Chullin

I 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?1 — Raba, others say: Kadi,2 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.3 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’.4 We have learnt elsewhere:5 Whatever serves as a handle [to a bulk] but not as a protection6 [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,7 [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 protection8 [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’.9 ‘Unto you’, that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to the foodstuff]; thus the verse includes handles.10 It is also written: And if any animal, which serves as food unto you, die.11 ‘Unto you’, that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to this carcass conveys uncleanness]; thus the verse includes handles.12 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?13 It is, surely, to teach that it14 is to be included together [with the bulk].15 But I might say: A handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk] but not from it,16 and a protection can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk],17 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.18 ‘Unto you’, that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to it is unclean]; thus the verse includes handles. 19 Which of these verses is superfluous?20 If the Divine Law had stated [the law of handles] in connection with seeds and it was intended that the others21 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.22 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.23 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,24 and it is its own source of uncleanness.25 — 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?26 — 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!27 — Rather you could raise this objection: That is so with the other cases since they both become unclean without contact [with unclean matter];28 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 each29 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.30 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.31 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].32 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!33 In truth the law of handles in connection with nebelah is really necessary, but it is the law of protections in connection with nebelah34 that is unnecessary. Why did the Divine Law state it? Will you say, [to teach] that it35 can be included together [with the bulk]? Surely you have already said that it cannot be included!36 [And to teach] that it35 can convey the uncleanness from the bulk [is unnecessary], for it is already inferred by an a fortiori argument from the law of handles!37 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,38 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]. does not convey uncleanness, whereas the second clause states that ‘one who touches the hide of a carcass becomes unclean. convey nebelah-uncleanness. nevertheless as a handle or connective by which uncleanness can be conveyed to other matters. 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. contracts uncleanness through the medium of the handle, for this verse only speaks of the foodstuff contracting uncleanness. the handle. which is a grave uncleanness, and no other case may be inferred from it. 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. deals with seeds, and v. 39 which deals with nebelah. 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. foodstuffs which come into its air-space even though there was no actual contact. V. supra 24bff moistened by water or any of the other liquids prescribed. Cf. Lev. XI, 38. ‘unfinished’ just as an unfinished article. too, is unclean without any contact for it is its own source of uncleanness. 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. 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. 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. supra p. 651.