Chullin 118b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

“And say: If it is not needed for the safeguard of a carcass”—

apply it to the general safeguard

of foods [for it is preferable to learn safeguard from safeguard]. And although a verse has already been written for a safeguard of foods, one may say that that verse came to include

a safeguard for introducing, [which we did not learn by a kal va-chomer from a handle, but only for removing; however, for introducing, we still did not know it from the body itself].

[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 of “if it is not needed” came to include

a safeguard for combining, but a handle for introducing not

did we learn!?

And we answer:

Rather,

what we challenged, that we should say that the handle of foods comes to remove and not to introduce, is not a difficulty at all. For

at the outset, when a handle was written

with regard to foods—

for introducing

is it that it was

written.

For the verse, “And if water be put upon seed, and any of their carcass fall upon it,” speaks of the food’s receiving impurity!

And from this point onward, we learn a handle for removing by a kal va-chomer from introducing, whereas the verse concerning a safeguard of foods comes for the matter of combining. For a safeguard of foods, for introducing and removing, we have to learn by a kal va-chomer from the law of a handle, which introduces and removes.

And we challenge:

Rather,

from now on, the verse concerning the

safeguard of a carcass—for what do I need it!?

For the verse remains superfluous.

And we answer:

For itself

it came, to tell us the law of a safeguard in a carcass.

And we refute:

And for what

was it needed?

If for combining

with the flesh to complete the measure of an olive’s bulk?

You said that it does not combine.

As we exclude safeguards above from the impurity of a carcass.

If for introducing

and removing,

behold, from a

kal va-chomer from a handle it can be derived!?

And we answer: The verse indeed came for itself, for introducing and removing. And

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

the verse took the trouble and wrote it”!

And the Torah specified that both the handle and the safeguard remove the impurity, although it is possible to learn a safeguard by a kal va-chomer from a handle.

And we challenge:

If so,

since you say that a matter that can be derived by a kal va-chomer, the verse took the trouble and wrote it,

the general safeguard, [of food impurity], which you learned that the safeguard combines from this—that for introducing and removing no verse is needed, since this can be learned by a kal va-chomer from a handle—

which you derived as combining because no verse is needed for bringing impurity in and taking it out, since that can be derived by an a-fortiori inference from a handle,

I could say to you

that it indeed comes for the matter of

introducing and removing, and a matter that can be derived by a kal va-chomer, the verse took the trouble and wrote it,

but from where do we know combining?

And we answer:

Where there is something to expound

from the superfluity—

we expound.

And we do not say, “The verse took the trouble and wrote it.” Therefore, we establish its verse with regard to combining. This is not so with the safeguard of a carcass, from which nothing can be expounded, for we expound from the verse that the safeguard does not combine; there we say, “The verse took the trouble and wrote it.”

Rav Haviva said:

Indeed, as we said at the outset: we learn a handle for introducing from the safeguard of a carcass, for if it is not needed for itself, since it can be derived by a kal va-chomer from its handle, apply it to a general handle, which is effective even for introducing.

And regarding what we refuted, that we should apply it to the general safeguard, which is effective both for introducing and for combining, it can be answered:

The safeguard of a carcass is different, since

it does not combine with the flesh to complete the measure like other safeguards, but

it performs the act of a handle

that merely removes the impurity, like all handles; it is reasonable that its superfluity, which was not needed—

we should cast it away!

That is: with “if it is not needed for itself,” apply it to teach about a general handle, which is effective even for introducing, and not about a general safeguard [and although it resembles a general safeguard, since in law it resembles a general handle, we establish its superfluity for a general handle] .

After the Gemara finished clarifying the source that a handle is effective for introducing and removing, and that a safeguard is effective even for combining, the Gemara returns to clarify from where it is known that all safeguards combine toward the measure of an egg’s bulk.

Rav Judah bar Yishmael challenges

the matter that we said above: that we learn that a safeguard combines from the verse “upon every seed that is sown,” in the manner in which people remove [produce] for sowing:

“This that we learned: The blossom-end

that is at its head

of a pomegranate combines

with the pomegranate toward the measure of an egg’s bulk with regard to food impurity, since it is a safeguard for the fruit.

And its flower

the hair that grows around the blossom-end and safeguards it—

does not combine.

Because it does not safeguard the fruit itself, but it safeguards the safeguard, and there is no safeguard upon a safeguard .

And we see from this that the blossom-end of a pomegranate combines, that there is a law of a safeguard in tree fruits,

and why? Read here: “upon every seed that is sown.”

For only something that is sown in the ground together with the fruit was included for combining,

but there is not

this reality with the blossom-end of a pomegranate.

For when a pomegranate is planted, a cutting [branch] from the tree is planted in the ground, and the pomegranate itself is not planted , and if so, why does the blossom-end combine toward the measure of an egg’s bulk? For it is not sown in the ground!?

And furthermore

he challenges:

“This that we learned”

in the Mishna,

“the hide, the gravy, and the congealed substance, etc., combine to render food impure with food impurity! From where do we know

that there is a law of a safeguard in all foods? For it is impossible to learn from seeds, since the husk, which is the “safeguard,” is sown together with the wheat, whereas this reality does not exist in animals!?

And we answer:

Rather, three verses are written

with regard to a safeguard:

a. “

Upon every seed.”

b. “

Sown”

c. “

that is sown.”

One—

for the safeguard of seeds,

for the safeguard is sown in the ground.

And one—

for the safeguard of trees,

for although it is not sown in the ground, in any event it resembles more closely the safeguard of seeds, and it too combines.

And

the other—

for the safeguard of meat, eggs, and fish,

for although it does not at all resemble the safeguard of seeds, in any event it combines, because anything that serves to safeguard the food combines with it toward the measure of an egg’s bulk.

With regard to food impurity, the Torah teaches that the food is not fit to receive impurity until it is wetted with one of the seven liquids, through which it is “prepared” [made ready] to receive impurity. It is not necessary that the entire food be wetted with water; rather, if part of it was wetted, the entire food becomes prepared to receive impurity. And from this point the Gemara discusses the law when only the handle of the food was wetted with water: does this help prepare the entire food to receive impurity, or not?

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

a law of

a handle for

the matter of

impurity,

as we said: the handle introduces and removes the impurity.

And there is no

law of

a handle for

the matter of

preparation.

For if the handle was wetted with water, the food was not thereby prepared to receive impurity.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: There is a handle for impurity and for preparation.

Just as the handle is considered like food with regard to the laws of impurity, in that it introduces and removes the impurity, so the handle is considered like food with regard to the law of preparation: if the handle was prepared, the food too was prepared .

And we explain:

In what do they disagree?

If you wish, say

in a

verse. If you wish, say

in

reasoning. If you wish, say: in a verse:

For we learned the handles of foods above from the verse, “And if water be put upon seed, and any of their carcass fall upon it, it is impure for you,” and we expound, “for you”—for everything that is in your needs.

One

Rav

holds: From the verse

“for you,”

the verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it,

upon “it is impure,” meaning, a handle for impurity,

but not with regard to what precedes what precedes it,

upon “and if water be put,” which is preparation. Therefore, he holds that there is no handle for preparation.

And the other,

Rabbi Yohanan,

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 preparation, and regarding the law of preparation as well the Torah innovated the law of a handle; therefore, there is a handle for preparation.

If you wish, say: in reasoning: One,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds: Preparation—

is the beginning of impurity!

Because through preparation the food becomes fit to receive impurity. Therefore, its law is like impurity, and just as the law of a handle was innovated with regard to receiving impurity, so it is reasonable that there is a law of a handle with regard to preparation for receiving impurity.

And the other,

Rav,

holds: Preparation—

is not the beginning of impurity.

And therefore one cannot learn the law of preparation from the law of receiving impurity, and consequently he holds that there is no handle for preparation .

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: Just as there is a handle for impurity—

so there is a handle for preparation.

And just as

the seeds

do not receive impurity except once they are detached,

and if a creeping creature touched them while they were still attached, they do not receive impurity—

so they do not receive preparation except once they are detached.

For if the seeds were wetted while they were attached, they did not become fit to receive impurity until they were wetted while detached .

And it is explicit in the beraita according to Rabbi Yohanan’s law, that there is a handle for preparation. [And Rav is a tanna, and disagrees].

Rav said: There is no handle for less than an olive’s bulk.—

Food that is less than an olive’s bulk and has a handle, and impurity touched the handle, the handle does not introduce impurity into the food [and likewise does not remove the impurity from the food], because food that is less than an olive’s bulk is not sufficiently significant to have a “handle.”

And there is no safeguard for less than a bean’s bulk.

Food that is less than a “bean’s bulk” [a type of seed, which is much smaller than an olive’s bulk] does not have the law of a safeguard for the safeguard upon it; it does not combine and does not introduce or remove the impurity. But if it contains a bean’s bulk, then even if it is less than an olive’s bulk, the safeguard upon it has the law of a safeguard, to combine .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: There is a handle

even

for less than an olive-bulk.

Provided that it contains at least a double-bulk.

And there is a protective covering

even

for less than a double-bulk.

The discussion in the Gemara is in a case where, at the time of receiving impurity, the food was together with additional foods, and together they contained an egg-bulk, but the handle served as a grip only for less than an olive-bulk; for otherwise, the food would neither receive impurity nor impart impurity to others with less than an egg-bulk.

An objection is raised

to Rav and Rabbi Yohanan: It was taught in a baraita:

Two bones

of a corpse,

and

of flesh from the corpse upon them, half an olive-bulk on each bone,

and

]][the side of the bones on which there is no flesh] were brought

into a house, and the house overshadowed them,

then

the house is impure.

And although a bone from a corpse does not impart impurity through overshadowing [but only through contact and carrying], nevertheless the house became impure through overshadowing, because the bone that entered the house is a protective covering or a handle for the flesh at the other end of the bone [since the impurity of a corpse also has the law of a handle and a protective covering].

And although each bone is a handle or a protective covering only for a half-olive-bulk, nevertheless it is effective in transferring the impurity from the flesh to the house. Thus, it is considered that there are two half-olive-bulks of a corpse in the house, through which the entire house becomes impure by overshadowing.

Judah ben Nekosa said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov: How can two bones combine to form an olive-bulk!?

Since the flesh upon each bone is less than an olive-bulk, the bone does not have the status of a handle [or a protective covering], and it does not render the house impure.