Chulin 119
Summary
- Today's *shiur* begins מסכת חולין דף קיט from דף קיח עמוד ב at אמר רב and frames the *sugya* with a prior dispute about the minimum *shiur* for *tum’at ochlin* to be *mekabel tum’ah*, contrasting Rashi’s general view that any amount can receive *tum’ah* with Rashi’s view here that a כביצה is required מדאורייתא. Rav and רבי יוחנן argue about when a *yad* and a *shomer* can be *machnis u’mo’tzi tum’ah*, and Tosafos and Rashi give different readings of how the *shiurim* work when the food is combined in a *kli* with other pieces. The Gemara tests these positions with *beraitot* about bones with half-*kezayit* flesh, a *kulit* with marrow and flesh, and plant pods and husks, repeatedly distinguishing *yad* from *shomer* and introducing the idea of *beriah* as an exception to standard measures. The *sugya* later asks whether two *shomrim* can combine, deflects proofs by reclassifying cases as *yad* or as a single overarching *shomer*, and returns to the bone case to debate whether a hair can be a *yad*, resolving tensions through *shomer* mechanics, parchment-hole standards for *tefillin*, and רבי אילאי’s principle of “one among many” bristles or hairs.
- Today's *shiur* starts at מסכת חולין דף קיט, beginning on דף קיח עמוד ב at אמר רב. Everyone holds that for *tum’ah* to transfer from *ochlin* that are already *tamei* to another *ocher*, the *shiur* in the first food is a כביצה. Rashi’s usual approach throughout Shas, as cited by Tosafos in פסחים and rooted in תורת כהנים, treats any amount of food as sufficient to be *mekabel tum’ah*, but Rashi here holds that just as a כביצה is needed to transmit *tum’ah*, so too a כביצה is required מדאורייתא to receive *tum’ah*.
- Rav says אין יד לפחות מכזית ואין שומר לפחות מכפול. Rav defines a *yad* as a handle like a fruit stem and rules that it cannot serve to be *machnis u’mo’tzi tum’ah* unless attached to an *ochel* of at least a כזית. Rav defines a *shomer* as a protective covering like a peel and rules that it cannot function unless the *ochel* is at least a פול, which Rashi says is far less than a כזית.
- Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and says יש יד לפחות מכזית ויש שומר לפחות מכפול. Rashi notes that Rabbi Yochanan does not combine the two into a single threshold, so a *yad* works below כזית but not below פול, while a *shomer* works even below פול.
- Tosafos explains that under Rashi’s general view that any amount can receive *tum’ah*, the Gemara reads simply as a distinction between direct contact and transfer via *yad* or *shomer*: direct contact can be *metamei* any amount, but a *yad* requires an attached כזית and a *shomer* requires an attached פול. Tosafos then asks how to read Rav if Rashi here requires a כביצה even to receive *tum’ah*, since a כזית would not meet the receiving threshold. Tosafos answers that Rav can be read מדרבנן, where any amount can receive *tum’ah* directly but *yad* and *shomer* still require the stated minimums.
- Rashi does not answer by shifting to מדרבנן and instead explains Rav even מדאורייתא by placing the כזית in a *kli* with other foods that together total a כביצה, so the *yad* attached to the כזית can transmit into the combined כביצה. Tosafos challenges the lack of *chibur* if pieces are merely adjacent and resolves Rav’s language by positing a weak *chibur* where lifting the כזית would momentarily lift the rest but they would break off, allowing the total to count as a כביצה while still requiring that the *yad* be attached to a כזית.
- A *beraita* describes שתי עצמות with two half-*zeitim* of flesh, and inserting the ends without flesh into a house so the house is an *ohel* over the bones. The ruling is that the house becomes *tamei* because the bone portion inside functions as a *yad* to the flesh outside, making the *ohel* relate to the flesh and yielding *tum’at ohel* through the combined כזית. Yehuda ben Nekusi in the name of Rabbi Yaakov objects that two bones cannot combine to a כזית.
- The Gemara asks how Rav can establish the *beraita* without conflicting with one of its views. If the case is *yad*, the first opinion contradicts Rav’s requirement of no *yad* below כזית. If the case is *shomer* via marrow protection, then Yehuda ben Nekusi’s insistence on a כזית conflicts with Rav’s *shomer* threshold of a פול, which is even less than a half-*kezayit*.
- The Gemara answers with two options. It establishes the whole *beraita* as *yad* and aligns Rav with Yehuda ben Nekusi, accepting disagreement with the first opinion, and it separately leaves Rav’s *shomer* position as requiring only a פול. Alternatively it establishes the whole *beraita* as *shomer* and aligns Rav with the first opinion. Rabbi Yochanan establishes the whole *beraita* as *yad* and aligns with the first opinion that recognizes a *yad* below כזית.
- A second source states that Rabbi Yehuda rules a כולית with marrow always present and with a כזית of flesh “drags it all to *tum’ah*,” while Acherim, identified as Rabbi Meir, say even a פול of flesh suffices. The Gemara asks how Rav fits: if the case is *yad*, Rav conflicts with Acherim because Rav requires a כזית for *yad*; if the case is *shomer*, Rav conflicts with Rabbi Yehuda because Rav requires only a פול for *shomer*.
- The Gemara answers that Rav can align with Rabbi Yehuda if the dispute is about *yad*, or align with Acherim if the dispute is about *shomer*. Rabbi Yochanan establishes the whole case as *shomer* and aligns with Acherim, and the Gemara challenges this because Rabbi Yochanan allows *shomer* even below פול while Acherim state כפול. The Gemara answers that “פול” is not exact, and Acherim state a *shiur* only because the first opinion stated a *shiur*.
- Rava supports that the case is about *shomer* by pointing to the term כוליתא, which Rashi defines as a bone that always contains marrow, making the bone a protective *shomer*.
- Rav Chanina says this is the *shiur*, meaning “פול” is precise. Rabbi Yochanan says it is not a *shiur*, and “פול” is not exact. The Gemara challenges this from the explicit phrasing כפול and answers again that the number is stated only because the first opinion stated a number.
- A source from עוקצין is introduced with Rashi’s preface that an empty pod is *tahor* but a pod with one bean remaining can combine and become *tamei*. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that a pod for a large bean is *tahor* because the owner does not mind the bean being removed and so the pod is not a *shomer*, while a pod for קטנית is *metamei* because the owner wants the protection of the pod מפני שרוצה במשמישה.
- The Gemara answers that this is not a proof for *shomer* below פול by reinterpreting the case as many pods on a branch and attributing the effect to *yad* rather than *shomer*, citing Rav Acha brei d’Rava’s formulation בכולהו ומשום יד. The Gemara then redefines משמשן to mean תשמישן, meaning the owner wants the use of the stem rather than handling the pod as a protective *shomer*.
- A teaching from the school of Rabbi Yishmael derives from על כל זרע זרוע אשר יזרע כדרך שבני אדם מוציאין לזריעה that wheat, barley, and lentils are taken out for planting with their husks, so the husks count as *shomer*, even though these are smaller than a פול. The Gemara answers that this is different because it is a *beriah*, and a *beriah* has its own status and does not require the usual *shiur* of a פול for *shomer*.
- Rav Oshaya asks whether two *shomrim* can combine. The Gemara first assumes a case of one *shomer* on top of another and rejects it by citing the onion layers in עוקצין: the inner edible layer combines whether intact or perforated, the middle layer combines only when intact as a *shomer*, and the outer layer is *tahor* even when intact because it is a *shomer al gabei shomer*.
- The Gemara clarifies Rav Oshaya’s question as a *shomer* of a food that was divided. Rashi understands this as food and its *shomer* being split and still treated as connected through being together in one *kli*, while Tosafos reads it as the *shomer* splitting while the food remains whole and asks whether the two pieces of *shomer* can join because each protects its own portion.
- Attempts to prove from Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah’s pod ruling are rejected again as a case of a branch functioning as *yad*, with משמשן read as תשמישן. A second attempt from the school of Rabbi Yishmael is redirected to a case of a single overarching *shomer* on an ear of grain, not multiple *shomrim* combining.
- The Gemara argues that upper kernels rely on lower kernels but lower kernels do not rely on upper, which would suggest multiple *shomrim*, and answers that it is one row. The Gemara challenges whether one row can contain כביצה of food and answers that it can with the enormous wheat of שמעון בן שטח, described by Rashi from תענית כ״ג עמוד א׳ as grain as large as the kidneys of a large ox. The Gemara then adds that even one kernel in that era could reach כביצה, removing any proof about multiple *shomrim* combining.
- The Gemara returns to the two-bone *beraita* and brings Reish Lakish’s statement that the rule works only with an עצם serving as a *yad*, but a hair is not a *yad* because the flesh would break off when lifted. Rabbi Yochanan says even a hair can be a *yad*.
- Rabbi Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from a case of skin with a כזית of flesh where touching a sliver protruding from it or a hair opposite it renders *tamei*, and the Gemara initially reads this as *yad* since a sliver is not a *shomer* and because using *shomer* would raise the problem of *shomer al gabei shomer*. The Gemara answers that the case is *shomer* and avoids the double-*shomer* problem by saying the hair penetrates the skin and touches the meat directly, making it a direct *shomer*.
- Rav Acha bar Yaakov objects that if hair penetrations count, then writing *tefillin* on parchment would fail *ketivah temah* because the parchment would be perforated. The Gemara answers with a tradition from the West that any tiny hole over which ink passes without sinking is not considered a hole.
- The Gemara offers an alternative: the impurity cases can be משום יד by analogy to Rabbi Ilai, who explains that a bristle is usable as a handle only when it is among many bristles, and similarly a hair works as a *yad* only when it is among many hairs. The Gemara cites the משנה in עוקצין that bristles in grain ears are *metamei* and *metamei’im* as a *yad* but do not combine to a כביצה, and Rabbi Ilai explains their function as a handle in the case of one bristle among many.
- A second version of the discussion argues that the hair case must be *shomer* because one hair is not useful as a *yad*, and Rabbi Yochanan answers that the hair is among many hairs, using Rabbi Ilai’s principle. The two versions produce different outcomes about the scope of Reish Lakish’s disagreement, with one reading making him concede that many hairs can function as a *yad* and the other reading having him reject even that and therefore insist on *shomer* in the hair case.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions