one imposing the nissa requirement.
Key Terms:
- כְּתַנָּאֵי (ketannaei) = it is like a dispute among tannaim — an amoraic position already debated earlier
- מֵסִיט (mesit) = one who moves or shifts an impure object
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא
But carrying is moving — what does ‘even’ add?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֶחָד הַנּוֹגֵעַ וְאֶחָד הַמֵּסִיט, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַנּוֹשֵׂא. אַטּוּ נוֹשֵׂא לָאו מֵסִיט הוּא?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: The opinion of Ulla is like one side of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to two pieces of flesh, neither of which measures an olive-bulk, both one who touches and one who moves the pieces is impure. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who carries the pieces is impure. The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? Is that to say that carrying is not the same as moving?
קלאוד על הדף:
The reading is immediately questioned. Moving (mesit) and carrying (nosei) are not meaningfully distinct acts, so Rabbi Eliezer’s “even one who carries” appears to add nothing to what the first clause already stated. Something in the formulation must be doing different work.
Key Terms:
- אַטּוּ נוֹשֵׂא לָאו מֵסִיט הוּא = is carrying not the same as moving?
- אַף (af) = even / also — the word whose function is questioned
Segment 24
TYPE: מסקנא
The baraita is re-read: Rabbi Eliezer requires nissa, and ‘even’ is emended.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַנּוֹגֵעַ וְאֶחָד הַמֵּסִיט בְּלֹא נִישָּׂא, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמֵימַר: וְהוּא דְּנִישָּׂא, וּמַאי ״אַף״? אֵימָא: וְהוּא דְּנִישָּׂא.
English Translation:
Rather, isn’t this what the baraita is saying: Both one who touches and one who moves pieces of flesh is impure even if an olive-bulk of flesh is not capable of being carried without the assistance of a utensil? And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say: One becomes impure only if an olive-bulk of flesh is capable of being carried without the assistance of a utensil. The Gemara asks: But if the intention of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is to qualify the statement of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the word even? Rather, say the statement of Rabbi Eliezer differently: One is impure only if an olive-bulk of flesh is capable of being carried without the assistance of a utensil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes that the baraita means the Rabbis impose impurity even without nissa, while Rabbi Eliezer requires it — making him Ulla’s tannaitic precedent. But since a qualifying statement cannot begin with “even,” the Gemara emends his words to read simply: only where it is nissa. The willingness to adjust a transmitted wording to fit the sense the argument requires is a standard, and openly acknowledged, talmudic move.
Key Terms:
- וְהוּא דְּנִישָּׂא = and that is where it is carriable as one — the qualifying condition
- אֵימָא (eima) = say / emend the text to read — adjusting a formulation
Segment 25
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna on the thigh bone of a corpse begins — and the daf ends.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ קוּלִית הַמֵּת
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to the thigh bone of a human corpse,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes with the opening words of a new mishna: kulit hameit, the thigh bone of a human corpse. The subject connects directly to Rav Avya’s unanswered question about a sealed thigh bone earlier on this amud, and the mishna’s rulings are set out on 125a.
Key Terms:
- קוּלִית הַמֵּת = the thigh bone of a corpse
- קוּלִית (kulit) = a thigh bone, the paradigm case of a sealed bone containing marrow