חולין 118 — Soncino English Talmud

¹I might also think that he that touches [the hide] at a part where the flesh is attached on the other side shall not be unclean, Scripture therefore says. ‘Shall be unclean’. What does this mean? — Raba, others say: Kadi, replied. There is something missing fin ‘that ‘passage] and it should read as follows: ‘[He that toucheth] the ‘carcass ‘thereof [shall ‘be unclean]’, but not he that touches the bide which has not an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it, even though the hide brings it up to an olive's bulk. I might then also exclude the case of the hide which has an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it. So that if a man were to touch the hide at a part where the flesh is attached on the other side he would not, [I suggest,] be unclean, for it [the hide] does not act even as a ‘handle; Scripture therefore says. ‘Shall be unclean’. We have learnt elsewhere: Whatever serves as a handle [to a bulk] but not as a protection [is a medium whereby the bulk] contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness, but is not included [together with the bulk to make up the size of an egg to convey uncleanness]. Whatever serves as a protection, even if it does not serve as a handle, [is a medium whereby the bulk] contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness, and is included [together with the bulk]. Whatever serves neither as a handle ‘nor as a protection [is no medium so that the bulk] neither contracts uncleanness nor conveys uncleanness thereby. Where is there any Scriptural authority for the law of ‘handles’? — It is written: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall thereon, it is unclean unto you’. ‘Unto you’, that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to the foodstuff]; thus the verse includes handles. It is also written: And if any animal, which serves as food unto you, die. ‘Unto you’, that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to this carcass conveys uncleanness]; thus the verse includes handles. Hence [we see that] a handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk in the case of foodstuffs] and also that a handle can convey uncleanness from [the bulk in the case of a carcass]. That a protection can convey uncleanness to and from [the bulk] does not require any verse, for it is inferred by an a fortiori argument from a handle thus: If a handle which affords no protection can convey uncleanness to and from [the bulk], how much more that which affords protection! Why then does the Divine Law state a verse with regard to a protection? It is, surely, to teach that it is to be included together [with the bulk]. But I might say: A handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk] but not from it, and a protection can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk], but a handle cannot convey uncleanness from [the bulk], neither is a protection to be included together [with the bulk]? — You surely cannot say that a handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk] but not from [the bulk], for if it can bring in the uncleanness it certainly can pass it on! Then I might say: A handle can convey uncleanness from [the bulk] but not to [the bulk], and a protection can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk], but a handle cannot convey uncleanness to [the bulk], neither is a protection to be included together [with the bulk]? — There is another verse which also teaches the law of handles, for it is written: Whether oven, or range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces: they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. ‘Unto you’, that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to it is unclean]; thus the verse includes handles. Which of these verses is superfluous? If the Divine Law had stated [the law of handles] in connection with seeds and it was intended that the others be inferred from them, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with seeds only, since they have more conditions of uncleanness than the others. And if the Divine Law had stated it in connection with the oven and it was intended that the others be inferred from it, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with the oven only since it renders foodstuffs unclean by its air-space. And if the Divine Law had stated it in connection with nebelah and it was intended that the others be inferred from it, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with the nebelah only since it can render man unclean, it can convey uncleanness by carrying, and it is its own source of uncleanness. — One could not indeed infer one case from the other, but one could infer one case from the other two cases. Which one would you infer? If the Divine Law had not stated it in connection with seeds but you would have inferred it from the other two, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with the other cases since they become unclean without first having been rendered susceptible thereto; will you say the same of seeds which become unclean only if first they have been rendered susceptible thereto? — Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: But surely fruit which has not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness is in the same condition as an oven which is not yet finished! — Rather you could raise this objection: That is so with the other cases since they both become unclean without contact [with unclean matter]; will you say the same of seeds which become unclean only by contact? And if the Divine Law had not stated it in connection with the oven but you would have inferred it from the others, [the objection could be raised thus:] That is so with the other cases since each is a foodstuff! — The fact is the Divine Law need not have stated it in connection with nebelah, for you could have inferred it from the others. For what purpose then is the law of handles stated in connection with nebelah? If then the law of handles serves no purpose in connection with nebelah, you may apply it to other cases. Hence [you derive that] a handle can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk], and [that] a protection can be included together [with the bulk]. But still the law of handles stated in connection with nebelah was absolutely necessary; for had not the Divine Law stated it in connection with nebelah I should have said: ‘It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred’, and therefore, just as the others cannot render a man unclean so nebelah cannot render a man unclean! In truth the law of handles in connection with nebelah is really necessary, but it is the law of protections in connection with nebelah that is unnecessary. Why did the Divine Law state it? Will you say, [to teach] that it can be included together [with the bulk]? Surely you have already said that it cannot be included! [And to teach] that it can convey the uncleanness from the bulk [is unnecessary], for it is already inferred by an a fortiori argument from the law of handles! If then the law of protections in connection with nebelah serves no purpose, you may apply it to the law of handles in connection with nebelah; and if the law of handles in connection with nebelah also serves no purpose, you may then apply it to the law of handles in connection with other cases. Hence [we derive that] a handle can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk] and a protection can be included together [with the bulk].^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:The two clauses of this Baraitha apparently contradict each other: the first clause states that the hide ‘of a carcass does not convey uncleanness, whereas the second clause states that ‘one who touches the hide of a carcass becomes unclean.
^ᵇnote:Aliter: ‘as the case may be’, i.e., introducing respectively other persons.
^ᶜnote:For the protection cannot be included together with a morsel of the carcass to make up the olive's bulk in order to convey nebelah-uncleanness.
^ᵈnote:For although the hide does not serve as a protection so as to be reckoned as part of the carcass itself, it serves nevertheless as a handle or connective by which uncleanness can be conveyed to other matters.
^ᵉnote:‘Uk. I, 1.
^ᶠnote:E.g., the stalks of fruit or a marrowless bone attached to a piece of flesh; each, although not a foodstuff, acts as a handle or connective to convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs if the fruit or the flesh was unclean, or to render the fruit or flesh unclean if the stalk or bone came into contact with unclean matter.
^ᵍnote:E.g., hide to which is attached an olive's bulk of flesh, or nut shells.
^ʰnote:E.g., hair.
^ⁱnote:Lev. XI, 38.
^ʲnote:That in connection with foodstuffs a handle can convey the uncleanness to the bulk; in other words the bulk contracts uncleanness through the medium of the handle, for this verse only speaks of the foodstuff contracting uncleanness.
^ᵏnote:Lev. XI, 39.
^ˡnote:That through the medium of the handle the carcass conveys uncleanness to everything that comes into contact with the handle.
^ᵐnote:Cf. supra 117b the teaching of the Tanna of the school of P. Ishmael, where v. 37 is interpreted for this purpose.
^ⁿnote:Sc. the protection.
^ᵒnote:To make up the requisite minimum quantity.
^ᵖnote:For the verse which implies that a handle can convey the uncleanness from the bulk deals solely with nebelah, which is a grave uncleanness, and no other case may be inferred from it.
^ᵠnote:For a protection is a degree graver than a handle by reason of the a fortiori argument.
^ʳnote:Lev. XI, 35.
^ˢnote:I.e., that a handle can convey the uncleanness from an external source to the vessel. There being, therefore, two verses each teaching the law that a handle can convey uncleanness to the bulk, one would be utilized to teach the law that handles can convey uncleanness from the bulk. Consequently, now that handles can convey uncleanness to and from the bulk, the verse (ibid. 37) with regard to a protection is entirely superfluous, for it would have been inferred by an a fortiori argument from handles; it must serve therefore to teach the law that the protection is to be included together with the bulk to make up the requisite minimum quantity.
^ᵗnote:For we have now three verses each stating the law of handles, viz., v. 35 which deals with an oven, v. 38 which deals with seeds, and v. 39 which deals with nebelah.
^ᵘnote:Sc. the rule of handles in connection with the oven and nebelah.
^ᵛnote:Seeds, being foodstuffs, can become unclean even from that which is unclean in the first degree, whereas an oven or any vessel can only contract uncleanness from that which is a primary source of uncleanness. Moreover, foodstuffs have more conditions of uncleanness than nebelah, as is expressly stated in our Mishnah as the result of the application of the law of protections.
^ʷnote:Which is not the case with foodstuffs and nebelah. The oven, being an earthenware vessel, can render unclean any foodstuffs which come into its air-space even though there was no actual contact. V. supra 24bff
^ˣnote:As well as by contact, which is not the case with the others.
^ʸnote:Whereas the oven and the foodstuffs were rendered unclean by some unclean matter.
^ᶻnote:For foodstuffs cannot contract uncleanness unless they have first been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by being moistened by water or any of the other liquids prescribed. Cf. Lev. XI, 38.
^ᵃᵃnote:From the point of view of the application of uncleanness fruit which has not been moistened by water is considered ‘unfinished’ just as an unfinished article.
^ᵃᵇnote:The oven contracts uncleanness without any contact, as when a dead reptile is suspended in its air-space; nebelah, too, is unclean without any contact for it is its own source of uncleanness.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. nebelah and seeds.
^ᵃᵈnote:By drawing the conclusion from the common features of the two cases, for each of those cases has a peculiarity which is not present in the other. Seeds are peculiar in that they have many conditions of uncleanness; the oven is peculiar in that its air-space can render unclean. The features common to both are that they are unclean and that through the medium of a handle they can convey uncleanness to others; the same would apply to nebelah.
^ᵃᵉnote:Sc. foodstuffs, that through the medium of a handle they can contract uncleanness.
^ᵃᶠnote:Accordingly, ‘unto you’ stated in connection with seeds teaches that a handle can convey uncleanness from the bulk; ‘unto you’ stated in connection with nebelah teaches that with foodstuffs a handle can convey uncleanness to the bulk, (for it was unnecessary to state this for nebelah itself since nebelah could have been inferred from the other two cases, v. p. 653, n. 6; moreover, it was also unnecessary to teach the rule that a handle can convey uncleanness from the bulk, for this we already know with regard to foodstuffs). ‘Upon any sowing seed’ teaches that a protection can be included together with the bulk to make up the requisite minimum quantity.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., nebelah cannot render a man unclean by means of a handle, e.g., if a man touched a dry bone at the end of which there was a piece of nebelah he would not be unclean. Hence it was necessary that the law of handles be stated in connection with nebelah in order to include this case.
^ᵃʰnote:Which is derived from the verse: Shall be unclean, supra 118a top.
^ᵃⁱnote:Sc. a protection.
^ᵃʲnote:Supra p. 650.
^ᵃᵏnote:Supra p. 651.
^ᵃˡnote:For the law of handles is expressly stated in connection with nebelah in the verse: Which serves as food unto you; v. supra p. 651.

²But I could say this: If the law of protections in connection with nebelah serves no purpose then you may apply it to the law of protections in connection with other cases, with the result [that we learn] that a protection can convey uncleanness to [the bulk] and also [that] a protection can be included together [with the bulk], but a handle [I maintain] cannot convey uncleanness to [the bulk]! — Indeed at the very outset [it must be admitted that] the law of handles stated in connection with foodstuffs refers to the handle as conveying the uncleanness to [the bulk]. Then for what purpose is the law of protections stated in connection with nebelah? For its own purpose. But for what? [Will you say to teach] that it can be included together [with the bulk]? Surely you have already said that it cannot be included! And [to teach] that it can convey uncleanness to and from [the bulk is unnecessary], for it can surely be inferred by an a fortiori argument from the law of handles! — Scripture sometimes takes trouble to state a rule even though it could be inferred by an a fortiori argument. But if so, I can say the same of the law of protections in connection with other cases; I can say that it actually teaches that it conveys uncleanness to and from [the bulk], for although it could be inferred by an a fortiori argument, Scripture nevertheless troubled to state it expressly! — Wherever it is possible to interpret the verse [as applying to something else] we do so. R. Habiba said: The law of protections stated in connection with nebelah is exceptional, for since it acts in the same way as a handle [it is only right that] we refer it to the law of handles. R. Judah b. Ishmael demurred, raising an objection from the following Mishnah which we learnt: The point of a pomegranate is included [with the fruit], but its blossom is not included. Wherefore is this? Should not one apply the rule of the verse: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown? And it is not so here. Moreover we have learnt: THE HIDE, MEAT JUICE, SEDIMENT . . . ARE TO BE INCLUDED TO CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS; whence do we know it? — The fact is, there are three Scriptural expressions: ‘upon any sowing’, ‘seed’, ‘which is to be sown’; one refers to the protections of seeds, the other to the protections of fruit and the third to the protections of flesh, eggs, and fish. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: A handle serves [as a connective] for the uncleanness but a handle does not serve [as a connective] for rendering susceptible to uncleanness. R. Johanan says: A handle serves [as a connective] both for the uncleanness and for rendering susceptible to uncleanness. Wherein do they differ? — If you wish you may say [that they differ] in the interpretation of a verse, or if you wish you may say [that they differ] in the logical reasoning. ‘If you wish you may say [that they differ] in the interpretation of a verse’ — one maintains, a Scriptural expression may be interpreted as referring to the immediately preceding subject but not to what is anterior thereto, whilst the other maintains, a Scriptural expression may be interpreted as referring both to the immediately preceding subject and to what is anterior thereto. ‘Or if you wish you may say [that they differ] in the logical reasoning’ one maintains, being rendered susceptible to uncleanness is the first stage of uncleanness, whilst the other maintains, being rendered susceptible to uncleanness is not the first stage of uncleanness. There is [a Baraitha] taught which accords with the view of R. Johanan. It was taught: As a handle serves as a connective for the uncleanness so it serves also as a connective for rendering susceptible to uncleanness. And as seeds can contract uncleanness only when they have been plucked up so can they be rendered susceptible to uncleanness only when they have been plucked up. Rab said: A handle cannot serve [as a connective] to anything less than the size of an olive, and a protection cannot serve [as a protection] to anything less than the size of a bean. R. Johanan said: A handle can serve [as a connective] to anything less than the size of an olive, and a protection can serve [as a protection] to anything less than the size of a bean. An objection was raised: If there were two bones [of a corpse] that bore each a half-olive's bulk of flesh [at one end] and a man brought into a house the other two ends, and the house overshadowed them, the house becomes unclean. Judah b. Nakosa says in the name of R. Jacob: How can two bones [each bearing only a half olive's bulk of flesh at the other end] be reckoned together to make up an olive's bulk? 20^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ

^ᵃᵐnote:Sc. foodstuffs.
^ᵃⁿnote:The question at the early stages of the argument when it is suggested that a handle can convey uncleanness from the bulk but not to it in the case of foodstuffs is untenable, for the context clearly shows that the handle, which is referred to in that verse, is intended to convey the uncleanness to the bulk.
^ᵃᵒnote:Sc. a protection.
^ᵃᵖnote:And here the verse can be interpreted as referring to the rule that the protection can be included together with the rest.
^ᵃᵠnote:The protection of a nebelah, sc. the hide, is admittedly not part of the nebelah, for it is not included together with the flesh to make up the minimum quantity to convey uncleanness, but it serves to convey uncleanness from the nebelah; in other words it serves in the capacity of a handle.
^ᵃʳnote:And not as was suggested supra (p. 655) to the law of protections in regard to other cases.
^ᵃˢnote:‘Uk. II, 3. The point may be regarded as a protection to the pomegranate and as such may be considered as part of the fruit, but the blossoms around it are at most a protection over the point, i.e., a protection to a protection, and as such cannot be considered part of the fruit.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lev. XI, 37. For the law of protections is derived from this verse, and only that covering is regarded as a protection which is sown together with the seed or is planted with the fruit; thus one must exclude the protuberances of fruit.
^ᵃᵘnote:Seeing that the law of protections is stated only with regard to seeds.
^ᵃᵛnote:To convey uncleanness to and from the bulk.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., if the handle was moistened by water the bulk was not thereby rendered susceptible to contract uncleanness.
^ᵃˣnote:I.e., what is the ground of their difference.
^ᵃʸnote:The law of handles in connection with foodstuffs is deduced from the expression ‘unto you’ stated in the following verse: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall thereon, it is unclean unto you (Lev. XI, 38). Now this expression certainly refers to the subject of uncleanness which immediately precedes it, but the question is whether it also refers to the subject, ‘If water be put upon’, which is at the beginning of the verse.
^ᵃᶻnote:And just as a handle serves as a connective for the uncleanness so it also serves as a connective for rendering the rest susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵇᵃnote:For otherwise all seed would be unclean because of the dead reptiles found in the soil.
^ᵇᵇnote:If the handle to a foodstuff less than the size of an olive's bulk (which foodstuff was among other foodstuffs together making up the size of an egg-so adds Rashi, but unnecessarily, v. Tosaf. s.v. iht) was touched by unclean matter, it does not act as a connective to convey the uncleanness to the foodstuff.
^ᵇᶜnote:If, for instance, a bone has less than a bean's bulk of marrow in it, it cannot, as a protection, be included together with the marrow to make up the requisite quantity, nor can it convey the uncleanness either to or from the marrow.
^ᵇᵈnote:But not to anything less than the size of a bean.
^ᵇᵉnote:For whatsoever overshadows a handle to flesh is regarded as if it overshadows the flesh itself.
^ᵇᶠnote:For a handle to anything less than the size of an olive's bulk is of no significance.