Chullin 118a (קיח.) — the Talmud in English

Could it be that one who touches

skin that is

opposite

the

flesh, behind it

of the flesh,

should not become impure?

The verse states: “He shall become impure.” This includes one who touches the skin in this manner, so that he does become impure.

And we raised the difficulty:

The matter was difficult to us:

What is it saying?! The beraita apparently contradicts itself.

For in the first clause we learned that the skin does not transmit the impurity of an animal carcass, and it does not even join to complete the measure of an olive-bulk of flesh. If so, why do we say in the latter clause that one who touches skin opposite the flesh becomes impure? [Apparently, the latter clause too is referring to a case in which the flesh is less than an olive-bulk].

And we answer:

Rabbi Abba said, and some say it was Rav Kahana:

The text is deficient, and this is what it teaches: “Its carcass” —

[the name of an amora]

but not skin upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh, with the skin completing it to an olive-bulk.

Even though the skin is a protector for the flesh, nevertheless it does not join with it, because the law that a protector joins with the food was not stated with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass.

Could I exclude even skin upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh,

such that one who touches the skin that is

opposite

the

flesh behind it—could it be that he should not become impure,

because he did not touch the flesh itself,

and it does not even function as a “handle”?

That is, one who touches the skin does not become impure even by virtue of its being a “handle” of the carcass !?

For with regard to the impurity of food, anything that serves as a “handle” for food—for example, something by means of which the food is held—transmits impurity to and from the food. [As the Gemara will state below, if the food is impure and pure food touches the handle of the impure food, the pure food becomes impure.] Shall we say that the verse “in its carcass” excludes even the law of a “handle” with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass, so that if a person touches the handle of the carcass he does not become impure at all !?

The verse states: “He shall become impure.”

This includes the teaching that although the protector does not join to complete an olive-bulk for purposes of the impurity of an animal carcass, nevertheless, when the carcass itself contains an olive-bulk, even its protector transmits impurity to and from it by virtue of being a “handle” of the carcass.

We learned there

at the beginning of tractate Okatzin:

Every

thing

that

serves

as a

“handle”

for food—for example, a bone at whose end there is flesh, with the bone serving as a “handle” for the flesh, since the flesh is held by means of the bone—

but not a protector,

which does not protect the food from spoiling—the flesh is

impure

if a creeping creature touched the bone.

Although the bone is not considered food and does not receive impurity in its own right, nevertheless the flesh becomes impure through it, since the handle of the food brings the impurity into the food.

And likewise, the bone that is a “handle”

transmits impurity.

If the flesh was impure and pure food touched the bone, the other food becomes impure, because the handle of the food takes the impurity out of the impure food and transmits it to the pure food.

And it does not join

the “handle” with the food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk of food, either so that the food can receive impurity or so that it can transmit impurity to other food.

And anything that is a “protector,” even though it is not a “handle,” such as skin upon which there is flesh , since the skin protects the flesh from spoiling, the flesh is impure

if the skin touched a creeping creature, because the skin brings impurity into the flesh,

and

likewise the skin transmits impurity

to others when the flesh is impure, because the skin takes impurity out of the impure flesh and renders other food that the protector touches impure.

And

also the protector

joins

with the food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk with regard to the impurity of food.

And anything that is

neither a handle nor a protector,

such as something that is neither fit to hold the food by means of it nor useful for protecting the food—

does not render impure

the food because of it,

nor does it transmit impurity

to others when the food is impure; and certainly it does not join with the food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk.

And we raised the difficulty:

“Handles”

that bring impurity in and take it out—

where are they written?

And we answer: The law of a handle for receiving impurity in the impurity of food is derived from this verse,

as it is written: “And if water is placed upon seed, and any of their carcasses

[of the impure creeping creatures]

falls upon it—

it is impure for you.”

And we expound: “

For you”

—

for everything that serves your needs.

That is, not only does the food itself receive impurity from the creeping creature; rather, everything that you need in connection with this food becomes impure.

This includes the handles,

which serve the needs of the food, so that they too bring impurity into it.

And it is written

with regard to the impurity of an animal carcass:

“

And when an animal dies, which is yours to eat,”

one who touches its carcass shall become impure. Here too we expound:

“For you”—for everything that serves your needs. This includes the handles,

which take impurity out of the carcass.

We have thus found a

handle

of the impurity of food

to bring

impurity when it touches a creeping creature, since the verse is speaking with regard to receiving impurity.

And

likewise we have found a handle of the impurity of an animal carcass

to take out

impurity from the carcass and render others impure. [For an animal carcass has no law of a handle with regard to receiving impurity, since it is impure in its own right; therefore, the law of a handle stated with regard to it concerns rendering others impure].

A protector—

to bring in and take out—

does not require a verse,

because it follows by

a kal va-chomer from a “handle.”

And just as a handle, which does not protect

the food, nevertheless

brings in and takes out

impurity,

a protector,

which protects the food,

all the more so

does it bring in and take out impurity !?

If so, the protector for which the Merciful One wrote a verse, which we included above from “every seed-bearing seed”—to teach that people take it out for sowing—

why do I need it?

Conclude from it that it comes

to join.

The protector joins to complete the measure of the food with regard to impurity. A handle, however, joins only to bring in and take out impurity, and this is the source for the law taught in the Mishna in tractate Okatzin.

And we raised the difficulty:

But perhaps:

A handle

is effective only

to bring in

impurity,

but not to take it out.

For the verse concerning the handles of food impurity speaks of bringing impurity in—that is, pure food touched a creeping creature. And we cannot derive taking impurity out from the impurity of an animal carcass, because the impurity of an animal carcass is more severe than the impurity of food, as we will say below.

And a protector that was included from the verse concerning every seed-bearing seed is effective both

to bring in and

to take out impurity. We know that it brings impurity in by a kal va-chomer from a “handle,” and the verse comes to include taking impurity out.

But a handle—

to take out, and a protector to join—

no?!

And we answer:

A handle to bring in but not to take out—

you cannot say that!

For

now that it brings in

impurity to food that is pure,

should taking out

impurity from impure food

be necessary to state?! Since a handle brings impurity in and takes it out, a protector likewise brings it in and takes it out by a kal va-chomer. Consequently, the verse concerning a protector must come to teach that it joins .

And we raised the difficulty:

But perhaps:

The handle mentioned in connection with food is written to take out impurity but not to bring it in. We cannot derive bringing impurity in from taking impurity out by a kal va-chomer. [Below, we answer that the handle of food is written with regard to bringing impurity in]. A protector— to take out and to bring in. The verse comes to include bringing impurity in, which is not written with regard to a handle. But a handle to bring in, and a protector to join—

no!

And we answer:

“

Handle” is written unnecessarily.

For it is also written with regard to the impurity of vessels: “

An oven and a stove shall be smashed;

they are impure, and they are impure

for you,”

and we expound: “For you”—

for everything that serves your needs. This includes the handles

of vessels with regard to impurity.

And since we have two amplifications with regard to handles: one concerning the ritual impurity of food and the other concerning the ritual impurity of vessels,

we establish one as referring to introducing impurity and the other as referring to transmitting impurity. And from here we derive that a handle can introduce and transmit impurity, while the protective covering is derived by a kal va-chomer. And when the Torah wrote an amplification with regard to a protective covering, it wrote it only in order to combine it with the food itself.

And we still raise the following objection: But perhaps all the verses concerning handles come to teach only that they transmit impurity and not that they introduce impurity? And if you say: Why do I need two verses, one for the ritual impurity of food and one for the ritual impurity of vessels—and it is necessarily the case that one of them comes to teach that a handle can introduce impurity

which of them is superfluous!?

For if you say:

Let the Torah write

handles

with regard to seeds,

that is, with regard to the ritual impurity of food: “And if water be put upon seed

and let these

the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and the ritual impurity of vessels

be derived from them 12 .

there is an objection:

What is true of seeds? Their impurity is more extensive.

For they become impure even from a primary source of impurity; can you say the same with regard to vessels, which become impure only from a primary source of impurity? And likewise, the ritual impurity of food is more stringent than that of an unslaughtered carcass, as we learned in our Mishna, which increased the laws of impurity of food beyond those of impurity of carcasses. Therefore, it is impossible to derive the law of a handle with regard to the ritual impurity of vessels and unslaughtered carcasses from the ritual impurity of food, and the law of a handle stated with regard to them is not superfluous.

And if

the Torah were to write it with regard to an oven, and let these be derived from it,

there would be an objection:

What is true of an oven? It renders

food impure

through its airspace!

For food that enters its airspace becomes impure even if it does not touch the oven. Can you say the same with regard to an unslaughtered carcass and seeds, which render others impure only if they touch the unslaughtered carcass and the seeds themselves? Therefore, it is impossible to derive the law of a handle with regard to the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and food from the ritual impurity of vessels.

And if

the Torah were to write it with regard to an unslaughtered carcass, and let these be derived from it,

there would be an objection:

What is true of an unslaughtered carcass? It renders a person impure, renders him impure through carrying, and impurity emerges from its body.

For an unslaughtered carcass is a primary source of impurity, and therefore it renders a person impure and renders him impure even through carrying. Likewise, it is itself the body of the impurity, and did not receive its impurity from another source. Can you say the same with regard to an oven and seeds, which cannot be a primary source of impurity and do not possess any of these stringencies? Therefore, it is impossible to derive the law of a handle with regard to the ritual impurity of food and vessels from the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass.

And since all the verses from which the law of a handle is amplified are needed for their own purposes, we once again have no source for saying that a handle is effective for introducing impurity as well!?

And we answer: Indeed,

one cannot derive one from one

as we said, but

one can be derived from two.

Let the Torah write the law of handles with regard to only two of the three types of impurity, and let the third be derived from them with regard to transmitting impurity. Consequently, the third must have been written in order to teach that it also introduces impurity.

And we still ask:

Which one can be derived?

Which of them will the Torah not write, and will derive from the other two?

Let the Torah not write it with regard to seeds, and let it be derived from these.

There is an objection:

What is true of these? They render impure without preparation,

as an unslaughtered carcass and an oven do not require preparation in order to become impure or to render others impure;

can you say the same with regard to seeds, which become impure only after preparation?

Only if water has come upon the seeds are they prepared to become impure. Therefore, the law of a handle with regard to the ritual impurity of food cannot be derived from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and vessels.

And we refute this:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

This is not a leniency of seeds in comparison with an oven. For

fruits that have not undergone preparation

are considered like an oven whose work has not been completed.

The preparation of fruits is their completion of work, and an oven likewise does not become impure before its work has been completed. Therefore, vessels too do not become impure without preparation .

Rather, he raises the objection as follows: What is true of these? They become impure without contact,

as an oven becomes impure from a creeping creature that enters its airspace, even if it does not touch it; and likewise, an unslaughtered carcass does not receive its impurity from another source, but is itself the impurity, and is impure even if it did not touch an impurity ;

can you say the same with regard to seeds, which become impure only through contact

with the source of impurity? Therefore, it is impossible to derive the law of a handle with regard to the ritual impurity of food from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass and vessels.

And if you say:

Let the Torah not write it with regard to an oven, and let it be derived from these.

There is an objection:

What is true of these? They are food

both the seeds and the unslaughtered carcass; can you say the same with regard to an oven, which is a vessel? Therefore, the ritual impurity of vessels cannot be derived from the ritual impurity of food and an unslaughtered carcass.

Rather,

let the Torah not write it with regard to an unslaughtered carcass, and let it be derived from these.

And if so,

why do I need the handle of an unslaughtered carcass

which the verse wrote?

Rather,

if it is not needed for the handle of an unslaughtered carcass, apply it to a general handle

of food. And if it is not needed with regard to transmitting impurity, since that is written explicitly with regard to them, apply it to introducing impurity.

We have therefore found that there is

a handle—

for introducing impurity,

and

a handle—

for transmitting impurity.

And

a protective covering

is derived by a kal va-chomer from a “handle,” and the verse concerning it comes

to combine.

And we ask:

Nevertheless,

this

handle of an unslaughtered carcass was necessary,

and it is impossible to derive the law of a handle with regard to the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass from the impurity of food and vessels!?

For if the Torah had not written

a

handle with regard to an unslaughtered carcass,

but rather we had derived it from the ritual impurity of food and vessels,

I would have said: “The result derived through an inference can have only the limitations of the source from which it was derived.”—

Just as these

food and vessels

do not render

their handle

a person impure,

for they themselves do not render a person impure,

so too

the handle of an

unslaughtered carcass would not render a person impure. Therefore, the Torah wrote the law of a handle with regard to an unslaughtered carcass, so that it should render a person impure as well !?

And we say:

Rather, the handle of an unslaughtered carcass is indeed necessary

as you said,

but the protective covering of an unslaughtered carcass

which we learned earlier in the beraita from the word “it shall become impure”—that one who touches the skin corresponding to the flesh on its other side becomes impure—

is not necessary!

For

for what halakhic purpose did the Torah write it?

If it is in order to combine

the protective covering to complete the measure of an olive-bulk of flesh,

did you not say that it does not combine!?

As we excluded protective coverings earlier from the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass.

And to transmit

the impurity, a verse is also unnecessary, for it is derived by a

kal va-chomer from a “handle,”

since if a handle transmits impurity, as we derived from the verse “for you,” all the more so a protective covering transmits impurity. Why, then, do I need the verse “it shall become impure”?

Rather, if it is not needed for the protective covering of an unslaughtered carcass, apply it to the handle of an unslaughtered carcass.

And if it is not needed for the handle of an unslaughtered carcass

since we have already derived it from the verse “for you”—

apply it to a general handle,

and to teach that it introduces impurity.

We have therefore learned:

a handle transmits impurity, a handle introduces impurity, and a protective covering combines.