## Chullin Daf 125b

###### Chullin 125b:1
[Chullin 125b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:1)

הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּכַחֲצִי זַיִת, וְדָבָר אַחֵר מַאֲהִיל עָלָיו וְעַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 125b:2
[Chullin 125b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:2)

וְאִי חַד שְׁמָא הוּא, אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? אֶלָּא, קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:3
[Chullin 125b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּטוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה בֵּין שְׁנֵי מִגְדָּלִים עָסְקִינַן, וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, דְּכוּלַּהּ נְגִיעָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Yoḥanan that imparting impurity via contact and via a tent are considered the same concept.


###### Chullin 125b:4
[Chullin 125b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:4)

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דְּקָרֵי לְאֹהֶל ״נוֹגֵעַ״? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מְלֹא תַרְוָוד רָקָב מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע, וּבְמַשָּׂא, וּבְאֹהֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 125b:5
[Chullin 125b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:6
[Chullin 125b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:6)

וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״נוֹגֵעַ״, וְהָא קָתָנֵי ״מַאֲהִיל״! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְמַטָּה מִטֶּפַח – אֹהֶל נְגִיעָה, לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח – אֹהֶל גְּרֵידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 125b:7
[Chullin 125b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:7)

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח נָמֵי אֹהֶל נְגִיעָה הוּא, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי אֹהֶל גְּרֵידָא? בְּהַמְשָׁכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:8
[Chullin 125b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: חֲבִילֵי מִטָּה וּסְרִיגֵי חַלּוֹנוֹת חוֹצְצִין בֵּין הַבַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּיה, שֶׁלֹּא לְהַכְנִיס טוּמְאָה לְצַד שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:9
[Chullin 125b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:9)

פְּרָסָן עַל פְּנֵי הַמֵּת בַּאֲוִיר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב – טָמֵא, שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב – טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 125b:10
[Chullin 125b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:10)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַטָּה מִטֶּפַח, שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב – אַמַּאי טָהוֹר? מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ הִיא, וּמֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ מְטַמֵּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 125b:11
[Chullin 125b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:11)

אֶלָּא לָאו לְמַעְלָה מִטֶּפַח, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״נוֹגֵעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:12
[Chullin 125b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לְמַטָּה מִטֶּפַח, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ הוּא – מֵת בִּכְסוּתוֹ מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ, הַאי לָא מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:13
[Chullin 125b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:13)

וְתֶהֱוֵי כְּטוּמְאָה טְמוּנָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה? קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: טוּמְאָה טְמוּנָה אֵינָהּ בּוֹקַעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 125b:14
[Chullin 125b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:14)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא? דִּתְנַן: תֵּיבַת הַמִּגְדָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח וְאֵין בִּיצִיאָתָהּ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח, טוּמְאָה בְּתוֹכָהּ – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא; טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת – מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:15
[Chullin 125b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:15)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טוּמְאָה לָצֵאת, וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ טוּמְאָה לִיכָּנֵס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 125b:16
[Chullin 125b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:16)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוּא לְהוֹצִיאָהּ לַחֲצָאִין, אוֹ לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 125b:17
[Chullin 125b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/125b:17)

וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הֶעֱמִידָהּ בַּפֶּתַח, וּפִתְחָהּ לַחוּץ – טוּמְאָה בְּתוֹכָהּ, הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר; טוּמְאָה בַּבַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.