Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 25, 2019 | 讬状讞 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 118

From where do we derive that handles and parts that protect the item can make the item they are attached to impure and can also transfer impurity from the item they are attached to, to another food item? And from where do we derive that items that protect can join the amount needed for transferring impurities (and maybe also for becoming impure) by food but not by impurity of a dead animal?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讬讻讜诇 讛谞讜讙注 讻谞讙讚 讘砖专 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟诪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讟诪讗

One might have thought that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the external side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh, but does not touch the flesh itself, does not become impure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). It is derived from the term 鈥渟hall be impure鈥 that even one who touches the hide in this manner becomes impure.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注讜专 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇讻讝讬转

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The first clause of the baraita teaches that the hide does not impart impurity of a carcass while the latter clause teaches that one who touches the hide does become impure with the impurity of a carcass. Rava said, and some say it unattributed: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The term 鈥渋ts carcass鈥 teaches that one who touches the flesh of a carcass becomes impure but one who touches the hide of a carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure. And even if the volume of the hide together with the flesh adds up to an olive-bulk, the hide does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart impurity of an animal carcass.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 注讜专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛谞讜讙注 讻谞讙讚 讘砖专 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚

One might have thought that I remove from the category of impurity of a carcass even a hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh with regard to one who touches the external side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh but does not touch the flesh itself. One might have thought that he does not become impure in such a case, and that the hide in this case does not even constitute a handle of the flesh, which would render one who touches it impure as though he touched the flesh itself.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讟诪讗

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall be impure,鈥 from which it is derived that even though an appendage that serves as protection for the flesh does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses, it is considered a handle of the flesh, which does impart impurity. Therefore, if there is an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the hide, one who touches the outside of the hide becomes impure, even if he did not touch the flesh.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讚 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 讟诪讗 讜诪讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讟专祝

搂The Gemara discusses the transmission of impurity of food with regard to accessories that serve as a handle and that provide protection. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 1:1): With regard to any appendage that serves as a handle, i.e., a part that one holds while eating the food, but does not provide protection, the attached food becomes impure if the handle comes into contact with a source of impurity, and the handle transmits impurity from the attached food to other foods that come into contact with the handle. But the handle does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

砖讜诪专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讚 讟诪讗 讜诪讟诪讗 讜诪爪讟专祝 诇讗 讬讚 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 诇讗 讟诪讗 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗

With regard to any appendage that provides protection, even if it does not serve as a handle, the attached food becomes impure if the protection comes into contact with an impure item, and the protection imparts impurity, and it also joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. With regard to an appendage that does not serve as a handle nor as protection, the attached food does not become impure if the appendage comes into contact with a source of impurity, nor does the appendage impart impurity. In addition, it does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讬讚讜转 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 讜谞驻诇 诪谞讘诇转诐 注诇讬讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 砖讘爪专讻讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讜转

The Gemara asks: Where is this halakha that handles are susceptible to and impart impurity written? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to the impurity of food: 鈥淏ut if water is put on the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). It is derived from the term 鈥渇or you鈥 that any part needed for your use of the food is susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity, including the handles that facilitate the consumption of the food.

讜讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 砖讘爪专讻讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讜转 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗

And furthermore it is written with regard to the impurity of a carcass: 鈥淎nd if any animal which is for you to consume dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The term 鈥渇or you鈥 indicates that any part needed for your use of the carcass imparts impurity, including the handles. One who touches the handle of an item that is impure with impurity of a carcass becomes impure as though he touched the carcass itself. These two verses teach that a handle transmits impurity both with regard to importing impurity into the attached food and with regard to exporting impurity from the attached food.

砖讜诪专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讚 讗转讬 讜诪讛 讬讚 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讙讬谞讛 诪讻谞住转 讜诪讜爪讬讗讛 砖讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

A verse is not needed to derive that protection both imports and exports impurity. This halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle: If a handle, which is treated more leniently than protection because it does not protect the food, nevertheless both imports and exports impurity, then with regard to protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle because it protects the food, should it not all the more so import and export impurity?

砖讜诪专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇爪专祝

Since this is so, why do I need the verse that the Merciful One writes from which it is derived that protection is considered part of the food with regard to ritual impurity, i.e., the verses: 鈥淯pon any sowing seed that is sown鈥t is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38)? Conclude from these verses that protection not only imparts impurity, but even joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讬诪讗 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖讜诪专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗讘诇 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But say that these verses should be interpreted differently: A handle, which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity. Protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle, is considered like food to import and export impurity. But it is not derived that a handle exports impurity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 注讬讜诇讬 诪注讬讬诇讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara explains: You cannot say that a handle is considered part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity for the following reason: Now that the handle is considered part of the food with regard to importing impurity into the food, is it necessary to state that it exports impurity? If a handle can cause ritually pure food attached to it to become impure, certainly it can transmit the impurity of impure food attached to it to other foods. Consequently, since a handle both imports and exports impurity, it is inferred a fortiori that protection also imports and exports impurity. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning appendages that serve as protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讬诪讗 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 诇讛讻谞讬住 砖讜诪专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讛讻谞讬住 讗讘诇 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But say instead that a handle, which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it exports but does not import impurity. Protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle, both exports and imports impurity. But it is not derived that a handle imports impurity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讬讚 讬转讬专讗 讻转讬讘 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 讬转抓 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara explains: There is an additional derivation with regard to a handle, as it is written with regard to the impurity of vessels: 鈥淎nd everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether an oven, or a range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and shall be impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:35).

诇讻诐 诇讻诇 砖讘爪专讻讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讜转

It is derived from the term 鈥渇or you鈥 that any part needed for your use of a vessel has the impurity status of the vessel itself, including the handles. Therefore, if the vessel comes into contact with a source of impurity, the handle is considered part of the vessel and is also rendered impure. Consequently, there are two derivations with regard to a handle: One teaches that a handle imports impurity into the object to which it is attached, and the other teaches that a handle exports impurity from the object. It is derived through a fortiori inference from the halakha of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse that states 鈥淯pon any sowing seed鈥 teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬讬转专

The Gemara asks: With regard to these three verses that are interpreted as referring to handles, one of which discusses the impurity of food, one of which discusses the impurity of vessels, and one of which discusses the impurity of carcasses, which of them is superfluous such that one can derive from it that a handle does not merely export impurity from the food but imports impurity to the food as well? All of these verses are necessary to teach that a handle exports impurity.

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝专注讬诐 讜诇讬转讜 讛谞讱 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讛 诇讝专注讬诐 砖讻谉 讟讜诪讗转谉 诪专讜讘讛

The Gemara elaborates on the question: Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of vessels and animal carcasses, be derived from it. But one cannot infer from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of vessels, as what is notable about seeds? It is notable in that they have a greater susceptibility to impurity. Food is susceptible to even second-degree impurity, whereas vessels are susceptible to only first-degree impurity. Likewise, one cannot derive from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of an animal carcass because the impurity of food applies to more items, as is taught in the mishna that some items are susceptible to the impurity of food but not to the impurity of animal carcasses.

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘转谞讜专 讜诇讬转讬 讛谞讱 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛 诇转谞讜专 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讜讬专讜

Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and the impurity of an animal carcass, be derived from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable about the impurity of an oven? It is notable in that a vessel transmits impurity to foods not only through contact but also through its airspace, whereas those other types of impurity do not share this element of stringency.

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讘诇讛 讜诇讬转讬 讛谞讱 诪讬谞讛 诪讛 诇谞讘诇讛 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讙讜驻讛

Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and of vessels, be derived from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable about the impurity of a carcass? It is notable in that a carcass transmits impurity to a person, and transmits impurity to one carrying the carcass even if he is not touching it, and its impurity emanates from its body and does not originate from an external source. Those other types of impurity do not share these elements of stringency.

讞讚讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬

The Gemara answers: The halakha of one of these three types of ritual impurity cannot be derived from the halakha of any one of the others. Yet, one of the verses is still superfluous because one can derive the halakha of one of these three types from the other two.

讛讬 转讬转讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝专注讬诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖专 转讗诪专 讘讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讛讻砖专

The Gemara asks: Which can one derive from the other two? Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and derive this halakha from those two other cases, the impurity of carcasses and of vessels. But this inference is not valid, as what is notable about those cases? They are notable in that they become ritually impure without first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. Shall you say the same halakha with regard to seeds, which do not share this element of stringency, as food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讻转谞讜专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讚诪讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This element of leniency is not unique to the impurity of food. Produce that is not rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid is equivalent to an oven whose construction is not complete. An oven whose construction is incomplete is also not susceptible to impurity.

讗诇讗 驻专讬讱 讛讻讬 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘谞讙讬注讛 转讗诪专 讘讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讘谞讙讬注讛

Rather, refute this derivation in the following manner: What is notable about those cases of impurity of carcasses and vessels? They are notable in that they become impure even without contact. An oven becomes impure if a creeping animal is within its airspace, and the impurity of an animal carcass originates from its own body without contact with an external source. Shall you state the same halakha with regard to seeds, which become impure only through contact?

诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘转谞讜专 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讜讻诇

Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and derive this halakha from those cases, the impurity of food and carcasses. But this derivation is not valid, as what is notable about those cases of the impurity of food and carcasses? They are notable in that they are food. Therefore, their halakhot cannot necessarily be applied to an oven and other vessels that are not food.

诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讘诇讛 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚注诇诪讗

Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to a carcass and derive this halakha from those cases of the impurity of food and vessels. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, since one can derive in such a manner that a handle attached to a carcass imparts impurity, why do I need the verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass? If it is not needed for the matter of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a handle in general with regard to food, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity to the food.

讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝

Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle imports impurity and that a handle exports impurity, and one can infer that protection imports and exports impurity a fortiori from the halakha of a handle. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讻转讬 讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 讗爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讘诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉 诪讛 讛谞讱 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗祝 谞讘诇讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讚诐

The Gemara challenges: But it is still necessary for the verse to state the halakha that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of a carcass; as, if the Merciful One had not written the halakha of a handle with regard to impurity of a carcass, I would say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In this case, a halakha with regard to the impurity of carcasses which is inferred a fortiori from the cases of impurity of food and impurity of vessels is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. Just as handles in these cases of impurity of food and vessels do not transmit impurity to a person, so too the handle of a carcass does not transmit impurity to a person. Therefore, the verse from which it is derived that a handle exports the impurity of a carcass is necessary, and cannot be applied to the matter of importing impurity.

讗诇讗 讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讱 讜砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讚 讗转讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, it is necessary for the verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, but it is not necessary for the verse to state the halakha of protection with regard to the impurity of a carcass. With regard to what halakha does the Merciful One write that verse? If it is teaching that protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said that protection does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. And if it is teaching that protection exports the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary to teach that, because that halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讗讬谉 注谞讬谉 诇砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚注诇诪讗 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝

Rather, if it is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of the handle of a carcass. And if it is not needed for the matter of a handle of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a handle in general, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity. Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle exports impurity and that a handle imports impurity, and one can derive from the verse concerning protection with regard to the impurity of food that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讜诪专 讚注诇诪讗 砖讜诪专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝 讗讘诇 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general? Say that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of protection in general with regard to food. Although it is already written: 鈥淯pon any sowing seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:37), two verses are necessary to teach the halakha of protection with regard to food: One verse to teach that protection imports impurity and one to teach that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. But there is no source from which to derive that a handle imports impurity.

讗诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讬讚 讗讛讻谞住讛 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: The halakha that a handle imports impurity is not derived from the superfluous verse written with regard to the impurity of a carcass. Rather, it is necessary to return to the explanation that was initially proposed, i.e., that it is written with regard to the impurity of food: 鈥淚t is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that any part needed for your use of the food imparts impurity, including handles. It was asked with regard to this derivation: Say that this verse teaches that a handle exports impurity but not that it imports impurity. The Gemara suggests: That question is not difficult. From the outset, when the halakha of a handle is written: 鈥淏ut if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), it is written in the context of importing impurity. Therefore, it is inferred a fortiori that a handle exports impurity from the halakha that it imports impurity, and it is derived a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity. It is also derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: 鈥淥n any sowing seed.鈥

讗诇讗 砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to teach the halakha of protection with regard to a carcass, as it is written: 鈥淪hall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:39)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the matter itself, to teach that the halakha of protection is applicable to the impurity of a carcass.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗爪讟专讜驻讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 讗讬 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讚 讗转讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what halakha is this taught? If it teaches that protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said in the mishna that protection does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. If it teaches that protection imports and exports the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary for the verse to teach this halakha because it is inferred a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle. The Gemara answers: Sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a fortiori, and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讜诪专 讚注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

The Gemara objects: If so, one may ask: With regard to protection in general, i.e., with regard to food, it was established that the verse is not necessary to teach that it imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. I will say to you instead that the verse teaches that protection imports impurity, and the reason that the verse teaches this halakha even though it could be inferred a fortiori is because sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a fortiori and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖 讚专砖讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: Where it is possible to interpret the verse in a manner that a novelty is derived, we interpret it in such a manner and do not maintain that the verse teaches that which could be inferred a fortiori.

专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注砖讛 讬讚 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬讚 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara returns to the previous proposal to derive that a handle imports impurity from the verse concerning protection of a carcass based on the reasoning that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general. Previously, the Gemara challenged this derivation: If the verse is not needed for the matter of protection for the impurity of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of protection in general. Rav 岣viva said in response: The halakha of protection of a carcass is different because it imports and exports impurity but does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the protection serves as a handle in that it only imports and exports impurity, we apply its novelty to the halakhot of a handle and not to the halakhot of protection.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛驻讬讟诪讗 砖诇 专诪讜谉 诪爪讟专驻转 讜讛谞抓 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝

搂Previously it was derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: 鈥淥n any sowing seed that is sown鈥 (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing, e.g., wheat and barley in their shells. Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael objects to this from that which we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 2:3): The protrusion of a pomegranate joins together with the pomegranate to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk that is required to impart impurity, because it provides protection for the fruit. But its flower does not join together with the pomegranate in that regard because it does not provide protection for the fruit; rather, it provides protection for the protection of the fruit.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 讻讗谉 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael asks: And why does the protrusion join together with the pomegranate to constitute an egg-bulk? Read here that the verse states: 鈥淥n any sowing seed,鈥 indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typically taken out to the field for sowing. But pomegranates are not typically taken out to the field for sowing with their protrusions, since they are usually planted in the field as seedlings.

讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘 讜讛拽讬驻讛 讜讻讜壮 诪爪讟专祝 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪谞诇谉

And furthermore, one can object to this derivation from that which we learned in the mishna: The hide and the congealed gravy attached to the meat, and the spices, and the meat residue, and the bones, and the tendons, and the lower section of the horns, and the section of the hooves, all join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart impurity of food. From where do we derive that these protections, although they are not sown together with the food, join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity?

讗诇讗 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讗砖专 讬讝专注 讞讚 诇砖讜诪专 讚讝专注讬诐 讜讞讚 诇砖讜诪专 讚讗讬诇谞讜转 讗讬讚讱 诇砖讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讘讬爪讬诐 讜讚讙讬诐

Rather, three terms with the root zayin, reish, ayin are written in the verse with regard to protection: 鈥淥n any sowing [zerua] seed [zera] that is sown [yizzare鈥檃].鈥 One term is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to seeds, and one is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to trees, and the other term is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to meat, and eggs, and fish. Accordingly, this halakha is not limited to protection that is sown together with the food.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬砖 讬讚 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讚 诇讛讻砖专

搂It is written: 鈥淎nd if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38). Previously, the Gemara derived from this verse that an appendage that serves as a handle both imports impurity to and exports impurity from the food. In addition, the simple understanding teaches that food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. With regard to these two halakhot, Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: There is significance to a handle with regard to importing and exporting impurity, i.e., a handle imports impurity to and exports impurity from to the attached food, but there is no significance to a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Rather, the food itself must come into contact with liquid directly.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讬讚 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讛讻砖专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is significance to a handle with regard to importing impurity to and exporting impurity from the attached food, and with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity even if only the handle came into contact with liquid.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree? If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument. If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪专 住讘专 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse. One Sage, Rav, holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately preceding it and not based on juxtaposition to the term before the one preceding it. In this case, the verse states: 鈥淔or you,鈥 indicating inclusion of a handle with regard to the matter of imparting impurity, which is stated in the preceding phrase: 鈥淚t is impure,鈥 but not with regard to the matter of rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid which is stated before the preceding phrase: 鈥淚f water is put.鈥

讜诪专 住讘专 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately preceding it, as well as to the term before the one preceding it. Therefore, he maintains that a handle can also render the attached food susceptible to impurity.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 诇讗讜 转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗

If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that rendering food susceptible to impurity is the initial stage of the process of imparting impurity to it. Therefore, just as a handle imparts impurity, it can also render the food susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rav, holds that rendering food susceptible to impurity is not the initial stage of the process of imparting impurity.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讬砖 讬讚 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讻讱 讬砖 讬讚 诇讛讻砖专 讜讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讛讻砖专 讗诇讗 注讚 砖讬转诇砖讜

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Just as there is significance to a handle with regard to imparting impurity to food, so too there is significance to a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. And just as produce is susceptible to contracting impurity only when it is detached from the soil, so too produce cannot be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid until it is detached from the soil.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讗讬谉 砖讜诪专 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻驻讜诇

搂The Gemara cites another disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rav says: There is no halakha of a handle with regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food. And there is no halakha of protection with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food. In addition, the protection does not join together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讬讚 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讬砖 砖讜诪专 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻驻讜诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a halakha of a handle with regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food. And there is a halakha of protection with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food. In addition, it joins together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖转讬 注爪诪讜转 讜注诇讬讛谉 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讬讛谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讘讬转 讜讛讘讬转 诪讗讛讬诇 注诇讬讛谉 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan from that which is taught in a Tosefta (Oholot 4:8): In a case of two bones that have two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a dead person upon them, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside a house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself, and the house is impure.

讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞拽讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗讱 砖谞讬 注爪诪讜转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讝讬转

Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 118

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 118

讬讻讜诇 讛谞讜讙注 讻谞讙讚 讘砖专 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟诪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讟诪讗

One might have thought that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the external side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh, but does not touch the flesh itself, does not become impure. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). It is derived from the term 鈥渟hall be impure鈥 that even one who touches the hide in this manner becomes impure.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注讜专 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇讻讝讬转

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The first clause of the baraita teaches that the hide does not impart impurity of a carcass while the latter clause teaches that one who touches the hide does become impure with the impurity of a carcass. Rava said, and some say it unattributed: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: The term 鈥渋ts carcass鈥 teaches that one who touches the flesh of a carcass becomes impure but one who touches the hide of a carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure. And even if the volume of the hide together with the flesh adds up to an olive-bulk, the hide does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart impurity of an animal carcass.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 注讜专 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讛谞讜讙注 讻谞讙讚 讘砖专 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讟诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖讛 讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚

One might have thought that I remove from the category of impurity of a carcass even a hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh with regard to one who touches the external side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh but does not touch the flesh itself. One might have thought that he does not become impure in such a case, and that the hide in this case does not even constitute a handle of the flesh, which would render one who touches it impure as though he touched the flesh itself.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讟诪讗

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall be impure,鈥 from which it is derived that even though an appendage that serves as protection for the flesh does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses, it is considered a handle of the flesh, which does impart impurity. Therefore, if there is an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the hide, one who touches the outside of the hide becomes impure, even if he did not touch the flesh.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讚 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 讟诪讗 讜诪讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪爪讟专祝

搂The Gemara discusses the transmission of impurity of food with regard to accessories that serve as a handle and that provide protection. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 1:1): With regard to any appendage that serves as a handle, i.e., a part that one holds while eating the food, but does not provide protection, the attached food becomes impure if the handle comes into contact with a source of impurity, and the handle transmits impurity from the attached food to other foods that come into contact with the handle. But the handle does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

砖讜诪专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讚 讟诪讗 讜诪讟诪讗 讜诪爪讟专祝 诇讗 讬讚 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专 诇讗 讟诪讗 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗

With regard to any appendage that provides protection, even if it does not serve as a handle, the attached food becomes impure if the protection comes into contact with an impure item, and the protection imparts impurity, and it also joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. With regard to an appendage that does not serve as a handle nor as protection, the attached food does not become impure if the appendage comes into contact with a source of impurity, nor does the appendage impart impurity. In addition, it does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讬讚讜转 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬转谉 诪讬诐 注诇 讝专注 讜谞驻诇 诪谞讘诇转诐 注诇讬讜 讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 砖讘爪专讻讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讜转

The Gemara asks: Where is this halakha that handles are susceptible to and impart impurity written? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to the impurity of food: 鈥淏ut if water is put on the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). It is derived from the term 鈥渇or you鈥 that any part needed for your use of the food is susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity, including the handles that facilitate the consumption of the food.

讜讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 砖讘爪专讻讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讜转 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗

And furthermore it is written with regard to the impurity of a carcass: 鈥淎nd if any animal which is for you to consume dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). The term 鈥渇or you鈥 indicates that any part needed for your use of the carcass imparts impurity, including the handles. One who touches the handle of an item that is impure with impurity of a carcass becomes impure as though he touched the carcass itself. These two verses teach that a handle transmits impurity both with regard to importing impurity into the attached food and with regard to exporting impurity from the attached food.

砖讜诪专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讚 讗转讬 讜诪讛 讬讚 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讙讬谞讛 诪讻谞住转 讜诪讜爪讬讗讛 砖讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

A verse is not needed to derive that protection both imports and exports impurity. This halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle: If a handle, which is treated more leniently than protection because it does not protect the food, nevertheless both imports and exports impurity, then with regard to protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle because it protects the food, should it not all the more so import and export impurity?

砖讜诪专 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇爪专祝

Since this is so, why do I need the verse that the Merciful One writes from which it is derived that protection is considered part of the food with regard to ritual impurity, i.e., the verses: 鈥淯pon any sowing seed that is sown鈥t is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38)? Conclude from these verses that protection not only imparts impurity, but even joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讬诪讗 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖讜诪专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗讘诇 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But say that these verses should be interpreted differently: A handle, which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity. Protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle, is considered like food to import and export impurity. But it is not derived that a handle exports impurity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讗 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 注讬讜诇讬 诪注讬讬诇讗 讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara explains: You cannot say that a handle is considered part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity for the following reason: Now that the handle is considered part of the food with regard to importing impurity into the food, is it necessary to state that it exports impurity? If a handle can cause ritually pure food attached to it to become impure, certainly it can transmit the impurity of impure food attached to it to other foods. Consequently, since a handle both imports and exports impurity, it is inferred a fortiori that protection also imports and exports impurity. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning appendages that serve as protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讬诪讗 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讗 诇讛讻谞讬住 砖讜诪专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讜诇讛讻谞讬住 讗讘诇 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But say instead that a handle, which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it exports but does not import impurity. Protection, which is treated more stringently than a handle, both exports and imports impurity. But it is not derived that a handle imports impurity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讬讚 讬转讬专讗 讻转讬讘 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 讬转抓 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara explains: There is an additional derivation with regard to a handle, as it is written with regard to the impurity of vessels: 鈥淎nd everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether an oven, or a range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and shall be impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:35).

诇讻诐 诇讻诇 砖讘爪专讻讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讚讜转

It is derived from the term 鈥渇or you鈥 that any part needed for your use of a vessel has the impurity status of the vessel itself, including the handles. Therefore, if the vessel comes into contact with a source of impurity, the handle is considered part of the vessel and is also rendered impure. Consequently, there are two derivations with regard to a handle: One teaches that a handle imports impurity into the object to which it is attached, and the other teaches that a handle exports impurity from the object. It is derived through a fortiori inference from the halakha of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse that states 鈥淯pon any sowing seed鈥 teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬讬转专

The Gemara asks: With regard to these three verses that are interpreted as referring to handles, one of which discusses the impurity of food, one of which discusses the impurity of vessels, and one of which discusses the impurity of carcasses, which of them is superfluous such that one can derive from it that a handle does not merely export impurity from the food but imports impurity to the food as well? All of these verses are necessary to teach that a handle exports impurity.

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝专注讬诐 讜诇讬转讜 讛谞讱 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讛 诇讝专注讬诐 砖讻谉 讟讜诪讗转谉 诪专讜讘讛

The Gemara elaborates on the question: Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of vessels and animal carcasses, be derived from it. But one cannot infer from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of vessels, as what is notable about seeds? It is notable in that they have a greater susceptibility to impurity. Food is susceptible to even second-degree impurity, whereas vessels are susceptible to only first-degree impurity. Likewise, one cannot derive from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of an animal carcass because the impurity of food applies to more items, as is taught in the mishna that some items are susceptible to the impurity of food but not to the impurity of animal carcasses.

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘转谞讜专 讜诇讬转讬 讛谞讱 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讛 诇转谞讜专 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗 诪讗讜讬专讜

Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and the impurity of an animal carcass, be derived from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable about the impurity of an oven? It is notable in that a vessel transmits impurity to foods not only through contact but also through its airspace, whereas those other types of impurity do not share this element of stringency.

诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讘诇讛 讜诇讬转讬 讛谞讱 诪讬谞讛 诪讛 诇谞讘诇讛 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讙讜驻讛

Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and of vessels, be derived from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable about the impurity of a carcass? It is notable in that a carcass transmits impurity to a person, and transmits impurity to one carrying the carcass even if he is not touching it, and its impurity emanates from its body and does not originate from an external source. Those other types of impurity do not share these elements of stringency.

讞讚讗 诪讞讚讗 诇讗 讗转讬讗 转讬转讬 讞讚讗 诪转专转讬

The Gemara answers: The halakha of one of these three types of ritual impurity cannot be derived from the halakha of any one of the others. Yet, one of the verses is still superfluous because one can derive the halakha of one of these three types from the other two.

讛讬 转讬转讬 诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝专注讬诐 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖专 转讗诪专 讘讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讛讻砖专

The Gemara asks: Which can one derive from the other two? Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and derive this halakha from those two other cases, the impurity of carcasses and of vessels. But this inference is not valid, as what is notable about those cases? They are notable in that they become ritually impure without first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. Shall you say the same halakha with regard to seeds, which do not share this element of stringency, as food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜 讻转谞讜专 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专讛 诪诇讗讻转讜 讚诪讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This element of leniency is not unique to the impurity of food. Produce that is not rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid is equivalent to an oven whose construction is not complete. An oven whose construction is incomplete is also not susceptible to impurity.

讗诇讗 驻专讬讱 讛讻讬 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘谞讙讬注讛 转讗诪专 讘讝专注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讘谞讙讬注讛

Rather, refute this derivation in the following manner: What is notable about those cases of impurity of carcasses and vessels? They are notable in that they become impure even without contact. An oven becomes impure if a creeping animal is within its airspace, and the impurity of an animal carcass originates from its own body without contact with an external source. Shall you state the same halakha with regard to seeds, which become impure only through contact?

诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘转谞讜专 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 诪讛 诇讛谞讱 砖讻谉 讗讜讻诇

Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and derive this halakha from those cases, the impurity of food and carcasses. But this derivation is not valid, as what is notable about those cases of the impurity of food and carcasses? They are notable in that they are food. Therefore, their halakhot cannot necessarily be applied to an oven and other vessels that are not food.

诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讘诇讛 讜转讬转讬 诪讛谞讱 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚注诇诪讗

Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with regard to a carcass and derive this halakha from those cases of the impurity of food and vessels. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, since one can derive in such a manner that a handle attached to a carcass imparts impurity, why do I need the verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass? If it is not needed for the matter of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a handle in general with regard to food, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity to the food.

讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝

Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle imports impurity and that a handle exports impurity, and one can infer that protection imports and exports impurity a fortiori from the halakha of a handle. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讻转讬 讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 讗爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讘诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉 诪讛 讛谞讱 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讗祝 谞讘诇讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讗讚诐

The Gemara challenges: But it is still necessary for the verse to state the halakha that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity of a carcass; as, if the Merciful One had not written the halakha of a handle with regard to impurity of a carcass, I would say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In this case, a halakha with regard to the impurity of carcasses which is inferred a fortiori from the cases of impurity of food and impurity of vessels is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. Just as handles in these cases of impurity of food and vessels do not transmit impurity to a person, so too the handle of a carcass does not transmit impurity to a person. Therefore, the verse from which it is derived that a handle exports the impurity of a carcass is necessary, and cannot be applied to the matter of importing impurity.

讗诇讗 讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 诪讬爪专讱 爪专讬讱 讜砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻转讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讚 讗转讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, it is necessary for the verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, but it is not necessary for the verse to state the halakha of protection with regard to the impurity of a carcass. With regard to what halakha does the Merciful One write that verse? If it is teaching that protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said that protection does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. And if it is teaching that protection exports the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary to teach that, because that halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle.

讗诇讗 讗诐 讗讬谉 注谞讬谉 诇砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讬讚 讚注诇诪讗 讬讚 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝

Rather, if it is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of the handle of a carcass. And if it is not needed for the matter of a handle of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a handle in general, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity. Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle exports impurity and that a handle imports impurity, and one can derive from the verse concerning protection with regard to the impurity of food that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇砖讜诪专 讚注诇诪讗 砖讜诪专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜砖讜诪专 诇爪专祝 讗讘诇 讬讚 诇讛讻谞讬住 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general? Say that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of protection in general with regard to food. Although it is already written: 鈥淯pon any sowing seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:37), two verses are necessary to teach the halakha of protection with regard to food: One verse to teach that protection imports impurity and one to teach that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. But there is no source from which to derive that a handle imports impurity.

讗诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讬讚 讗讛讻谞住讛 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: The halakha that a handle imports impurity is not derived from the superfluous verse written with regard to the impurity of a carcass. Rather, it is necessary to return to the explanation that was initially proposed, i.e., that it is written with regard to the impurity of food: 鈥淚t is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that any part needed for your use of the food imparts impurity, including handles. It was asked with regard to this derivation: Say that this verse teaches that a handle exports impurity but not that it imports impurity. The Gemara suggests: That question is not difficult. From the outset, when the halakha of a handle is written: 鈥淏ut if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38), it is written in the context of importing impurity. Therefore, it is inferred a fortiori that a handle exports impurity from the halakha that it imports impurity, and it is derived a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity. It is also derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: 鈥淥n any sowing seed.鈥

讗诇讗 砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to teach the halakha of protection with regard to a carcass, as it is written: 鈥淪hall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:39)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the matter itself, to teach that the halakha of protection is applicable to the impurity of a carcass.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗爪讟专讜驻讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 讗讬 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讚 讗转讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to what halakha is this taught? If it teaches that protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said in the mishna that protection does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. If it teaches that protection imports and exports the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary for the verse to teach this halakha because it is inferred a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle. The Gemara answers: Sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a fortiori, and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讜诪专 讚注诇诪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诪诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗

The Gemara objects: If so, one may ask: With regard to protection in general, i.e., with regard to food, it was established that the verse is not necessary to teach that it imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. I will say to you instead that the verse teaches that protection imports impurity, and the reason that the verse teaches this halakha even though it could be inferred a fortiori is because sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a fortiori and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖 讚专砖讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: Where it is possible to interpret the verse in a manner that a novelty is derived, we interpret it in such a manner and do not maintain that the verse teaches that which could be inferred a fortiori.

专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 砖讜诪专 讚谞讘诇讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注砖讛 讬讚 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬讚 砖讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara returns to the previous proposal to derive that a handle imports impurity from the verse concerning protection of a carcass based on the reasoning that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general. Previously, the Gemara challenged this derivation: If the verse is not needed for the matter of protection for the impurity of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of protection in general. Rav 岣viva said in response: The halakha of protection of a carcass is different because it imports and exports impurity but does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the protection serves as a handle in that it only imports and exports impurity, we apply its novelty to the halakhot of a handle and not to the halakhot of protection.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛驻讬讟诪讗 砖诇 专诪讜谉 诪爪讟专驻转 讜讛谞抓 砖诇讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专祝

搂Previously it was derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: 鈥淥n any sowing seed that is sown鈥 (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing, e.g., wheat and barley in their shells. Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael objects to this from that which we learned in a mishna (Okatzin 2:3): The protrusion of a pomegranate joins together with the pomegranate to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk that is required to impart impurity, because it provides protection for the fruit. But its flower does not join together with the pomegranate in that regard because it does not provide protection for the fruit; rather, it provides protection for the protection of the fruit.

讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 讻讗谉 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael asks: And why does the protrusion join together with the pomegranate to constitute an egg-bulk? Read here that the verse states: 鈥淥n any sowing seed,鈥 indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typically taken out to the field for sowing. But pomegranates are not typically taken out to the field for sowing with their protrusions, since they are usually planted in the field as seedlings.

讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘 讜讛拽讬驻讛 讜讻讜壮 诪爪讟专祝 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪谞诇谉

And furthermore, one can object to this derivation from that which we learned in the mishna: The hide and the congealed gravy attached to the meat, and the spices, and the meat residue, and the bones, and the tendons, and the lower section of the horns, and the section of the hooves, all join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart impurity of food. From where do we derive that these protections, although they are not sown together with the food, join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity?

讗诇讗 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讗砖专 讬讝专注 讞讚 诇砖讜诪专 讚讝专注讬诐 讜讞讚 诇砖讜诪专 讚讗讬诇谞讜转 讗讬讚讱 诇砖讜诪专 讘砖专 讜讘讬爪讬诐 讜讚讙讬诐

Rather, three terms with the root zayin, reish, ayin are written in the verse with regard to protection: 鈥淥n any sowing [zerua] seed [zera] that is sown [yizzare鈥檃].鈥 One term is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to seeds, and one is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to trees, and the other term is written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to meat, and eggs, and fish. Accordingly, this halakha is not limited to protection that is sown together with the food.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬砖 讬讚 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讬讚 诇讛讻砖专

搂It is written: 鈥淎nd if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38). Previously, the Gemara derived from this verse that an appendage that serves as a handle both imports impurity to and exports impurity from the food. In addition, the simple understanding teaches that food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. With regard to these two halakhot, Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: There is significance to a handle with regard to importing and exporting impurity, i.e., a handle imports impurity to and exports impurity from to the attached food, but there is no significance to a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Rather, the food itself must come into contact with liquid directly.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讬讚 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜诇讛讻砖专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is significance to a handle with regard to importing impurity to and exporting impurity from the attached food, and with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity even if only the handle came into contact with liquid.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree? If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument. If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪专 住讘专 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗 诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse. One Sage, Rav, holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately preceding it and not based on juxtaposition to the term before the one preceding it. In this case, the verse states: 鈥淔or you,鈥 indicating inclusion of a handle with regard to the matter of imparting impurity, which is stated in the preceding phrase: 鈥淚t is impure,鈥 but not with regard to the matter of rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid which is stated before the preceding phrase: 鈥淚f water is put.鈥

讜诪专 住讘专 诪拽专讗 谞讚专砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

And one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately preceding it, as well as to the term before the one preceding it. Therefore, he maintains that a handle can also render the attached food susceptible to impurity.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讻砖专 诇讗讜 转讞诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗

If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that rendering food susceptible to impurity is the initial stage of the process of imparting impurity to it. Therefore, just as a handle imparts impurity, it can also render the food susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rav, holds that rendering food susceptible to impurity is not the initial stage of the process of imparting impurity.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻砖诐 砖讬砖 讬讚 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讻讱 讬砖 讬讚 诇讛讻砖专 讜讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讻砖讬转诇砖讜 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讛讻砖专 讗诇讗 注讚 砖讬转诇砖讜

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Just as there is significance to a handle with regard to imparting impurity to food, so too there is significance to a handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. And just as produce is susceptible to contracting impurity only when it is detached from the soil, so too produce cannot be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid until it is detached from the soil.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讬讚 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讗讬谉 砖讜诪专 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻驻讜诇

搂The Gemara cites another disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rav says: There is no halakha of a handle with regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food. And there is no halakha of protection with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food. In addition, the protection does not join together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讬讚 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讜讬砖 砖讜诪专 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻驻讜诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There is a halakha of a handle with regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food. And there is a halakha of protection with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food. In addition, it joins together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖转讬 注爪诪讜转 讜注诇讬讛谉 砖谞讬 讞爪讗讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讬讛谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讘讬转 讜讛讘讬转 诪讗讛讬诇 注诇讬讛谉 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Rav and Rabbi Yo岣nan from that which is taught in a Tosefta (Oholot 4:8): In a case of two bones that have two halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a dead person upon them, i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside a house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself, and the house is impure.

讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞拽讜住讗 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗讱 砖谞讬 注爪诪讜转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讝讬转

Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk?

Scroll To Top