Mishnah Chullin 9:5-6

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Chullin 9:5-6 delves into the intricate laws of tum'ah (ritual impurity), specifically focusing on shiurim (requisite measures) for various types of impurity and the role of non-food items in completing these measures. The sugya can be mapped as follows:

• Core Issue 1: Korech (Joining) for Tum'at Ochlin vs. Tum'at Nevellah

  • Description: The Mishnah introduces the principle that certain non-food items (hide, gravy, spices, bones, tendons, horns, hooves) join with meat to reach the shiur k'beitza (egg-bulk) required for tum'at ochlin (food impurity). However, these same items do not join to form the shiur k'zayit (olive-bulk) for tum'at nevellah (carcass impurity) or tum'at sheretz (creeping animal impurity), even if they are attached.
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • Distinction in shiurim and joining rules between tum'at ochlin (rabbinic) and tum'at nevellah (Torah).
    • Practical application for handling food items that have come into contact with tamei (impure) sources.
    • Understanding the chumra (stringency) of tum'at ochlin in certain aspects, despite its lesser degree of impurity, due to its broader scope of joining.
  • Primary Sources: Mishnah Chullin 9:5 (first part).

• Core Issue 2: Kulit (Thigh Bone) Impurity – Sealed vs. Perforated, Maga vs. Masa

  • Description: The Mishnah distinguishes the kulit (thigh bone, which contains marrow) of a met (human corpse) and mukdashim (sacrificial animals rendered pigul or notar) from that of a nevellah (non-kosher carcass) or sheretz (creeping animal). The former transmit impurity whether sealed or perforated, while the latter only transmit impurity if perforated. This section also introduces the principle "את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא" (that which can transmit impurity by contact can transmit it by carrying), derived from Leviticus 11:39-40.
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • Defining the shiur and conditions for tum'at atzamot (bone impurity).
    • The relationship between tum'at maga (contact impurity) and tum'at masa (carrying impurity), and whether one implies the other.
    • The concept of shomer (a non-impure item acting as a protector or container for an impure item) in transmitting impurity.
  • Primary Sources: Mishnah Chullin 9:5 (second part), Leviticus 11:39-40.

• Core Issue 3: Miscellaneous Tum'ah Cases

  • Description: The Mishnah covers diverse cases: beitzat sheretz (creeping animal egg), achbar chatzi basar chatzi adamah (mouse half-flesh half-earth), eiver v'basar hatluyim (limbs/flesh hanging from an animal/person), and their susceptibility to impurity.
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • Specific halachot for unique biological entities.
    • The requirement of hachtacha (rendering susceptible) for food items to become impure.
    • The differing opinions of R' Meir and R' Shimon regarding hachtacha by blood and eiver min ha'chai.
  • Primary Sources: Mishnah Chullin 9:6.

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Chullin 9:5-6 (Sefaria.org, with minor adjustments for clarity and adherence to the specified version):

Mishnah Chullin 9:5 "כָּל הָאוֹכָלִין שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ, מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הָאֹכָלִין וְאֶת הַמַּשְׁקִין בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן כְּבֵיצָה. וְהָעוֹר שֶׁבָּהּ, וְהָרוֹטֶב שֶׁבָּהּ, וְהַתַּבְלִין שֶׁבָּהּ, וּפְרִישַׁת הַבָּשָׂר, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַקְּרָנַיִם, וְהַטְּלָפַיִם – מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֹכָלִין, וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. כְּלָל אָמְרוּ, הִרְבָּה הַכָּתוּב לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֹכָלִין יוֹתֵר מִטֻּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פְּרִישַׁת הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּלְקְטָה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּב.

אֵלּוּ עוֹרָן כִּבְשָׂרָן: עוֹר הַמֵּת, וְעוֹר חֲזִיר הַבָּא בַּבַּיִת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עוֹר חֲזִיר הַבָּר. וְעוֹר הַדַּבֶּשֶׁת שֶׁל גָּמָל קָטָן, וְעוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל רַךְ, וְעוֹר רַגְלֵי הַבְּהֵמָה, וְעוֹר הָרֶחֶם, וְעוֹר הָעֻבָּר, וְעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הַזָּנָב, וְעוֹר הָעֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹר הַלְּטָאָה כְּעוֹר הַחֻלְדָּה. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁעִבְּדָן אוֹ שֶׁדָּרַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי עִבּוּד – טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מֵעוֹר הַמֵּת. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם עוֹרוֹת. הַפּוֹשֵׁט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה, בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה – לְבֶגֶד, עַד כְּדֵי אֲחִיזָה. וּלְנֵפֶל, עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הֶחָזֶה. הַפּוֹשֵׁט מִן הָרַגְלַיִם עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כֻּלָּהּ – הֲרֵי זוֹ חִבּוּר לְטֻמְאָה. הִפְשִׁיט אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְנִשְׁאַר בְּצוַאר – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי הוּא חִבּוּר עַד שֶׁיַּפְשִׁיט אֶת כֻּלָּהּ.

עוֹר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּחוּט שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ בְּשֵׂעָר שֶׁמִּן הַצַּד – טָמֵא. הָיוּ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי חֲצִי כְּזֵיתִים – מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲצִי כְּזֵיתִים שֶׁהֵדִיחָן בְּקֵיסָם וְהוֹצִיאָן – שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. וּמַה טַּעַם מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹר – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹר מְבַטְּלָן.

קולית הַמֵּת, וְקולית הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, בֵּין סְתוּמִין בֵּין נְקוּבִין – הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן טָמֵא. קולית הַנְּבֵלָה, וְקולית הַשֶּׁרֶץ – הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן סְתוּמִין טָהוֹר. נִקְּבוּ כָּל שֶׁהֵן – מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע. מִנַּיִן אַף בְּמַשָּׂא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: "וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב" (ויקרא יא לט-מ). אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא. לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא.

Mishnah Chullin 9:6 בֵּיצַת שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּהּ רַקּוֹם – טְהוֹרָה. נִקְּבָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא – טְמֵאָה. הָעַכְבָּר שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ בָּשָׂר וְחֶצְיוֹ אֲדָמָה – הַנּוֹגֵעַ בַּבָּשָׂר – טָמֵא. בָּאֲדָמָה – טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּאֲדָמָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִיא סְמוּכָה לַבָּשָׂר – טָמֵא. הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַתְּלוּיִין בַּבְּהֵמָה – מְטַמְּאִין טֻמְאַת אֹכָלִין בִּמְקוֹמָן. וְצְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר. שְׁחָטָהּ – הֻכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמָהּ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הֻכְשְׁרוּ. מֵתָה – הַבָּשָׂר צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר. הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַנְּבֵלָה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. הָאֵבֶר וְהַבָּשָׂר הַתְּלוּיִין בָּאָדָם – טְהוֹרִין. מֵת – הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר. הָאֵבֶר מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר."

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן כְּבֵיצָה" (in any amount [that forms] an egg-bulk) Chullin 9:5: This phrasing for tum'at ochlin highlights that the shiur is an aggregate, allowing for the joining of various components.
• "מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֹכָלִין, וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת" (they join to transmit food impurity, but do not join to transmit carcass impurity) Chullin 9:5: This stark contrast is the crux of the first halacha, setting up a fundamental distinction between the chumrot (stringencies) of tum'at ochlin (rabbinic) and tum'at nevellah (Torah). The plural "מִצְטָרְפִין" (they join) emphasizes the collective action of diverse elements.
• "פְּרִישַׁת הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּלְקְטָה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּזַיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד – חַיָּב" (meat residue that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place – one is liable) Chullin 9:5 (R' Yehuda): The term "נִלְקְטָה" (collected) implies an act of gathering, which transforms its status from mere residue to something considered as meat, thereby incurring karet liability for tum'at nevellah. This shows the role of human intent (machshavah) in defining halachic status.
• "אֵלּוּ עוֹרָן כִּבְשָׂרָן" (these whose skin is like their flesh) Chullin 9:5: This clause introduces a list of skins that retain the impurity status of flesh, even after flaying, indicating a deviation from the general rule that skin, once removed and processed, is pure.
• "קולית הַמֵּת, וְקולית הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, בֵּין סְתוּמִין בֵּין נְקוּבִין – הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן טָמֵא" (the thigh bone of a corpse, and the thigh bone of consecrated animals, whether sealed or perforated – one who touches them is impure) Chullin 9:5: The phrase "בֵּין סְתוּמִין בֵּין נְקוּבִין" (whether sealed or perforated) is crucial, implying that for these types of kulit, the tum'ah is inherent to the bone itself, or its marrow is always considered accessible, contrasting with nevellah and sheretz.
• "אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא" (that which comes into the category of contact [impurity], comes into the category of carrying [impurity]) Chullin 9:5: This is a fundamental klal (general rule) introduced by the Mishnah, derived from the juxtaposition of "וְהַנֹּגֵעַ" and "וְהַנֹּשֵׂא" in Leviticus 11:39-40, though its application is debated (as we'll see in the commentaries).
• "שְׁחָטָהּ – הֻכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמָהּ" (he slaughtered it – they became susceptible through its blood) Chullin 9:6 (R' Meir): The verb "הֻכְשְׁרוּ" (they were rendered susceptible) is passive, indicating that the act of shechitah itself, and the subsequent blood, automatically confers susceptibility. This is a point of machloket with R' Shimon.

Readings

The Mishnah's discussion of kulit (thigh bone) impurity, particularly the distinction between sealed and perforated bones, and the differing rules for met/mukdashim versus nevellah/sheretz, provides a rich ground for lomdic inquiry. We'll explore the insights of the Rambam, Tosafot Yom Tov, and delve into the more nuanced discussion of the Rashash and Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger regarding the concept of shomer (protector/container) in transmitting impurity.

Rambam: Defining Kulit and the Scope of Tum'at Mukdashim

The Rambam, in his commentary to Mishnah Chullin 9:5, offers foundational definitions and clarifications:

"קולית המת וקולית המוקדשים הנוגע בהן כו': קולית הוא כל עצם שיש בו מוח והוא סתום בשתי קצותיו ומה שאמר מוקדשין רוצה לומר נותר מן המוקדשין שהוא מטמא כמו שיתבאר ומה שאמר מנין אף במשא הוא מדבר על קולית הנבלה אבל כשרץ אין בו טומאת משא כמו שיתבאר בתחלת כלים:" (Rambam on Mishnah Chullin 9:5:1)

Translation: "The kulit of a corpse and the kulit of consecrated animals, one who touches them, etc.: Kulit is any bone that has marrow and is sealed at both its ends. And what it says 'consecrated animals' (מקדשין) it means notar (leftover) from consecrated animals, which transmits impurity as will be explained. And what it says 'from where [do we know] even by carrying?' (מנין אף במשא) it is speaking about the kulit of a nevellah (carcass), but concerning a sheretz (creeping animal), there is no tum'at masa (impurity by carrying) as will be explained at the beginning of Keilim."

Chiddush:

1. Precise Definition of Kulit: The Rambam defines kulit not merely as a thigh bone (though it often refers to it), but as any bone containing marrow and sealed at both ends. This generalizes the halacha beyond a specific anatomical bone to a functional definition. The presence of marrow and the sealed nature are key to its halachic status. This definition is crucial because the marrow is the actual source of tum'ah within the bone for nevellah and sheretz, and its accessibility determines impurity.
2. Clarification of Mukdashim: The term "מוקדשים" (consecrated animals) is clarified to specifically refer to notar (sacrificial meat left beyond its designated time) from consecrated animals, which is metamei (transmits impurity). This is important because not all mukdashim transmit impurity, but notar does, by rabbinic decree, metamei et hayadayim (impure hands) and can also be connected to tum'at ochlin in certain contexts. However, the Mishnah here speaks of kulit mukdashim as metamei by contact, akin to met, which is a chumra that needs explanation. The Rambam's reference to "כמו שיתבאר" (as will be explained) suggests a deeper discussion on the nature of tum'at mukdashim in other contexts, likely relating to tum'at pigul or notar which are tamei by rabbinic decree. This implies that the kulit of mukdashim is tamei due to the basar (flesh/marrow) within it, even if the bone itself isn't the primary source of tum'ah like met.
3. Limiting Tum'at Masa for Sheretz: The Rambam highlights that the klal "את שבא לכלל מגע בא לכלל משא" (that which comes into the category of contact [impurity], comes into the category of carrying [impurity]) applies to kulit nevellah but not to kulit sheretz. This is a significant distinction. While sheretz is a tumat av (primary source of impurity), it is generally less stringent than nevellah in some aspects. The Rambam refers to Keilim for the full explanation, where it's stated that sheretz does not transmit tum'at masa to a person, only to clothing. This implies a nuanced understanding of the klal: it's not a universal equivalence, but rather applies where the Torah itself equates maga and masa for that specific tum'ah. For sheretz, the Torah specifies maga for a person, but masa only for clothing.

Tosafot Yom Tov: Elucidating Mukdashim and the Source of Tum'at Nevellah/Sheretz Bones

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) builds upon the Rambam's commentary, adding layers of nuance, particularly concerning mukdashim and the underlying rationale for bone impurity:

"וקולית המוקדשין . כתב הר"ב שהפגול והנותר מטמאין את הידים. לא מי"ח דבר. דההיא בסתם ידים. כמ"ש שם הר"ב בפ"ק דשבת. וזו בידים שהן טהורים בודאי סמוך לנטילתן ולא אסח דעתיה וכמ"ש ברפ"ג דידים. ומ"ש הר"ב משום חשדי כהונה. קאי אפגול שלא יפגלהו ברצון. כמ"ש בסוף פסחים. ומ"ש הר"ב אף בעצמות ששמשו את הנותר. שנותר בהם מוח חוץ לזמנו ושמשוהו עצמות הללו. רש"י פ"ז דפסחים דף פ"ג:" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Chullin 9:5:1)

Translation: "And the kulit of consecrated animals: The Rav [Rambam] wrote that pigul (sacrificial meat invalidated by improper intent) and notar (leftover sacrificial meat) transmit impurity to hands. Not from the 'eighteen things' (מי"ח דבר), for that refers to hands in general, as the Rav wrote there in the first chapter of Shabbat. But this refers to hands that are certainly pure immediately prior to their washing, and one has not distracted his mind, as written at the beginning of chapter 3 of Yadayim. And what the Rav wrote 'due to suspicion of the priesthood' (חשדי כהונה) refers to pigul, so that one should not willingly invalidate it, as written at the end of Pesachim. And what the Rav wrote 'even concerning bones that served the notar' means that marrow remained in them beyond its time, and these bones served it. Rashi, Pesachim chapter 7, page 83."

"קולית נבלה . כתב הר"ב נבלה אין עצמותיה מטמאים כו' וכן שרץ. דבשרץ נמי דריש בת"כ פרשת שמיני פ"י בנבלתם לא מן העצמות ולא מן השינים כו'. ומ"ש הר"ב ואע"ג דשומר כו' ה"מ בדבר שאפשר ליגע. דתנו רבנן בנבלתה ולא בקולית סתומה. יכול אפילו ניקבה ת"ל הנוגע יטמא [יו"ד יתירא דריש] את שאפשר ליגע טמא. [שם טומאה עליו] א"ל ר' זירא לאביי אלא מעתה בהמה בעורה לא תטמא פוק חזי כמה נקבים יש בה [הפה והחוטם והעינים] גמ':" (Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Chullin 9:5:2)

Translation: "Kulit of a nevellah: The Rav [Rambam] wrote that the bones of a nevellah do not transmit impurity, etc., and similarly for a sheretz. For regarding a sheretz too, it is expounded in Torat Kohanim, Parashat Shemini, chapter 10: 'in their carcass' (בנבלתם) – not from the bones and not from the teeth, etc. And what the Rav wrote 'and even though a shomer etc.' – this applies to something that can be touched. For the Rabbis taught: 'in its carcass' – but not in a sealed kulit. One might think even if it is perforated [it is pure]? Therefore, the verse states 'one who touches it shall be impure' (הנוגע יטמא) – [they expound the extra Yud] that which can be touched is impure. [There is impurity upon it.] R' Zeira said to Abaye: 'If so, an animal with its hide would not transmit impurity? Go out and see how many holes it has!' [the mouth, nose, and eyes] Gemara."

Chiddush:

1. Nuance of Tum'at Mukdashim: TYT clarifies Rambam's statement about kulit mukdashim. He explains that the tum'ah of pigul and notar affecting hands is a specific rabbinic decree, distinct from the "18 things" that impure hands. This decree applies even to hands that were demonstrably clean, implying a gezeirah (rabbinic enactment) to deter misuse of kodashim. The kulit here is tamei because marrow (moach), which is considered basar, remains in the bone after the time for consumption has passed, thereby becoming notar. The kulit itself, therefore, serves as a shomer (container/protector) for this impure marrow, making it impure by association. This is a crucial distinction: the bone isn't tamei as etzem met (corpse bone), but as a container of notar. TYT references Rashi in Pesachim 83a, showing the interpretive lineage.
2. Source for Bone Purity in Nevellah/Sheretz: TYT explicitly provides the drasha (exegetical derivation) from Torat Kohanim (Sifra) on Leviticus 11:29 for why bones of nevellah and sheretz are not inherently metamei. The verse "בנבלתם" (in their carcass) is expounded to exclude "לא מן העצמות ולא מן השינים" (not from the bones and not from the teeth). This establishes the purity of the bone material itself. Therefore, any impurity from a kulit nevellah or sheretz must stem from the marrow within it, which is considered basar.
3. The Shomer Principle and Accessibility: The most profound chiddush here relates to the shomer principle. For a kulit nevellah or sheretz to transmit impurity when perforated, the TYT explains, it must be "את שאפשר ליגע" (that which can be touched). The drasha from "הנוגע יטמא" (one who touches it shall be impure) implies direct contact with the source of impurity (the marrow). A sealed kulit does not allow for direct contact, hence it's pure. TYT then quotes a Gemara (Chullin 119a) where R' Zeira challenges Abaye: if maga requires direct access, then how can a behema be'orah (animal with its hide intact) transmit impurity, given that its hide covers its flesh, and it has "many holes" (mouth, nose, eyes) that don't expose all the flesh? This kushya highlights the tension between requiring direct contact and the reality of tum'ah transmission through a shomer (the hide). The implicit answer, further developed by later Acharonim, is that the hide itself becomes tamei as a shomer if it is protecting enough basar. However, for a kulit nevellah, the bone is not considered a shomer in the same way, unless the marrow is directly accessible.

Rashash and Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger: Deepening the Shomer Conundrum

The Acharonim grapple with the subtleties of shomer and tum'ah boka'at v'olah (impurity that pierces and rises), particularly in light of the kushya from R' Zeira in the Gemara.

Rashash: Shomer for Maga vs. Shomer for Ohel

"בתור"ע אות מ"ז ואף היכא דא"א לבא לידי מגע לא מטמא משום שומר כו' צ"ל דהתם מיקרי אתיא לכלל מגע דאילו מאהיל על העצם שנגד המוח טמא משום טומאה בוקעת ועולה והוי כמגע. וק"ל דהא השתא אכתי לא אסיק אדעתיה דזה נקרא מגע עד שחידש לנו ריו"ח. ואינו אלא אליבא דרבא (ולא לר"ז ואביי כמש"כ לקמן רש"י ותוס' בד"ה ומאן תנא). ול"נ דדוקא בקולית נבלה דלטמא השומר במגע צריך שתהא הטומאה בעצמה ראויה לטמא במגע. אבל הכא לענין שיהא השומר מטמא באהל די לנו שתהא הטומאה עצמה ראויה לטמא באהל. והרי ראויה היא אם האהיל כנגדה:" (Rashash on Mishnah Chullin 9:5:1)

Translation: "In Turei Even, note 47: 'And even where it's impossible to come to contact, it does not transmit impurity due to shomer etc.' It must be said that there it is considered 'coming into contact' because if one ohel (overshadows) the bone that is opposite the marrow, he is impure due to tum'ah boka'at v'olah (impurity that pierces and rises), and it is considered as contact. And it is difficult, for now it has not yet been established that this is called contact until R' Yochanan introduced it to us. And this is only according to Rava (and not according to R' Zeira and Abaye, as Rashi and Tosafot explain later in the dibbur hamatchil 'u'man tanna'). And it appears to me that specifically regarding a kulit nevellah, for the shomer to transmit impurity by contact, the tum'ah itself must be fit to transmit impurity by contact. But here, concerning the shomer transmitting impurity by ohel (overshadowing), it is sufficient for the tum'ah itself to be fit to transmit impurity by ohel. And indeed, it is fit if one ohel over it."

Chiddush: The Rashash addresses the seemingly paradoxical situation where a shomer (like the bone of a kulit nevellah) might not transmit tum'ah via maga but could potentially do so via ohel. He distinguishes between these two modes of impurity transmission. For maga, the shomer only transmits impurity if the underlying tum'ah is "אתי לכלל מגע" (capable of being touched). However, the Rashash suggests that this concept might be subject to machloket Tannaim/Amoraim, specifically Rava's view that tum'ah boka'at v'olah (impurity piercing through an intervening object) is considered maga. This means if one overshadows the bone opposite the marrow, it's considered maga. But Rashash notes this is a later development attributed to R' Yochanan and only accepted by Rava, not R' Zeira and Abaye, who are the source of the kushya about behema be'orah.

The core chiddush of Rashash is the distinction: for shomer to transmit tum'ah through maga, the tum'ah itself (the marrow) must be directly contactable. But for shomer to transmit tum'ah through ohel, it is sufficient if the tum'ah itself is capable of transmitting tum'ah through ohel. A kulit with marrow, even if sealed, can transmit tum'ah through ohel if the marrow is within the ohel space. This explains why a kulit met is tamei whether sealed or perforated – because tum'at met is strong enough to transmit via ohel even without direct access. For kulit nevellah, however, the basar (marrow) is not a tumat ohel itself, only a tumat maga.

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger: Shomer for Kulit Met vs. Kulit Nevellah

"[אות מז] הרע"ב ד"ה קולית נבלה. ואע"ג דשומר מכניס ומוציא. ומ"מ בקולית המת אם יש בתוכו כזית המוח ומקצת העצם שלא כנגד המוח בבית מביא את הטומא' לבית מדין שומר. ואף דעור הוי שומר לבשר בעינן דווקא שיגע בעור כנגד הבשר. מ"מ בקולית כיון דאם ינקב ישפך המוח מקרי כולו שומר כך מבואר במסכתין (דף קי"ט ע"א) וברש"י שם. ואף היכא דא"א לבא לידי מגע לא מטמא משום שומר כמו הכא קולית נבילה סתומה צ"ל דהתם מקרי אתיא לכלל מגע דאילו מאהיל על העצם שנגד המוח טמא משום טומאה בוקעת ועולה והוי כמגע ועיין מהרש"א (דף קכ"א ע"ב) בתד"ה נוגע אין:" (Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Mishnah Chullin 9:5:1)

Translation: "[Note 47] The Rav [Rambam] in dibbur hamatchil 'kulit nevellah': And even though a shomer brings in and takes out. Nevertheless, regarding a kulit met, if there is within it an olive-bulk of marrow and some part of the bone not opposite the marrow in a house, it brings tum'ah into the house by the law of shomer. And even though hide is a shomer for flesh, we specifically require contact with the hide opposite the flesh. Nevertheless, regarding a kulit, since if it were perforated the marrow would spill out, the entire thing is considered a shomer, as is explained in the tractate (Chullin 119a) and in Rashi there. And even where it is impossible to come to contact, it does not transmit impurity due to shomer, as here, a sealed kulit nevellah. It must be said that there it is considered 'coming into contact' because if one ohel (overshadows) the bone that is opposite the marrow, he is impure due to tum'ah boka'at v'olah (impurity that pierces and rises), and it is considered as contact. And see Maharsha (Chullin 121b) in dibbur hamatchil 'nogea ein'."

Chiddush: Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger (TRAE) delves deeper into the mechanism of shomer for kulit.

1. Scope of Shomer for Kulit Met: TRAE affirms that a kulit met (even sealed) with a k'zayit of marrow and surrounding bone can transmit tum'ah to a house via ohel because the entire kulit acts as a shomer for the marrow. This is a chumra for tum'at met. The reasoning is that the bone, by containing the marrow, is intrinsically linked to the tum'ah.
2. Distinction for Kulit Nevellah: TRAE then contrasts this with kulit nevellah stumah (sealed). He reiterates that a sealed kulit nevellah does not transmit impurity via shomer by maga. The critical point is "אתי לכלל מגע" – the source of impurity (the marrow) must be potentially accessible for direct contact. If it's sealed, it's not.
3. Reconciling Tum'ah Boka'at V'olah: TRAE then brings in the concept of tum'ah boka'at v'olah. He explains that if one ohels (overshadows) the bone opposite the marrow, it is considered maga due to tum'ah boka'at v'olah. This means the tum'ah is perceived as "piercing" the intervening material. This is a crucial chiddush that allows for a broader application of maga where seemingly direct contact is absent. However, as Rashash noted, this concept is itself subject to machloket and might not apply universally. The implication is that even if not literally touched, the tum'ah can still be effective if its presence is "felt" through a thin barrier. This explains R' Zeira's kushya to Abaye about the hide, suggesting that the hide, in certain contexts, is considered permeable enough for the tum'ah to "reach" the outside, or the hide itself becomes tamei as a shomer.

In summary, the Rambam provides the basic framework and definitions. TYT clarifies the rabbinic nature of some tum'ot and the textual basis for bone purity. Rashash and TRAE then dive into the complex interplay of shomer, maga, masa, and ohel, demonstrating how the halacha differentiates based on the type of impurity and the accessibility of its source. The kushya about behema be'orah and the responses involving tum'ah boka'at v'olah reveal the depth of rabbinic analysis in defining the boundaries of tum'ah.

Friction

One of the most profound points of friction within this Mishnah, and indeed across Seder Taharot, revolves around the application of the shomer principle, particularly concerning the kulit (thigh bone). The Mishnah states that a kulit met and kulit mukdashim transmit impurity whether sealed or perforated, while a kulit nevellah or kulit sheretz only transmit impurity if perforated. This distinction, especially regarding a sealed kulit, begs for a robust explanation, particularly when considering the Gemara's discussion on the nature of shomer.

The Strongest Kushya: Why the Distinction in Sealed Bones?

The core kushya arises from the differing halachot for a sealed kulit:

1. Kulit Met* (sealed): *Tamei: If a human thigh bone, containing marrow, is sealed at both ends, one who touches it becomes impure.
2. Kulit Nevellah* or Sheretz (sealed): *Tahor: If an animal carcass or creeping animal thigh bone, containing marrow, is sealed at both ends, one who touches it remains pure.

The kushya is: What is the fundamental difference that dictates this divergent halacha? Both contain impure material (marrow, which is basar for nevellah/sheretz, and also basar for met). In both cases, the bone serves as a shomer (container/protector) for the impure marrow. If the bone acts as a shomer for kulit met, allowing the impurity to be transmitted through it, why does it not act as a shomer for kulit nevellah or sheretz?

The Gemara (Chullin 119a) itself hints at this difficulty through R' Zeira's challenge to Abaye, as cited by Tosafot Yom Tov: if maga requires direct contact, then how can an entire behema be'orah (animal with its hide intact) transmit impurity, given that its hide covers its flesh? This kushya is deeply relevant to our kulit issue, as the bone of a sealed kulit is analogous to the hide of a behema be'orah – an intervening layer preventing direct contact with the primary source of impurity (the flesh/marrow).

Exploring the Kushya's Facets:

• The Nature of Shomer: The concept of shomer dictates that an item protecting or containing tum'ah can sometimes become tamei itself, or facilitate the transmission of tum'ah through it. However, this Mishnah suggests a qualitative difference in how shomer functions based on the type of tum'ah.
• The Severity of Tum'ah: Tum'at Met is the most severe form of impurity. Does its inherent stringency ('חומרת טומאת מת') override the requirement for direct contact, or the usual rules of shomer?
• The Source of Impurity: For kulit met, the bone itself is a source of tum'ah if it's a k'se'orah (barley-grain size) bone from a corpse. However, for kulit nevellah/sheretz, the bone itself is tahor (pure), and only the marrow (basar) is tamei. Could this be the key?

The Best Terutz (or Two):

The Acharonim, building on earlier sources, offer nuanced resolutions to this kushya, often drawing distinctions based on the nature of the tum'ah and the concept of shomer.

Terutz 1: The Distinction in the Tum'ah Itself – Tum'at Atzamot vs. Tum'at Basar

The most direct and widely accepted terutz focuses on the fundamental difference in the nature of the tum'ah itself for met versus nevellah/sheretz.

• For Kulit Met: The bone of a met is inherently metamei as etzem met (bone of a corpse) if it has a shiur k'se'orah. The marrow within it is basar met, which is also metamei. Therefore, the entire kulit – bone and marrow – is a source of tum'ah. The Mishnah states "קולית המת... בֵּין סְתוּמִין בֵּין נְקוּבִין – הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן טָמֵא." This suggests that even the bone of the kulit met itself, when touched, is imparting impurity. It doesn't rely solely on the marrow being accessible. As the Maharsha (Chullin 121b s.v. "נוגע אין") explains, tum'at met is so severe that even the bone, in its sealed state, is considered to have its impurity "penetrate" or be transmitted by its outer casing. The kulit is not merely a shomer for basar met; it is etzem met, which is a tumat av (primary source of impurity).

• For Kulit Nevellah/Sheretz: As explained by Tosafot Yom Tov (Chullin 9:5:2 s.v. "קולית נבלה"), the Torah explicitly states that the bones of a nevellah or sheretz are tahor ("בנבלתם לא מן העצמות"). Therefore, the bone itself does not transmit impurity. The only impure component within the kulit nevellah/sheretz is the marrow (moach), which is considered basar nevellah or basar sheretz. For basar to transmit tum'ah by maga, there must be direct contact with the basar itself, or at least a situation where the shomer (the bone) allows for that contact. When the kulit is sealed, there is no direct contact with the marrow. Hence, the principle "את שאפשר ליגע טמא" (that which can be touched is impure) from the drasha on "הנוגע יטמא" (Leviticus 11:39) applies. The bone, being tahor in itself, cannot effectively transmit the tum'ah of the marrow when sealed because it's not "permeable" in the halachic sense for this tum'ah. It only acts as a shomer to protect the marrow, not to transmit its impurity when sealed.

This terutz elegantly resolves the kushya by highlighting the different halachic identities of the bones themselves. Kulit met is impure as a bone, whereas kulit nevellah is pure as a bone, with impurity only stemming from its contents, which require accessibility.

Terutz 2: The Concept of Tum'ah Boka'at V'olah and Shomer Effectiveness

A secondary, yet significant, terutz, explored by the Rashash and TRAE, involves the concept of tum'ah boka'at v'olah (impurity that pierces and rises) and a more nuanced understanding of shomer.

• For Kulit Met: For tum'at met, the impurity is so severe that it is considered to "pierce" through intervening layers, even solid ones. This is akin to tum'at ohel (tent impurity) where the mere presence of a met in an enclosed space renders everything within it impure, regardless of direct contact. While the kulit itself might be a solid bone, the stringency of tum'at met implies that its impurity is transmitted even through the sealed bone, perhaps by a rabbinic gezeirah extending the concept of tum'ah boka'at v'olah or ohel to maga for met. As TRAE suggests (Chullin 9:5:1 s.v. "הרע"ב ד"ה קולית נבלה"), the entire kulit of a met is considered a shomer that brings tum'ah into a house even if sealed, by this very principle of tum'ah boka'at v'olah or an extended din shomer.

• For Kulit Nevellah/Sheretz: For nevellah and sheretz, the tum'ah of basar is less severe than tum'at met. It does not inherently "pierce" solid objects. Therefore, for a sealed kulit nevellah, the bone acts as an impenetrable barrier. The Rashash (Chullin 9:5:1 s.v. "בתור"ע אות מ"ז") clarifies that for a shomer to transmit tum'ah by maga, the underlying impurity must be "fit to transmit impurity by contact." A sealed bone prevents this fitness. While tum'ah boka'at v'olah could apply in cases where one ohels over the marrow, this is distinct from maga. The bone, being tahor, nullifies (מבטל) the small amount of marrow when sealed, as it is not considered "אתי לכלל מגע." This is similar to R' Akiva's position earlier in the Mishnah regarding two half k'zeitim on a hide, where the hide "מבטלן" (nullifies them) from transmitting impurity by contact or carrying.

In essence, the terutzim converge on the idea that the halachic potency and penetrative capability of tum'at met are distinct from tum'at nevellah/sheretz. While tum'at met permeates, tum'at nevellah/sheretz requires accessibility. The shomer (bone) acts differently depending on the nature and stringency of the tum'ah it contains. For met, the shomer transmits; for nevellah, it blocks unless perforated.

Intertext

The intricate debates surrounding tum'ah in our Mishnah, particularly the interplay of maga (contact), masa (carrying), and ohel (overshadowing), and the definition of what constitutes a shomer or a chibbur (joining), find significant parallels and cross-references across Seder Taharot and even Tanakh. These parallels highlight the rabbinic methodology of deriving and applying complex principles from scriptural verses and then extending or refining them through svara (logical reasoning) and gezeirot.

1. Leviticus 11:39-40 and the Klal of Maga and Masa

The Mishnah itself cites Leviticus 11:39-40 as the source for the klal: "אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא. לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, לֹא בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא" (that which comes into the category of contact [impurity], comes into the category of carrying [impurity]; that which does not come into the category of contact [impurity], does not come into the category of carrying [impurity]).

"וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִיא לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב: וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב" (Leviticus 11:39-40)

Parallelism and Debate: The juxtaposition of "הַנֹּגֵעַ" (one who touches) and "וְהַנֹּשֵׂא" (and one who carries) in these verses is the textual basis for the Mishnah's klal. However, as the Mishnat Eretz Yisrael (Chullin 9:5:3-7 s.v. "מניין אף במשא") highlights, this klal is far from universally accepted or applied without qualification. The very next Mishnah (Chullin 9:5) itself presents a machloket between R' Yishmael and R' Akiva regarding two half k'zeitim on a hide: R' Yishmael says metamei b'masa but not b'maga, directly contradicting the klal. R' Akiva holds lo b'maga v'lo b'masa.

This introduces a crucial tension: is the verse a universal rule or a specific instance? The Tosefta Ohalot 3:7 (cited by Mishnat Eretz Yisrael) records an extensive debate among R' Eliezer, R' Yehoshua, and R' Akiva regarding the golel (stone covering a grave) and dofek (stone supporting the golel).

• R' Eliezer argues for masa impurity for golel by kal v'chomer (a fortiori) from nevellah.
• R' Akiva argues that maga is more encompassing than masa, citing cases like the golel and dofek that transmit by maga but not masa.
• R' Yehoshua then argues that ohel is more encompassing than masa.

This machloket demonstrates that the relationship between maga, masa, and ohel is complex and not always hierarchical or strictly bound by a simple klal. The Sifrei Zuta (Yitro 19:16, cited by Mishnat Eretz Yisrael) further complicates this, showing R' Akiva arguing that the Torah makes maga more encompassing than masa, which seems to contradict his position in our Mishnah (where he denies both maga and masa for the two half k'zeitim on the hide). This intra-Tannaitic friction underscores that even seemingly straightforward scriptural derivations can be subject to profound and multifaceted interpretations, revealing that halachah is not a monolithic structure but a dynamic system of principles, exceptions, and debates.

2. Mishnah Ohalot and the Laws of Shomer and Chibbur

The discussion of shomer (protector/container) in our Mishnah, particularly concerning the kulit and the hide, resonates deeply with the laws of tum'at ohel and chibbur (connection) in Mishnah Ohalot.

• Mishnah Ohalot 4:3: This Mishnah discusses a knife handle made from a kulit. It states that if the kulit is of a met, it makes the entire knife tamei by maga, implying that the kulit itself, as etzem met, is a source of tum'ah. If it's a kulit nevellah, it only makes the handle tamei if it's perforated and the marrow is exposed. This directly parallels our Mishnah and reinforces the distinction between kulit met and kulit nevellah based on the inherent impurity of the bone itself versus the contained marrow requiring accessibility.

  • Implication: The kulit here acts as a shomer for its contents (marrow) and also as a chibbur to the knife, extending the tum'ah. The specific halachot from our Mishnah are practically applied to a common utensil.

• Mishnah Ohalot 3:1-2: These mishnayot discuss various items that create ohel over tum'ah (e.g., a basket, a jar). The principle is that any k'li (vessel) that can contain tum'ah also acts as an ohel to transmit it. The debates there often revolve around the integrity of the container and whether it genuinely "seals" the tum'ah or allows it to escape. This is analogous to our discussion of sealed versus perforated kulit.

  • Connection to Shomer: The kulit itself, when sealed, functions as a container. For tum'at met, the container itself (the bone) is also tamei. For tum'at nevellah, the container (the bone) is tahor, and it only contains the tamei marrow. The Ohalot discussions on what constitutes an effective ohel or magaf (seal) provide the conceptual backdrop for understanding why a sealed kulit nevellah does not transmit tum'ah – the bone is a sufficient "seal" against the less potent tum'ah of nevellah marrow.

These intertextual parallels demonstrate the systematic nature of halachic reasoning. Principles established in one context (e.g., Ohalot's detailed rules of ohel and containers) are then applied and nuanced in another (e.g., Chullin's specific cases of kulit and korech). The consistent thread is the meticulous attention to shiurim, accessibility, and the qualitative differences between various sources and modes of impurity, all rooted in a careful reading of the Torah and elaborated through rabbinic discourse.

Psak/Practice

The laws of tum'ah v'taharah (ritual purity and impurity) discussed in Mishnah Chullin 9:5-6 are largely not practically observed in contemporary Jewish life. The destruction of the Beit Hamikdash (Holy Temple) and the cessation of korbanot (sacrifices) mean that most halachot related to tum'at ochlin, tum'at nevellah, and tum'at met (except for tum'at kohanim in some respects) are not applicable today. We do not handle terumah or kodashim in a state of taharah.

However, this does not render the sugya irrelevant. Its enduring significance lies in its contribution to meta-psak heuristics, the methodology of halachic reasoning, and the fundamental principles it elucidates that resonate throughout other areas of halacha.

Meta-Psak Heuristics and Broader Halachic Principles:

1. The Significance of Shiurim (Measures): The Mishnah's opening discussion on korech and shiur k'beitza for tum'at ochlin versus shiur k'zayit for tum'at nevellah underscores the critical role of shiurim in halacha. This meticulous attention to quantitative measures is a hallmark of halachic thought, appearing in kashrut (e.g., bitul b'shishim), Shabbat (e.g., hotza'ah), and many other areas. The very idea that non-food items can "join" to reach a shiur for tum'at ochlin but not for tum'at nevellah highlights a meta-halachic principle: Chazal (the Sages) sometimes employed gezeirot (rabbinic decrees) or takanot (ordinances) with a wider scope (e.g., tum'at ochlin generally being de'rabanan) than de'oraita (Torah) laws, or conversely, restricted de'oraita laws to their precise textual parameters.

2. The Nuance of Shomer (Protector/Container): The intricate debate regarding the kulit of met versus nevellah/sheretz, and whether a sealed bone acts as an effective shomer for impurity transmission, is a profound study in the halachic concept of shomer. This concept extends beyond tum'ah to areas like kashrut (e.g., an item acting as a shomer for treif food) and Hilchot Shabbat (e.g., a covering for muktzah). The distinction between a shomer that simply contains and one that facilitates transmission based on the nature of the contained tum'ah (as seen in our terutzim) is a sophisticated analytical tool.

3. Distinguishing De'oraita from De'rabanan: The Mishnah's repeated contrast between tum'at ochlin (often de'rabanan) and tum'at nevellah (de'oraita) serves as a constant reminder of the fundamental hierarchy in halacha. While Chazal could be stringent in their gezeirot, they were also careful to delineate when a halacha stemmed directly from the Torah and when it was a rabbinic enactment. This distinction impacts the severity of transgression, the scope of application, and the permissibility of safek (doubt).

4. The Role of Hachtacha (Rendering Susceptible): The final section of the Mishnah, discussing eiver v'basar hatluyim and the requirement of hachtacha for food to become impure, is a cornerstone of Hilchot Tum'at Ochlin. The debate between R' Meir and R' Shimon regarding blood as a machshir (agent that renders susceptible) highlights the precise conditions under which food becomes vulnerable to impurity. This concept, while primarily relevant to tum'ah, showcases the meticulousness required in defining preconditions for halachic states.

5. The Power of Drasha and Hermeneutics: The derivation of "אֶת שֶׁבָּא לִכְלַל מַגָּע, בָּא לִכְלַל מַשָּׂא" from Leviticus 11:39-40, despite its internal debates, exemplifies how Chazal extract broad principles from seemingly specific scriptural juxtapositions. This hermeneutic approach (midrash halacha) is foundational to the entire Oral Torah.

In contemporary halacha, while the specific outcomes of these tum'ah laws are not practiced, the rigorous analytical framework, the meticulous definitions, the careful weighing of chumra and kula (stringency and leniency), and the systematic approach to shiurim, chibburim, and underlying principles, form the bedrock of all halachic discourse. A posek today, grappling with complex kashrut questions or Hilchot Shabbat, draws upon the same intellectual toolkit honed through studying such sugyot in Seder Taharot. The very process of understanding why a kulit met is tamei while a kulit nevellah is tahor when sealed, despite both containing impure marrow, trains the mind to identify minute distinctions and their far-reaching halachic implications.

Takeaway

This sugya masterfully demonstrates the meticulous and multi-layered nature of halachic reasoning, illustrating how the type of tum'ah dictates its shiurim, the effectiveness of shomer items, and the conditions for transmission, thereby revealing a sophisticated system of both scriptural derivation and rabbinic elaboration. It underscores that even seemingly minor distinctions between met and nevellah or maga and masa are rooted in fundamental principles that shape the entire edifice of halacha.