Chullin

to our Mishnah thus, THE HIDE, MEAT JUICE, SEDIMENT . . . [BONES . . .] ARE TO BE INCLUDED TO CONVEY FOOD UNCLEANNESS. Thereupon R. Simeon b. Lakish said: This was taught only with regard to a bone which is considered a protection, but a hair is not considered a protection; R. Johanan, however, said: Even a hair is considered a protection. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: But can there be a protection over another protection? — [He replied,] It penetrates right through. R. Aha demurred saying: If so, how may we write Tefillin? It is necessary that the writing be perfect and it is not so? — He must have overlooked the statement [of the Rabbis] in the West, viz., Any hole [in parchment] over which the ink can pass is not considered a hole. R. Johanan then raised the following objection against Resh Lakish: If there was an olive's bulk of [unclean] flesh on the hide and a man touched a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite it, he becomes unclean. It is, is it not, because it [the hair] is regarded as a protection? — No, it is because it is regarded as a handle. But of what use is one hair? — As R. Ila'a referred [elsewhere] to a bristle among many bristles, so here, too, it refers to a hair amongst other hairs. And where was this view of R. Ila'a stated? — In connection with the following Mishnah: The bristles of an ear of corn contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness, but are not included together with the rest. Of what use is a bristle? — R. Ila'a replied: It refers to a bristle among many bristles. MEAT JUICE. What is the ROTEB?1 — Raba said: It is the fat.2 Whereupon Abaye said to him: But should it not by itself convey food uncleanness? — Rather it must be, meat juice which had set. But why ‘had set’? Even if it had not set it should also [be included with the meat], for Resh Lakish has said that the juice of vegetables is to be included [with the vegetable] to make up the date's bulk with regard to the Day of Atonement.3 — There it is a question of satisfying one's hunger and anything [though not strictly a foodstuff] would satisfy it; here, however, it is a question of what can be included [with a foodstuff] and, therefore, if it [the meat juice] had set it can be included, but if it had not set it cannot be included.4 SEDIMENT. What is the KIPPAH?5 — Raba said,lt is the sediment [of boiled meat]. Whereupon Abaye said to him: But should it not by itself convey food uncleanness? — Rather said R. Papa: It must be the spices. We have learnt elsewhere: If a man clotted blood and ate it, or if he melted [forbidden] fat and gulped it down, he is culpable.6 Now it is quite clear in the case where he clotted blood and ate it, for since he clotted it he thereby determined it [as a foodstuff], but [why should he be culpable] where he melted fat and gulped it down? Scripture uses the term ‘eating’ in connection with it, and this is not eating? — Resh Lakish said: The verse says: Soul, 7 to include one who drinks.8 The same has been taught in respect of leavened bread: Where a man dissolved it9 and gulped it down, if it was leavened, he is liable to the penalty of kareth, and if it was unleavened, he has not thereby fulfilled his obligation on the Passover.10 Now it is quite right to say ‘If it was unleavened he has not thereby fulfilled his obligation on the Passover’, for the Divine Law says: Bread of affliction,11 and this is not bread of affliction;12 but why does it say: ‘If it was leavened he is liable to the penalty of kareth’? Does not Scripture use the term eating’ in connection with it? Resh Lakish said: The verse says: Soul,13 to include one who drinks. And the same has been taught in respect of the carcass of a clean bird: If he dissolved it14 with fire (and gulped it down], he is unclean;15 but if in the sun, he is not unclean.16 Whereupon we put the questions is not the expression ‘eating’ written in connection with it?17 And Resh Lakish replied. The verse says: Soul,17 to include one who drinks. But if so, even (if he dissolved it) in the sun he should also [be unclean]? — In the sun it becomes putrid. Now this18 was necessary [to have been taught with regard to each of these cases]. For if the Divine Law had stated it only with regard to the fat, one could not have inferred the same with regard to leavened bread, for (in the case of the former) there was never a moment when it was permitted;19 nor could one have inferred the same with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird], for the former is punishable by kareth.20 And had the Divine Law stated it only with regard to leavened bread, one could not have inferred the same with regard to the fat, for the former does not admit of any exception;21 nor could one have inferred the same with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird], for the former is punishable by kareth. And had the Divine Law stated it only with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird], one could not have inferred the same with regard to the others, for the former conveys uncleanness.22 [Clearly] one case could not have been inferred from the other, but could not one case have been inferred from the other two? — Which could have been inferred? Had not the Divine Law stated it with regard to the carcass [of a clean bird] but this latter was to be inferred from the others,23 [such inference could be refuted thus]: It is so with the other cases since they are punishable by kareth. And had not the Divine Law stated it with regard to leavened bread but this latter was to be inferred from the others,24 [such inference could be refuted thus], it is so with the other cases since they were never permitted at any time. And had not the Divine Law stated it with regard to the forbidden fat but this latter was to be inferred from the others,25 [such inference could be refuted thus]: It is so with the other cases since they admit of no exceptions; will you, then, say the same of the forbidden fat which admits of an exception? — What is this [exception]? Is it that the forbidden fat of cattle is permitted to the Most High?26 But a carcass [of a bird], too, is permitted to the Most High, namely, a bird whose head has been nipped off!27 Or is it that the fat of a wild animal [is permitted] to a common man? But a carcass, namely, the sin-offering of a bird whose head has been nipped off, is also permitted to priests!28 — In truth, [the exception is that] the fat of a wild animal [is permitted] to a common man, and as for your difficulty from the case of the priests, [it must be remembered that] the priests enjoy this privilege from the table of the Most High.29 Wherefore is the following teaching necessary: ‘[It is written,] The unclean,30 to signify that the juice and the broth and the sediment of these are forbidden’? Surely it could have been inferred from the above cases?31 — It is necessary, for had not the Divine Law stated it expressly32 I would have said: ‘It is enough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred’, and as there [a minimum of] an olive's bulk is essential, so here a minimum of an olive's bulk is essential.33 the vegetable is regarded as part of the foodstuff and is reckoned together with it to make up this quantity. If it were not regarded as part of the foodstuff but as a liquid it could not be reckoned together with it; cf. Yoma 73b. uncleanness, for the standard with each is different. of the spices; v. infra. when a person drinks fat his ‘soul’ enjoys it and he is therefore liable. forbidden only during Passover, but before the festival, it was permitted. the law of nebelah admits of an exception, like the fat. of the eating thereof. there is no case, however, of nebelah being permitted to a common man as of law. superfluous, and it therefore serves to indicate that the extracts and juices from creeping things are included within the prohibition. V. supra 112b. bird) that a solution of the forbidden substance and also the extracts and juices therefrom are forbidden; and all cases could be inferred from these.