חולין 118:2 — Soncino English Talmud

But 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:Sc. foodstuffs.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:Sc. a protection.
^ᵈnote:And here the verse can be interpreted as referring to the rule that the protection can be included together with the rest.
^ᵉnote: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.
^ᶠnote:And not as was suggested supra (p. 655) to the law of protections in regard to other cases.
^ᵍnote:‘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.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote:Seeing that the law of protections is stated only with regard to seeds.
^ʲnote:To convey uncleanness to and from the bulk.
^ᵏnote:I.e., if the handle was moistened by water the bulk was not thereby rendered susceptible to contract uncleanness.
^ˡnote:I.e., what is the ground of their difference.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote:For otherwise all seed would be unclean because of the dead reptiles found in the soil.
^ᵖnote: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.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote:But not to anything less than the size of a bean.
^ˢnote:For whatsoever overshadows a handle to flesh is regarded as if it overshadows the flesh itself.
^ᵗnote:For a handle to anything less than the size of an olive's bulk is of no significance.