Chullin 118a — the Talmud in English

Could it be that one who touches

the skin, which is

opposite

the

flesh, behind it

of the flesh,

will not be impure?

The verse therefore says, “he shall become impure.”

This includes one who touches the skin in this manner, that he becomes impure.

And we considered this:

What is it saying?!

For the beraita apparently contradicts itself.

For in the first clause we learned that the skin does not cause impurity through the impurity of a carcass, and it does not even join to complete the measure of an olive-bulk of flesh; if so, why in the latter clause do we say that one who touches skin that is opposite the flesh is impure? [And apparently the latter clause, too, is speaking of a case in which the flesh is less than an olive-bulk].

And we answer:

Rava said, and some say it was Kadi

[the name of an amora]:

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

but not with skin upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh, and the

skin

completes it to an olive-bulk.

Even though the skin is a shomer for the flesh, nevertheless it does not join with it, because the law of joining of a “shomer” was not stated concerning the impurity of a carcass.

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

so

one who touches

skin that is

opposite

the

flesh behind it—could it be that he will not be impure,

because he did not touch the flesh itself, and

it does not even perform the function of a “hand”?

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

For concerning the impurity of foods, anything that serves as a “hand” for food—for example, something by means of which the food is held—brings in and takes out impurity. [As will be brought below in the Gemara, if the food is impure and pure food touched the hand of the impure food, it becomes impure.] Shall we say that from the verse “with its carcass” we exclude that, concerning the impurity of a carcass, there is not even the law of a “hand,” and if a person touched the hand of the carcass he does not become impure at all!?

The verse therefore says, “he shall become impure.”

This includes that although the shomer does not join to complete an olive-bulk for the impurity of a carcass, nevertheless, when the carcass itself contains an olive-bulk, the shomer too brings in and takes out impurity by virtue of being the “hand” of the carcass.

We learned there

at the beginning of tractate Uktzin:

Anything

that

serves

as a

“hand”

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

but not a shomer,

which does not protect the food from being spoiled, the flesh is

impure

if a creeping creature touched the bone.

For 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 hand of the food brings the impurity into the food.

And likewise, the bone that is a “hand”

causes impurity.

If the flesh had been impure and pure food touched the bone, the other food becomes impure, since the hand of the food takes the impurity out from the impure food to the pure food.

And it does not join

the “hand” with the food to complete the measure of an egg of the food, so that the food should receive impurity or so that it should cause impurity to other food.

And anything that is

a “shomer,” although it is not a “hand,”

such as skin upon which there is flesh because the skin protects the flesh from being spoiled, the flesh is

impure

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

and

likewise the skin

causes impurity

to others when the flesh is impure, since the skin takes the impurity out from the impure flesh to cause impurity to other food that the shomer touches.

And

also

joins

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

And anything that is

neither a hand nor a shomer,

such as something that is not fit to hold the food by means of it and does not assist in protecting the food—

the food does not become impure

because of it,

nor does it cause impurity

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

And we considered this:

The “hands”

that bring in and take out impurity—

where are they written?

And we answer: The hand for receiving impurity in the impurity of foods is derived from this,

as it is written, “And if water is placed upon seed, and any of the 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 the food itself receives impurity from the creeping creature, but everything that you need in connection with this food—all of it becomes impure.

This includes the hands,

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

And it is written

concerning the impurity of a carcass:

“And if one of the animals dies, which is yours for eating,

one who touches its carcass shall become impure.” And here too we expound:

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

which take the impurity out from the carcass.

It follows that we find a

hand

of the impurity of foods

to bring in

the impurity through its touching a creeping creature, since the verse is speaking with regard to receiving impurity,

and

likewise we find a hand of the impurity of a carcass

to take out

the impurity from the carcass in order to cause impurity to others [for a carcass has no law of a hand with regard to receiving impurity, since it is impure in itself; thus the law of a hand stated concerning it refers to causing impurity to others].

A shomer—

to bring in and to take out—

does not require a verse,

because it follows

by a kal va-chomer from a “hand.”

And just as a hand, which does not protect

the food, nevertheless

brings in and takes out

impurity,

a shomer,

which protects the food,

all the more so

brings in and takes out impurity!?

If so,

the shomer concerning which the Merciful One wrote,

which we included above from “every seed of a sown plant”—as people remove it for sowing—

why do I need it?

Infer from this that it comes

is effective only

to join.

For the shomer joins to complete the measure of the food with regard to impurity. But the hand joins only to bring in and take out impurity, and this is the source for the law of the Mishna in tractate Uktzin.

And we considered this:

But say:

A hand

is effective only

to bring in

impurity specifically,

but not to take it out.

For the verse concerning the hands of the impurity of foods speaks of bringing in—that is, pure food touched a creeping creature. And from the impurity of a carcass we cannot learn taking out, since the impurity of a carcass is more severe than the impurity of foods, as we say below.

And a

shomer that was included by the verse concerning every seed of a sown plant is both

you cannot say that!

to bring in and

both

to take out. For bringing in we know from a kal va-chomer from a “hand,” and the verse comes to include taking out.

should taking out

But a hand—

to take out, and a shomer to join—

no?!

And we answer:

A hand is for bringing in but not for taking out—

you cannot say that!

For

now, if it brings in

the impurity to food that is pure,

taking out

the impurity from impure food

should it be a question?! Since a hand brings in and takes out, a shomer too brings in and takes out by a kal va-chomer, and necessarily the verse concerning a shomer comes to teach joining.

And we considered this:

But say:

The hand written concerning foods is written

for taking out

and is written

not for bringing in. And bringing impurity in cannot be learned from taking impurity out by a kal va-chomer [and below we answer that the hand of foods is written with regard to bringing in].

An oven and a stove shall be smashed;

A shomer—

for taking out and bringing in.

For the verse comes to include bringing in, which is not written concerning a hand.

But a hand for bringing in, and a shomer for joining—

no!

And we answer:

“Hand” is written redundantly.

For it is also written concerning the impurity of vessels:

“An oven and a stove shall be broken;

they are impure, and they are impure

for you,”

and we expound: “For you”

—for everything that serves your needs. This includes the hands

of the vessels with regard to impurity.

And since we have two instances of yadot: one in the impurity of foodstuffs, and the other in the impurity of vessels,

we establish one for transmitting impurity and one for bringing in impurity. And from here we learn that a hand transmits and brings in impurity, while a guard is derived by a kal va-chomer; and when the Merciful One wrote an inclusion concerning a guard, it was written in order that it join together.

And still we raise the matter: Say that all the verses concerning yadot come to teach transmitting impurity and not bringing in impurity? And if you say: Why do I need two verses, one for the impurity of foodstuffs and also one for the impurity of vessels, [and necessarily one of them comes to teach bringing in impurity] —

which one is superfluous!?

For if you say

let the Merciful One write

yadot

with regard to seeds,

namely, with regard to the impurity of foodstuffs [“and when water is placed upon seed”]

and let these

the impurity of an animal carcass and the impurity of vessels

be derived from them 12 .

It can be refuted:

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

For they receive impurity even from the first degree of impurity; can you say this with regard to vessels, which receive impurity only from a primary source of impurity? And likewise the impurity of foodstuffs is more stringent than that of an animal carcass, as we learned in our Mishna, that it increased the impurity of foodstuffs over the impurity of carcasses. If so, it is impossible to learn the law of a hand for the impurity of vessels and for the impurity of an animal carcass from the impurity of foodstuffs, and the law of a hand that was stated concerning them is not superfluous.

And if

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

it can be refuted:

What is true of an oven? It renders

foodstuffs

impure through its airspace!

For food that enters into its hollow becomes impure even if it did not touch the oven; can you say this with regard to an animal carcass and seeds, which render others impure only if they touched the animal carcass and the seeds themselves? If so, it is impossible to learn the law of a hand for the impurity of an animal carcass and for the impurity of foodstuffs from the impurity of vessels.

And if

the Merciful One were to write it with regard to an animal carcass, and let these be derived from it,

it can be refuted:

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

For an animal carcass is a “primary source of impurity,” and therefore it renders a person impure, and it also renders impure through carrying; and likewise, it itself is the body of the impurity, and did not receive its impurity from others. Can you say this with regard to an oven and seeds, which cannot be a primary source of impurity, and which do not possess all these stringencies? If so, it is impossible to learn the law of a hand for the impurity of foodstuffs and for the impurity of vessels from the impurity of an animal carcass.

And since all the verses from which the law of a hand is increased are needed for their own matters, once again we have no source to say that a hand is effective also for bringing in impurity!?

And we answer: Indeed,

one cannot be derived from one

as we said, but

let one be derived from two.

Let the Merciful One write yadot only with regard to two impurities out of the three, and the third will be learned from them concerning transmitting impurity. And necessarily, the third was written in order to teach that it also brings in impurity.

And we still raise an objection:

which one should be derived?

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

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

It can be refuted:

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

for an animal carcass and an oven do not require preparation in order to receive impurity or to render others impure;

can you say this with regard to seeds, which become impure only with preparation.

For only if water came upon the seeds are they prepared to receive impurity; and if so, one cannot learn the law of a hand for the impurity of foodstuffs from the impurity of an animal carcass and vessels.

And we reject this:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

This is not a leniency of seeds in relation to an oven. For

fruits that have not been prepared

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

For the preparation of fruits is their “completion of work,” and an oven likewise does not receive impurity before its work has been completed; and if so, vessels too do not receive impurity without preparation .

Rather, he refutes it as follows: What is true of these? They become impure without contact,

for the oven receives impurity from a creeping creature that entered into its hollow, even if it did not touch it; and likewise an animal carcass does not receive its impurity from another source, but is itself the impurity, and even if it did not touch the impurity, it is impure ;

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

with the impurity? If so, it is impossible to learn the law of a hand for the impurity of foodstuffs from the impurity of an animal carcass and vessels.

And if you say:

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

It can be refuted:

What is true of these? They are food,

both the seeds and the animal carcass; can you say this with regard to an oven, which is a vessel? If so, it is impossible to learn the impurity of vessels from the impurity of foodstuffs and an animal carcass.

Rather,

let the Merciful One not write it with regard to an animal carcass, and let it be derived from these.

And if so,

why do I need the hand of an animal carcass

that the verse wrote?

Rather,

if it does not concern the hand of an animal carcass, assign it to the hand of elsewhere,

of foodstuffs. And if it does not concern transmitting impurity, since it is written concerning their own bodies, assign it to bringing in impurity.

Thus we find

a hand —

for bringing in impurity,

and

a hand —

for transmitting impurity.

And

a guard

is learned by a kal va-chomer from “hand,” and its verse comes

to join together.

And we raise an objection:

And still,

this

hand of an animal carcass was necessary,

and it is impossible to learn the law of a hand in the impurity of an animal carcass from the impurity of foodstuffs and vessels!?

For if the Merciful One had not written

a hand

with regard to an animal carcass,

but rather we would have learned it from the impurity of foodstuffs and vessels,

I would have said, “It is sufficient for what emerges from the law to be like the subject of the law” —

just as these

foodstuffs and vessels

do not render

their hand

a person impure,

for they themselves also do not render a person impure,

so too

the hand of an

animal carcass does not render a person impure.

Therefore the Merciful One wrote a hand with regard to an animal carcass, so that it should render even a person impure !?

And we say:

Rather, the hand of an animal carcass was certainly necessary

as you said,

but the guard of an animal carcass,

which we learned in the earlier beraita from “it shall become impure,” that one who touches the skin corresponding to the flesh from its outside is impure —

it is the one that was not necessary!

For

with regard to what halakhic matter did the Merciful One write it?

If it is to join

the guard in order to complete the measure of flesh to an olive-bulk,

did you not say that it does not join!

As we excluded guards earlier from the impurity of an animal carcass.

And to transmit

the impurity also no verse is needed, for it comes by

a kal va-chomer from “hand,”

and if a hand transmits impurity, as we learned from the verse “for you,” all the more so a guard transmits impurity; so why do I need the verse “it shall become impure”?

Rather, if it does not concern the guard of an animal carcass, assign it to the hand of an animal carcass.

And if it does not concern the hand of an animal carcass,

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

assign it to the hand of elsewhere,

and to teach bringing in impurity.

Thus we have learned:

a hand for transmitting impurity, a hand for bringing in impurity, and a guard for joining together.