## Chullin Daf 118a

###### Chullin 118a:1
[Chullin 118a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:1)

יָכוֹל הַנּוֹגֵעַ כְּנֶגֶד בָּשָׂר מֵאֲחוֹרָיו לֹא יְהֵא טָמֵא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִטְמָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but **one who touches the external** side of the hide of the carcass that is **aligned with the flesh,** but does not touch the flesh itself, **does not become impure.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “One who touches its carcass **shall be impure** until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). It is derived from the term “shall be impure” that even one who touches the hide in this manner becomes impure.


###### Chullin 118a:2
[Chullin 118a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:2)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: ״בְּנִבְלָתָהּ״ – וְלֹא בְּעוֹר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, וְעוֹר מַשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the *baraita* **saying?** The first clause of the *baraita* teaches that the hide does not impart impurity of a carcass while the latter clause teaches that one who touches the hide does become impure with the impurity of a carcass. **Rava said, and some say it unattributed:** The *baraita* **is incomplete and this** is what **it is teaching:** The term **“its carcass”** teaches that one who touches the flesh of a carcass becomes impure **but** one who touches the **hide** of a carcass **upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh** does **not** become impure. **And** even if the volume of the **hide** together with the flesh **adds up to an olive-bulk,** the hide does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart impurity of an animal carcass.


###### Chullin 118a:3
[Chullin 118a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:3)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף עוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר, הַנּוֹגֵעַ כְּנֶגֶד בָּשָׂר מֵאֲחוֹרָיו יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא טָמֵא, וַאֲפִילּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה יָד נָמֵי לָא עָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought **that I remove** from the category of impurity of a carcass **even a hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh** with regard to **one who touches the external** side of the hide of the carcass that is **aligned with the flesh** but does not touch the flesh itself. One **might** have thought that **he does not become impure** in such a case, **and** that the hide in this case **does not even constitute a handle** of the flesh, which would render one who touches it impure as though he touched the flesh itself.


###### Chullin 118a:4
[Chullin 118a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:4)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִטְמָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “Shall be impure,”** from which it is derived that even though an appendage that serves as protection for the flesh does not join together with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses, it is considered a handle of the flesh, which does impart impurity. Therefore, if there is an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the hide, one who touches the outside of the hide becomes impure, even if he did not touch the flesh.


###### Chullin 118a:5
[Chullin 118a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:5)

תְּנַן הָתָם: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא יָד וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר – טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara discusses the transmission of impurity of food with regard to accessories that serve as a handle and that provide protection. **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Okatzin* 1:1): With regard to **any** appendage **that** serves as **a handle,** i.e., a part that one holds while eating the food, **but** does **not** provide **protection,** the attached food becomes **impure** if the handle comes into contact with a source of impurity, **and** the handle **transmits impurity** from the attached food to other foods that come into contact with the handle. **But** the handle **does not join together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:6
[Chullin 118a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:6)

שׁוֹמֵר, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָד – טָמֵא וּמְטַמֵּא וּמִצְטָרֵף; לֹא יָד וְלֹא שׁוֹמֵר – לֹא טָמֵא וְלֹא מְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to any appendage that provides **protection, even if** it does **not** serve as **a handle,** the attached food becomes **impure** if the protection comes into contact with an impure item, **and** the protection **imparts impurity, and it** also **joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. With regard to an appendage that does **not** serve as **a handle nor** as **protection,** the attached food does **not** become **impure** if the appendage comes into contact with a source of impurity, **nor** does the appendage **impart impurity.** In addition, it does not join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:7
[Chullin 118a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:7)

יָדוֹת הֵיכָא כְּתִיבִי? דִּכְתִיב ״וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע וְנָפַל מִנִּבְלָתָם עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם״, ״לָכֶם״ – לְכֹל שֶׁבְּצׇרְכֵיכֶם, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Where** is this *halakha* that **handles** are susceptible to and impart impurity **written?** The Gemara answers: **As it is written** with regard to the impurity of food: **“But if water is put on the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you”** (Leviticus 11:38). It is derived from the term **“for you”** that **any** part **needed for your** use of the food is susceptible to impurity and imparts impurity, **including the handles** that facilitate the consumption of the food.


###### Chullin 118a:8
[Chullin 118a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:8)

וּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִיא לָכֶם״, ״לָכֶם״ – לְכֹל שֶׁבְּצׇרְכֵיכֶם, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוֹת, יָד לְהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore **it is written** with regard to the impurity of a carcass: **“And if any animal which is for you** to consume **dies,** one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The term **“for you”** indicates that **any** part **needed for your** use of the carcass imparts impurity, **including the handles.** One who touches the handle of an item that is impure with impurity of a carcass becomes impure as though he touched the carcass itself. These two verses teach that **a handle** transmits impurity both **with regard to importing** impurity into the attached food **and with regard to exporting** impurity from the attached food.


###### Chullin 118a:9
[Chullin 118a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:9)

שׁוֹמֵר לְהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא – לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיָּד אָתֵי: וּמָה יָד, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְגִינָּה – מַכְנֶסֶת וּמוֹצִיאָה, שׁוֹמֵר – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A verse is not needed** to derive that **protection** both **imports and exports** impurity. This *halakha* **is inferred *a fortiori* from** the *halakha* of **a handle: If a handle, which** is treated more leniently than protection because it **does not protect** the food, nevertheless both **imports and exports** impurity, then with regard to **protection,** which is treated more stringently than a handle because it protects the food, should it **not all the more so** import and export impurity?


###### Chullin 118a:10
[Chullin 118a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:10)

שׁוֹמֵר דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא, לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְצָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since this is so, **why do I** need the verse **that the Merciful One writes** from which it is derived that **protection** is considered part of the food with regard to ritual impurity, i.e., the verses: “Upon any sowing seed that is sown…It is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38)? **Conclude from** these verses that protection not only imparts impurity, but even **joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:11
[Chullin 118a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:11)

וְאֵימָא: יָד לְהַכְנִיס וְלֹא לְהוֹצִיא, שׁוֹמֵר לְהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא, אֲבָל יָד לְהוֹצִיא וְשׁוֹמֵר לְצָרֵף – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But say** that these verses should be interpreted differently: **A handle,** which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it **imports but does not export** impurity. **Protection,** which is treated more stringently than a handle, is considered like food **to import and export** impurity. **But** it is **not** derived that **a handle exports** impurity nor that **protection joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:12
[Chullin 118a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:12)

יָד לְהַכְנִיס וְלֹא לְהוֹצִיא, לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא עַיּוֹלֵי מְעַיְּילָא, אַפּוֹקֵי מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **You cannot say** that **a handle** is considered part of the food such that it **imports but does not export** impurity for the following reason: **Now** that the handle is considered part of the food with regard to **importing** impurity into the food, **is** it **necessary** to state that it **exports** impurity? If a handle can cause ritually pure food attached to it to become impure, certainly it can transmit the impurity of impure food attached to it to other foods. Consequently, since a handle both imports and exports impurity, it is inferred *a fortiori* that protection also imports and exports impurity. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning appendages that serve as protection that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:13
[Chullin 118a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:13)

וְאֵימָא: יָד לְהוֹצִיא וְלֹא לְהַכְנִיס, שׁוֹמֵר לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס, אֲבָל יָד לְהַכְנִיס וְשׁוֹמֵר לְצָרֵף – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But say** instead that **a handle,** which is treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food such that it **exports but does not import** impurity. **Protection,** which is treated more stringently than a handle, both **exports and imports** impurity. **But** it is **not** derived that **a handle imports** impurity **nor** that **protection joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:14
[Chullin 118a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:14)

יָד יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב, ״תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם יוּתַּץ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: There is **an additional** derivation with regard to **a handle,** as **it is written** with regard to the impurity of vessels: “And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether **an oven, or a range for pots, it shall be broken** in pieces; they are impure, and shall be impure for you” (Leviticus 11:35).


###### Chullin 118a:15
[Chullin 118a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:15)

לָכֶם״ – לְכֹל שֶׁבְּצׇרְכֵיכֶם, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיָּדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived from the term **“for you”** that **any** part **needed for your** use of a vessel has the impurity status of the vessel itself, **including the handles.** Therefore, if the vessel comes into contact with a source of impurity, the handle is considered part of the vessel and is also rendered impure. Consequently, there are two derivations with regard to a handle: One teaches that a handle imports impurity into the object to which it is attached, and the other teaches that a handle exports impurity from the object. It is derived through *a fortiori* inference from the *halakha* of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse that states “Upon any sowing seed” teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:16
[Chullin 118a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:16)

הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מְיַיתַּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to these three verses that are interpreted as referring to handles, one of which discusses the impurity of food, one of which discusses the impurity of vessels, and one of which discusses the impurity of carcasses, **which of them is superfluous** such that one can derive from it that a handle does not merely export impurity from the food but imports impurity to the food as well? All of these verses are necessary to teach that a handle exports impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:17
[Chullin 118a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:17)

לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּזְרָעִים, וְלֵיתוֹ הָנָךְ מִינַּיְיהוּ – מָה לִזְרָעִים, שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאָתָן מְרוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates on the question: **Let the Merciful One write** that a handle exports impurity **with regard to** the impurity of **seeds,** i.e., food, **and let those** matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of vessels and animal carcasses, **be derived from it.** But one cannot infer from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of vessels, as **what** is notable **about seeds?** It is notable **in that they have a greater** susceptibility to **impurity.** Food is susceptible to even second-degree impurity, whereas vessels are susceptible to only first-degree impurity. Likewise, one cannot derive from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity of an animal carcass because the impurity of food applies to more items, as is taught in the mishna that some items are susceptible to the impurity of food but not to the impurity of animal carcasses.


###### Chullin 118a:18
[Chullin 118a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:18)

לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּתַנּוּר, וְלֵיתֵי הָנָךְ מִינֵּיהּ – מָה לְתַנּוּר, שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא מֵאֲוִירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let the Merciful One write** that a handle exports impurity **with regard to** the impurity of **an oven,** i.e., vessels, **and let those** matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and the impurity of an animal carcass, **be derived from it.** But this inference is also not valid, as **what** is notable **about** the impurity of **an oven?** It is notable **in that** a vessel **transmits impurity** to foods not only through contact but also **through its airspace,** whereas those other types of impurity do not share this element of stringency.


###### Chullin 118a:19
[Chullin 118a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:19)

לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְבֵלָה, וְלֵיתֵי הָנָךְ מִינַּהּ – מָה לִנְבֵלָה שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמְּאָה אָדָם, וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא, וְטוּמְאָה יוֹצְאָה מִגּוּפָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let the Merciful One write** that a handle exports impurity **with regard to** the impurity of an animal **carcass, and let those** matters, i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and of vessels, **be derived from it.** But this inference is also not valid, as **what** is notable **about** the impurity of **a carcass?** It is notable **in that** a carcass **transmits impurity to a person, and transmits impurity to** one **carrying** the carcass even if he is not touching it, **and** its **impurity emanates from its body** and does not originate from an external source. Those other types of impurity do not share these elements of stringency.


###### Chullin 118a:20
[Chullin 118a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:20)

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *halakha* of **one** of these three types of ritual impurity **cannot be derived from** the *halakha* of any **one** of the others. Yet, one of the verses is still superfluous because one can **derive** the *halakha* of **one** of these three types **from** the other **two.**


###### Chullin 118a:21
[Chullin 118a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:21)

הֵי תֵּיתֵי? לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּזְרָעִים, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ! מָה לְהָנָךְ – שֶׁכֵּן מִטַּמְּאִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁר, תֹּאמַר בִּזְרָעִים – שֶׁאֵין מִטַּמְּאִין אֶלָּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Which** can one **derive** from the other two? **Let the Merciful One not write** that a handle exports impurity **with regard to** the impurity of **seeds,** i.e., food, **and derive** this *halakha* **from those** two other cases, the impurity of carcasses and of vessels. But this inference is not valid, as **what** is notable **about those** cases? They are notable **in that they become ritually impure without** first being **rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. **Shall you say** the same *halakha* **with regard to seeds, which** do not share this element of stringency, as food **can become impure only** after first being **rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming into contact with liquid?


###### Chullin 118a:22
[Chullin 118a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:22)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: פֵּירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ, כְּתַנּוּר שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** This element of leniency is not unique to the impurity of food. **Produce that is not rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming into contact with liquid **is equivalent to an oven whose construction is not complete.** An oven whose construction is incomplete is also not susceptible to impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:23
[Chullin 118a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:23)

אֶלָּא פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מִטַּמְּאִין שֶׁלֹּא בִּנְגִיעָה, תֹּאמַר בִּזְרָעִים, שֶׁאֵין מִטַּמְּאִין אֶלָּא בִּנְגִיעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, refute** this derivation **in the following manner: What** is notable **about those** cases of impurity of carcasses and vessels? They are notable **in that they become impure** even **without contact.** An oven becomes impure if a creeping animal is within its airspace, and the impurity of an animal carcass originates from its own body without contact with an external source. **Shall you state** the same *halakha* **with regard to seeds, which become impure only through contact?**


###### Chullin 118a:24
[Chullin 118a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:24)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּתַנּוּר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ, מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן אוֹכֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let the Merciful One not write** that a handle exports impurity **with regard to** the impurity of **an oven,** i.e., vessels, **and derive** this *halakha* **from those** cases, the impurity of food and carcasses. But this derivation is not valid, as **what** is notable **about those** cases of the impurity of food and carcasses? They are notable **in that they are food.** Therefore, their *halakhot* cannot necessarily be applied to an oven and other vessels that are not food.


###### Chullin 118a:25
[Chullin 118a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:25)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְבֵלָה, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא יָד דִּנְבֵלָה לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְיַד נְבֵלָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְיָד דְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let the Merciful One not write** that a handle exports impurity **with regard to a carcass and derive** this *halakha* **from those** cases of the impurity of food and vessels. The Gemara responds: **Yes, it is indeed so. Rather,** since one can derive in such a manner that a handle attached to a carcass imparts impurity, **why do I** need the verse to state the *halakha* of **a handle** with regard to the impurity **of a carcass? If it is not** needed for the **matter of a handle** with regard to the impurity of **a carcass, apply it** to the **matter of a handle in general** with regard to food, and derive from it that a handle imports impurity to the food.


###### Chullin 118a:26
[Chullin 118a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:26)

יָד לְהַכְנִיס, יָד לְהוֹצִיא, שׁוֹמֵר לְצָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, in summary, one can derive that **a handle imports** impurity and that **a handle exports** impurity, and one can infer that protection imports and exports impurity *a fortiori* from the *halakha* of a handle. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning protection that **protection joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:27
[Chullin 118a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:27)

וְאַכַּתִּי, יָד דִּנְבֵלָה אִצְטְרִיךְ, דְּאִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בִּנְבֵלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן, מָה הָנָךְ לָא מְטַמּוּ אָדָם, אַף נְבֵלָה לָא מְטַמְּאָה אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But it is still necessary** for the verse to state the *halakha* that **a handle** exports impurity with regard to the impurity **of a carcass; as, if the Merciful One had not written** the *halakha* of a handle **with regard to** impurity of **a carcass, I would say: It is sufficient for the** conclusion that **emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source.** In this case, a *halakha* with regard to the impurity of carcasses which is inferred *a fortiori* from the cases of impurity of food and impurity of vessels is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived. **Just as** handles in **these** cases of impurity of food and vessels **do not transmit impurity to a person, so too** the handle of **a carcass does not transmit impurity to a person.** Therefore, the verse from which it is derived that a handle exports the impurity of a carcass **is** necessary, and cannot be applied to the matter of importing impurity.


###### Chullin 118a:28
[Chullin 118a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:28)

אֶלָּא, יָד דִּנְבֵלָה מִיצְרָךְ צְרִיךְ, וְשׁוֹמֵר דִּנְבֵלָה הוּא דְּלָא צְרִיךְ. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא כַּתְבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא? אִי לְאִיצְטְרוֹפֵי – אָמְרַתְּ לָא מִצְטָרֵף, וּלְהוֹצִיא – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיָּד אָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, it is necessary** for the verse to state the *halakha* of **a handle** with regard to the impurity **of a carcass, but it is not necessary** for the verse to state the *halakha* of **protection** with regard to the impurity **of a carcass. With regard to what *halakha* does the Merciful One write** that verse? **If** it is teaching that protection **joins together** with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, **you said** that protection **does not join together** with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. **And** if it is teaching that protection **exports** the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary to teach that, because that *halakha* **is inferred *a fortiori* from** the *halakha* of **a handle.**


###### Chullin 118a:29
[Chullin 118a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/118a:29)

אֶלָּא, אִם אֵין עִנְיָן לְשׁוֹמֵר דִּנְבֵלָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְיָד דִּנְבֵלָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְיָד דִּנְבֵלָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְיָד דְּעָלְמָא: יָד לְהוֹצִיא, יָד לְהַכְנִיס, וְשׁוֹמֵר לְצָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if it is not** needed for the **matter of protection of a carcass, apply it** to the **matter of the handle of a carcass. And if it is not** needed for the **matter of a handle of a carcass, apply it** to the **matter of a handle in general,** and derive from it that a handle imports impurity. Therefore, in summary, one can derive that **a handle exports** impurity and that **a handle imports** impurity, **and** one can derive from the verse concerning protection with regard to the impurity of food that **protection joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.