Mesorat%20hashas for Chullin 235:45

לא מצטרף ולהוציא קל וחומר מיד אתי אלא אם אין ענין לשומר דנבלה תנהו ענין ליד דנבלה ואם אינו ענין ליד דנבלה תנהו ענין ליד דעלמא יד להוציא יד להכניס ושומר לצרף

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly, 'unto you' stated in connection with seeds teaches that a handle can convey uncleanness from the 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.');">³²</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., nebelah cannot render a man unclean by means of a handle, e.g., if a man touched a dry bone at the end of 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.');">³³</span> In truth the law of handles in connection with nebelah is really necessary, but it is the law of protections in connection with nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is derived from the verse: Shall be unclean, supra ');">³⁴</span> that is unnecessary. Why did the Divine Law state it? Will you say, [to teach] that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a protection.');">³⁵</span> can be included together [with the bulk]? Surely you have already said that it cannot be included!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 650.');">³⁶</span> [And to teach] that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a protection.');">³⁵</span> can convey the uncleanness from the bulk [is unnecessary], for it is already inferred by an a fortiori argument from the law of handles!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 651.');">³⁷</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law of handles is expressly stated in connection with nebelah in the verse: Which serves as food unto you; v. supra p. 651.');">³⁸</span> 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].

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Chullin 235:45. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.