## Chullin Daf 119a

###### Chullin 119a:1
[Chullin 119a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:1)

וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **And** according to **Rav,** who holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food or protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food is not considered a handle or protection with regard to imparting impurity, **in what** manner **does he interpret this** *baraita*? **If** the *baraita* is discussing the case of a bone without marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes merely **a handle** for the flesh, which measures less than an olive-bulk, then **the first clause** of the *baraita* **is difficult,** because it indicates that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting impurity.


###### Chullin 119a:2
[Chullin 119a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:2)

אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the *baraita* is discussing the case of a bone containing marrow, and therefore the bone constitutes **protection** for food measuring less than an olive-bulk, then **the last clause** of the *baraita* **is difficult** because Yehuda ben Nekosa apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is not considered protection with regard to imparting impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav, who holds that it is protection unless it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.


###### Chullin 119a:3
[Chullin 119a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:3)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that Rav interprets the *baraita* as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes **protection. If you wish, say** instead that Rav interprets the *baraita* as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes **a handle.**


###### Chullin 119a:4
[Chullin 119a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:4)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains its answers: **If you wish, say** that the *baraita* is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes **a handle, and** Rav **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa,** who maintains that the house does not become impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. **And If you wish, say** that the *baraita* is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes **protection, and** Rav **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** who maintains that the house is impure because he holds that protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity if the flesh measures at least a bean-bulk.


###### Chullin 119a:5
[Chullin 119a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:5)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּיָד, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said** that **the entire** *baraita* is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes **a handle, and** Rabbi Yoḥanan **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** who maintains that the house becomes impure because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food imparts impurity. But he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure.


###### Chullin 119a:6
[Chullin 119a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוּלִית שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא כְּפוֹל – גּוֹרֶרֶת כּוּלָּהּ לְטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another objection to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from the *Tosefta* (*Okatzin* 2:5): **Rabbi Yehuda says:** With regard to **a femur that has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it,** the flesh **draws the entire** femur **into ritual impurity** if any part of the femur comes into contact with a dead creeping animal. The Sage referred to as **Aḥerim says: Even** if **there is only a bean-bulk** of flesh **upon** the femur, **it draws the entire** femur **into impurity.**


###### Chullin 119a:7
[Chullin 119a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:7)

וְרַב הַאי בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי בְּיָד – קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא, אִי בְּשׁוֹמֵר – קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In what** manner **does Rav interpret this** *baraita*? **If** the *baraita* is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes merely **a handle** for the flesh, then **the latter clause** of the *baraita* **is difficult,** because Aḥerim apparently maintains that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav. **If** the *baraita* is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes **protection,** then **the first clause** of the *baraita* **is difficult,** because Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that protection that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rav.


###### Chullin 119a:8
[Chullin 119a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:8)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּיָד – וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בְּשׁוֹמֵר – כַּאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the *baraita* is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes **a handle, and** Rav **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. **And if you wish, say** instead that the *baraita* is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes **protection, and** Rav **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion introduced with the words: **Aḥerim** says, according to which even protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.


###### Chullin 119a:9
[Chullin 119a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:9)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בְּשׁוֹמֵר, וְהוּא דְּאָמַר כַּאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said** that **the entire** *baraita* is referring to case of a femur that constitutes **protection, and** Rabbi Yoḥanan **stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion referred to as: **Aḥerim** says, according to which even protection that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.


###### Chullin 119a:10
[Chullin 119a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:10)

אֲחֵרִים, הָא ״כְּפוֹל״ קָא אָמְרִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion consistent with the opinion referred to as: **Aḥerim** says? **Don’t** they **say** that protection that is attached to **a bean-bulk** of flesh imparts impurity, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity?


###### Chullin 119a:11
[Chullin 119a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:11)

אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Aḥerim agrees that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk imparts impurity. Nevertheless, **since the first *tanna* states** the specific **measure** of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim **also states** the specific **measure** of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.


###### Chullin 119a:12
[Chullin 119a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דִּבְשׁוֹמֵר עָסְקִינַן, דְּקָתָנֵי ״קוּלִית״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The language of the *baraita* **is also precise,** indicating **that we are dealing with protection** and not a handle, **as it teaches** the case of **a femur,** which contains marrow, and therefore the bone provides protection for the food inside. If the *baraita* were discussing a handle, it would have taught this *halakha* with regard to any other bone that is attached to flesh and not specifically a femur. **Conclude from it** that the *baraita* is discussing the *halakha* of protection.


###### Chullin 119a:13
[Chullin 119a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:13)

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: זֶהוּ שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The *baraita* cited above teaches that Aḥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh attached to the femur it causes the entire femur to become impure. A dispute **was stated** with regard to this opinion. **Rabbi Ḥanina says:** When Aḥerim stated the measure of a bean-bulk, **this is** a specific **measure,** and Aḥerim holds that the *halakha* of protection applies to an appendage only if a bean-bulk of food is attached to it. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not** a specific **measure.** Aḥerim holds that the *halakha* of protection applies even if it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.


###### Chullin 119a:14
[Chullin 119a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:14)

אֵין זֶה שִׁיעוּר, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּפוֹל״! אַיְּידֵי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא שִׁיעוּרָא, קָאָמְרִי אִינְהוּ נָמֵי שִׁיעוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How is it possible for Rabbi Yoḥanan to hold that **this is not** a specific **measure? But doesn’t** the *baraita* explicitly **teach** the measure of **a bean-bulk?** The Gemara answers: Indeed, Aḥerim holds that protection that is attached to even less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity. But **since the first *tanna* states** the specific **measure** of an olive-bulk, Aḥerim **also states** the specific **measure** of a bean-bulk even though he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk as well.


###### Chullin 119a:15
[Chullin 119a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר בְּשֶׁל פּוֹל, וּמְטַמֵּא בְּשֶׁל קִטְנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof against the opinion of Rav from that which is taught in a mishna (*Okatzin* 1:5): **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya deems** a pod containing **beans** that came in contact with a dead creeping animal **ritually pure.** Since beans are large and do not require the protection of the pod, the pod is not considered protection for the beans and therefore does not impart impurity. **But he deems** a pod containing smaller **legumes** that came in contact with a dead creeping animal **ritually impure** if even only one grain is attached to the pod, **because one desires** the use of the pod **when handling** the legumes so that he will not damage them, and it is therefore considered protection, which imparts impurity. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.


###### Chullin 119a:16
[Chullin 119a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:16)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation of that mishna is **in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said** in the context of a different discussion: That mishna is discussing a case **where** a dead creeping animal came into contact with **the stalk** to which the pod is attached, but not with the pod itself. **And** therefore the *halakha* in the mishna is not with regard to the matter of protection; rather, it is **with regard to** the matter of **a handle,** as the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain.


###### Chullin 119a:17
[Chullin 119a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:17)

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּקוּלְחָא, וּמִשּׁוּם יָד, וּמַאי ״בְּמִשְׁמֻישָׁן״? בְּתַשְׁמִישָׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here, too,** with regard to this proof one can respond that the mishna is discussing a case **where** a dead creeping animal came in contact with **the stalk and** therefore the *halakha* in the mishna is **with regard to** the matter of **a handle.** Since the mishna is referring to a stalk, and the stalk has many pods on it, it serves as a handle to more than an olive-bulk of food, and is consistent with the opinions of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav. **And what** does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk **when handling [*bemashmishan*]** the legumes? He is referring **to using [*betashmishan*],** i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.


###### Chullin 119a:18
[Chullin 119a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:18)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין – חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** proof from that **which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** With regard to the impurity of food the verse states: **“On any sowing seed that is sown”** (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is **typical for people to take it out** to the field for sowing: This applies to **wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells.** It is derived from here that shells and other appendages that protect the food are considered part of the food. Since wheat, barley, and lentil grains are smaller than a bean-bulk, this statement indicates that even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav.


###### Chullin 119a:19
[Chullin 119a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:19)

בְּרִיָּה – שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: A grain is a distinct **entity,** and therefore its status **is different.** The *halakha* of protection is applicable to a distinct entity even if it measures less than a bean-bulk.


###### Chullin 119a:20
[Chullin 119a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/119a:20)

בָּעֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§**Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:**