Chullin 118b (קיח:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

And say: If it is not needed for the appendage of a carcass—

apply it to an ordinary appendage

of food [for it is preferable to derive the law of an appendage from another appendage]. And although a verse has already been written concerning an appendage of food, it may be said that that verse comes to include

an appendage that brings in impurity,

[as we learned from the kal va-chomer only that it brings impurity out, but that it brings impurity in we still did not know from the body itself].

And

the verse stating, “if it is not needed,” comes to include

an appendage that combines, but an appendage that brings in impurity we still have not

learned!?

And we answer:

Rather,

the objection that we should say that the appendage of food comes to teach only that it brings impurity out and not that it brings impurity in is not difficult at all. For

originally, when the term “appendage” was written

with regard to food, it

was written concerning bringing in

impurity, as

it is written.

For the verse, “And if water is placed upon seed and any carcass falls upon it,” is speaking of the food’s becoming susceptible to impurity!

And from this point onward, we derive that an appendage brings impurity out by a kal va-chomer from the fact that it brings impurity in, whereas the verse concerning an appendage of food comes for the matter of combining. For we can derive by a kal va-chomer from the law of an appendage—which brings impurity in and out—that an appendage of food brings impurity in and out.

And we raise an objection:

But

from this perspective, what do I need the verse concerning

the appendage of a carcass for!?

The verse remains superfluous.

And we answer: It

comes for its own matter,

to teach us the law of an appendage in the case of a carcass.

And we refute this:

And for what

was it needed?

If it is for combining

with the flesh to reach the measure of an olive-bulk?

You have said that it does not combine.

As we excluded appendages earlier from the impurity of a carcass.

If it is for bringing in

and bringing out,

that can be derived by a

kal va-chomer from an appendage!?

And we answer: In reality, the verse comes for its own matter, to teach that an appendage brings impurity in and out. And

“A matter that can be derived by a kal va-chomer—

the verse nevertheless took the trouble to write it”!

The Torah specified that both an appendage and a protective covering bring impurity out, even though the law of a protective covering could be derived by a kal va-chomer from an appendage.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

as you say that concerning a matter that can be derived by a kal va-chomer, the verse nevertheless took the trouble to write it,

an ordinary protective covering,

[with regard to the impurity of food], whose combining we derived from this, since bringing impurity in and out does not require a verse, as it can be derived by a kal va-chomer from an appendage,

I could say to you

that in reality the verse comes for the matter of

bringing impurity in and out, and concerning a matter that can be derived by a kal va-chomer, the verse nevertheless took the trouble to write it,

but from where do we derive combining?

And we answer:

Where there is something to expound

from the superfluous wording,

we expound it.

We do not say that the verse took the trouble to write it merely to state a law derivable by a kal va-chomer. Therefore, we establish its verse as referring to combining. This is not so with regard to the appendage of a carcass, from which nothing can be expounded, since we derive from the verse that the appendage does not combine. There, we say, “The verse took the trouble to write it.”

Rav Haviva said:

In reality, it is as we said initially: We derive that an appendage brings impurity in from the appendage of a carcass. Since the verse is not needed for itself, as the law of its own appendage can be derived by a kal va-chomer from its appendage, apply it to an ordinary appendage, which is effective even for bringing impurity in.

And as for the objection that we should apply it to an ordinary protective covering, which is effective both for bringing impurity in and for combining, it can be answered:

The appendage of a carcass is different, since

it does not combine with the flesh to complete the requisite measure like other protective coverings; rather,

it performs the function of an appendage

and merely brings impurity out, like all appendages. It is therefore reasonable that the superfluous wording concerning it, which was not needed,

should be cast elsewhere!

That is: since it is not needed for its own matter, apply it to teach the law of an ordinary appendage, that it is effective even for bringing impurity in, and not to an ordinary protective covering. [Although it resembles an ordinary protective covering, since in law it resembles an ordinary appendage, we establish its superfluous wording as referring to an ordinary appendage] .

After the Gemara has finished clarifying the source for the law that an appendage is effective for bringing impurity in and out, and that a protective covering is also effective for combining, the Gemara returns to clarify from where we know that all protective coverings combine to reach the measure of an egg-bulk.

Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael challenges

the statement made earlier, that we derive that a protective covering combines from the verse, “concerning every seed that is sown,” in the manner in which people remove it for sowing:

That which we learned: The protuberance

at the top

of a pomegranate combines

with the pomegranate to reach the measure of an egg-bulk with regard to the impurity of food, since it is a protective covering for the fruit.

But its blossom

—the hair that grows around the protuberance and protects it—

does not combine.

This is because it does not protect the fruit itself; rather, it protects the protective covering, and there is no protective covering upon a protective covering .

And we see from the fact that the protuberance of a pomegranate combines that there is a law of a protective covering with regard to fruits of trees,

but why? Here the verse states, “concerning every seed that is sown.”

The verse included for combining only something that is sown in the ground together with the fruit,

but there is no

such reality with regard to the protuberance of a pomegranate.

For when a pomegranate is planted, a cutting [a branch] from the tree is planted in the ground, and the pomegranate itself is not planted . If so, why does the protuberance combine to reach the measure of an egg-bulk, given that it is not sown in the ground!?

And furthermore,

he challenges him:

That which we learned

in the Mishna,

“The hide, the gravy, the congealed residue, and so on, combine to render food susceptible to impurity”—from where do we derive

that there is a law of a protective covering with regard to all foods? We cannot derive it from seeds, since the husk, which is the “protective covering,” is sown together with the wheat, whereas this situation does not exist with animals!?

And we answer:

Rather, three verses are written

with regard to a protective covering:

a. “

Concerning every seed.”

b. “

That is sown”

c. “

That one sows.”

One

is for the protective covering of seeds,

where the protective covering is sown in the ground.

And one

is for the protective covering of fruits of trees,

which, although it is not sown in the ground, is nevertheless more similar to the protective covering of seeds, and it too combines.

And

the other

is for the protective covering of meat, eggs, and fish,

which, although it does not at all resemble the protective covering of seeds, nevertheless combines, because anything that serves to protect the food combines with it to reach the measure of an egg-bulk.

With regard to the impurity of food, the Torah innovated that food is not fit to become impure until it has been moistened by one of the seven liquids, thereby becoming “rendered susceptible” [prepared] to receive impurity. It is not necessary for the entire food to become wet with water; rather, if part of it was moistened, the entire food becomes fit to receive impurity. The Gemara now discusses the law when only the appendage of the food was moistened with water: Does this suffice to render the entire food fit to receive impurity, or not?

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: There is

a legal status of

an appendage for

the matter of

impurity,

as we have said: The appendage brings impurity in and brings impurity out.

But there is no

legal status of

an appendage for

the matter of

rendering susceptible.

If the appendage was moistened with water, the food is not thereby rendered susceptible to receive impurity.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is an appendage for impurity and for rendering susceptible.

Just as the appendage is considered food with regard to the laws of impurity, in that it brings impurity in and brings impurity out, so the appendage is considered food with regard to rendering susceptible: If the appendage was rendered susceptible, the food was rendered susceptible as well .

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

If you wish, say

that it is with regard to

a verse. If you wish, say

that it is with regard to

reasoning. If you wish, say that it is with regard to a verse:

For we derived the appendages of food above from the verse, “And if water is placed upon seed and any carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you,” and we expounded: “For you”—for anything that serves your needs.

One master,

Rav,

holds: The verse

concerning “for you”

is expounded with regard to what precedes it,

namely, “it is impure”—which teaches the law of an appendage for impurity,

but not with regard to what precedes what precedes it,

namely, “and if water is placed,” which concerns rendering susceptible. Therefore, he holds that there is no appendage for rendering susceptible.

And the other,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

holds: The verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it and with regard to what precedes what precedes it,

and “for you” applies also to rendering susceptible. The Torah thus innovated the law of an appendage with regard to rendering susceptible as well; therefore, there is an appendage for rendering susceptible.

If you wish, say that it is with regard to reasoning: One master,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

holds: Rendering susceptible

is the beginning of impurity!

For through rendering susceptible, the food becomes fit to receive impurity. Therefore, its law is like that of impurity, and just as the law of an appendage was innovated with regard to receiving impurity, so it is reasonable that there is a law of an appendage with regard to rendering susceptible to receive impurity.

And the other,

Rav,

holds: Rendering susceptible

is not the beginning of impurity.

Therefore, the law of rendering susceptible cannot be derived from the law of receiving impurity, and consequently he holds that there is no appendage for rendering susceptible .

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan: Just as there is an appendage for impurity,

so there is an appendage for rendering susceptible.

And just as

the seeds

do not receive impurity until they have been detached,

and if a creeping animal touches them while they are still attached, they do not receive impurity,

so they do not become rendered susceptible until they have been detached.

If the seeds were moistened while they were attached, they did not become fit to receive impurity until they were moistened while detached .

And it is explicitly stated in the beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling, that there is an appendage for rendering susceptible. [But Rav is a tanna and disagrees.]

Rav said: There is no appendage for anything less than an olive-bulk.

If food smaller than an olive-bulk has an appendage, and impurity touches the appendage, the appendage does not bring impurity into the food [and likewise does not bring impurity out of the food], because food smaller than an olive-bulk is not sufficiently significant to have an “appendage.”

And there is no protective covering for anything less than a bean.

Food smaller than a “bean” [a type of seed, much smaller than an olive-bulk] does not have a protective covering with the legal status of a protective covering; it does not combine and does not bring impurity in or out. But if it contains a “bean,” then even if it is smaller than an olive-bulk, its protective covering has the legal status of a protective covering and combines .