Chullin

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,1 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].2 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 it3 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 it3 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.4 R. Habiba said: The law of protections stated in connection with nebelah is exceptional, for since it acts in the same way as a handle5 [it is only right that] we refer it to the law of handles.6 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.7 Wherefore is this? Should not one apply the rule of the verse: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown?8 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?9 — 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 uncleanness10 but a handle does not serve [as a connective] for rendering susceptible to uncleanness.11 R. Johanan says: A handle serves [as a connective] both for the uncleanness and for rendering susceptible to uncleanness. Wherein do they differ?12 — 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’13 — 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,14 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 up15 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,16 and a protection cannot serve [as a protection] to anything less than the size of a bean.17 R. Johanan said: A handle can serve [as a connective] to anything less than the size of an olive,18 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.19 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 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. 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. 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. which is sown together with the seed or is planted with the fruit; thus one must exclude the protuberances of fruit. 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. rest susceptible to uncleanness. 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. with the marrow to make up the requisite quantity, nor can it convey the uncleanness either to or from the marrow.