Chullin Daf 125 (חולין דף קכ״ה)
Daf: 125 | Amudim: 125a – 125b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (125a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Corpse and sacrificial thigh bones transmit whether sealed or perforated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקוּלִית הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן, בֵּין סְתוּמִים בֵּין נְקוּבִים – טָמֵא.
English Translation:
and the thigh bone of a sacrificial animal that was rendered unfit as piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time, or notar, i.e., part of an offering left over after the time allotted for its consumption, whether these thigh bones were sealed and there was no access to the marrow, or whether they were perforated and there was access to the marrow, one who touches them is ritually impure. The reason is that a piece of bone of a corpse the size of a barley grain imparts impurity, and the bone of a sacrificial animal that was disqualified in this manner imparts impurity by rabbinic decree via contact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna begun at the close of 124b continues here. A kulit — a thigh bone, the paradigm of a bone enclosing marrow with nothing on the outside — of a human corpse, or of a sacrificial animal disqualified as piggul or notar, transmits impurity to one who touches it whether the bone is sealed or perforated. For the corpse the reason is that even a barley-grain of bone imparts impurity; for the sacrificial bone it is a rabbinic decree. The sealed case is the striking one, since nothing impure is actually accessible to the hand.
Key Terms:
- קוּלִית (kulit) = a thigh bone — the standard case of a bone enclosing marrow
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = an offering disqualified by intent to consume it outside its designated time
- נוֹתָר (notar) = sacrificial meat left beyond the time allotted for its consumption
- סְתוּמִים / נְקוּבִים = sealed / perforated — whether the marrow is accessible
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
Carcass and creeping-animal bones transmit only when perforated; the verse extends this to carrying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קוּלִית נְבֵלָה וְקוּלִית הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶם סְתוּמִים – טְהוֹרִים, נְקוּבִים כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף בְּמַשָּׂא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַנּוֹגֵעַ … וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא״, אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע – בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא, לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע – לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא.
English Translation:
With regard to the thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal, one who touches them when they are sealed remains ritually pure. If one of these thigh bones was perforated at all, it imparts impurity via contact, as in that case contact with the bone is tantamount to contact with the marrow. From where is it derived that even with regard to impurity transmitted via carrying there is a distinction between sealed and perforated thigh bones? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “One who touches the carcass thereof shall be impure until the evening; and one who carries the carcass thereof shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39-40), indicating: 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 mishna’s second half draws the contrast. The thigh bone of a neveila or a sheretz leaves one pure when sealed, because there the bone itself is not a source of impurity — only the marrow within is, and a sealed bone gives no access to it. Perforate it at all and touching the bone counts as touching the marrow. The mishna then derives from Vayikra 11:39-40, which pairs “the one who touches” with “the one who carries,” that the same sealed-versus-perforated line governs carrying: what falls within the category of contact falls within carrying, and what does not, does not. This is the principle Rav Avya raised on 124b.
Key Terms:
- נְבֵלָה (neveila) = an unslaughtered animal carcass
- שֶׁרֶץ (sheretz) = a creeping animal whose carcass imparts impurity
- בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע = it enters the category of contact — and therefore of carrying as well
Segment 3
TYPE: דיוק
The Gemara infers: touching transmits, but overlying does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ נוֹגֵעַ – אִין, אֲבָל מַאֲהִיל – לָא.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who touches the thigh bone of a human corpse is ritually impure, whether or not it was sealed. The Gemara infers that with regard to one who touches the bone, yes, he is impure, but one who overlies the thigh bone is not impure, as it does not transmit impurity to that which is above it or under the same roof.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by reading the mishna’s silence. It specifies one who touches the corpse’s thigh bone, which implies that one who merely ma’ahil — overlies it, or stands under the same roof — remains pure. That is surprising, since corpse impurity characteristically fills an entire enclosed space, and the rest of the amud is devoted to explaining how such a bone could be exempt from tent-impurity.
Key Terms:
- מַאֲהִיל (ma’ahil) = overlies — standing over, or under the same roof as, a source of impurity
- אֹהֶל (ohel) = a tent — a roof under which corpse impurity spreads to everything beneath
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If a k’zayit of flesh were attached it would transmit in a tent — so there is none.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי לִיטַמֵּא! דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the bone then it should transmit impurity in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof, as well. The Gemara answers: The mishna is discussing a case where there is not an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the bone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first of three objections narrows the case. Were an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the bone, it would plainly transmit in a tent like any portion of a corpse, so the mishna must be speaking of a bone with less than that. Each of the three objections works the same way, stripping the case down until only the bone and its marrow remain.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת (k’zayit) = an olive-bulk — the measure at which corpse flesh imparts tent-impurity
- הֵיכִי דָמֵי = what are the circumstances? — the idiom demanding a case be specified
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If a k’zayit of marrow were inside, the impurity would break through and ascend.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מוֹחַ מִבִּפְנִים – טוּמְאָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה, בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי לִיטַמֵּא! דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת מוֹחַ בִּפְנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But if there is an olive-bulk of marrow inside the bone, the impurity breaks through the bone, so to speak, and ascends beyond it. Therefore, it should transmit impurity in a tent as well. The Gemara explains: The mishna is discussing a case where there is not an olive-bulk of marrow inside the bone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second objection invokes a central principle of tent-impurity: tumah boka’at ve’olah, impurity breaks through an enclosure and rises beyond it. An olive-bulk of marrow sealed inside the bone would therefore still fill the space above, and the mishna’s exemption would fail. The answer strips the case further: there is no olive-bulk of marrow inside either.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה = impurity breaks through and ascends — passing through an enclosure above it
- מוֹחַ (moach) = marrow — the impure substance within the bone
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If marrow heals the flesh outside, the bone is a full limb — so it does not heal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי מוֹחַ מִבִּפְנִים מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ, אֵבֶר מְעַלְּיָא הִיא, בְּאֹהֶל נָמֵי לִיטַמֵּא! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, מוֹחַ בִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But if the mishna maintains that marrow inside the bone of a living person heals the flesh outside the bone, then since the marrow could replenish itself and catalyze the growth of flesh on the bone it is a proper limb. Therefore, as is the case with any piece of a proper limb, even one less than the size of an olive-bulk, it should transmit impurity in a tent as well. Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Chiyya, says: That is to say that the mishna maintains that marrow inside the bone does not heal the flesh outside the bone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third objection turns on a physiological premise. If marrow within a living bone ma’aleh arucha mibachutz — regenerates the flesh on the outside — then the bone is an ever me’alya, a proper limb, and any fragment of a limb transmits in a tent regardless of size. Rav Yehuda son of Rabbi Chiyya concludes that the mishna must therefore hold the opposite: marrow does not heal the flesh outside. This is the first of the daf’s three reconstructions, and it purchases the mishna’s coherence at the cost of a substantive claim about anatomy.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ = it heals / regenerates the flesh outside
- אֵבֶר מְעַלְּיָא = a proper limb — any fragment of which imparts tent-impurity
- זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת = that is to say — deriving a principle from a ruling
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
But without a k’zayit, how can the sacrificial bone be piggul or notar at all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ? דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת. אִי הָכִי, בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁים אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: To what case did you interpret the mishna to be referring? It is a case where there is not an olive-bulk of marrow. If so, in the case of a sacrificial animal, why does the thigh bone impart impurity? The Sages issued a decree that the bones of a sacrificial animal that are attached to flesh or contain marrow that became piggul or notar render those who touch them impure, as they serve as handles or protection for the flesh or marrow. By contrast, in this case there can be no piggul or notar because there is less than an olive-bulk of flesh or marrow.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reading just reached immediately runs into trouble. Piggul and notar are statuses that attach to an olive-bulk of sacrificial matter; below that measure there is nothing for the decree to operate on. If the mishna’s whole case lacks a k’zayit, the clause about the sacrificial thigh bone becomes empty.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ = to what case did you interpret it? — pressing the consequences of a reading
- אַמַּאי מְטַמֵּא = why does it impart impurity?
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
And why would the perforated carcass and creeping-animal bones transmit?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוּ, קוּלִית נְבֵלָה וְקוּלִית הַשֶּׁרֶץ כִּי נִיקְּבוּ, אַמַּאי מְטַמְּאוּ?
English Translation:
And furthermore, if the mishna is discussing a case where there is not an olive-bulk of marrow, why do the thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal impart impurity in a case when they were perforated?
קלאוד על הדף:
The same difficulty extends to the mishna’s final clause. If no olive-bulk of marrow is present anywhere in the case, then perforating the neveila or sheretz bone accomplishes nothing — there would be no impure substance of sufficient measure to touch. Two of the mishna’s three clauses are left unintelligible by Rav Yehuda’s reading.
Key Terms:
- כִּי נִיקְּבוּ = when they were perforated
- וְתוּ (vetu) = and furthermore — adding a second difficulty
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
The clauses differ: the first lacks a k’zayit, the later ones have one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, רֵישָׁא דְּלֵיכָּא כְּזַיִת, סֵיפָא דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת. וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. The first clause of the mishna, which discusses the thigh bone of a corpse, is referring to a case where there is not an olive-bulk of marrow. The latter clause of the mishna, which discusses the thigh bones of a sacrificial animal, an unslaughtered carcass, and a creeping animal, is referring to a case where there is an olive-bulk of marrow. And accordingly, what is the tanna of the mishna teaching us? He is teaching us several distinct matters separately, as follows.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves by declining to read the mishna as a single unified case. The opening clause about the corpse’s bone speaks of a case without an olive-bulk; the clauses about the sacrificial, carcass and creeping-animal bones speak of one with an olive-bulk. A mishna may set several rulings side by side without their sharing a common set of facts.
Key Terms:
- רֵישָׁא / סֵיפָא = the first clause / the latter clause
- לָא קַשְׁיָא = it is not difficult — the formula introducing a harmonization
Segment 10
TYPE: ביאור
The tanna is teaching several distinct matters, one per clause.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵישָׁא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמוֹחַ מִבִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ. מוּקְדָּשִׁין מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר מִילְּתָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר מָרִי בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ נוֹתָר, מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה בָּסִיס לְדָבָר הָאָסוּר.
English Translation:
In the first clause he is teaching us that the marrow inside the bone does not heal the flesh outside the bone. With regard to the thigh bone of sacrificial animals, what is he teaching us? He is teaching us that a bone that serves as a handle or protection for flesh or marrow that became notar is significant and imparts impurity, as Mari bar Avuh said that Rabbi Yitzchak said: Bones of sacrificial animals that served as a handle for notar, meaning that they have leftover meat on them or inside them after the allotted time for its consumption, transmit impurity to the hands of those who handle them, just as the leftover sacrificial meat itself transmits impurity to the hands. Since the bones have become a base for an intrinsically forbidden object, they are treated in the same manner as the forbidden object itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara names the principle behind the split: milei milei ka mashma lan — he is teaching us separate matters separately. Each clause carries its own lesson rather than illustrating a single rule, and the next segments spell out what each contributes.
Key Terms:
- מִילֵּי מִילֵּי = separate matters — distinct lessons taught in successive clauses
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = he teaches us — the novelty a statement conveys
Segment 11
TYPE: ביאור
The carcass bone: perforated yes, sealed no, even with a full measure of marrow inside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְבֵלָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת, נִיקְּבָה – אִין, לֹא נִיקְּבָה – לָא.
English Translation:
Next, the tanna of the mishna teaches that with regard to the thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass, even if there is an olive-bulk of marrow inside, if it was perforated it does impart impurity, but if it was not perforated, it does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The last of the three separate lessons is stated on its own. However much marrow the neveila bone contains, the sealed bone leaves one pure and the perforated bone does not. Unlike the corpse, whose bone is itself a source of impurity down to a barley-grain, the carcass bone is merely a container — and a sealed container transmits nothing, however impure its contents.
Key Terms:
- אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת = even though there is an olive-bulk of marrow within
- נִיקְּבָה אִין לֹא נִיקְּבָה לָא = perforated, yes; not perforated, no
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
Abaye reads the mishna differently: marrow does heal, but this bone was scraped.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם מוֹחַ מִבִּפְנִים מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּשֶׁשִּׁפָּהּ.
English Translation:
Abaye said: Actually, the tanna of the mishna maintains that marrow inside the bone heals the flesh outside the bone. And with regard to the consequent assertion: If so, the thigh bone should impart impurity in a tent as well, the explanation is that here we are dealing with a case where one scraped the bone. Therefore, the flesh and the marrow can no longer heal, and the bone is not considered a proper limb that imparts impurity in a tent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye offers the second of the daf’s three reconstructions, and he refuses the anatomical concession Rav Yehuda extracted. Marrow does regenerate the flesh outside; the mishna’s bone escapes tent-impurity for an entirely different reason — it was shipa, scraped. A scraped bone has lost the capacity to heal and is therefore no longer a proper limb, so no general claim about marrow is required to make the mishna work.
Key Terms:
- שִׁפָּהּ (shipa) = he scraped it — abrading the surface of the bone
- לְעוֹלָם (le’olam) = actually — reinstating a position the previous answer had abandoned
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Elazar: scraped lengthwise it is impure, widthwise pure — remember a palm tree.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קוּלִית שֶׁשִּׁפָּהּ לְאׇרְכָּהּ – טְמֵאָה, לְרׇחְבָּהּ – טְהוֹרָה, וְסִימָנָיךְ – דִּיקְלָא.
English Translation:
And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: A thigh bone that one scraped lengthwise is impure like a limb. Even if it is not attached to flesh or marrow, a bone scraped in such a manner still has the ability to heal. But if one scraped it widthwise it will not heal and is therefore pure. And your mnemonic to remember which can heal and which cannot is a palm tree, because if one sawed a strip off of a palm tree lengthwise it can heal, but if one did so widthwise, i.e., one sawed a strip off of the circumference of the tree, the flow of sap is disrupted and the tree cannot heal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye anchors his reading in a ruling of Rabbi Elazar that turns on the direction of the scraping. A bone scraped along its length keeps the capacity to heal and remains impure as a limb; scraped around its width it cannot heal and is pure. The mnemonic given is dikla, a palm tree: a strip shaved down the length of the trunk leaves the tree able to recover, while a cut encircling the trunk severs the channels the sap travels through and kills it. A botanical image is enlisted to fix a rule about bone, and it is among the more memorable devices in the masechet.
Key Terms:
- לְאׇרְכָּהּ / לְרׇחְבָּהּ = lengthwise / widthwise
- דִּיקְלָא (dikla) = a palm tree — the mnemonic for which direction of cutting still permits healing
- סִימָנָיךְ (simanach) = your mnemonic — a memory device attached to a ruling
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: there is a k’zayit, marrow heals, and the mishna’s “touching” includes overlying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת, וּמוֹחַ מִבִּפְנִים מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ, וּמַאי נוֹגֵעַ דְּקָתָנֵי – מַאֲהִיל.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yochanan said: Actually, the mishna is discussing a case where there is an olive-bulk of marrow in the bone. And the tanna of the mishna also holds that marrow inside the bone heals the flesh outside the bone. And as for the consequent assertion: If so, the bone should transmit impurity in a tent, in fact the bone does impart impurity in a tent. And to what is the mishna referring when it teaches that one who touches the bone is ritually impure? It is also referring to one who overlies the bone.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan gives the third reconstruction, and the boldest. He concedes everything the objections asserted — there is an olive-bulk, marrow does heal, and the bone does transmit in a tent — and relocates the whole difficulty into the mishna’s vocabulary. When the mishna says nogea, one who touches, it includes one who overlies. On this reading nothing about the impurity is unusual; only the word is being used more broadly than expected, a claim the remainder of the daf is devoted to testing.
Key Terms:
- נוֹגֵעַ (nogea) = one who touches — here claimed to include one who overlies
- וּמַאי נוֹגֵעַ דְּקָתָנֵי = and what is the “touching” that it teaches?
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
But if marrow heals, why are the sealed carcass and creeping-animal bones pure?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי מוֹחַ מִבִּפְנִים מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ, קוּלִית נְבֵלָה וְקוּלִית הַשֶּׁרֶץ כִּי לֹא נִקְּבוּ, אַמַּאי טְהוֹרִים?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if the marrow inside the bone heals the flesh outside the bone, why does the mishna teach that the thigh bone of a carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal are pure when they were not perforated?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s reading faces an immediate objection from the mishna’s own final clause. If marrow genuinely regenerates the flesh outside, then the neveila and sheretz bones should equally count as proper limbs and transmit impurity whether sealed or not — yet the mishna rules the sealed ones pure. Something must distinguish the carcass case from the corpse case.
Key Terms:
- אַמַּאי טְהוֹרִים = why are they pure?
- כִּי לֹא נִקְּבוּ = when they were not perforated
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Binyamin bar Giddel: the marrow has come loose and rattles inside.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת מוֹחַ הַמִּתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ, גַּבֵּי מֵת – טוּמְאָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה, נְבֵלָה – כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ הוּא, נִיקְּבָה – אִין, לֹא נִיקְּבָה – לָא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Binyamin bar Giddel said that Rabbi Yochanan said: Here we are dealing with a case where there is an olive-bulk of marrow that has become detached and is rattling inside the bone. With regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, the impurity breaks through the bone and ascends, and it therefore transmits impurity in a tent. But with regard to the impurity of a carcass, since the marrow is loose and rattling, it will not heal. Therefore, if the bone was perforated and it is possible to touch the marrow, the bone does impart impurity. But if the bone was not perforated it does not impart impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Binyamin bar Giddel answers in Rabbi Yochanan’s name that the marrow has detached and rattles within the bone (moach hamitkashkesh). For a corpse the impurity breaks through and ascends regardless of the marrow’s condition, so tent-impurity operates as usual. But loose, rattling marrow can no longer heal anything, so for a carcass — where the bone is only a container — an actual perforation is required before impurity can pass. The distinction preserves both halves of the mishna while leaving Rabbi Yochanan’s reading intact.
Key Terms:
- מוֹחַ הַמִּתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ = marrow that rattles — detached and loose within the bone
- כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ הוּא = since it rattles — and therefore can no longer regenerate
Segment 17
TYPE: סיוע
Rabbi Avin supports Rabbi Yochanan from a mishna in Oholot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא – הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכַחֲצִי זַיִת, וּמַאֲהִיל עַל חֲצִי זַיִת, אוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת מַאֲהִיל עָלָיו – טָמֵא.
English Translation:
According to Rabbi Yochanan, overlying is referred to as touching in the mishna. Rabbi Avin said, and some say it was Rabbi Yosei bar Avin who said: We learn in a mishna as well (Oholot 3:1): In the case of one who touches with one hand half an olive-bulk of a corpse and simultaneously his other hand overlies half an olive-bulk or half an olive-bulk of flesh from a corpse overlies him, he is impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Avin — or Rabbi Yosei bar Avin — brings tannaitic support for equating overlying with touching. Oholot 3:1 rules that one who touches half an olive-bulk of a corpse while simultaneously overlying another half, or having another half overlie him, is impure. The two halves must be combining to make the requisite measure, which is only possible if the two modes belong to a single category.
Key Terms:
- אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא = we too have learned — citing a tannaitic source in support
- חֲצִי זַיִת = half an olive-bulk — below the measure on its own
Segment 18
TYPE: ראיה
If contact and tent are one concept, the two halves combine.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חַד שְׁמָא הוּא – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מִצְטָרֵף.
English Translation:
Granted, if you say that impurity via contact and impurity transmitted in a tent or to one overlying a part of the corpse are one concept, it is due to that reason that the half olive-bulk of impurity that he touched and the half olive-bulk of impurity that he overlaid join together to constitute the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
The logic of the support is spelled out. Only if contact and overlying are chad shma, one and the same category of impurity, can a half acquired by touching join a half acquired by overlying to reach an olive-bulk. Rabbi Yochanan’s claim that the mishna’s “touching” covers overlying would follow naturally.
Key Terms:
- חַד שְׁמָא = one name / one concept — a single category
- מִצְטָרֵף (mitztaref) = it combines — joining toward a requisite measure
Segment 19
TYPE: ראיה
The Oholot mishna states the principle: only same-category items combine.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ תְּרֵי שְׁמֵי נִינְהוּ – מִי מִצְטָרֵף? וְהָתְנַן: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד – מִצְטָרֵף וְטָמֵא, מִשְּׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת – טָהוֹר!
English Translation:
But if you say that they are two concepts, how can they join together? But didn’t we learn in that mishna (Oholot 3:1): This is the principle: Any impure items lacking the requisite volume to have impure status on their own that are of one concept join together and are impure; if they are of two concepts, they do not join together and remain pure? Apparently, touching and overlying a corpse create the same type of impurity, and therefore overlying is referred to as touching in the mishna here.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof is sharpened by that mishna’s own closing rule: items of one category combine and render impure, while items of two categories do not combine and remain pure. Since the halves in question do combine, contact and overlying must be one category — which is precisely what Rabbi Yochanan needs.
Key Terms:
- מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד / מִשְּׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת = of one category / of two categories
- זֶה הַכְּלָל = this is the principle — a mishnaic formula stating a general rule
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna’s next clause tells against it — and the sentence breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי חַד שְׁמָא הוּא? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֲבָל
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Rather, what is the alternative? Is it one concept that comprises both touching and overlying? Say the latter clause of the mishna in tractate Oholot: But
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara immediately turns the same source against the proof, beginning to cite the following clause of that Oholot mishna. The page ends mid-sentence on the word “but,” and the clause — which rules pure in a closely similar case — opens 125b.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא סֵיפָא = say the latter clause — turning a source against the proof drawn from it
- אֲבָל (aval) = but — the word on which the amud breaks off
Amud Bet (125b)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום
The completing clause: with another item overlying both, one remains pure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכַחֲצִי זַיִת, וְדָבָר אַחֵר מַאֲהִיל עָלָיו וְעַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
in the case of one who touches half an olive-bulk of flesh from a corpse and simultaneously another item overlies both him and half an olive-bulk of flesh from a corpse, he remains pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The interrupted clause finishes here. Where a person touches half an olive-bulk and a separate object overlies both him and another half olive-bulk, he stays pure. The configuration differs from the first clause only in that the overlying is done by an intervening item rather than by the person himself — yet the outcome reverses.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר אַחֵר מַאֲהִיל = another item overlies — an intervening object spanning both
- טָהוֹר (tahor) = pure — not rendered impure
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
If they were one category, why is this case pure? Now the first clause is the difficulty.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי חַד שְׁמָא הוּא, אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? אֶלָּא, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.
English Translation:
But if impurity via contact and via a tent are considered one concept, why does he remain pure? Rather, based on the latter clause of the mishna, the first clause of the mishna is difficult, because it indicates that these two categories of impurity are considered one concept and join together to constitute the requisite measure for impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two clauses now pull against each other. If contact and overlying were a single category, the halves in this case should combine exactly as they did in the first, yet the ruling is pure. The Gemara concludes that the burden has shifted: it is the first clause, on which Rabbi Avin’s proof rested, that now requires explanation.
Key Terms:
- קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא = the first clause is difficult — the burden of explanation shifts
- אַמַּאי טָהוֹר = why is he pure?
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira: the first clause involves impurity pressed between two chests.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּטוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה בֵּין שְׁנֵי מִגְדָּלִים עָסְקִינַן, וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, דְּכוּלַּהּ נְגִיעָה הִיא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said: In the first clause of the mishna we are dealing with a case where the source of impurity is pressed between two wooden chests and there is no opening of one handbreadth in between the chests. When the hand of a person overlies the chests, the impurity of the pressed item rises beyond the chests and it transmits impurity to the person. Therefore, his interaction with all the sources of impurity is considered as though he is touching them simultaneously. Consequently, there is no proof in the mishna for the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that imparting impurity via contact and via a tent are considered the same concept.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira dissolves the tension by re-describing the first clause as tumah retzutza — impurity compressed between two chests with less than a handbreadth of clearance. Compressed impurity forces its way upward, so a hand held above the chests is effectively in contact rather than merely overlying. Both halves are then acquired by touching, and no cross-category combination occurred at all. Rabbi Avin’s support for Rabbi Yochanan accordingly evaporates.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה = compressed impurity — pressed with less than a handbreadth of clearance
- מִגְדָּלִים (migdalim) = chests or cupboards
- פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח = an opening of a handbreadth — the clearance that creates a tent
Segment 4
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה
Who then calls a tent ‘touching’? Rabbi Yosei, from a ladle of corpse-dust.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאן תַּנָּא דְּקָרֵי לְאֹהֶל ״נוֹגֵעַ״? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְלֹא תַרְוָוד רָקָב מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע, וּבְמַשָּׂא, וּבְאֹהֶל.
English Translation:
Therefore, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who refers to impurity imparted in a tent as one who touches [noge’a]? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 4:1): Rabbi Yosei says: A full ladle [tarvad] of dust from a corpse imparts impurity like the corpse itself in three ways: By contact [bemagga], and by carrying, and in a tent.
קלאוד על הדף:
With the Oholot proof withdrawn, the Gemara must find some tanna who genuinely uses nogea for overlying, and identifies Rabbi Yosei. A Tosefta has him rule that a full ladle of rakav, the dust of a decomposed corpse, imparts impurity by contact, by carrying and in a tent — three modes listed together.
Key Terms:
- מְלֹא תַרְוָוד (melo tarvad) = a full ladle — the measure of corpse-dust that imparts impurity
- רָקָב (rakav) = the dust of a decomposed corpse
Segment 5
TYPE: ראיה
One cannot touch an entire ladle of dust, so “touching” there must mean overlying.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל, הָא קָא טָעֵין לֵיהּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ, וְהָא קָא מַאֲהֵיל אַכּוּלֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא נוֹגֵעַ – הָא לָא נָגַע בְּכוּלֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מַאי ״נוֹגֵעַ״ – מַאֲהִיל.
English Translation:
Granted, the dust of a corpse imparts impurity via carrying and in a tent; this one who carries it carries the entire amount of dust and that one who overlies the dust overlies all of it. But with regard to one who touches it, one does not touch all of the dust, and it should therefore be impossible for one to become impure via contact. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this baraita: To what is the term noge’a referring? It is referring to one who overlies the dust.
קלאוד על הדף:
The argument turns on physical possibility. Carrying and overlying can each encompass the whole ladle of dust, but no one can touch all of a quantity of loose dust at once — and the measure is what generates the impurity. So Rabbi Yosei’s nogea must denote overlying, giving Rabbi Yochanan the tannaitic precedent he needed.
Key Terms:
- קָא טָעֵין לֵיהּ לְכוּלֵּיהּ = he carries all of it
- הָא לָא נָגַע בְּכוּלֵּיהּ = he does not touch all of it
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But Rabbi Yosei lists both separately — Abaye distinguishes two kinds of tent.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״נוֹגֵעַ״, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״מַאֲהִיל״! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְמַטָּה מִטֶּפַח – אֹהֶל נְגִיעָה, לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח – אֹהֶל גְּרֵידָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How is it possible to explain the baraita in such a manner? But doesn’t Rabbi Yosei teach the case of one who touches separately, and doesn’t he teach the case of one who overlies separately? Therefore, the term noge’a cannot be referring to overlying. Abaye said: That is not difficult because there are two types of overlying. With regard to a tent that overlies impurity at a height of below one handbreadth, that tent is referred to as touching. But a tent that overlies impurity at a height of above one handbreadth is referred to as merely a tent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is that Rabbi Yosei’s own list names touching and tent as separate items, so one cannot simply mean the other. Abaye answers by dividing overlying in two: a covering less than a handbreadth above the impurity is ohel negi’a, a tent that counts as touching, while one more than a handbreadth above is ohel gereida, a tent and nothing more. The handbreadth of clearance is the standard threshold at which a genuine tent-space forms.
Key Terms:
- אֹהֶל נְגִיעָה = a tent of touching — overlying close enough to count as contact
- אֹהֶל גְּרֵידָא = a mere tent — overlying at a height that creates true tent-space
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Rava: even above a handbreadth it is touching; a mere tent means spanning both.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח נָמֵי אֹהֶל נְגִיעָה הוּא, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי אֹהֶל גְּרֵידָא? בְּהַמְשָׁכָה.
English Translation:
Rava said: According to Rabbi Yosei, even a tent that overlies impurity at a height above one handbreadth is referred to as touching. And what are the circumstances of a tent that is referred to as merely a tent and not as touching? The term tent is referring to the case of a structure that overlies both a person and a source of impurity, thereby spreading the impurity from its source to the person.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava rejects the height-based line. For Rabbi Yosei, he holds, overlying counts as touching at any height. What then is a mere tent? Hamshacha — a structure spanning both the person and the source, so that the roof draws the impurity across from one to the other rather than the person standing over it directly. The distinction becomes functional rather than metric, and the disagreement with Abaye occupies the rest of the daf.
Key Terms:
- הַמְשָׁכָה (hamshacha) = drawing across — a roof spanning both person and impurity source
- אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח = even above a handbreadth
Segment 8
TYPE: ראיה
Rava cites Rabbi Yosei on bed-bundles and window grilles as a ceiling.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חֲבִילֵי מִטָּה וּסְרִיגֵי חַלּוֹנוֹת חוֹצְצִין בֵּין הַבַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּיה, שֶׁלֹּא לְהַכְנִיס טוּמְאָה לְצַד שֵׁנִי.
English Translation:
Rava said: From where do I say my opinion? It is as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 9:4) that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to bundles that serve as a bed and grilles taken from windows, if one placed them between the ground floor and the upper floor of the house such that they serve as a ceiling, since they have become part of the building they are not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, even if there are holes in the bundles and the grilles, they serve as a barrier between the house and the upper floor such that the impurity of a corpse present in the area of the house cannot enter the other side, i.e., the upper floor.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava marshals a Tosefta for his position. Rabbi Yosei rules that bed-bundles and window grilles installed between a house and its upper story become part of the structure, are not susceptible to impurity, and interpose — so corpse impurity below does not pass upward even through their gaps.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִילֵי מִטָּה = bundles that serve as a bed
- סְרִיגֵי חַלּוֹנוֹת = window grilles or lattices
- חוֹצְצִין (chotzetzin) = they interpose — blocking the passage of impurity
Segment 9
TYPE: ראיה
But spread over a corpse in the open, one is impure opposite a hole and pure elsewhere.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּרָסָן עַל פְּנֵי הַמֵּת בַּאֲוִיר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב – טָמֵא, שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב – טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
And if one spread out the bundles and grilles outside the house in an impermanent manner by hanging them over a corpse in the air like a net, one who touches, i.e., overlies the corpse, opposite a hole in the netting becomes impure. By contrast, one who overlies it not opposite a hole remains pure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Tosefta continues with the case Rava needs. Where the same bundles and grilles are draped over a corpse in the open air rather than installed as a ceiling, one who “touches” — that is, overlies — at a point opposite a gap becomes impure, while one positioned over solid material stays pure. The word nogea is here applied to a person standing above the netting.
Key Terms:
- פְּרָסָן עַל פְּנֵי הַמֵּת = he spread them over the corpse
- כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב = opposite the hole — aligned with a gap in the netting
Segment 10
TYPE: ראיה
Rava argues the netting must be above a handbreadth, or the clothing rule would apply.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַטָּה מִטֶּפַח, שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב – אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ הִיא, וּמֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ מְטַמֵּא!
English Translation:
Rava explains his proof: What are the circumstances? If we say that he spread out the netting below the height of one handbreadth above the corpse, why does one who overlies the corpse not opposite a hole in the netting remain pure? In such a case, the netting is close enough to the corpse to be considered part of the clothing of the corpse. Therefore, the case is tantamount to one where the corpse is dressed in its clothing, and a corpse dressed in its clothing imparts impurity to one who overlies it because the clothing does not act as a barrier.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s inference proceeds by elimination. Were the netting draped less than a handbreadth above the corpse, it would count as met bikhsuto, a corpse in its garments — and garments never interpose, so even the solid portions would transmit and no one would be pure. Since the Tosefta does rule some positions pure, the netting must lie more than a handbreadth up. Yet Rabbi Yosei still calls that overlying “touching,” which refutes Abaye’s height-based distinction.
Key Terms:
- מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ = a corpse in its garments — which do not interpose against its impurity
- אִילֵּימָא (ilaima) = if we say — introducing a possibility to be eliminated
Segment 11
TYPE: דחייה
Abaye: the netting is low, but unlike garments it was never nullified to the corpse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לָאו לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״נוֹגֵעַ״.
English Translation:
Rather, is it not the case that he spread out the netting more than one handbreadth above the corpse? And Rabbi Yosei refers to overlying the corpse as touching. Apparently, contrary to the opinion of Abaye, Rabbi Yosei refers to overlying as touching even when the overlying item is more than one handbreadth above the source of impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye rejects the elimination. The netting may indeed lie below a handbreadth, because the analogy to a corpse’s garments fails on a point of intent: garments do not interpose because whoever dressed the body nullified them to it, making them effectively part of the corpse. Netting spread temporarily, which its owner means to retrieve, was never nullified and therefore does interpose. Status here follows the owner’s intention rather than mere proximity.
Key Terms:
- מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ = he nullifies it — rendering an object subsidiary to what it covers
- הַאי לָא מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ = this one he does not nullify — intending to retrieve it
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then it should be hidden impurity that breaks through — but Rabbi Yosei denies that.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לְמַטָּה מִטֶּפַח, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ הוּא – מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ, הַאי לָא מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Abaye rejected Rava’s proof and said: Actually, the case is one where one spread the netting out below the height of one handbreadth above the corpse. And with regard to that which you say: If so, one who overlies the corpse not opposite a hole in the netting should also become impure as it is tantamount to a case of a corpse dressed in its clothing, this case is not similar to the case of a corpse dressed in its clothing. In the case of a corpse dressed in its clothing the clothing does not act as a barrier to the impurity because the one who dressed the corpse nullified the clothing by rendering its status as though it is a part of the corpse. But in this case in the baraita, the one who spread out the netting over the corpse intended to remove the bundles and grilles afterward and he did not nullify them.
קלאוד על הדף:
One difficulty remains for Abaye. Impurity covered at less than a handbreadth is tumah temuna, hidden impurity, which on the usual view breaks through and ascends — so even the solid portions of the netting should transmit. Abaye answers that Rabbi Yosei holds tumah temuna einah boka’at: hidden impurity does not break through. The position is unusual enough that the Gemara now demands proof that Rabbi Yosei really holds it.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאָה טְמוּנָה = hidden impurity — covered impurity, ordinarily said to break through
- אֵינָהּ בּוֹקַעַת = it does not break through — Rabbi Yosei’s position
Segment 13
TYPE: ראיה
A mishna on a chest compartment: impurity exits but does not enter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתֶהֱוֵי כְּטוּמְאָה טְמוּנָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה? קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: טוּמְאָה טְמוּנָה אֵינָהּ בּוֹקַעַת.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects with regard to Abaye’s explanation: But if the case is one where he spread out the netting less than one handbreadth above the corpse, even if it is not considered the clothing of the corpse, let it be considered like a source of impurity hidden underneath an overlying structure at a distance of less than one handbreadth. In such a case, the impurity breaks through and ascends, and therefore it should transmit impurity even to one who overlies it not opposite a hole in the netting. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yosei holds that hidden impurity does not break through and ascend.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof comes from Oholot 4:2, describing a compartment within a chest standing in a house — a cubic handbreadth of space inside, an opening less than a square handbreadth, the chest as a whole holding forty se’a and therefore constituting a tent in its own right. Impurity inside the compartment renders the house impure; impurity in the house leaves the compartment’s contents pure.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיבַת הַמִּגְדָּל = the compartment of a chest
- אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה = forty se’a — the volume at which a container counts as a separate tent
Segment 14
TYPE: ביאור
The principle: it is impurity’s way to exit, not to enter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא? דִּתְנַן: תֵּיבַת הַמִּגְדָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח וְאֵין בִּיצִיאָתָהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טוּמְאָה בְּתוֹכָהּ – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא; טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת – מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
And from where do you say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? It is as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 4:2): In the case of a compartment in a chest that is inside a house, in which the open space of the compartment itself has at least one cubic handbreadth in volume, but the opening of the compartment to the house does not have the area of one square handbreadth, and the volume of the entire chest is forty se’a, in that case, if there is a source of impurity inside the compartment, the compartment does not act as a barrier and the house is impure. If the source of impurity is inside the house but outside the chest, whatever is inside the compartment remains pure, because the opening of the compartment is less than one handbreadth.
קלאוד על הדף:
The asymmetry rests on a maxim: derech tumah latzeit ve’ein derech tumah likanes — impurity’s way is to go out, not to come in. A small opening suffices for impurity to escape a confined space but not for it to penetrate one. The rule is stated as a fact about how impurity behaves rather than derived from a verse.
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ טוּמְאָה לָצֵאת = it is impurity’s way to exit
- וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ טוּמְאָה לִיכָּנֵס = and it is not impurity’s way to enter
Segment 15
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yosei declares the house pure — the impurity could be removed in halves or burned.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טוּמְאָה לָצֵאת, וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ טוּמְאָה לִיכָּנֵס.
English Translation:
This differentiation exists because it is typical for a source of impurity to exit from its location, and therefore impurity can be transmitted out of the compartment and into the house. But it is not typical for a source of impurity to enter a location, and therefore an impure item that lies in the house does not transmit impurity into the compartment. Since the volume of the chest is forty se’a it constitutes a separate tent, and the compartment that is part of the chest is also considered part of this tent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei dissents, and his reasoning supplies the proof Abaye needed. He holds the house pure even with impurity in the compartment, because the impurity need not emerge at all: one could remove it lachatza’in, in portions each below the requisite measure, or burn it where it lies. Since its exit is not inevitable, the confined impurity does not spread — which is precisely the view that hidden impurity does not break through.
Key Terms:
- לַחֲצָאִין (lachatza’in) = in halves — in portions each below the requisite measure
- לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ = to burn it in its place
Segment 16
TYPE: ביאור
The latter clause: a chest in the doorway with its opening facing outward.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוּא לְהוֹצִיאָהּ לַחֲצָאִין, אוֹ לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yosei deems the house pure when the impure item is in the compartment. The item will not necessarily impart impurity outside of the compartment because one can remove the source of impurity from the compartment in halves, i.e., in pieces that each measure less than the requisite amount to impart impurity. Or, alternatively, one can burn the source of impurity while it still remains in its place inside the compartment.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s final configuration places the chest in the doorway itself, opening outward. Impurity inside then leaves the house pure, since it will naturally exit outdoors rather than inward; and impurity in the house leaves the chest’s contents pure, since impurity does not enter. Both halves of the maxim operate at once.
Key Terms:
- הֶעֱמִידָהּ בַּפֶּתַח = he placed it in the entrance
- וּפִתְחָהּ לַחוּץ = and its opening faces outward
Segment 17
TYPE: סיום
The daf ends mid-sugya, continuing on 126a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הֶעֱמִידָהּ בַּפֶּתַח, וּפִתְחָהּ לַחוּץ – טוּמְאָה בְּתוֹכָהּ, הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר; טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר.
English Translation:
And the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If one placed the chest in the entrance to the house and the opening of the compartment is facing out of the house, if there is a source of impurity inside the chest, the house remains pure because the impure item will typically exit the house. If there is a source of impurity in the house, whatever is inside the chest remains pure, because the source of impurity will not enter the chest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The page closes in the middle of the chest discussion, with the Abaye-Rava dispute over ohel negi’a still unresolved and Rabbi Yosei’s position on hidden impurity still being established. The argument resumes on 126a.
Key Terms:
- סֵיפָא (seifa) = the latter clause — the portion of the mishna under discussion when the daf ends
- מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר = what is inside it remains pure