## Chullin Daf 118b

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

וְאֵימָא: אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְשׁוֹמֵר דִּנְבֵלָה, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְשׁוֹמֵר דְּעָלְמָא, שׁוֹמֵר לְהַכְנִיס וְשׁוֹמֵר לְצָרֵף, אֲבָל יָד לְהַכְנִיס לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general? **Say** that **if** the verse **is not** needed for the **matter of protection of a carcass, apply it** to the **matter of protection in general** with regard to food. Although it is already written: “Upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), two verses are necessary to teach the *halakha* of protection with regard to food: One verse to teach that **protection imports** impurity **and** one to teach that **protection joins together** with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. **But** there is **no** source from which to derive that **a handle imports** impurity.


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

אֶלָּא, מֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי כְּתִיבָא יָד, אַהַכְנָסָה כְּתִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *halakha* that a handle imports impurity is not derived from the superfluous verse written with regard to the impurity of a carcass. **Rather,** it is necessary to return to the explanation that was initially proposed, i.e., that it is written with regard to the impurity of food: “It is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), from which it is derived that any part needed for your use of the food imparts impurity, including handles. It was asked with regard to this derivation: Say that this verse teaches that a handle exports impurity but not that it imports impurity. The Gemara suggests: That question is not difficult. **From the outset, when** the *halakha* of **a handle is written:** “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), **it is written** in the context **of importing** impurity. Therefore, it is inferred *a fortiori* that a handle exports impurity from the *halakha* that it imports impurity, and it is derived *a fortiori* from the *halakhot* of a handle that protection both imports and exports impurity. It is also derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: “On any sowing seed.”


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

אֶלָּא שׁוֹמֵר דִּנְבֵלָה, לְמָה לִי? לְגוּפֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that is so, **why do I** need the verse to teach the *halakha* of **protection with regard to a carcass,** as it is written: “Shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:39)? The Gemara answers: It is necessary **for the matter itself,** to teach that the *halakha* of protection is applicable to the impurity of a carcass.


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

וּלְמַאי? אִי לְאִצְטְרוֹפֵי – אָמְרַתְּ לָא מִצְטָרֵף! אִי לְהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא – קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִיָּד אָתְיָא! מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וְחוֹמֶר – טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to what** *halakha* is this taught? **If** it teaches that protection **joins together** with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, **you said** in the mishna that protection **does not join together** with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. **If** it teaches that protection **imports and exports** the impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary for the verse to teach this *halakha* because **it is inferred *a fortiori* from** the *halakhot* of **a handle.** The Gemara answers: Sometimes there is **a matter that** could be **inferred *a fortiori*,** and **the verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly.


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

אִי הָכִי, שׁוֹמֵר דְּעָלְמָא, אֵימָא לָךְ: לְהַכְנִיס, וּמִלְּתָא דְּאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר – טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so,** one may ask: With regard to **protection in general,** i.e., with regard to food, it was established that the verse is not necessary to teach that it imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse teaches that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. **I will say to you** instead that the verse teaches that protection **imports** impurity, **and** the reason that the verse teaches this *halakha* even though it could be inferred *a fortiori* is because sometimes there is **a matter that** could **be inferred *a fortiori*** and **the verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly.


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

הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִידְרַשׁ, דָּרְשִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Where it is** possible **to interpret** the verse in a manner that a novelty is derived, **we interpret** it in such a manner and do not maintain that the verse teaches that which could be inferred *a fortiori*.


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

רַב חֲבִיבָא אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי שׁוֹמֵר דִּנְבֵלָה, כֵּיוָן דְּמַעֲשֵׂה יָד קָא עָבֵיד, אַיָּד שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the previous proposal to derive that a handle imports impurity from the verse concerning protection of a carcass based on the reasoning that if the verse is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a handle in general. Previously, the Gemara challenged this derivation: If the verse is not needed for the matter of protection for the impurity of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of protection in general. **Rav Ḥaviva said** in response: The *halakha* of **protection of a carcass is different** because it imports and exports impurity but does not join together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. **Since** the protection **serves as a handle** in that it only imports and exports impurity, **we apply its** novelty **to** the *halakhot* of **a handle** and not to the *halakhot* of protection.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הָא דִּתְנַן: הַפִּיטְמָא שֶׁל רִמּוֹן מִצְטָרֶפֶת, וְהַנֵּץ שֶׁלּוֹ אֵין מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§Previously it was derived that protection joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from that which is written: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing, e.g., wheat and barley in their shells. **Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael objects to this** from **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Okatzin* 2:3): **The protrusion of a pomegranate joins together** with the pomegranate to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk that is required to impart impurity, because it provides protection for the fruit. **But its flower does not join together** with the pomegranate in that regard because it does not provide protection for the fruit; rather, it provides protection for the protection of the fruit.


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

וְאַמַּאי? קְרִי כָּאן ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ״, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael asks: **And why** does the protrusion join together with the pomegranate to constitute an egg-bulk? **Read here** that the verse states: **“On any sowing seed,”** indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typically taken out to the field for sowing. **But** pomegranates **are not** typically taken out to the field for sowing with their protrusions, since they are usually planted in the field as seedlings.


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

וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: הָעוֹר וְהָרוֹטֶב וְהַקֵּיפֶה וְכוּ׳. מִצְטָרֵף לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִים – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** one can object to this derivation from **that which we learned** in the mishna: **The hide and the** congealed **gravy** attached to the meat, **and the spices,** and the meat residue, and the bones, and the tendons, and the lower section of the horns, and the section of the hooves, all **join together** with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk **to impart impurity of food. From where do we** derive that these protections, although they are not sown together with the food, join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity?


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

אֶלָּא תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע״, ״זֵרוּעַ״, ״אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״, חַד לְשׁוֹמֵר דִּזְרָעִים, וְחַד לְשׁוֹמֵר דְּאִילָנוֹת, אִידַּךְ לְשׁוֹמֵר בָּשָׂר וּבֵיצִים וְדָגִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, three terms** with the root *zayin*, *reish*, *ayin* **are written** in the verse with regard to protection: **“On any sowing [*zerua*] seed [*zera*] that is sown [*yizzare’a*].” One** term is written **to** teach the *halakha* of **protection with regard to seeds, and one** is written **to** teach the *halakha* of **protection with regard to trees,** and **the other** term is written **to** teach the *halakha* of **protection with regard to meat, and eggs, and fish.** Accordingly, this *halakha* is not limited to protection that is sown together with the food.


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

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, אָמַר רַב: יֵשׁ יָד לְטוּמְאָה, וְאֵין יָד לְהֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§It is written: “And if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). Previously, the Gemara derived from this verse that an appendage that serves as a handle both imports impurity to and exports impurity from the food. In addition, the simple understanding teaches that food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. With regard to these two *halakhot*, **Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says** that **Rav says: There is** significance to **a handle with regard to** importing and exporting **impurity,** i.e., a handle imports impurity to and exports impurity from to the attached food, **but there is no** significance to **a handle with regard to rendering** the attached food **susceptible** to impurity. Rather, the food itself must come into contact with liquid directly.


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ יָד לְטוּמְאָה וּלְהֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is** significance to **a handle with regard to** importing impurity to and exporting **impurity** from the attached food, **and with regard to rendering** the attached food **susceptible** to impurity even if only the handle came into contact with liquid.


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

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **With regard to what do** Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree? If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to **a logical argument. If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of **a verse.**


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, מָר סָבַר: מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו, וְלֹא לִפְנֵי פָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of **a verse.** One **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that **a verse is interpreted homiletically** based on juxtaposition to the term immediately **preceding it and not** based on juxtaposition to the term **before the one preceding it.** In this case, the verse states: “For you,” indicating inclusion of a handle with regard to the matter of imparting impurity, which is stated in the preceding phrase: “It is impure,” but not with regard to the matter of rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid which is stated before the preceding phrase: “If water is put.”


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

וּמָר סָבַר: מִקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ לְפָנָיו, וְלִפְנֵי פָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that **a verse is interpreted homiletically** based on juxtaposition to the term immediately **preceding it, as well as** to the term **before the one preceding it.** Therefore, he maintains that a handle can also render the attached food susceptible to impurity.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא, מָר סָבַר: הֶכְשֵׁר תְּחִלַּת טוּמְאָה הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: הֶכְשֵׁר לָאו תְּחִלַּת טוּמְאָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to **a logical argument.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that **rendering** food **susceptible** to impurity **is the initial stage of** the process of imparting **impurity** to it. Therefore, just as a handle imparts impurity, it can also render the food susceptible to impurity. **And** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that **rendering** food **susceptible** to impurity **is not the initial stage of** the process of imparting **impurity.**


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

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ יָד לְטוּמְאָה, כָּךְ יֵשׁ יָד לְהֶכְשֵׁר, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ, כָּךְ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין הֶכְשֵׁר אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּתָּלְשׁוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Just as there is** significance to **a handle with regard to** imparting **impurity** to food, **so too there is** significance to **a handle with regard to rendering** the attached food **susceptible** to impurity. **And just as** produce is susceptible to **contracting impurity only when it is detached** from the soil, **so too** produce **cannot be rendered susceptible** to impurity through contact with liquid **until it is detached** from the soil.


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

אָמַר רַב: אֵין יָד לְפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, וְאֵין שׁוֹמֵר לְפָחוֹת מִכְּפוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§The Gemara cites another disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan. **Rav says: There is no** *halakha* of **a handle** with regard to imparting impurity **for** a handle that is attached to **less than an olive-bulk** of food. **And there is no** *halakha* of **protection** with regard to imparting impurity **for** protection that is attached to **less than a bean-bulk** of food. In addition, the protection does not join together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ יָד לְפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, וְיֵשׁ שׁוֹמֵר לְפָחוֹת מִכְּפוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is** a *halakha* of **a handle** with regard to imparting impurity **for** a handle that is attached to **less than an olive-bulk** of food. **And there is** a *halakha* of **protection** with regard to imparting impurity **for** protection that is attached to **less than a bean-bulk** of food. In addition, it joins together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: שְׁתֵּי עֲצָמוֹת, וַעֲלֵיהֶן שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי זֵיתִים, וְהִכְנִיס רָאשֵׁיהֶן (שנים) [הַשְּׁנַיִם] לְבַיִת, וְהַבַּיִת מַאֲהִיל עֲלֵיהֶן – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinions of both Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan from that which is taught in a *Tosefta* (*Oholot* 4:8): In a case of **two bones** that have **two halves of an olive-**bulk of flesh of a dead person **upon them,** i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is attached to one end of each bone, **and one placed the ends of both** bones that are not directly attached to the flesh **inside a house** in such a manner that **the house overlies those** ends of the bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself, and **the house is impure.**


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

יְהוּדָה בֶּן נָקוֹסָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: הֵיאַךְ שְׁנֵי עֲצָמוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to** constitute **an olive-bulk** if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk?