Chulin 124
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכת חולין דף קכ"ד beginning on דף קכ"ג עמוד ב׳ at אמר רמי בר ירמיה and continues the מחלוקת of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about whether partial tearing or breaking removes טומאה, especially for עור, which ריש לקיש treats as *chashuv* and durable so that even a small remnant can remain טמא while רבי יוחנן treats it as not *chashuv*. The גמרא analyzes a משנה about purifying a טמא תנור, resolves apparent contradictions between רבי מאיר and the חכמים, and distinguishes different types of “breaking” and different תנורים by their measurements. The sugya then returns to hides with meat attached, the ביטול of meat to עור, the difference between פלטתו חיה and פלטתו סכין, and the relationship between טומאת מגע and טומאת משא in cases of two חצאי זיתים, including whether “נוגע וחוזר ונוגע” works and whether משא requires carrying a full כזית at one time.
- At the end of the previous *shiur* ריש לקיש says that by an עור garment even if only a small amount remains it is *chalim* and repairable and therefore it remains טמא as long as something is not torn, and רבי יוחנן disagrees. At the start here the גמרא challenges ריש לקיש by comparing his rule to the rules of breaking a תנור, and later restates the עור rule with the language of *chashuv*, with most ראשונים treating *chalim* and *chashuv* as synonymous. At the end of the sugya section ריש לקיש says לא שנו אלא טלית אבל עור is *chashuv* so any remnant stays טמא, and רבי יוחנן says even עור is not *chashuv*.
- The text describes תנורים in חז״ל as earthenware pots with fire below, an opening above, plaster around the earthenware, and sometimes plaster attaching the תנור to the floor. The משנה states that if a תנור becomes טמא, the תנא קמא requires חולקו לשלשה and וגורר את הטפלה עד שיהא בארץ, with a מחלוקת ראשונים whether that means scraping plaster from the sides only or also the plaster connecting it to the floor. רבי מאיר says אין צריך לא לגרור את הטפלה ולא עד שיהא בארץ אלא ממעטו מבפנים מארבעה טפחים, so once it is under four טפחים high it is considered broken.
- The גמרא initially asks that if רבי מאיר says reducing below ארבעה makes the תנור טהור, then by ריש לקיש’s logic it should remain *chalim* and still טמא, phrased as ליהוי כחלים דכוי. רבא first says it is easy to align ריש לקיש with the חכמים who demand a full breaking, implying ריש לקיש follows the רבנן and רבי יוחנן follows רבי מאיר. The גמרא then reconciles ריש לקיש even with רבי מאיר by reinterpreting the משנה: when the תנור already became טמא, everyone agrees on חולקו לשלשה and וגורר את הטפלה עד שיהא בארץ, and the מחלוקת is only about someone building a תנור to prevent it from becoming susceptible to טומאה. The תורת חיים explains that the גמרא uses הכי קאמר rather than חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני because it interprets rather than inserts missing words.
- A משנה in מסכת כלים is brought: תנור תחלתה ארבעה ושיעורו ארבעה דברי ר׳ מאיר, and חכמים distinguish between a גדול and a קטן, with a קטן described as תחלתה כל שהוא and explained by דבי ר׳ ינאי as a טפח for children’s ovens. The גמרא infers that if there is no remaining שיעור ד׳ then the תנור should be טהור, which seems to contradict the earlier requirement to break into three and remove plaster. תוספות asks why ארבע is significant given a child’s תנור can be a טפח and answers that adult and child תנורים differ by more than height, including depth and circumference, so a broken adult oven cannot simply be repurposed as a child’s oven.
- The גמרא answers that there are two ways the תנור can be broken, with the distinction stated as התם דצמקי מצמק הכא דעביד גסטרא. The text explains this as a difference between a break that leaves the top without support so that once it is under four טפחים it is no longer a תנור, versus a break that leaves it standing firmly on the ground so that more substantial breaking is required and merely being under four טפחים is insufficient.
- The phrase שיורו ברובו appears and is first assumed to refer to a תנור קטן, but the גמרא objects that רובו דטפח למאי חזי, so it reinterprets it as שיור גדול ברובו referring back to a big תנור. The גמרא then asks how the same משנה can use both a criterion of רוב and a criterion of four, and answers לא קשיא: הא בתנורא דתשעה הא בתנורא דשבעה. רש״י and most ראשונים treat this as a חידוש לקולא: with a תנור of nine טפחים, breaking רוב makes it טהור even though four טפחים remain, and with a תנור of seven טפחים, reducing it so that four do not remain is enough even without breaking רוב, and the precision of nine rather than eight highlights that four remaining can still be ignored when רוב was broken.
- The text cites a prior rule about a torn garment and presents a לשנא אחרינא בשם רב הונא משמיה דרב שמואל בר רב יצחק that ואפילו נשתייר בו כדי מטפחת it can still be fine even if a handkerchief-size remnant remains. The חזון איש explains that the two versions reflect whether the halakhic focus is on the act of tearing or on what remains afterward, with one view saying a significant tear suffices regardless of leftover and the other requiring the result to leave no significant remnant.
- רבי יוחנן challenges ריש לקיש from a משנה: עור טמא מדרס that was designated for straps or shoes becomes טהור according to רבי יהודה once one begins cutting it, while חכמים require reducing it below five טפחים. The question is why it is not considered *chashuv* when a significant amount remains, and the answer is that it is designated for a זב’s sitting, and under five טפחים it is useless for that purpose so even ריש לקיש agrees it is not טמא.
- The משנה states that if a hide has a כזית of meat on it, touching a ציב היוצא ממנו or the hair opposite it renders one טמא. The מפרשים explain the חידוש that the ציב is emerging from the עור rather than dangling from the meat, yet it is still considered נבלה. The discussion of שיער connects to an earlier פרק debate about hair as a יד or a שומר, and the earlier resolution that the עור goes down חלחולי מחלחל to the meat so it is not a שומר על גבי שומר.
- When a hide has two pieces of נבלה each less than a כזית, רבי ישמעאל says it is מטמא במשא ולא במגע, and רבי עקיבא מטהר and says not in מגע and not in משא because the עור מבטל the meat and renders it insignificant. רבי עקיבא admits that two חצאי זיתים that are not on עור but are pushed together with a stick and moved are טמא, and the text reports that many ראשונים understand רבי עקיבא here as מחמיר that it is מטמא both במגע and במשא and even when they are not physically connected if one touches or carries them at the same time. The גמרא frames רבי עקיבא as generally strict, and as מטהר only in the special case where עור causes ביטול.
- עולא בשם רבי יוחנן says לא שנו אלא פלטתו חיה אבל פלטתו סכין, and if the butcher cut the meat then it is בטל regardless of how much remains. רב נחמן challenges whether even a very large piece like כנפיא would be בטל and receives the answer הן, and he swears האלקים that even if he heard it from רבי יוחנן directly he would not accept it. רבי אושעיא reports the dialogue to רבי אמי, and רבי אמי criticizes רב נחמן for disrespecting רבי יוחנן, stated as ומשום דרב נחמן חתנא דבי נשיאה מזלזל בשמעתא דרבי יוחנן.
- A further report says that the same distinction of פלטתו חיה versus פלטתו סכין was taught on the סיפא about two חצאי זיתים, and רבי אמי says he also heard it on the רישא, after which he swears that even if יהושע בן נון said it he would not accept it. The text explains why יהושע בן נון is chosen rather than משה רבינו, and brings the חיד״א that יהושע represents נבואה and תורה follows לא בשמים היא, with משה רבינו as the exceptional level that cannot be disputed. The text also notes a question about whether לא בשמים applies only to *lomdus* or also to disputes about מציאות.
- When רבין וכל נחותי arrive they report that the statement applies on the רישא, that even a large piece becomes בטל if cut by the butcher. The גמרא concedes the difficulty and answers by limiting it to במרודד, where the meat is large in area but thinned out and therefore not truly significant.
- רב פפא says the rule of non-combination applies when touching from behind the hide, but from the meat side there is נוגע וחוזר ונוגע and one becomes טמא only when touching both pieces at the same time. רבי יוחנן disagrees and says אין נוגע וחוזר ונוגע. The text presents two explanatory approaches: one that רב פפא treats a half-*shiur* as טמא but requires a full כזית for מגע and allows simultaneous touching to satisfy it, and another that both treat less than כזית as meaningful but dispute whether sequential or multi-contact touching counts as a single act of מגע.
- The גמרא says רבי יוחנן follows his general view that רב שמואל and רב דוסא בן הרכינס agree. רב דוסא בן הרכינס rules that items of טומאת אוהל שנחלקו and are brought into a house are טהור if each piece lacks the שיעור, while חכמים מטמאים, and the גמרא aligns this with אין נוגע וחוזר ונוגע. The text explains that טומאת משא differs from מגע and אוהל either due to a פסוק per תוספות or due to the mechanics of transportation versus direct connection requiring a full שיעור.
- The גמרא asks how חכמים who are מחמירים against רב דוסא could align with רבי עקיבא who appears מקל in the משנה. The answer is that רבי עקיבא is only מטהר because of עור מבטל בשר, while generally he is מטמא, and the משנה itself signals this by stating ומודה רבי עקיבא בשני חצאי זיתים שתוחבן בקיסם והסיטן שהוא טמא.
- A ברייתא derives ובנבלתם ולא בעור שיש עליו חצאי זיתים and records רבי עקיבא’s principle that the Torah links מגע and משא: כל שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא, לא בא לכלל מגע לא בא לכלל משא. The גמרא challenges that there is מגע possible from the meat side, and answers that the principle requires מגע מכל צד, so only what can become subject to מגע from both front and back can become subject to משא.
- רב אויא סבא asks רבא בר רב הונא about a קולית סתומה with marrow inside and no meat outside, asking whether רבי ישמעאל would allow טומאת משא when טומאת מגע is impossible, depending on whether he accepts the linkage of מגע and משא. The response is עורב פרח, with multiple explanations given: diversion per רש״י, exhaustion reflected in the מדרש לעולם ישים אדם עצמו כעורב, a hint that the הלכה follows רבי עקיבא rather than רבי ישמעאל, or רב חיים בריסקער’s comparison to נח sending the raven that returned with no answer. The text adds that he explains his weakness with אני היום סמכוני באשישות and gives two reasons: it was יום טוב after delivering a major דרשה on הלכות רגל ברגל, or it was the day of his appointment as ראש ישיבה, with further explanations why that would leave him unable to answer.
- עולא says that two חצאי זיתים placed on a stick and moved back and forth all day remain טהור because ונושא וקרינן נושא requires carrying in one act, בעינן נושא והוא דנושא בבת אחת. The גמרא asks why רבי ישמעאל still says מטמא במשא for two חצאי זיתים on עור and answers again that the case is במרודד. The גמרא similarly challenges רבי עקיבא’s admission case of שתוחבן בקיסם והסיטן and answers הכא נמי במרודד, with תוספות explaining that the connection suffices for משא but not for מגע because it is not attached strongly enough to pull the other piece along. The sugya concludes that the question whether משא requires being carried together is a מחלוקת תנאים, and after analyzing רבי אליעזר’s formulation the גמרא emends the text by removing the word אף so that רבי אליעזר requires והוא דנישא while the תנא קמא does not.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions