On yesterday's page, we discussed that at certain times, the ritual impurity of a covering is referred to as the ritual impurity of touch. The covering is considered as if one is touching it. **Rabbi Yosef**'s opinion was that anyone who creates a covering over a corpse, even if the covering is higher than a handbreadth, is considered to be "touching" the impurity. This means it doesn't necessarily have to be lower than a handbreadth. I pointed out that even if you create a covering higher than a handbreadth, it is considered as if one is touching it. So, I will now search for a source for this view of **Rabbi Yosef**.
**Rabbi Yosef** says that in ancient times, beds had a frame with ropes strung across them, upon which a mattress was placed. These were called "bed ropes." Similarly, window guards were made of thin pieces of wood or metal, like modern window guards, which also had openings. If these items were used as a temporary roof or ceiling to separate a lower floor from an upper floor, and there was ritual impurity on the bottom floor, the question arises whether the impurity could ascend to the second floor. If it were a regular, solid roof, the impurity would not ascend. However, since these items (ropes or guards) have holes or openings and are not flush, the Mishnah states that they break the continuity of the impurity, preventing it from ascending to the next level, provided they are fixed permanently as a ceiling. Once fixed, they become part of the house, and the house itself acts as a barrier. Therefore, if there is a corpse on the bottom floor and these ropes or guards are overhead, blocking the space, even with spaces between the wood or ropes, the partition is considered like garments. The rule is that as long as the spaces are less than a handbreadth, the impurity does not pass through.
However, what if you didn't actually fix the ropes or guards, but merely placed them there temporarily, just holding them over the space? In this case, the text states that anyone who touches the impurity through a hole in these ropes or guards will cause the impurity to pass through the holes. But if one does not touch through the holes, it is permissible. The question then becomes: how close must this temporary ceiling be to the corpse? If it is within a handbreadth, we consider it like the corpse's garments, and therefore it becomes ritually impure, just as the shrouds of a corpse become impure. Since it is so close, the impurity passes right through it. This implies that the discussion is about a situation where the covering is *higher* than a handbreadth. And what did **Rabbi Yosef** say in the Mishnah? That regarding the holes, it is considered "touching." He uses the term "touching," even though it is a covering. So, you see, he refers to a covering higher than a handbreadth as "touching." This is the proof.
**Abaye** responded, "No, it is always referring to a situation where the covering is *lower* than a handbreadth. You have no proof from the concept of 'corpse's garments' because the garments of a corpse are nullified to the corpse, receiving impurity like the corpse itself, and therefore they do not interfere with the impurity; the impurity passes right through them. However, even if it is very low, you cannot consider these pieces of string or ropes as mere garments. Therefore, when placed there, they would still prevent the impurity unless there are holes. So, whether it's above a handbreadth, below a handbreadth, close or not close, if it's less than a handbreadth, we have a general rule that the impurity breaks through the item and goes all the way up. There is no other concept that when it's less than a handbreadth, the impurity is going to break through. This is **Rabbi Yosef**'s view. Where do you see that **Rabbi Yosef** does not hold of this 'impurity breaking through' concept?"
The **Tana Kama** discusses a box, a "tower," that is six handbreadths by a handbreadth, meaning it has an internal volume of at least a handbreadth by a handbreadth by a handbreadth, but its opening is not a handbreadth. If there is impurity inside the box, the house becomes ritually impure. However, what is *inside* the box remains ritually pure. If the box itself has impurity on it, it renders the house impure. But if the house has impurity, it does not render the box impure. The rule is that in the first case, where the impurity is in the box itself, since there is a minimum quantity of a handbreadth inside, and the corpse is within it, you cannot say that the impurity will "bust out." When do we say impurity "busts out"? When it is in a space less than a handbreadth. But if it has a handbreadth, we do not say it will bust out of the box. The question is, why is the house then impure? The explanation is that eventually, this corpse in the box will be taken out into the room. There is a rule that any corpse destined to eventually come out into the room renders the room impure immediately. You are not leaving the corpse in the box; eventually, you have to take it out. So, since it is destined to end up in the house, it is as if it is already in the house, and therefore the house is impure from now, by way of the impurity entering. But in the reverse case, when the impurity is in the house, it does not matter what is in the box, because we do not say it is the way of the impurity to go into the box itself.
**Rabbi Yosef** argues with a smile, saying that even when the impurity is in the box, your logic that "since it's coming out, it's considered like it's out already" is flawed. He says, "No, I can take it out in a way where it won't render impure; I can take it out in small pieces, where it won't render impure. Or I can burn it in the box, and therefore it will not become impure either." So, he holds that whether the impurity is in the house or in the box, everything remains ritually pure. We haven't yet proven this.
The end of that discussion presents a new case: "I took the box and I put it at the door of the house." The opening of the box is facing outside. The ruling is that if there is impurity in the box, the house is ritually pure. Why? Because in this case, even though the corpse will eventually come out, it will come out *outside*, since the opening is facing outside. Therefore, it will be permissible. Also, what is in the house will not determine what is in the box for the same reasons; we do not say that what is in the house is going to end up in the box. On this Baraita, we have another Baraita that says **Rabbi Yosef** declares it ritually pure. The Gemara asks, "Which case is **Rabbi Yosef** referring to when he declares it pure?" If it's the last case (box at the door), everyone agrees it's pure; he wouldn't be adding anything. Rather, he must be talking about one of the original cases. In the original case, we said if there's impurity in the box, the house is impure because eventually, the contents will come out into the house. There are two reasons why what's in the house can be impure: either because of the logic I explained (it's destined to come out), or because we're talking about a small box. So, if we're talking about a small box, the **Tana Kama** would hold that the impurity "busts through," and **Rabbi Yosef** would still declare it pure in that case. So, you see what? **Rabbi Yosef** holds that even when you have less than a handbreadth, we do not say the impurity "busts out." We proved it! No, that's what I'm saying: either for two reasons, either because there's a handbreadth and the impurity is going to end up coming out. Even if there's no handbreadth, the **Tana Kama** would say it "busts out," and **Rabbi Yosef** still says it's pure. Oh, so you see, there's no concept of impurity "breaking through." The Gemara says that **Rabbi Yosef** argues with the **Tana Kama** on two points: first, that the idea of "destined to come out" is not a reason to declare impurity, because he can burn it in the box or take it out in small pieces. Second, that which you said, "if it's less than a handbreadth, the impurity busts out," he doesn't agree with that. So, clearly, you see **Rabbi Yosef** holds that even when you have less than a handbreadth in the box, he does not say the impurity "breaks through."
However, we have a contradiction. The Gemara brings a very interesting case from tractate **Aholot**: "A dog that ate meat from a corpse." So, it has impurity in its stomach. "And the dog died." Now, the dog's body itself is not impure, but the contents of its stomach are impure because it is the impurity of a corpse. The dog is lying on the stoop, with part of its body in the house and part out. For example, its body is outside the house, and its neck is in the house, with the meat (impurity) on the outside. If the dog were not dead, its body would serve as a barrier. But when it's dead, the body doesn't interfere. The dead dog is a carcass. If the dog's neck, specifically its mouth, has an opening the size of a handbreadth, it brings the impurity into the house. The top of the dog's body creates a covering over the bottom of its body. Since the mouth is bigger than a handbreadth, the impurity will go out of the mouth into the house. But if its mouth is not the size of a handbreadth, it does not bring the impurity into the house. This is the view of **Rabbi Meir**.
**Rabbi Eliezer** says you measure the dog where the impurity is, meaning you look at the threshold of the house. If the impurity (the dog's stomach) is inside the threshold, then the house is impure. But if it's by the threshold and out, you measure where the dog's stomach is. According to **Rabbi Eliezer**, it's a very easy calculation. This is the second opinion. Now we have four opinions on this dog case. **Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira** says, "If his mouth is inside and his backside is outside, it's pure, because where is the impurity going to come out? From his backside." But if his mouth is outside and his backside is inside, it's impure, because the impurity will eventually come into the house when he releases it. So, he just looks at the direction. This is **Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira**'s view. The fourth opinion is that of **Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira**, who says, "In either case, the house is impure." He doesn't care which way the dog is facing; as long as there is a handbreadth in its mouth, it's always impure. So, basically, **Rabbi Yosef** (as interpreted by some) says you look at the impurity; if it's in the house, the house is impure; if it's outside, the house is pure. This seems to be talking about a case where there is *no* handbreadth in the neck. It sounds like **Rabbi Yosef** holds that even if there's no handbreadth, the question is where the impurity is. If the animal's stomach is inside or outside, what do you see here? The reason must be that even though there's less than a handbreadth, the impurity is going to "bust out." You just told me that **Rabbi Yosef** says that when there is less than a handbreadth, the impurity doesn't "bust out" in the box case. But now you are telling me that even though the neck doesn't have a handbreadth, how does the impurity get out then? Most pieces are less than a handbreadth; it just breaks through. Also, you see **Rabbi Yosef** must hold that impurity "breaks through" even with less than a handbreadth.
**Abaye** says, "No, we thought that **Rabbi Yosef** was being strict, because the **Tana Kama** said everything goes with the size of a handbreadth, not less than a handbreadth. **Rabbi Yosef** says, 'No, there's no handbreadth; the impurity is going to go into the house.' We're talking about being strict, that the handbreadth is not an issue." He says, "No, he is coming along and saying that even if the neck has the minimum quantity of a handbreadth, **Rabbi Yosef** is lenient." This means that if the circumference of the dog's neck, including flesh and bones, is the size of a handbreadth, the impurity will go out. However, **Rabbi Yosef** would say, "No, the minimum quantity of a handbreadth has to be in the *opening* of the hollow space itself, not counting neck, bone, flesh, and all that." So, he is more strict. He says you need a handbreadth of hollow space to make the impurity come out. He is just saying you don't need the handbreadth; we're not so strict. Don't assume that the impurity is going to come out even if the handbreadth is for the circumference of the neck with all those bones. You don't count that. Impurity is not coming out. When will the impurity come out? If you have a handbreadth in the actual mouth itself. But the Gemara says, "Now **Rabbi Yosef** came along and said, 'We look at the hollow space, which is the opening, and you see the gut on his neck, his throat, to see how wide it is.' Now, if it actually has a handbreadth, then the impurity will come out. If it doesn't have a handbreadth, it won't come out." And **Rabbi Yosef** argues on two things. Number one, **Rabbi Meir** didn't care where the dog was; he just held that if there's a handbreadth, the impurity goes in. **Rabbi Yosef** argues on that also, saying, "Only if the impurity is in the house. But if the impurity is outside the house, no." So, according to **Rabbi Yosef**, two things are needed: the impurity must be in the house, and the mouth must have a handbreadth for the impurity to come out. So, he is being lenient. Thus, we have no proof for the concept of impurity "breaking through." We were trying to bring a proof that **Rabbi Yosef** holds the impurity "busts through." No, he requires a handbreadth. But the Gemara says, "No, **Rabbi Meir** is saying you're lenient, you're strict, that you count the handbreadth even in the neck, and therefore the impurity is going to go in." **Rabbi Yosef** says, "No, you only count the actual hollow space, the actual opening of the mouth itself as a handbreadth. It's got to be in the house itself, the impurity, meaning the stomach of the animal, has to be in the house itself." So, we have no contradiction in **Rabbi Yosef**'s view. This is because **Rabbi Meir** didn't care where the impurity was. **Rabbi Meir**'s rule was, "I don't care if the impurity is outside." **Rabbi Yosef** says, "No, no, no, I told you I need a handbreadth; I know it's got to be inside." No, no, no, because **Rabbi Yosef** clearly said that **Rabbi Yosef** never made a difference what position the dog was in. **Rabbi Yosef** is the one that said impurity outside, impurity inside. We just didn't know: handbreadth or no handbreadth? So, his novelty was that he's talking about even a handbreadth, meaning a handbreadth in size. That's it.
Now, I was going to prove this. Look at the next line: **Tavacha bered Ravah** explicitly states, "**Rabbi Yosef** says, 'We look at the hollow space of the impurity.'" That is clearly the hollow space of the impurity. You see, because in our text it said, "We look at the impurity." But in the text of **Tavacha bered Ravah**, it says, "We look at the hollow space of the impurity." Also, the hollow space of the impurity, that's clearly what we're talking about, the opening of the mouth. We want to read into our text and say, "We look at the impurity" means you look at the neck itself, the hole, the throat. And he says clearly to have a text like that: "We look at the impurity."
Now, back to our original point: **Rabbi Yosef** says that the ritual impurity of a covering and the ritual impurity of touch are the same impurity. If, for instance, a person touched something and at the same time there was a roof, he is ritually pure. We learned the Mishnah like that, because if you hold that a covering is called touching, then it's the same impurity. But there was a Mishnah that we learned that said, "No, if you have touching here and a roof here, they do not combine." So, obviously, that opinion does not agree that a covering is called touching. Who is the rabbi that argues with **Rabbi Yosef**, who does not call the ritual impurity of a covering the ritual impurity of touch? It is **Rabbi Shimon**.
It is taught that **Rabbi Shimon** says, "Three types of impurity emanate from a corpse." One is the ritual impurity of touch, which is clearly touching. You have the ritual impurity of carrying, where you lift it, not just touch it. And of course, covering, and a third way, they do not create a covering, which means each way has two types of impurity. The items are a bone the size of a barleycorn, a "ladle full of decomposed body parts," and a "tombstone and coffin lid." These are the three items. Two apply to each, and a third if... We will explain what those words mean once we see the cases. Now, a ladle full of decomposed remains renders impure. What type of impurity can that exude? Clearly, by carrying, if you lift up the spoon, that's carrying. And clearly by covering also, if you stick the spoon in the house, it renders impure by covering. But it does not render impure by touching. Why is it not rendered impure by touching? Because you can't touch the whole thing; when you touch it, you are only touching a few granules. This means that where the impurity of touch applies, it is only to the bone the size of a barleycorn and the tombstone and coffin lid. So, you have three situations. In one of the three situations, only two of the impurities apply. That's that statement. Again, we have three situations: a ladle full, a bone the size of a barleycorn, and the tombstone. In two out of the three items, all the impurities apply. In one out of the three items, two apply. And that's the ladle, because there's no touching on the ladle, because you can't touch all the stuff. A bone the size of a barleycorn also has two out of three. Why? It renders impure by carrying, that's clear, if you lift it up. And by touching, if you touch it as well. But it does not render impure by covering. Oh, a bone the size of a barleycorn does not render impure by covering. That's how they call it on **Shem Sinai**. So, where do you see the ritual impurity of a covering? In the other items. The ritual impurity of a covering will be... So, you see each one, this one also has two out of three. Now look at the next one: a tombstone and coffin lid render impure by touching, that's the tombstone and the cover of the coffin. You touch it, it's impurity. And by covering. But it does not render impure by carrying. This is a lenient ruling from **Shem Sinai**. Where do you see the ritual impurity of carrying? With the other ones. So, therefore, each one of the three situations of impurity allows itself to exude impurity in two ways. This is **Rabbi Shimon**'s view. Therefore, **Rabbi Shimon** says that if you put the ladle in a covering, it's going to exude impurity by covering. But it's not rendered impure by touching. If a covering is called touching, then it has all three: it's got covering and it's got touching. **Rabbi Shimon** is the one who argues with **Rabbi Yosef**. This means **Rabbi Yosef** held above that there is ritual impurity of touch by the spoon. How can there be ritual impurity of touch by the spoon? It must be because he considers covering and touching the same. But according to **Rabbi Shimon**, he said there's only carrying and covering. Where's the touching? It must be that it's called covering and touching. They're both agreeing that two out of the three are implied; it's just what they're calling. Fine. That's what we're trying to prove: that he doesn't call covering and touching the same.
One more point: the bone of a carcass and the bone of a carcass. Remember we learned in the Mishnah: you have the bone of the carcass. If you touch the bone itself, if it's closed, the bone is sealed shut, because you can't get to the meat, to the marrow inside. But if there's a hole, even a pinhole inside, and you touch the bone, since you can technically get to the stuff that's inside, it exudes the impurity of its carcass. It's as if you touched the actual carcass. And not by a bone that is sealed, to the exclusion of a sealed bone. It's a protective covering. Even though it's a protective covering, it doesn't matter. We're going to learn that a protective covering is only problematic if you can get to it. You can't get to the marrow; the rabbis don't go there on a protective covering. It is ritually pure even if there's a hole in it. The Mishnah states, "If you touch it, you can touch it," which is potentially. If you could come and touch, get to touch it, it's impure. If you can't come to touch it, it's pure. Let's say you have an animal that died. Somebody asked this question the other day: because you can't yet get to its meat, so they ask, "What do you say when it says the animal has holes, the eyes, the mouth, the nostrils?" There are built-in holes in the animal to get to the flesh even without having any of the... Of course, it's covered. There's the head that's covering the kidneys. So, therefore, since you can't get to the kidney, it should not render impure. This means that in the fat itself, there are strings that are coming out of it, and that's like meat. Although it's covering the kidney, since there are strings coming out, you can touch those strings, so therefore it's like you're touching the meat, and therefore it's going to be the source of impurity.
Last question: **Rabbi Oshaya** asks, "If one intended to make a hole in a sealed bone, but did not actually make the hole, what is the ruling?" The bone is sealed, but one intended to make a hole in it to allow the impurity to affect the bone. What is the question? Do I say that it is missing the act of making the hole, or no? Is the intention alone enough to bring it down to impurity? That's the question: do I say it's missing an action, or no, once I made an intention? The Gemara then resolves it: "It will go out." What does "it will go out" mean? It is missing the act of making the hole. Therefore, it becomes impure once the person thinks to make the hole. Already, it's like there's a hole in there, and if he touches the item, the bone, it is going to become impure. Blessed is the Lord.