Chullin 235:1
מאי קאמר
What does this mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two clauses of this Baraitha apparently contradict each other: the first clause states that the hide 'of a carcass does not convey uncleanness, whereas the second clause states that 'one who touches the hide of a carcass becomes unclean.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
יכול שאני מוציא אף עור שיש עליו כזית בשר הנוגע כנגד בשר מאחוריו יכול לא יהא טמא ואפילו מעשה יד נמי לא עביד
There is something missing fin 'that 'passage] and it should read as follows: '[He that toucheth] the 'carcass 'thereof [shall 'be unclean]', but not he that touches the bide which has not an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it, even though the hide brings it up to an olive's bulk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the protection cannot be included together with a morsel of the carcass to make up the olive's bulk in order to convey nebelah-uncleanness.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
כל שהוא יד ולא שומר טמא ומטמא ואינו מצטרף
Shall be unclean'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although the hide does not serve as a protection so as to be reckoned as part of the carcass itself, it serves nevertheless as a handle or connective by which uncleanness can be conveyed to other matters.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
לא יד ולא שומר לא טמא ולא מטמא
Whatever serves as a handle [to a bulk] but not as a protection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the stalks of fruit or a marrowless bone attached to a piece of flesh; each, although not a foodstuff, acts as a handle or connective to convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs if the fruit or the flesh was unclean, or to render the fruit or flesh unclean if the stalk or bone came into contact with unclean matter.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לח) וכי יותן מים על זרע ונפל מנבלתם עליו טמא הוא לכם
Whatever serves as a protection, even if it does not serve as a handle,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., hide to which is attached an olive's bulk of flesh, or nut shells.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ומה יד שאינה מגינה מכנסת ומוציאה שומר לא כ"ש
Where is there any Scriptural authority for the law of 'handles'? - It is written: But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall thereon, it is unclean unto you'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 38.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
שומר דכתב רחמנא למה לי ש"מ
'Unto you', that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to the foodstuff]; thus the verse includes handles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in connection with foodstuffs a handle can convey the uncleanness to the bulk; in other words the bulk contracts uncleanness through the medium of the handle, for this verse only speaks of the foodstuff contracting uncleanness.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ואימא
'Unto you', that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to this carcass conveys uncleanness]; thus the verse includes handles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That through the medium of the handle the carcass conveys uncleanness to everything that comes into contact with the handle.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד להכניס ולא להוציא שומר להכניס ולהוציא אבל יד להוציא ושומר לצרף לא
Hence [we see that] a handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk in the case of foodstuffs] and also that a handle can convey uncleanness from [the bulk in the case of a carcass].
יד להכניס ולא להוציא לא מצית אמרת השתא עיולי מעיילא אפוקי מיבעיא
That a protection can convey uncleanness to and from [the bulk] does not require any verse, for it is inferred by an a fortiori argument from a handle thus: If a handle which affords no protection can convey uncleanness to and from [the bulk], how much more that which affords protection! Why then does the Divine Law state a verse with regard to a protection?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יד יתירא כתיב (ויקרא יא, לה) תנור וכירים יותץ וגו'
But I might say: A handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk] but not from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse which implies that a handle can convey the uncleanness from the bulk deals solely with nebelah, which is a grave uncleanness, and no other case may be inferred from it.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לכם לכל שבצרכיכם לרבות את הידות
and a protection can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a protection is a degree graver than a handle by reason of the a fortiori argument.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
הי מינייהו מייתר
but a handle cannot convey uncleanness from [the bulk], neither is a protection to be included together [with the bulk]? - You surely cannot say that a handle can convey uncleanness to [the bulk] but not from [the bulk], for if it can bring in the uncleanness it certainly can pass it on! Then I might say: A handle can convey uncleanness from [the bulk] but not to [the bulk], and a protection can convey uncleanness both to and from [the bulk], but a handle cannot convey uncleanness to [the bulk], neither is a protection to be included together [with the bulk]? - There is another verse which also teaches the law of handles, for it is written: Whether oven, or range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces: they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 35.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
לכתוב רחמנא בזרעים וליתו הנך מינייהו מה לזרעים שכן טומאתן מרובה
'Unto you', that is, everything that you make use of [with regard to it is unclean]; thus the verse includes handles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that a handle can convey the uncleanness from an external source to the vessel. There being, therefore, two verses each teaching the law that a handle can convey uncleanness to the bulk, one would be utilized to teach the law that handles can convey uncleanness from the bulk. Consequently, now that handles can convey uncleanness to and from the bulk, the verse (ibid. 37) with regard to a protection is entirely superfluous, for it would have been inferred by an a fortiori argument from handles; it must serve therefore to teach the law that the protection is to be included together with the bulk to make up the requisite minimum quantity.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
לכתוב רחמנא בתנור וליתי הנך מיניה מה לתנור שכן מטמא מאוירו
Which of these verses is superfluous?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we have now three verses each stating the law of handles, viz., v. 35 which deals with an oven, v. 38 which deals with seeds, and v. 39 which deals with nebelah.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
לכתוב רחמנא בנבלה וליתי הנך מינה מה לנבלה שכן מטמאה אדם ומטמאה במשא וטומאה יוצאה מגופה
If the Divine Law had stated [the law of handles] in connection with seeds and it was intended that the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the rule of handles in connection with the oven and nebelah.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
חדא מחדא לא אתיא תיתי חדא מתרתי הי תיתי
be inferred from them, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with seeds only, since they have more conditions of uncleanness than the others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeds, being foodstuffs, can become unclean even from that which is unclean in the first degree, whereas an oven or any vessel can only contract uncleanness from that which is a primary source of uncleanness. Moreover, foodstuffs have more conditions of uncleanness than nebelah, as is expressly stated in our Mishnah as the result of the application of the law of protections.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
לא לכתוב רחמנא בזרעים ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן מטמאין שלא בהכשר תאמר בזרעים שאין מטמאין אלא בהכשר
And if the Divine Law had stated it in connection with the oven and it was intended that the others be inferred from it, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with the oven only since it renders foodstuffs unclean by its air-space.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not the case with foodstuffs and nebelah. The oven, being an earthenware vessel, can render unclean any foodstuffs which come into its air-space even though there was no actual contact. V. supra 24bff');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע
And if the Divine Law had stated it in connection with nebelah and it was intended that the others be inferred from it, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with the nebelah only since it can render man unclean, it can convey uncleanness by carrying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As well as by contact, which is not the case with the others.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
לא לכתוב רחמנא בתנור ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן אוכל
If the Divine Law had not stated it in connection with seeds but you would have inferred it from the other two, [the objection could be raised thus,] That is so with the other cases since they become unclean without first having been rendered susceptible thereto; will you say the same of seeds which become unclean only if first they have been rendered susceptible thereto?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For foodstuffs cannot contract uncleanness unless they have first been rendered susceptible to uncleanness by being moistened by water or any of the other liquids prescribed. Cf. Lev. XI, 38.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
לא לכתוב רחמנא בנבלה ותיתי מהנך (אין הכי נמי
- Said R'Huna the son of R'Joshua: But surely fruit which has not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness is in the same condition as an oven which is not yet finished!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the point of view of the application of uncleanness fruit which has not been moistened by water is considered 'unfinished' just as an unfinished article.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
אלא) יד דנבלה למה לי
- Rather you could raise this objection: That is so with the other cases since they both become unclean without contact [with unclean matter];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oven contracts uncleanness without any contact, as when a dead reptile is suspended in its air-space; nebelah, too, is unclean without any contact for it is its own source of uncleanness.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ואכתי יד דנבלה אצטריך דאי לא כתב רחמנא בנבלה הוה אמינא
And if the Divine Law had not stated it in connection with the oven but you would have inferred it from the others, [the objection could be raised thus:] That is so with the other cases since each<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. nebelah and seeds.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה הנך לא מטמא אדם אף נבלה לא מטמאה אדם
is a foodstuff! - The fact is the Divine Law need not have stated it in connection with nebelah, for you could have inferred it from the others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By drawing the conclusion from the common features of the two cases, for each of those cases has a peculiarity which is not present in the other. Seeds are peculiar in that they have many conditions of uncleanness; the oven is peculiar in that its air-space can render unclean. The features common to both are that they are unclean and that through the medium of a handle they can convey uncleanness to others; the same would apply to nebelah.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אי לאיצטרופי אמרת
If then the law of handles serves no purpose in connection with nebelah, you may apply it to other cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. foodstuffs, that through the medium of a handle they can contract uncleanness.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
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.');"><sup>32</sup></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.');"><sup>33</sup></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 ');"><sup>34</sup></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.');"><sup>35</sup></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.');"><sup>36</sup></span> [And to teach] that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a protection.');"><sup>35</sup></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.');"><sup>37</sup></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.');"><sup>38</sup></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].